Making Spaces into Places: The North Aegean, the Balkans and Western Anatolia in the Neolithic 9781407353807, 9781407354743

Table of contents :
Cover page
Title page
Copyright
Of related interest
Contents
Introduction
1. Narratives of Space and Contemporary Archaeological Theory
Kostas Kotsakis
Introduction
Cultural history and processualism
Postprocessualism
Phenomenology and meta-postprocessualism
Theory in practice
Epilogue
2. Timelines in the Neolithic of Southwestern Anatolia, the Circum-Aegean, the Balkans and the Middle Danube Area
Agathe Reingruber
Introduction
General remarks regarding the quality of the dates
Timeline 1: 6600–6400 calBC
Case A: Mediterranean and southwestern Anatolia
Case B: The circum-Aegean
Case C: The northeastern Aegan and the Marmara region
Timeline 2: 6200–6000 calBC
Case A: The northwestern and the northeastern Aegean
Case B: The central and eastern Balkans
Timeline 3: 5500–5300 calBC
Case A: The middle and lower Danube river
Conclusions
3. By the Rivers They Settled: Settlement Patterns and the Neolithic Landscape in Albania
Gazmend Elezi
4. Transformations of Settlement Space at
Neolithic Avgi, NW Greece
Georgia Stratouli & Dimitris Kloukinas
Introduction
The Neolithic settlement of Avgi
Settlement space through time: A short overview
Avgi I (ca. 5700–5200/5100 calBC)
Avgi II (ca. 5200/5100–4900 calBC)
Avgi III (ca. 4900–4500/4300 calBC)
Approaching spatial transformation
Discussion
5. Outside the Residential Place at the Neolithic Settlement of Toumba Kremastis Koiladas, Northern Greece
Areti Chondroyianni-Metoki
Introduction
The site
The finds
The pits
The ditches
Burials
Cremations
Inhumations
Scattered human bones
Conclusions
6. Identifying Ritual at Late Neolithic Toumba Kremastis Koiladas: Ceramic Assemblages of Representative Contexts
Teresa Silva, Marianna Lymperaki, Areti Chondroyianni-Metoki & Dushka Urem-Kotsou
Introduction
Ritual
The settlement of Toumba Kremastis Koiladas
Selected contexts
Cremation 7
Pit 4
Pit 314
Pits 175, 176, and 177
Conclusions
7. Settling Neolithic Central Macedonia, Northern Greece
Dushka Urem-Kotsou & Stavros Kotsos
Introduction
Settlements and landscape
Settlement types
The architecture
Burials
Neolithic food and spatial organisation of the settlements
Networking in central Macedonia
Concluding remarks
8. Settlements and Landscape in the Neolithic of the Southern and Central Balkans
Stavros Kotsos
Introduction
Geographical distribution of settlements in the Axios and Morava regions
Settlement location and the wider landscape
Settlements and their local environmental setting
Intra-site organisation and architecture of Early and Middle Neolithic settlements
Intra-site organisation and architecture of Late Neolithic settlements
Discussion
Concluding remarks
9. Pelagonian Tells and Pile Dwellings of Lake Ohrid
Goce Naumov
Introduction
Tells of Pelagonia
Pile dwellings of Lake Ohrid
Continuity and networks: In conclusion
10. The Neolithic and Post-Neolithic Settlement
Mounds of Western Serbia
Boban Tripković
The Mačva district of Western Serbia: An overview of geography and prehistory
The small settlement mounds of Western Serbia: Previous research
The current project
Conclusions
11. Vinča-Belo Brdo Settlement Size
Kristina Penezić
Introduction
Vinča-Belo brdo settlement size
In place of a conclusion
12. Use of Space in a Late Neolithic/Early Eneolithic Building at the Site of Vinča-Belo Brdo in the Central Balkans
Ksenija Borojević* (corresponding author), Dragana Antonović, Jasna Vuković, Vesna Dimitrijević, Dragana Filipović, Miroslav Marić, Kristina Penezić, Boban Tripković, Vera Bogosavljević Petrović & Nenad Tasić
Introduction
Late Neolithic buildings at Vinča-Belo brdo
Building 01/06
Contents of Room 1 (north room)
Contents of Room 2 (central room)
Contents of Room 3 (south room)
Absolute dating of Building 01/06
The use of space in Building 01/06
Room 1
Room 2
Room 3
Rooms 2 and 3
Houses of the late Vinča culture
Conclusion
13. The Neolithic Settlement at Drenovac, Serbia: Settlement History and Spatial Organisation
Slaviša Perić, Olga Bajčev, Ivana Stojanović & Đurđa Obradović
Introduction
The site
Form of the site and formation processes
Site size
Early Neolithic settlement
Late Neolithic settlement
Early Vinča phase
Late Vinča phase
Settlement size and layout
Internal organisation of the settlement
Late Vinča houses
Conclusion
14. Neolithic Settlements in the Central Balkans between 6200 and 5300 calBC: Issues of Duration and Continuity of Occupation
Sofija Stefanović, Marko Porčić, Tamara Blagojević & Jelena Jovanović
Introduction
Jaričiste
Topole-Bač
Dynamics of the Early Neolithic settlements in the central Balkans
Conclusions
15. Off-settlement Ritual Practices in the Neolithic: Pit-Digging and Structured Deposition at Sarnevo in Bulgarian Thrace
Krum Bacvarov & John Gorczyk
Introduction
The archaeological site of Sarnevo in Upper Thrace
Relative and absolute chronology
Feature types
Deposits
Composition of deposits
Deliberate fragmentation, selectivity and diversity in the combination of items
Clay plastering/sealing
Firing/burning
Sealing with burnt house debris
Structured deposition at Sarnevo
Conclusion: The Late Neolithic ‘ritual package’
16. Contextualising the Neolithic House: A View from Aşağı Pınar in Eastern Thrace
Eylem Özdoğan & Heiner Schwarzberg
Introduction
Aşağı Pınar
Architectural features of the site
Discussion
Houses
Settlement layout
17. Living in an Enclosed Settlement: Settlement Pattern and Social Organisation at Aktopraklık
Necmi Karul
Introduction
The site
Central houses and inner court
Graveyard
Discussion
Houses and ditch
Houses and open spaces
The consistency of the settlement and the houses
Back Cover

Citation preview

210mm WIDTH

2020

During three millennia of the Neolithic in southeastern Europe important changes in the social organisation, everyday practices and beliefs formed a diverse and rich cultural landscape expressed in settlement patterns, architecture and numerous aspects of material culture. A growing body of data uncovered over the last few decades shows striking variety in settlement organisation, from single-layered, short-lived sites to long-lived tell settlements located in different geographical settings. In addition, small sites (e.g. 0.5 ha) and extended settlements also appear in most sub-regions. This volume brings together new data on the Neolithic of southeastern Europe, emphasising the organisation and use of space within the regions of Northern Greece, the Balkan hinterland and north-western Turkey. To this end, individual chapters focus either on the intra-site organisation of recently excavated settlements or provide an up-to-date synthesis on the regional level, combining old and new data. ‘Making Spaces into Places is a strong statement on the quality and directions of Balkan prehistory today.’ Professor Nikos Efstratiou, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

Nenad N. Tasić is a professor of archaeology at Belgrade University, Serbia. His work and previous publications are dedicated to establishing chronologies, tracing origins, and study of the art of the Neolithic period of the Balkans. He has been the chief researcher at the site of Vinča since 1998. Dushka Urem-Kotsou is an associate professor of Prehistoric Archaeology at Democritus University of Thrace, Greece. Her expertise ranges from pottery to environmental and food archaeology, architecture and settlements in prehistory of the Aegean and Southeastern Europe. She is currently the director of a research project on the Neolithic settlements in the Aegean Thrace.

210mm WIDTH

B A R I N T E R NAT I O NA L S E R I E S 3 0 0 1

2020

297mm HIGH

‘The papers cover an important region, which was in touch with central Anatolia and Mesopotamia and forwarded the Neolithic way of life to other parts of Europe (central Europe and further west). The proceedings will be of great interest to all researchers who are dealing with Neolithisation and the Neolithic in general.’ Dr Peter Tóth, Masaryk University

BAR  S3001  2020  TASIĆ, UREM-KOTSOU & BURIĆ (Eds)  Making Spaces into Places

B A R I N T E R NAT I O NA L S E R I E S 3 0 0 1

15.4mm

Making Spaces into Places The North Aegean, the Balkans and Western Anatolia in the Neolithic

Marcel Burić is an associate professor of Prehistoric Archaeology at the University of Zagreb, Croatia. His specific professional interests are social and technological developments in the Late Neolithic of Southeast Europe. He is the director of research of the Neolithic settlement at Bapska (Croatia). Contributors: Dragana Antonović, Krum Bacvarov, Olga Bajčev, Tamara Blagojević, Vera Bogosavljević Petrović, Ksenija Borojević, Areti Chondroyianni-Metoki, Vesna Dimitrijević, Dragana Filipović, Gazmend Elezi, John Gorczyk, Jelena Jovanović, Nemci Karul, Dimitris Kloukinas, Kostas Kotsakis, Stavros Kotsos, Marianna Lymperaki, Marić Miroslav, Goce Naumov, Djurdja Obradović, Eylem Özdoğan, Kristina Penezic, Slaviša Perić, Marko Porčić, Agathe Reingruber, Sofija Stefanović, Ivana Stojanović, Heiner Schwarzberg, Teresa Silva, Georgia Stratouli, Nenad N. Tasić, Boban Tripković, Dushka Urem-Kotsou, Jasna Vuković

EDITED BY

N E NA D N . TA S I Ć , DUSHKA UREM-KOTSOU AND MARCEL BURIĆ

Printed in England

210 x 297mm_BAR Tasic et al. CPI 15.4mm ARTWORK.indd 3

22/9/20 9:33 AM

B A R I N T E R NAT I O NA L S E R I E S 3 0 0 1

Making Spaces into Places The North Aegean, the Balkans and Western Anatolia in the Neolithic EDITED BY

N E NA D N . TA S I Ć , DUSHKA UREM-KOTSOU AND MARCEL BURIĆ

2020

Published in 2020 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 3001 Making Spaces into Places isbn  

978 1 4073 5380 7 paperback isbn   978 1 4073 5474 3 e-format doi  https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407353807

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library © the editors and contributors severally 2020 cov er i m age The image shows positions of archaeological objects discovered within 9 meters of cultural deposit at Vinča settlement (archive field documentation Vinča 1934).

The Author’s moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher. Links to third party websites are provided by BAR Publishing in good faith and for information only. BAR Publishing disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

BAR titles are available from: BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, em a i l [email protected] phon e +44 (0)1865 310431 fa x +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

ox 2

7bp,

uk

Of Related Interest The Clay World of Çatalhöyük A fine-grained perspective Chris Doherty Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2020

BAR International Series 2981

Use-wear Analyses of Polished and Bevelled Stone Artefacts during the Sepulcres de Fossa/ Pit Burials Horizon (NE Iberia, c. 4000–3400 cal B.C.) Alba Masclans Latorre Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2020

BAR International Series 2972

The Zooarchaeology of the Late Neolithic Strymon River Valley The case of the Greek sector of Promachon-Topolniča in Macedonia, Greece George Kazantzis Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2018

BAR International Series 2908

The Diffusion of Neolithic Practices from Anatolia to Europe A contextual study of residential construction, 8,500–5,500 BC cal. Maxime Brami Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2017

For more information, or to purchase these titles, please visit www.barpublishing.com

BAR International Series 2838

Contents Introduction......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Nenad N. Tasić, Dushka Urem-Kotsou & Marcel Burić 1. Narratives of Space and Contemporary Archaeological Theory............................................................................ 7 Kostas Kotsakis Introduction................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Cultural history and processualism............................................................................................................................... 7 Postprocessualism.......................................................................................................................................................... 8 Phenomenology and meta-postprocessualism............................................................................................................... 9 Theory in practice........................................................................................................................................................ 11 Epilogue....................................................................................................................................................................... 11 2. Timelines in the Neolithic of Southwestern Anatolia, the Circum-Aegean, the Balkans and the Middle Danube Area........................................................................................................................................... 17 Agathe Reingruber Introduction................................................................................................................................................................. 17 General remarks regarding the quality of the dates..................................................................................................... 18 Timeline 1: 6600–6400 calBC..................................................................................................................................... 18 Case A: Mediterranean and southwestern Anatolia................................................................................................ 18 Case B: The circum-Aegean................................................................................................................................... 20 Case C: The northeastern Aegan and the Marmara region..................................................................................... 22 Timeline 2: 6200–6000 calBC..................................................................................................................................... 23 Case A: The northwestern and the northeastern Aegean........................................................................................ 23 Case B: The central and eastern Balkans................................................................................................................ 24 Timeline 3: 5500–5300 calBC..................................................................................................................................... 25 Case A: The middle and lower Danube river.......................................................................................................... 25 Conclusions................................................................................................................................................................. 27 3. By the Rivers They Settled: Settlement Patterns and the Neolithic Landscape in Albania............................... 33 Gazmend Elezi 4. Transformations of Settlement Space at Neolithic Avgi, NW Greece................................................................... 43 Georgia Stratouli & Dimitris Kloukinas Introduction................................................................................................................................................................. 43 The Neolithic settlement of Avgi................................................................................................................................. 44 Settlement space through time: A short overview....................................................................................................... 44 Avgi I (ca. 5700–5200/5100 calBC)....................................................................................................................... 44 Avgi II (ca. 5200/5100–4900 calBC)...................................................................................................................... 47 Avgi III (ca. 4900–4500/4300 calBC).................................................................................................................... 47 Approaching spatial transformation............................................................................................................................ 49 Discussion.................................................................................................................................................................... 51 5. Outside the Residential Place at the Neolithic Settlement of Toumba Kremastis Koiladas, Northern Greece........................................................................................................................................................ 53 Areti Chondroyianni-Metoki Introduction................................................................................................................................................................. 53 The site........................................................................................................................................................................ 53 The finds...................................................................................................................................................................... 54 The pits................................................................................................................................................................... 54 The ditches.............................................................................................................................................................. 56

v

Making Spaces into Places Burials.......................................................................................................................................................................... 56 Cremations.............................................................................................................................................................. 56 Inhumations............................................................................................................................................................ 57 Scattered human bones........................................................................................................................................... 57 Conclusions................................................................................................................................................................. 57 6. Identifying Ritual at Late Neolithic Toumba Kremastis Koiladas: Ceramic Assemblages of Representative Contexts............................................................................................................................................ 73 Teresa Silva, Marianna Lymperaki, Areti Chondroyianni-Metoki & Dushka Urem-Kotsou Introduction................................................................................................................................................................. 73 Ritual........................................................................................................................................................................... 74 The settlement of Toumba Kremastis Koiladas........................................................................................................... 75 Selected contexts......................................................................................................................................................... 75 Cremation 7............................................................................................................................................................ 76 Pit 4......................................................................................................................................................................... 76 Pit 314..................................................................................................................................................................... 80 Pits 175, 176, and 177............................................................................................................................................. 82 Conclusions................................................................................................................................................................. 84 7. Settling Neolithic Central Macedonia, Northern Greece....................................................................................... 87 Dushka Urem-Kotsou & Stavros Kotsos Introduction................................................................................................................................................................. 87 Settlements and landscape........................................................................................................................................... 88 Settlement types........................................................................................................................................................... 89 The architecture........................................................................................................................................................... 89 Burials.......................................................................................................................................................................... 91 Neolithic food and spatial organisation of the settlements.......................................................................................... 93 Networking in central Macedonia............................................................................................................................... 94 Concluding remarks..................................................................................................................................................... 95 8. Settlements and Landscape in the Neolithic of the Southern and Central Balkans.......................................... 105 Stavros Kotsos Introduction............................................................................................................................................................... 105 Geographical distribution of settlements in the Axios and Morava regions............................................................. 105 Settlement location and the wider landscape............................................................................................................. 106 Settlements and their local environmental setting..................................................................................................... 107 Intra-site organisation and architecture of Early and Middle Neolithic settlements................................................. 108 Intra-site organisation and architecture of Late Neolithic settlements...................................................................... 109 Discussion.................................................................................................................................................................. 110 Concluding remarks................................................................................................................................................... 112 9. Pelagonian Tells and Pile Dwellings of Lake Ohrid............................................................................................. 123 Goce Naumov Introduction............................................................................................................................................................... 123 Tells of Pelagonia...................................................................................................................................................... 123 Pile dwellings of Lake Ohrid..................................................................................................................................... 125 Continuity and networks: In conclusion.................................................................................................................... 127 10. The Neolithic and Post-Neolithic Settlement Mounds of Western Serbia.......................................................... 141 Boban Tripković The Mačva district of Western Serbia: An overview of geography and prehistory................................................... 141 The small settlement mounds of Western Serbia: Previous research........................................................................ 142 The current project.................................................................................................................................................... 143 Conclusions............................................................................................................................................................... 145 11. Vinča-Belo Brdo Settlement Size............................................................................................................................ 149 Kristina Penezić Introduction............................................................................................................................................................... 149 vi

Contents Vinča-Belo brdo settlement size................................................................................................................................ 150 In place of a conclusion............................................................................................................................................. 154 12. Use of Space in a Late Neolithic/Early Eneolithic Building at the Site of Vinča-Belo Brdo in the Central Balkans....................................................................................................................................................... 157 Ksenija Borojević* (corresponding author), Dragana Antonović, Jasna Vuković, Vesna Dimitrijević, Dragana Filipović, Miroslav Marić, Kristina Penezić, Boban Tripković, Vera Bogosavljević Petrović & Nenad Tasić Introduction............................................................................................................................................................... 158 Late Neolithic buildings at Vinča-Belo brdo............................................................................................................. 158 Building 01/06........................................................................................................................................................... 159 Contents of Room 1 (north room)........................................................................................................................ 159 Contents of Room 2 (central room)...................................................................................................................... 160 Contents of Room 3 (south room)........................................................................................................................ 162 Absolute dating of Building 01/06............................................................................................................................ 164 The use of space in Building 01/06........................................................................................................................... 165 Room 1.................................................................................................................................................................. 165 Room 2.................................................................................................................................................................. 165 Room 3.................................................................................................................................................................. 166 Rooms 2 and 3...................................................................................................................................................... 166 Houses of the late Vinča culture................................................................................................................................ 167 Conclusion................................................................................................................................................................. 168 13. The Neolithic Settlement at Drenovac, Serbia: Settlement History and Spatial Organisation........................ 181 Slaviša Perić, Olga Bajčev, Ivana Stojanović & Đurđa Obradović Introduction............................................................................................................................................................... 181 The site...................................................................................................................................................................... 181 Form of the site and formation processes.................................................................................................................. 183 Site size...................................................................................................................................................................... 183 Early Neolithic settlement......................................................................................................................................... 183 Late Neolithic settlement........................................................................................................................................... 184 Early Vinča phase...................................................................................................................................................... 184 Late Vinča phase........................................................................................................................................................ 184 Settlement size and layout.................................................................................................................................... 184 Internal organisation of the settlement.................................................................................................................. 185 Late Vinča houses................................................................................................................................................. 185 Conclusion................................................................................................................................................................. 186 14. Neolithic Settlements in the Central Balkans between 6200 and 5300 calBC: Issues of Duration and Continuity of Occupation........................................................................................................................................ 191 Sofija Stefanović, Marko Porčić, Tamara Blagojević & Jelena Jovanović Introduction............................................................................................................................................................... 191 Jaričiste...................................................................................................................................................................... 192 Topole-Bač................................................................................................................................................................. 193 Dynamics of the Early Neolithic settlements in the central Balkans........................................................................ 195 Conclusions............................................................................................................................................................... 196 15. Off-settlement Ritual Practices in the Neolithic: Pit-Digging and Structured Deposition at Sarnevo in Bulgarian Thrace..................................................................................................................................................... 201 Krum Bacvarov & John Gorczyk Introduction............................................................................................................................................................... 201 The archaeological site of Sarnevo in Upper Thrace................................................................................................ 201 Relative and absolute chronology............................................................................................................................. 202 Feature types.............................................................................................................................................................. 202 Deposits..................................................................................................................................................................... 203 Composition of deposits....................................................................................................................................... 203 Deliberate fragmentation, selectivity and diversity in the combination of items................................................. 203 Clay plastering/sealing.......................................................................................................................................... 204

vii

Making Spaces into Places Firing/burning....................................................................................................................................................... 204 Sealing with burnt house debris............................................................................................................................ 204 Structured deposition at Sarnevo............................................................................................................................... 204 Conclusion: The Late Neolithic ‘ritual package’....................................................................................................... 205 16. Contextualising the Neolithic House: A View from Aşağı Pınar in Eastern Thrace...........................................211 Eylem Özdoğan & Heiner Schwarzberg Introduction............................................................................................................................................................... 211 Aşağı Pınar................................................................................................................................................................ 212 Architectural features of the site................................................................................................................................ 213 Discussion.................................................................................................................................................................. 215 Houses................................................................................................................................................................... 215 Settlement layout.................................................................................................................................................. 216 17. Living in an Enclosed Settlement: Settlement Pattern and Social Organisation at Aktopraklık.................... 225 Necmi Karul Introduction............................................................................................................................................................... 225 The site...................................................................................................................................................................... 225 Central houses and inner court............................................................................................................................. 227 Graveyard............................................................................................................................................................. 227 Discussion.................................................................................................................................................................. 227 Houses and ditch................................................................................................................................................... 227 Houses and open spaces........................................................................................................................................ 227 The consistency of the settlement and the houses................................................................................................ 228

viii

Introduction Nenad N. Tasić Department of Archaeology, University of Belgrade, Serbia Dushka Urem-Kotsou Department of History and Ethnology, Democritus University of Thrace, Greece Marcel Burić Department of Archaeology, University of Zagreb, Croatia The core of this volume is comprised of a selection of papers presented at the Alexander von Humboldt Conference held in Thessaloniki in 2014. In addition to the works presented at the conference, several chapters that represent new excavation finds and up-to-date synthesis of archaeological investigations at a wider geographical level, including the regions of northern Greece and the central Balkans, were added as invited contributions to this volume. The aim of the volume is to bring together and present new data on the Neolithic of south-eastern Europe, emphasising the organisation and use of space within the regions of Northern Greece, the Balkan hinterland and north-western Turkey, their subregions and more specific geographical niches in this area. To this end, the individual chapters in this book focus either on the intra-site organisation of individual settlements that have recently been excavated or provide a review on the regional level, combining old and new evidence.

by interdisciplinary research on a major scale, as the contributions to this volume show. The Mesolithic/Neolithic transition had brought major changes in numerous aspects of human life, one of the most far-reaching being the shift from foraging to food production and sedentism. Settlements and houses, with their social and physical environment, were crucial components in the formation of Neolithic ways of life. The importance of SE Europe, including the North Aegean and western Anatolia, for understanding this transition and the spread of a new way of life into Europe has been recognised since Gordon Childe1 as the bridge between the Fertile Crescent and Europe, across which the Neolithic innovations were transmitted. This region has drawn much attention since that time, and has yielded hundreds of Neolithic sites, which show remarkable variety in spatial patterning during the Neolithic period. Dynamic interactions between communities inhabiting the area covered by the geographical scope of this volume have been confirmed by the properties and material culture matrices discovered on dozens of sites throughout this vast region.

There have been several volumes which extensively cover the Neolithic of Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia or Turkey, dealing with phenomena on a regional level rather than taking a supra-regional perspective, which would aid in the formation of a more coherent picture of the Neolithic period in this important geographical area and in understanding the processes of the Neolithisation of Europe. In addition, the results of excavations and detailed analyses of material remains from these regions are often published in local outlets and languages, while traditional archaeological approaches to various forms of material culture are still descriptive, and the finds are seldom studied and tackled as active elements in the life of early farmers. Consequently, much of the recent work, which does also include some important applications of new analytical methods on local levels, is still unknown to the wider scholarly community. The diachronic engagement of generations of people with their landscapes, and their attitudes towards the understanding and treatment of space and deciphering patterns, which can significantly further our understanding of the period, can only be assessed

Early farming communities in this geographical area, almost as a rule, formed permanent settlements and soon developed mindsets towards landscape and environment that differed from those of the Mesolithic foragers that preceded them. Diverse habitats and landscapes were settled, from coastal to freshwater locations and fertile basins to mountainous localities, which would have required different adaptations and treatment of space,2 which eventually associated communities with a particular place. Settlements and houses were active and crucial components in these processes, as they became increasingly important centres for activities and social interaction. By using and reusing the space in the context of their daily lives, members of Neolithic farming communities created living space where people, animals, objects and things were entangled in and engaged with inhabited space. As the contributions in this book clearly 1

Nenad N. Tasić, Dushka Urem-Kotsou & Marcel Burić demonstrate, archaeological investigations in this area testify to temporal intra- and inter-regional diversity in social organisation, everyday practices and beliefs, and show changes on various scales over the three millennia of the Neolithic, which formed a diverse and rich cultural landscape, expressed in settlement organisation, architecture and numerous aspects of material culture.

according to social (and cultural) changes that took place within communities in each sub-region. This book is comprised of 17 chapters, which are organised regionally, covering a broad set of geomorphological and environmental features and their niches. It includes fresh interdisciplinary insights from present-day Albania, northern Greece, North Macedonia, Serbia, Bulgaria and Turkey. The chapters follow geographical order, starting from the west, and moving through the north Aegean and the Balkan hinterland to north-western Turkey.

The long period of the Neolithic, including its final stage, which is in some regions labelled as the Eneolithic or Final Neolithic, and in others as the Chalcolithic, was a time of thorough transformations not only in cultural landscapes and settlement organisation, but also in animal and plant management, dietary habits and the production and circulation of material culture. The detection and evaluation of contacts between the regions and the study of the dynamics of transformation of populations within their chosen geography is therefore of great importance for understanding this period as a whole. The authors of the contributions to this volume present new data and draw their conclusions from the contextual examination of material culture recently discovered on numerous sites throughout the area, which contribute significantly to the understanding of the cultural landscape of early farmers in this geographical area.

The volume commences with a chapter by Kostas Kotsakis, whose contribution provides the theoretical framework for the volume, with a discussion of the use of space in the archaeological literature. The author nicely lays out the different theoretical approaches in current and past archaeological discourse, introducing the readers to diverse concepts about and understandings of space in archaeological thought, from cultural history and processualism with a positivist view of space as an objective and measurable frame of reference, to postmodern concepts of space as a dynamic social space, the phenomenology of Heidegger and meta-postprocessualism. Multivocality in theoretical concepts of space has had an impact on archaeological practice, a flavour of which is given in the last part of the chapter.

Since social relations are entwined in the intra- and intersite organisation of villages, the study of the density, form, size and longevity of settlements, architecture, burial practices, economy and material culture ensures a more holistic approach to the role and the meaning of space, and of various forms of interactions within the social structure of early farming communities. Some analytical tools applied in the study of the Neolithic in the area for this purpose include the analysis of aDNA and isotopic signatures in the skeletal remains of humans and animals to identify the diet and mobility of humans and herds, and analysis of archaeobotanical and zooarchaeological remains and of food residues in pottery for diet and farming practices, together with mainstream technological and petrographic analysis of pottery and stone tools. This interdisciplinary approach has the potential to reveal more details on the engagement of people with the landscape and with objects, animals, plants and other resources, as several chapters in this book clearly demonstrate.

A broad chronological scheme for the trans-regional Neolithic of the geographical area treated in this book has been set out by Agathe Reingruber in chapter 2. The author discusses the history and interpretation of 14 C dates in south-east Europe, Greece and Anatolia, and points to some misconceptions and incorrect usage of radiocarbon dates from its early days in the 1960s through to the present. Radiocarbon dates for each of the regions of south-western Anatolia, the circum-Aegean, the Balkans and the middle Danube area are presented, covering all periods of the Neolithic. Clarification and documentation of the chronological scheme obtained in this way is then applied to reinterpret trans-regional narratives such as those of the Neolithisation of southwest Anatolia and the Aegean, the beginning of the Neolithic in the Balkans and the transition from the Middle to the Late Neolithic. Gazmend Elezi, in chapter 3, presents the state of research in Albanian Neolithic archaeology and discusses the landscape preferences and social practices of early farmers, with an emphasis on the establishment of settlements in different habitats, such as river valleys and lake shores, but also on those located in mountainous landscapes. The author discusses the duration of habitation of the Neolithic settlements in Albania, which varies from short-lived ones (e.g. a few generations), to remarkably long-lived ones, inhabited without interruption, to those which were reinhabited long after being abandoned. The distribution and density of the settlements and settlement types and the diversity of houses are also discussed.

A growing body of data uncovered in the last few decades shows striking diversity in settlement organisation, from single-layered, short-lived sites to long-lived tell settlements with densely packed houses, located in different geographical settings. In addition, small sites (e.g. 0.5 ha) and extended settlements with shifting habitation patterns and dispersed houses also appear in most subregions. The observed variety has been related not only to the specifics of the natural environment, but also to the social organisation of Neolithic communities, as shaped through everyday practices. Settlements and houses were dynamic social spaces where different aspects of everyday life (and death) formed built space, which was modified 2

Introduction Intensive fieldwork undertaken in northern Greece over the last two decades or so, as a result of developmental works and systematic projects, has brought to light a considerable number of Neolithic sites, a few of which are presented in chapters 4, 5 and 6. Georgia Stratouli and Dimitris Kloukinas, in chapter 4, use the abundance of new findings to analyse and discuss the transformation of settlement space at the Middle and Late Neolithic site of Avgi in western Macedonia (Greece). Over the course of the three phases attested at the site, the differential segregation of space, the visibility of spatial demarcations, the relationship between indoor and outdoor space, and the management of waste suggest changes in the organisation of the community throughout the settlement’s lifespan.

of archaeological investigations in the area of central Macedonia (Greece), including excavations of Neolithic settlements and interdisciplinary research on associated materials. The authors discuss the settlement types, architecture and burial practices of the region. The evidence for Neolithic food that comes from archaeobotanical and zooarchaeological investigations, analysis of food remains in pottery and human bones is also presented. These data reveal details of the diachronic engagement of the inhabitants of central Macedonia with their environment, creating a social space through daily practices related to the production, preparation and consumption of food. Interaction among the settlements within the area, as well as with other regions, whether close or distant ones, is briefly discussed on the basis of petrographic analysis of pottery and lithics, aDNA and isotopic analysis of human and animal bones.

The following two chapters present an example of the transformation of space into a communal place outside the settlement, which was used for a variety of activities, including ritual. Similar sites have also been discovered in recent years in some other regions of the Balkans (see chapter 15 in this volume), all dated to the same broad period, pointing to certain changes in the ideological and social sphere of the Late Neolithic inhabitants in this area.

Stavros Kotsos, in chapter 8, focuses on the geographical area extending from the North Aegean to the Danube, which is drained by two of the major rivers of the southern and central Balkans, the Axios (Vardar) and Morava, and their numerous tributaries. Using the evidence from 191 excavated Neolithic settlements from this area, the author examines the geographical distribution of settlements, their environmental setting, intra-site organisation, architecture, economy and the interaction between them, as evidenced in material culture. Taking into account available data from old and recently excavated sites, the author offers new insights into the rich and diverse cosmos of early farming societies settled in this vast area, not only between but also within its regions and sub-regions, which is indicated by a great variety in organisation of living space, including both settlements and houses.

Areti Chondroyianni-Metoki presents in chapter 5 an exceptionally rare example for Neolithic Greece of an off-settlement site at Toumba Kremastis Koiladas, which offers some of the best evidence of structured deposition in the Neolithic period in the wider region of northern Greece and the Balkan hinterland. The Neolithic settlement at Kremasti is characterised by continuity in the location of the houses on the tell and diversity in the use of space on the margins of the residential area. The author presents the finds from the area outside the settlement, which are related to a variety of activities, including ritual. Chondroyianni-Metoki’s contextual analysis has taken into account correlations of different categories of archaeological materials related to burials of humans, animals and houses, and to contexts with remains of more mundane activities, such as rubbish disposal.

Goce Naumov presents in chapter 9 the diversity of Neolithic settlements in sub-regions of the southwestern part of the Republic of North Macedonia, with a focus on wetland sites in the area of Lake Ohrid and their relation to the settlements in the neighbouring region of Pelagonia. In addition to well-known tell-type settlements, the author draws attention to the existence of pile-dwelling settlements and distinguishes three basic categories of wetland sites: those on riverbanks, those on lakeshores and those in marshes. He also discusses the accompanying archaeological material and possible routes of communication, and finds some Late Neolithic Anatolian stylistic traits that had reached Pelagonia and the Ohrid region by the 5th millennium BC.

Presenting four different but well-defined contexts from the Late Neolithic off-settlement site of Toumba Kremastis Koiladas, Teresa Silva and her colleagues offer in chapter 6 an insight into the variety of activities that took place outside the residential area, with many of them seemingly exhibiting a ceremonial or ritual character. After a brief theoretical discussion of what ritual represents, the authors discuss the archaeological materials from four distinct contexts: cremation burial, single-use pits with remains of various ritualistic/ceremonial activities, and multiple-use context with less obvious structure. The stratigraphy and all the finds are taken into account, but special emphasis is placed on pottery, to show how the interplay of ritual and mundane domestic aspects of life may be entangled in an assemblage.

Several chapters present results of investigations in the central Balkans. In chapter 10, Boban Tripković discusses small settlement mounds, specific to the wetland region of Mačva in north-western Serbia, that are attested by a series of surveying campaigns. These sites, known as Obrovactype sites, appear to be Late Neolithic/Early Eneolithic adaptations to marshlands of the Mačva region. Based on the results of extensive sediment borehole coring on several sites and their surrounding area, field surveys and magnetometer prospection, which show the presence of the

Chapter 7, by Dushka Urem-Kotsou and Stavros Kotsos, provides an up-to-date synthesis of the results 3

Nenad N. Tasić, Dushka Urem-Kotsou & Marcel Burić enclosing ditches that are a distinctive feature of these sites, the author examines the origin of the mounds, sedimentation processes and the settlements’ function and structure.

Single-layered sites, which have often been regarded as short-lived, represent the key feature in the settlement pattern of the Early and Middle Neolithic periods in the Central Balkans, known as the Starčevo culture. Pitdwellings, a hallmark of these settlements, and their horizontal distribution do not form stratigraphy that would help in the estimation of settlement lifespan. In chapter 14, Sofija Stefanović and her colleagues explore data linked to funerary practices and relevant radiocarbon evidence in the context of the occupation continuity and duration of those sites throughout the region. The results presented imply that Starčevo-culture settlements were used/reused for much longer periods of time than previously assumed, sometimes even centuries, although it is not possible to say at present whether their occupation was intermittent or continuous.

New results on the spatial organisation of the settlement of Vinča Belo-brdo, the type site of the Late Neolithic culture of the Central Balkan region, located on the banks of the Danube, which is also a yardstick for the chronology of the Central Balkans, are presented by Kristina Penezić in chapter 11. The author aims to estimate the original size of the site, the total surface area of which has been unknown since its discovery, by calculating the total surface of the still intact part of the settlement and the thickness of in situ archaeological remains. A fresh estimation of the settlement size in various phases of the occupation and possible changes in size during the settlement’s lifespan is based on new geophysical and archaeological research, performed recently. These new data are expected to provide firmer ground for the estimation of the size of the population that inhabited the Vinča site.

Krum Bacvarov and John Gorczyk offer chapter 15, on the patterns of deposition at the late 6th-millennium BC site of Sarnevo in Upper Thrace in Bulgaria, where numerous pits located at some distance from the settlement have recently been discovered and excavated. Detailed analysis shows that over a relatively short period of time these pits were used by a nearby Neolithic community for ritual purposes. The authors have identified some features of ritual deposition, which they interpret as ‘ritual packages’, and use this as a starting point for a larger discussion about ritual practices and their role in shaping later Neolithic society. They also note that several other off-settlement pit-fields similar to that at Sarnevo, all dating to the Late Neolithic, have been uncovered in this part of Bulgaria. It appears that such activities were not restricted to this region of the Balkans, as indicated by similar finds showing a variety of ritual activities discovered at Late Neolithic Toumba Kremastis Koiladas in northern Greece, dating to the same period according to the radiocarbon dates (see chapters 5 and 6 in this volume).

Chapter 12 is also dedicated to the Vinča Belo-brdo settlement. One well-preserved house, dubbed house 01/06, has been utilised to obtain insight into spatial organisation at a household level in the time of the Neolithic/Eneolithic transition. Ksenija Borojević and her colleagues have used a multidisciplinary approach and applied forensic technology, as performed during the 2006 excavations at the site, putting the data together into a narrative account of the last days of house 01/06’s history. Based on the contextual analysis of all the finds uncovered from the building, the authors offer a new interpretation of the practices that took place within the structure, implying that some of the buildings at the Vinča-culture sites were used for specific activities, such as daily food preparation and storage, while other buildings must have served for sleeping and other indoor activities. The authors propose that the building may represent one of several buildings in a household compound used by an extended family.

The volume closes with two chapters dealing with two important Neolithic settlements from the north and south sides of the Sea of Marmara in north-west Turkey. Recent research on these sites uncovered rich evidence for the organisation and the use of space, which show some common trends in the late phases of the Neolithic in this area. Perhaps most importantly, these two chapters further enrich the striking diversity in the organisation of living space encountered in the geographical area discussed in this book, across which early farmers settled in broadly the same chronological period.

Chapter 13 in this volume focuses on the site of Drenovac in central Serbia, a large and long-lived settlement inhabited in the Early and Late Neolithic periods, with thick cultural deposits and complex stratigraphy. Comparing different lines of evidence obtained through recent systematic excavations, reconnaissance and geophysical surveying, Slaviša Perić and his team have pointed out the complex history of the settlement and its internal dynamics, and have addressed the data on the macro (settlement) and micro (house) scale. The authors discuss the settlement’s layout, size and intra-site organisation during different phases of occupation. Based on the abundant evidence from four well-preserved Late Neolithic houses, they suggest that more than one nuclear family may have lived in a single house in a late phase of the settlement’s occupation. Although it is architecturally organised in a different way than the example from Vinča Belo-brdo, the data from the late LN houses at Drenovac echo the extended-family form of household suggested by the authors of chapter 12 for the late phase of the Vinča culture.

In chapter 16, by Eylem Özdoğan and Heiner Schwarzberg, the houses and the settlement structure of Aşağı Pınar are evaluated and contextualised within a generalised concept of the Neolithic way of life. This important site in Eastern Thrace was established by the end of the 7th millennium BC and was inhabited until the first quarter of the 5th millennium BC. For the purposes of this volume, the authors have contributed an analysis of the main architectural features of the dwellings and of the broader relationships between the houses and both the settlement 4

Introduction layout and the open spaces. One of the remarkable features of the Aşağı Pınar is related to the stratigraphic distribution of burnt habitation horizons, alternating with unburnt layers, which is discussed in the light of the phenomenon of burnt settlements that appears across the Balkans during the Neolithic, especially in the later phases of the period in some regions. Necmi Karul, in chapter 17, brings forward some thoughtprovoking features from the tell settlement of Aktopraklık, located in north-west Anatolia and dated to the first half of the 6th millennium BC. The author focuses on the specific habitation phases of the settlement, which have a characteristic settlement plan comprised of an enclosure system, houses and courtyards, which are remarkably well organised. A similar settlement layout is attested at Aşağı Pınar (chapter 16 in this volume), but also at some other settlements in this area, including Ilıpınar and Barcın Höyük, indicating that this characteristic settlement organisation may be a regional trait, in a specific chronological period. Through the analysis of architectural remains and other finds, including burials, the author directs our attention to the pre-planned nature of the settlement, implying the determination and continuity of Aktopraklık’s complex social organisation. This book by no means tackles all issues related to the life of the Neolithic farmers that settled in this geographical area that were woven into their living space. The growing body of data, significantly enlarged by new investigations, would certainly exceed the scope of one volume. We hope, however, that the chapters, considered as a whole, provide a good insight into the rich variety in social organisation of early farmers, as evidenced in diverse forms of intrasite organisation, architecture, settlement distribution and interaction. The authors also hope that the results presented in this volume will pique further interest in this area and encourage even more local researchers to apply to their own excavations the new sets of questions raised here. Acknowledgements We are greatly indebted to the anonymous reviewers for valuable comments which have greatly improved the book. Jane Burkowski is warmly thanked for editing the texts, and Ruth Fisher for her valuable help throughout the whole procedure. We are particularly thankful to the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation for having helped with the organisation of the Conference “Northern Greece and Southeastern Europe during the Neolithic period – An interaction zone” held in Thessaloniki, Greece in June 2014.

5

1 Narratives of Space and Contemporary Archaeological Theory Kostas Kotsakis Aristotle University, Thessaloniki Abstract: Recent theoretical discussion places particular emphasis on the concept of space. Understanding of space has shifted, from a positivist view of an objective and measurable frame of reference, to a dynamic social space where social action takes place, to a phenomenological approach, able to incorporate the subjectivities of the embodied experiences of dwelling. Contemporary understandings of networks and interactions reinstate the materiality of the past by examining the tangible topologies and agencies of past periods, and reassess the objectivity of systematics by seeking the reconciliation of diverging paradigms. These different and diverging trends and approaches will be discussed in the context of their theoretical underpinnings. Keywords: cultural history, processualism, space, networks, interaction Introduction

Cultural history and processualism

Space is where things happen, and things exist. A familiar concept, yet one that philosophy has been struggling to grasp since antiquity (Huggett and Hoefer 2018). In many ways, space has always acted as a fundamental framework for thinking; that is, as a mindset. Archaeology endorsed concepts of space, and of its relatives time and motion, at the beginning of the discipline. These were essential for setting up the frame of place–time grids, the prime interpretative tools in cultural-historical narratives in the late 19th and the first half of the 20th century (Childe 1958).3 Likewise, a movement derived from early spatial analysis took the form of diffusionist and migrationist interpretations of material culture (G. Clark 1994; G. A. Clark 1994).

During the last 50 years, the most fundamental change in archaeological thought was the radical shift of its centre. The epistemological paradigm of the 1960s, namely that archaeology examines past cultures and groups and reconstructs them in space as a unilinear sequence with chronological significance, collapsed in the 1970s (Trigger 1984; 1989). Cultural history was based on 19th-century central European historicism, expressed by Leopold von Ranke’s goal to reconstruct the past objectively, ‘as it essentially was’ (‘wie es eigentlich gewesen’) and avoid any moral judgement (Boldt 2014, 7); this objectivity is, of course, debatable. Reconstruction, however, is only possible if a unified concept of space and time is adopted, which offers a necessary continuity of the cultural fabric. Otherwise, the inherent variation in space and time will tend to dissolve any perceived cultural entity. Gradually, it became evident that this kind of uniformity leaves absolutely no way to understand the internal variability which is constantly produced as people live their own histories in the contexts of their daily lives. As we will see later, today we tend to consider the variability of practices and actions and the agencies of people and things as the constituent elements of what we call culture. By contrast, cultural history perceives any culture as a consistent expression of one uniform people.

For a long time in archaeological research, place–time frames were considered nothing more than a backdrop of human cultural activity and its material expressions, like settlements and objects (Robin and Rothschild 2002). The common-sense, intuitive approach adopted early on was not, however, in a position to follow the widening of the theoretical concerns of archaeology. From the transformation of space as a frame of reference into space as a social factor (Hodder and Orton 1976; Hodder 1978; Binford 1982), and from the concept of space as a unified field of cultural presence to space as a lived experience (Tilley 1994; Bender, Hamilton, and Tilley 2005), concepts of space have developed in tandem with archaeological theory. This chapter will attempt to present some of the principal changes which have taken place in the archaeological concepts of space in the last decades.

It is not at all surprising that scholars of the 19th century perceived culture as an absolute taxonomic uniformity – remember for instance the emphasis on typological determinations (Rouse 1968; Trigger 1990, 388). Spatial and temporal continuity formed the core political characteristic of the emerging political formation of the time, namely the nation-state. It has been argued by many scholars that the birth of archaeology and the emergence of the nation-state are intimately and mutually connected within the general context of modernity (Diaz-Andreu

I am referring to the rather limited, Childean concept of culture, adopted from the German geographers and ethnologists (Trigger 1980). I do not discuss culture in any wider frame, within an Annales or a Marxist or a Foucauldian perspective of cultural history, as presented in Hunt (1989).

3

7

Kostas Kotsakis perceived cognitively and does not simply exist. Things in themselves are not simple objects of observation represented in our mind; the world itself is not replete with objects waiting for us to observe and use them (Rorty 1979). As Ingold mentions, the world is not ‘pre-prepared, with all its affordances ready, and waiting to be taken up by whatever creatures arrive to inhabit it’ (Ingold 2000, 168). As living things, we engage with objects around us, and we construct their significance as we do that. In simple words, this means that people give, within the various aspects of their cultural phenomenon, different meanings which are related to the context in which they attempt to assess this precise aspect of the phenomenon. From this perspective, a viable analogy of culture could be language, in which a reference to structures of signification is always contextually defined. Clifford Geertz, writing about the interpretation of culture, has defined it as webs of significance, which ‘man himself has spun’ and in which ‘he is suspended’ (Geertz 1973, 5). This definition encapsulates the famous ‘linguistic turn’ in the social sciences and the beginning of a new semiotic era, in which the idea of signification has dominated our understanding of culture.

and Champion 1996; Kohl 1998; Kotsakis 1998; 2003; Hamilakis 2007). Archaeological scholarship during that time served this programme with total dedication. Within this overall uniformity, archaeology constructed the grand narratives of the early 20th century, such as the diffusion of civilisation as understood by Gordon Childe and related models of social evolution (1963). In the 1960s this narrative was reaching its limits. The archaeological evidence which had been systematically collected indicated that, within the broader context of every single culture, human groups produced significant variability which demanded some form of explanation. The concept of such an explanation, in scientific terms, dominated the theoretical discussion of that time, and it was sought in the function of the group – preferably in the process of a group’s adaptation to its natural environment (e.g. Renfrew 1982; Watson et al. 1971). We can hear the echoes of a certain Cartesian dualism here, separating nature and culture into two opposing entities and perhaps, less remotely, the echoes of modernity itself (Thomas 2004). The processual school placed particular emphasis on cultures and groups as systems with measurable parameters (Binford 1965). Archaeology became dominated by models, which, following the positivism and scientism prevalent in social sciences at the time, were expressed in mathematical terms often borrowed directly from the sciences (Renfrew and Cooke 979). Archaeology became entirely composed of systemic processes.

The shift to culture as a signification system is the result of broader changes in academic thought, not only in archaeology (Hodder 1986) but also in philosophy, anthropology and the social sciences (Rorty 1967), changes which are usually described using the summary term ‘postmodern’ (Lyotard 1979). Though admittedly an inadequate description in many respects, postmodern poststructuralist discussion effectively revolves around the central question of the frame of reference and semiotic representation. The human sciences, says Foucault in his book The Order of Things, are trapped in the forms of discourse in which their objects of explanation are constituted (Foucault 1971). In reality, the deeper, philosophical aspect of this discussion, as Rorty remarks, lives in a ‘post-Nietzschean’ universe, in which ‘truth,’ as Nietzsche famously remarks, ‘is a mobile army of metaphors’ (Rorty 1991, 3). In other words, it is linked to the context, or to use a more relevant term, to the text.

The resulting reification of culture, however, was not entirely novel. It had been already set in motion in 1917, with Kroeber’s seminal paper ‘The Superorganic’ (Kroeber 1917). Kroeber urged anthropologists to find order behind the chaos of culture, to discover its systems and structures, and to formulate a general theory of human society. Indeed, the term ‘culture’ began to retreat gradually in archaeological writing in the mid-20th century, replaced by the equally vague term ‘society’. This time, though, it referred not to a universal society as it had in earlier cultural history, but to any particular adaptation related to a particular location.4 Postprocessualism

Contextual post-processual archaeology gave particular emphasis to a textual aspect of the interpretation of culture (Hodder 1991). Around the 1990s archaeology elaborated further the notion of many different readings of a cultural text which depend on the context in which each reading is attempted. There was a consensus that the reconstruction of the past cannot be other than multivocal, reflexive and never fixed on a single meaning, which was considered to be imposed by a hegemonic, regulating universal. Derrida’s famous quote ‘There is no outside-text’ (1976, 158–59) became a post-processual mantra. Still, this approach contained a strong anthropocentric bias, as it requires a human mind to assign such meanings and produce such interpretations. Despite the claims of postmodernity, there was still an enduring link with the foundational condition of modernity preserved here, namely the metaphysics of Cartesian duality of the mind and the material world,

Sometime in the mid-1980s, it became apparent that the allegedly scientific and functionalist analogies of processual archaeology were inadequate. The universality of science was not able to explain satisfactorily the phenomenon of culture, as culture is first and foremost 4 Sapir’s (1917) reaction to Kroeber’s ideas is worth noting. He takes an essentially opposite and much less formalistic view on the study of society, proposing what we would call today a ‘bottom-up’ approach based on individual human consciousness. Interestingly, his suggestion is much closer to ideas we hold today related to the situatedness and fractality of culture, and it resonates with the phenomenological tradition of philosophy. Is it possible that this coincidence indicates two discrete ways of understanding culture which are traceable to the origins of western social thought? I would tentatively describe them as a Platonic/ Cartesian objectivist approach, opposed to an Aristotelian/Husserlian and later Heideggerian phenomenological one (cf. Sheehan 1975; Dodd 2015; Moran 2000, 200–201).

8

Narratives of Space and Contemporary Archaeological Theory in which the mind is active and creative, while matter is passive and inert.

functionalist sociology of processual archaeology. The social life of people and things, pace Appadurai, what the phenomenological discussion following Heidegger would call ‘dwelling’ or ‘being-in-the-world’, is a community that produces agency jointly, not an instance of a universal regularity. In a familiar shorthand, this is what contemporary discussion calls the ‘biography of things’ (Kopytoff 1986). Culture in this sense becomes an experience of being in the world; culture acquires a ‘place’, a locus of lived experience.

To the extent that post-processualism aligns itself with the broader themes of postmodernism, such as the rejection of universalist notions and meta-narratives, the dismissal of foundational philosophies and philosophies of representation, and the adoption of social constructivism as a basis for any discussion, it is first and foremost, in the words of M. Shanks, ‘discourse – a field of matters and controversies which are connected but have no necessary unity’ (Shanks 2008, 142). This, as we will see now, was one of its weakest points, open to much criticism, often unfounded or even confused and seriously flawed (Geertz 2014).

Thus, the concepts of Heideggerian dwelling and the phenomenology of the landscape brings the discussion back to space, introducing a radically new model for it (Tilley 1994; Tilley and Bennett 2004; Thomas 2012). According to H. G. Alexander (1956), three overarching models of space are defined in Western thought: the absolute, the relational and the subjective. The absolute model of space, i.e. the Newtonian model, is described as an entity existing independently of things, while the relational (the Leibnitz model) maintains that space is not an absolute entity, but exists only as a relation between objects. Finally, in the subjectivist model which was put forward by Immanuel Kant, space is an a priori feature of our intuition, and not a physical reality independent of mind. Space is the condition with which we can have consistent experiences of things around us (Arisaka 1995).

Phenomenology and meta-postprocessualism The ‘text’ analogy which came to dominate post-processual discourse brings all discussion inexorably to an abstract level, where action takes no part. The idea that culture can be seen as an endless referentiality of immaterial meanings leaves one with a feeling of a fundamental logical error, like a mental game, or an infinite spiral as in Escher’s art. Given the fluidity inherent in the multiplicity of interpretative contexts, how can archaeology be sure of the truth of its reconstructions, if these reconstructions represent only one of the many possible? Furthermore, is it likely that the meaning which material culture acquires within a contextual setting is at all unrelated to the actions of people? In the case of material culture, the conviction that there is no natural connection between the sign and the signified thing, as is allegedly the case in Saussurian linguistics, with the ‘arbitrariness of the sign’, led to the loss of any grounding of interpretations, thus giving way to total relativism. The impasse of the relevant theoretical discussion was pointed out at the ebb of postprocessualism (see, e.g. Criado Boado 2001; Buchli 1995)

Both the absolute and the relational models of space are fundamentally incompatible with the phenomenological view and its subjective, experiential quality.5 The absolute model is unable to accommodate the relations of space, humans and things dwelling in it. It ignores place (space plus actant) and reduces space to a frame of reference, a sort of stage where either cultures or societies perform systematically, a kind of container. Cultural history and the positivism of processual archaeology fitted well with that concept, and both (particularly positivism) exploited the analytical potential in the spatial models from the simple ones of Childe’s time to the statistically sophisticated ones of the 1970s. Under the pressure of the theoretical reorientation of perceptions of space, however, these models gradually became analytically unpopular, and, to a great extent, were abandoned. Despite the time that has elapsed and the theoretical elaborations that have been reached, nevertheless, some current spatial analytical tools still adhere to that absolutist genealogy.6

So far, this definition of relativity is dependent on the way signification is defined. There is, however, an alternative definition of signification which offers a way out of this impasse without collapsing into relativity and losing sight of practice and agency. A Peircian approach, advocated by the famous American philosopher and endorsed recently by archaeologists of material culture, restores practice as the crucial factor that defines both the indexical and the iconic aspect of any symbol, in language as well as in material culture (Atkin 2013; Knappett 2005, 85–99; Hoopes 1991). For C. S. Peirce, ‘an individual is something which reacts’. There is no doubt that the association with lived experience – what I will call the reality of experience, i.e. of practice – returns the discussion to the social domain, where actions do take place. Note that practice in this context does not necessarily mean ‘social’ or ‘ritual’ practice, which again would give priority to a hypostatised ‘society’. On the contrary, it refers to the everyday, such as herding sheep, clearing fields, carrying water, building, cooking, cutting wood and making baskets and pots (Ingold 2013). This, however, is no return to the systemic,

5 This experiential element is not to be confused, as Dreyfus (1991, 129) very explicitly points out, with the inner experiences of the individual ego. This psychological understanding would be akin to Husserl’s phenomenology, which Heidegger was keen to reject, for this precise reason. 6 In contrast to the recent growing number of papers with GIS applications exploring phenomenological issues of being in the world, such as movement through the landscape, liminality and visualscapes, routes, or other affordances (see, e.g. Gillings 2012; 2017; Llobera 2003; Casana 2013), models applied to macrohistorical questions, such as the spread of agriculture, tend to endorse space as a frame of reference, rarely treating it as an active component of the process under examination (see, e.g. Pinhasi and Pluciennik 2013).

9

Kostas Kotsakis The phenomenological movement of the 20th century retained some affinities with the subjective Kantian concept of space, but not entirely in its unmitigated form, because, like the absolute and the relational model, it too was based on a metaphysical dichotomy of subject and object. Heidegger, in keeping with his contextual, anti-representational philosophy, proposed an alternative concept, in which objective and subjective spaces were combined. This is precisely a phenomenological or lived space, described, following the terminology of his thing theory, as ready-to-hand, a spatiality of being-in-the-world (Dreyfus 1991, 128). A thing is brought as ‘ready-to-hand’ into a condition of existence which is intimately connected to us and our context of activities and concerns. In this condition, according to Heidegger, we do not just see a thing (let alone represent it in our mind): we engage with it skillfully and practically. Thus, space and the objects in it are intimately connected with the dwelling subject using the subject’s activity in building up a place. Space, therefore, in Heidegger, is not conceived as a measurable distance but as modes of proximity and availability; something which many anthropologists would define as a social space category. Activity brings things close and makes them available. To avoid any possible misinterpretation, however: in this scenario proximity does not refer to geographical distance but relates to a mode of becoming familiar with something. In this sense, being in the world involves immediate engagement and entanglement with things – there is no detached observation of the world (Hodder 2011; 2012; 2014). This demolishes the container model.

material culture studies, on the contrary, fill this space with things (Olsen 2010). According to Bruno Latour, modernity created a great divide between culture and nature, i.e. between humans and non-human things (Latour 1993). Many examples from anthropology prove, however, that this ontological dualism does not exist in premodern cultures, which insist on inhabiting a complete world and not a divided one, as we do. Contemporary materiality studies point out how nonhuman things are important not as abstract entities, relations or rules but as living entities, even persons with personalities and idiosyncrasies. As Bruno Latour has argued, the divide is continuously reinforced by the practice of social science which categorises everything in two distinct ontological spheres, culture or nature, subjects or objects. Networks, meshworks and rhizomes are recent theoretical concepts exploring the interaction between different kinds of entities, their movement in space and the intersection of trails and directions (Ingold 2007; Knappett 2011). Some of these approaches are inspired by Actor-Network Theory (ANT),7 which rejects any a priori precedence for either the social or the natural, and sees everything contained as an actor or an actant in what has been called ‘symmetrical archaeology’ (cf. Shanks 2007; Webmoor and Whitmore 2008). Connected with concepts of fractal personhood, of partible or distributed persons or dividuals (Strathern 1988; Fowler 2004), the human/thing entanglement creates places where a variety of entities interact in various ways, and in which humans and non-humans share identities and properties (Hodder 2011; 2014; Hodder and Mol 2016). To an outside observer, the outlook presented sketchily above holds much promise to evolve into a new, meta-postprocessual model of archaeology, in particular of space. Hopefully, it will also act as an active counter to the emerging holistic neoprocessualism (Stark 2003, 201–202), and the setbacks to one-dimensional concepts of space, as the result of its increasing cooperation with the sciences.8

The perception of space just described takes yet another step away, perhaps even more vitally, from the objections voiced in the literature or in discussions about the subjectivity haunting postmodernity. In reality, in the light of the phenomenological theory of space, the problem appears to be the result of a certain confusion between subjectivity and objectivity. Heidegger does not talk about a psychological feeling, in which we take something subjectively as close, even though it is objectively distant. He instead claims that making things available brings them into being, or at least into a particular condition of being. In more simple words, this means that it is impossible to define the ‘objective’ dimensions of space – such as distances – unless we consider the agency that brings this distance, so to speak, into existence. Once this is done, the distinction between subjective and objective ceases to exist, because there is no absolute prior, no container, which beings (humans and things) occupy, waiting for something to happen, or simply to be observed as such.

I will avoid addressing here the important – and vast – issue of the contributions of critical realism, particularly the attempt to close the gap between social and natural sciences (Bhaskar 2008; Sayer 2000; Whitbeck and Bhaskar 1977), and its impact on archaeology (Malmer 1993). Apart from the sheer breadth of the subject, no one as yet has systematically assessed the dissemination of Bhaskar’s critical realism within archaeological discourse. Even though many practising archaeologists may endorse core ideas of critical realism and reject cause-and-effect empiricism, as well as both the extreme positivism

The connection of humans, things and practices with the terms described briefly above forms a robust intellectual tradition worth bearing in mind when we are discussing past cultural phenomena taking place in space. Too often in contemporary archaeological discourse, space is considered a domain where only human cognition resides, while things act as a backdrop. Contemporary

7 See, however, Ingold’s brilliant and amusing parable on agency, agents and action, from a strong antisymmetrical stance (Ingold 2008). 8 This is not the place to discuss neoprocessualism in detail. Prime examples of neoprocessual concepts of space can be found in archaeogenetic explanations of macrohistorical phenomena, such as migrations and movements. It is not rare, in such instances, for archaeological concepts and analytical categories to be co-opted by scientific analysis. As a result, human bodies are reduced to precultural and biological entities existing prior to any cultural variability (Kotsakis, forthcoming).

10

Narratives of Space and Contemporary Archaeological Theory of processualism and the radical antifoundationalism of postprocessual archaeology, Bhaskar’s influence over archaeologists seems somewhat restricted so far. Furthermore, since the present essay is about space, and social space is primarily a field of communication which prioritises questions of signification rather than those of ontogeny and epistemology, critical realism will be better left for a future essay dedicated to that subject.

a gathering. So far as I know, it is the first time in the Neolithic of Greece that Neolithic people are seen as engaged and entangled in the landscape with objects, other communities of practice, as Wenger (1998) would say, and natural resources. Technologies, finished objects and resources, human and non-human, might be exchanged in these gatherings. It is interesting that the pattern of the network has changed dramatically with time. Areti Pentedeka’s study, using a similar methodology, of the same broad region of Thessaly during the Late Neolithic found no trace of this network of taskscapes, which had apparently already been abandoned (Pentedeka 2011; 2017). There are no pots produced using resources from further afield, but only pots produced in the settlement from local resources or pots coming from other settlements. This time, however, the network is quasi-hierarchically structured: some sites predominantly import pots from others, others predominantly export pots to others, and lastly, there are those which both export and import pots. There is a kind of distribution of tasks among the Neolithic Thessalian communities, again connecting people, resources and objects in a socially dense inhabited space.

Theory in practice The few selected cases which follow are not meant as a direct product of concepts discussed theoretically in this essay. Rather, they are typical archaeological cases which involve relations and agencies inscribed in space and materiality; they are included here merely to imply the analytical possibilities of these relations and agencies and to bring out the strengths of dwelling and the associated spatial analysis. Most of all, these examples do not represent a review of the state of the art, even for the specific territory of Greece. For such a bewildering set of theoretical issues, to give even a simple picture of trends and developments would be impossible; in any case, it would require detailed and in-depth analysis, beyond the scope of this essay. The concept of networks has slowly been entering Neolithic studies in Greece. Some of these are based on GIS work; others rely on more conventional means (Alexakis et al. 2007; Alexakis et al. 2011; Sarris et al. 2017). There is a tradition in Thessaly for spatial analysis, ranging from the early reconnaissance done by Tsountas (1908) and Wace and Thompson (1900), and later by David French and Paul Halstead in the 1970s (Halstead 1984), and Kostas Gallis in the 1990s (1992). The plain of Thessaly, a vast, relatively uniform, and well-defined geographical entity, is conducive to regional analysis (Vouzaxakis 2008). Analysis of space has been carried out there on different scales, from the macro scale of whole regions to the midmicro scale of settlement space and, lately, to the micro scale of houses.

These are only a few selected examples. Further to the north in Macedonia, Greece, the diachronic engagement of people with the landscape is assessed through largescale interdisciplinary research. The analytical tools here include cutting-edge analysis of isotopic signatures in skeletal remains of humans and animals to identify the diet and mobility of humans and herds, DNA analysis, archaeobotanical and zooarchaeological analysis for diet and farming practices, palaeobotanical analysis to reconstruct vegetation and chemical analysis of food residues in pots, together with mainstream technological, experimental and petrographic analysis of pottery. Complex research strategies of this sort can reveal in detail the engagement of people with the landscape and with objects, animals, plants and resources (Kotsakis 2016; Whelton et al. 2018).

Two networks proposed for Thessaly are attractively pertinent to the concept of space presented here, as they involve things and technological choices, namely pottery in space and pottery technology. The first, by Anastasia Dimoula, studies the connection between space and pottery in the Early Neolithic (Dimoula 2014). The study of pottery based on extensive petrographic analysis of Early Neolithic sites of Thessaly distinguishes different traditions, represented by pots either made from resources immediately neighbouring the settlement or further afield, or imported from other settlements. There is a pattern of mobility here of potters and pots, a documented exploration of resources which goes against our biases for simple early pottery production, of limited quantity and scope. Furthermore, the analysis was able to reconstruct taskscapes, particular spots in the landscape where potters from different settlements would make pots, possibly in

Finally, to introduce analysis on the intrasite level as well, I will mention briefly the research done on the site of Sesklo. In Sesklo, the most extensively excavated site with wellpreserved architecture in Greece, the emphasis on selfcontained, free-standing houses is clear from the beginning of the 6th millennium onwards. Occasionally these houses are rebuilt in the same spot. These free-standing houses contrast with those outside the tell of Sesklo, at Sesklo B, which are formed in clusters or possible neighbourhoods. Subtle details, such as blocked passages and fenced areas, indicate a change in the way the residents engage among themselves and with the settlement’s space. All these subtle manipulations are visible and, combined with detailed pottery analysis, point to a gradual transformation of the social, which is expressed predominantly at the level of the everyday living space of the settlement and the house, and of their materiality (Kotsakis 2006).

11

Kostas Kotsakis Epilogue

Atkin, Albert. 2013. ‘Peirce’s Theory of Signs.’ In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, 1–17. The Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University Press, Summer 2013 Edition. papers3:// publication/uuid/24AE515A-E3E6-473D-91D4AED2D03E173D.

From Sauer’s time, the concept of the cultural landscape became the norm in the social sciences, architecture and anthropology. Mainstream archaeology, by contrast, remained untouched by Sauer’s early bold concept of a phenomenology of the landscape. It took archaeology many decades to realise that landscapes are not only the physical background of groups of people but also genuine cultural products. It is reasonable to ask why central European geographic foundations, from which Sauer got his inspiration (Sauer 1925, 21–22; Bintliff 2008, 158–59), did not influence cultural history of the interwar period at least to the same degree as Kossina’s Kulturgruppen did (Trigger 1989, 161–67). Subsequently, New Archaeology, regarding space as the frame for systemic adaptation, adopted an absolute positivist space, purified of any socalled ‘metaphysical’ concepts.

Bender, Barbara, Sue Hamilton, and Christopher Y. Tilley. 2005. Stone Worlds : Narrative and Reflexive Approaches to Landscape Archaeology. London: UCL. Bhaskar, Roy. 2008. A Realist Theory of Science. The Philosophical Review. Vol. 86. London and New York: Routledge. Binford, Lewis R. 1965. ‘Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Culture Process.’ American Antiquity 31(2): 203–10. Binford, Lewis R. 1982. ‘The Archaeology of Place.’ Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1: 5–31.

The requirement of inter-disciplinarity is undoubtedly one positive outcome of the current theoretical turn towards dwelling and entanglement in space. Only sophisticated research can bring up the ‘thick description’ of the everyday. Current major projects are moving in this direction, intensifying the amount of information down to the finest detail (Valamoti et al. 2017). We are undoubtedly still quite far from implementing to our satisfaction in our archaeological analyses all the theoretical concepts of space discussed here. Any theoretical discussion is by its nature abstract and is not carried out in the hope of producing analytical pathways directly related to specific archaeological problems. Philosophical discussion is not judged by its practical results and applications; it is a framework for thinking differently, on a broader field, challenging deep-seated preconceptions; it is mainly about asking questions. As archaeologists, the onus is on us to produce the tangible narratives of space based on the material we study.

Bintliff, John L. 2008. ‘History and Continental Approaches.’ In Archaeological Theories, edited by Alexander R. Bentley, Herbert D.G. Maschner and Christopher Chippindale, 147–64. Lanham, New York, Toronto, Plymouth, UK: Altamira. Boldt, Andreas. 2014. ‘Ranke: Objectivity and History.’ Rethinking History 18(4): 457–74. Buchli, Victor A. 1995. ‘Interpreting Material Culture. The Trouble with Text.’ In Interpreting Archaeology: Finding Meaning in the Past, edited by Ian Hodder, Michael Shanks, Alexandra Alexandri, Victor Buchli, John Carman, Jonathan Last and Lucas Gavin, 181–93. London: Routledge. Casana, Jesse. 2013. ‘Radial Route Systems and AgroPastoral Strategies in the Fertile Crescent: New Discoveries from Western Syria and Southwestern Iran.’ Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32(2): 257-73.

References cited

Childe, V. Gordon. 1963. Social evolution. London: C. A. Watts.

Alexakis, Dimitrios, Apostolos Sarris, Theodoros Astaras, Konstantinos Albanakis. 2011. ‘Integrated GIS, Remote Sensing and Geomorphologic Approaches for the Reconstruction of the Landscape Habitation of Thessaly during the Neolithic Period.’ Journal of Archaeological Science 38(1): 89–100.

Childe, V Gordon. 1958. ‘Retrospect.’ Antiquity 32: 69–74. Clark, Geoffrey A. 1994. ‘Migration as an Explanatory Concept in Paleolithic Archaeology.’ Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1: 305–43.

Alexakis, Dimitris, Theodoros Astaras, Apostolos Sarris, Kostas Vouzaxakis, Lia Karimali. 2007. ‘Reconstructing the Neolithic Landscape of Thessaly through a GIS and Geological Approach.’ 35th International Conference of Computer Applications in Archaeology: Layers of Perception (CAA2007) , Berlin, Germany, April 2–6, 1–8. http://archiv.ub.uniheidelberg.de/propylaeumdok/560/.

Clark, Grahame. 1994. Space, Time and Man. A Prehistorian’s View. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Criado Boado, Felipe. 2001. ‘Problems, Functions and Conditions of Archaeological Knowledge.’ Journal of Social Archaeology 1(1): 126–46. Derrida, Jacques and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. 1976. Of Grammatology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Alexander, Henry G. 1956. The Leibniz–Clarke Correspondence. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.

Diaz-Andreu, Marguerita and Timothy Champion. 1996. Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe. London: UCL Press.

Arisaka, Yoko. 1995. ‘Heidegger’s Theory of Space: A Critique of Dreyfus.’ Inquiry 38(4): 455–67. 12

Narratives of Space and Contemporary Archaeological Theory Dimoula, Anastasia. 2014. Proimi keramiki tehnologia kai paragogi. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University.

Hodder, Ian and Clive Orton. 1976. Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. New Studies in Archaeology. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dodd, James. 2015. ‘Aristotle and Phenomenology.’ In Phenomenology in a New Key: Between Analysis and History. Contributions to Phenomenology, edited by Jeffrey Bloechl and Nicolas De Warren. Vol. 72. Dordrecht: Springer.

Hofmanová, Zuzana, Susanne Kreutzer, Garrett Hellenthal, Christian Sell, Yoan Diekmann, David Diez-del-Molino, Lucy van Dorp, Saioa López, Athanasios Kousathanas, Vivian Link, Karola Kirsanov, Lara M.Cassidy, Rui Martiniano, Melanie Strobel, Amelie Sheu, Kostas Kotsakis, Paul Halstead, Sevi Triantaphyllou, Nina Kyparissi-Apostolika, Dushka Urem-Kotsou, Christina Ziota, Foteini Adaktylou, Shyamalika Gopalan, Dean M. Bobo, Laura Winkelbach, Jens Blöcher, Martina Unterländer, Christoph Leuenberger, Çiler Çilingiroğlu, Barbara Horejs, Fokke Gerritsen, Stephen Shennan, Daniel G. Bradley, Mathias Currat, Krishna R. Veeramah, Daniel Wegmann, Mark G. Thomas, Christina Papageorgopoulou, Joachim Burger. 2016. ‘Early farmers from across Europe directly descended from Neolithic Aegeans.’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(25): 6886–91.

Dreyfus, Hubert L. 1991. Being-in-the-World. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Foucault, Michel. 1971. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New York: Pantheon Books. Fowler, Chris. 2004. The Archaeology of Personhood. An Anthropological Approach. London – New York: Routledge. Gallis, Kostas. 1992. Atlas ton proistorikon theseon tis anatolikis Thessalias. Larissa: Etaireia Istorikon Erevnon Thessalias. Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Hoopes, James, (ed.). 1991. Peirce on Signs. Writings on Semiotic by Charles Sanders Peirce. Chapel Hill and London: The University of North Carolina Press.

Geertz, Clifford. 2014. ‘Distinguished Lecture : Anti AntiRelativism.’ American Anthropologist 86(2): 263–78.

Huggett, Nick and Carl Hoefer. 2018. ‘Absolute and Relational Theories of Space and Motion.’ In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 Edition), edited by Edward N. Zalta, 1–76. Stanford: The Metaphysics Research Laboratory, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/ spacetime-theories/.

Gillings, Mark. 2012. ‘Landscape Phenomenology, GIS and the Role of Affordance.’ Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 19(4): 601–11. Gillings, Mark. 2017. ‘Mapping Liminality: Critical Frameworks for the GIS-Based Modelling of Visibility.’ Journal of Archaeological Science 84: 121-28.

Hunt, Lynn, (ed.). 1989. The New Cultural History. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Halstead, Paul. 1984. Strategies for Survival: An Ecological Approach to Social and Economic Change in the Early Farming Communities of Thessaly, Greece. PhD diss., University of Cambridge.

Ingold, Tim. 2000. The Perception of the Environment. London and New York: Routledge.

Hodder, Ian. 1978. The Spatial Analysis of Culture. London: Duckworth.

Ingold, Tim. 2007. Lines. A Brief History. London and New York: Routledge.

Hodder, Ian. 1986. Reading the Past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hodder, Ian. 1991. ‘Interpretive Archaeology and Its Role.’ American Antiquity 56: 7–18. Hodder, Ian. 2011. ‘Human–Thing Entanglement  : Towards an Integrated Archaeological Perspective.’ Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (N.S.), no. 17: 154–77. Hodder, Ian. 2012. Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things. Malden, Chichester and Oxford: Willey-Blackwell.

Ingold, Tim. 2008. ‘When ANT Meets SPIDER: Social Theory for Arthropods.’ In Material Agency. Towards a Non-Anthropocentric Approach, edited by Carl Knappett and Lambros Malafouris, 209–15. New York: Springer Science & Business Media B.V. Ingold, Tim. 2013. Making. London and New York: Routledge. Knappett, Carl. 2005. Thinking through Material Culture. An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Knappett, Carl. 2011. An Archaeology of Interaction. Oxford : Oxford University Press.

Hodder, Ian. 2014. ‘The Entanglements of Humans and Things: A Long-Term View.’ New Literary History 45(1): 19-36.

Kohl, Philip L. 1998. ‘Archaeology and Nationalism.’ Annual Review of Anthropology 27: 25–37.

Hodder, Ian and Angus Mol. 2016. ‘Network Analysis and Entanglement.’ Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 23(4): 1066-94.

Kopytoff, Igor. 1986. ‘The Cultural Biography of Things: Commoditization as a Process.’ In The Social Life of

13

Kostas Kotsakis Things, edited by Arjun Appadurai, 64–91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Prehistoric Social Networks through Technology, edited by Ann Brysbaert, 106–25. London: Routledge.

Kotsakis, Kostas. 1991. ‘The Powerful Past: Theoretical Trends in Greek Archaeology.’ In Archaeological Theory in Europe, edited by Ian Hodder. London: Routledge.

Pentedeka, Areti. 2017. ‘Negotiating Identities and Exchanging Values: Neolithic Pottery Production and Circulation in Thessaly.’ In Balkan Dialogues, edited by Maja Gori and Maria Ivanova, 131–55. London and New York: Routledge.

Kotsakis, Kostas. 1998. ‘The Past Is Ours.’ In Archaeology under Fire, edited by Lynn Meskell. London: Routledge.

Pinhasi, Ron and Mark Pluciennik. 2013. ‘Approach to the Spread of Farming in Europe.’ Current Anthropology 45(S4): S59–82.

Kotsakis, Kostas. 2003. ‘Ideological Aspects of Contemporary Archaeology in Greece.’ In The Impact of Classical Greece on European and National Identities, edited by Margriet Haagsma, Pim Den Boer, and Eric M Moormann. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, Publisher.

Renfrew, Colin. 1982. ‘Explanation Revisited.’ In Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, edited by Colin Renfrew, Michael Rowlands and Barbara Abbot Seagraves, 5–24. London: Academic Press.

Kotsakis, Kostas. 2006. ‘Settlement of Discord: Sesklo and the Emerging Household.’ In Homage to Milutin Garasanin, edited by Nikola Tasic and Cvetan Grozdanov, 207–20. Belgrade: Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts.

Renfrew, Colin and Kenneth L. Cooke, (eds.). 1979. Transformations. Mathematical Approaches to Culture Change. Academic P. New York & London. Robin, Cynthia and Nan A. Rothschild. 2002. ‘Archaeological Ethnographies: Social Dynamics of Outdoor Space.’ Journal of Social Archaeology 2(2): 159–72.

Kotsakis, Kostas. 2016. ‘The Exploring Project: Assessing the Human / Environment Relation in Neolithic Macedonia, Greece.’ Arhaiologiko Ergo sti Makedonia kai Thraki, in press (In Greek).

Rorty, Richard. 1967. The Linguistic Turn; Recent Essays in Philosophical Method. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kotsakis, Kostas. 2019. ‘Neolithic Goes West: Concepts and Models on the Neolithisation of the Aegean.’ In The Central/Western Anatolian Farming Frontier, edited by Maxime Brami and Barbara Horejs, 223-40. Vienna: Austrian Academie of Sciences Press.

Rorty, Richard. 1979. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Rorty, Richard. 1991. Essays on Heidegger and Others. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kroeber, Alfred L. 1917. ‘The Superorganic.’ American Anthropologist 19(2): 163–213.

Rouse, Irving. 1968. ‘Prehistory, Typology, and the Study of Society.’ In Settlement Archaeology, edited by Kwang Chang. Palo Alto: National Press Books.

Latour, Bruno. 1993. We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Sapir, Edward. 1917. ‘Do We Need a “Superorganic”?’ American Anthropologist 19(3): 441–47.

Llobera, M. 2003. ‘Extending GIS-Based Visual Analysis: The Concept of Visualscapes.’ International Journal of Geographical Information Science 17(1): 25–48.

O’Brien, Michael J. and Lee R. Lyman. 2004. ‘History and Explanation in Archaeology.’ Anthropological Theory 4(2): 173–97.

Sarris, Apostolos, Tuna Kalayci, Francois-Xavier Simon, Jamieson Donati, Carmen Cuenca Garcia, Meropi Manataki, Gianluca Cantoro, Ian Moffat, Evita Kalogiropoulou, Georgia Karampatso, Kayt Armstrong, Nassos Argyriou, Sylviane Dederix, Cristina Manzetti, Nikos Nikas, Konstantinos Vouzaxakis, Vasso Rondiri, Polyxeni Arachoviti, Kalliopi Almatzi, Despina Efstathiou, Evangelia Stamelou. 2017. ‘Opening a New Frontier in the Study of Neolithic Settlement Patterns of Eastern Thessaly, Greece.’ In Communities, Landscapes and Interaction in Neolithic Greece, edited by Apostolos Sarris, Evita Kalogiropoulou, Tuna Kalayci and Lia Karimali, 26–47. International Monographs in Prehistory 20. Michigan: Ann Arbor

Olsen, Bjornar. 2010. In Defence of Things. Archaeology and the Ontology of Objects. Lanham, New York, Toronto, Plymouth, UK: Altamira Press.

Sauer, Carl Ortwin. 1925. ‘The Morphology of the Landscape.’ University of California Publications in Geography 2: 19–54.

Pentedeka, Areti. 2011. ‘Links of Clay in Neolithic Greece: The Case of Platia Magoula Zarkou.’ In Tracing

Sayer, Andrew. 2000. Realism and Social Science. London: Sage.

Lyotard, Jean Franηois ois. 1979. La Condition Postmoderne Rapport Sur Le Savoir. Collection ‘Critique.’ Paris: éditions de Minuit. Malmer, Mats P. 1993. ‘On Theoretical Realism in Archaeology.’ Current Swedish Archaeology 1: 145– 48. Moran, Dermot. 2000. Introduction to Phenomenology. London and New York: Routledge.

14

Narratives of Space and Contemporary Archaeological Theory Shanks, Michael. 2007. ‘Symmetrical Archaeology.’ World Archaeology 39(4): 589–96.

Watson, Patty J., Steven A. Leblanc, and Charls L. Redman. 1971. Explanation in Archaeology. New York: Columbia University Press.

Shanks, Michael. 2008. ‘Post-Processual Archaeology and After.’ In Handbook of Archaeological Theories, edited by Alexander R. Bentley, Herbert D. Maschner, and Christopher Chippindale, 133–44. Lanham, New York, Toronto, Plymouth, UK.

Webmoor, Timothy and Christopher L Whitmore. 2008. ‘Things Are Us! A Commentary on Human/Things Relations under the Banner of a ‘Social’ Archaeology.’ Norwegian Archaeological Review 41(1): 53–70.

Sheehan, Thomas J. 1975. ‘Heidegger, Aristotle and Phenomenology.’ Philosophy Today 19(2): 87–94.

Wenger, Etienne. 1998. Communities of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stark, Miriam T. 2003. ‘Current Issues in Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology.’ Journal of Archaeological Research 11(3): 193–242.

Whelton, Helen L., Mélanie Roffet-Salque, Kostas Kotsakis, Dushka Urem-Kotsou, Richard P. Evershed. 2018a. ‘Strong bias towards carcass product processing at Neolithic settlements in northern Greece revealed through absorbed lipid residues of archaeological pottery.’ In The Neolithic of Northern Greece and the Balkans. The environmental context of cultural transformation, edited by Dushka Urem-Kotsou, Nenad Tasić, Marcel Burić, Christina Papageorgopoulou, 109–27. Quaternary International 496.

Strathern, Marilyn. 1988. The Gender of the Gift: Problems with Women and Problems with Society in Melanesia. Berkeley: University of California Press. Thomas, Julian. 2004. Archaeology and Modernity. London: Routledge. Thomas, Julian. 2012. ‘Archaeologies of Place and Landscapes.’ In Archaeological Theory Today, edited by Ian Hodder, 167–87. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Whitbeck, Caroline. 1977. ‘Reviewed Work: A Realist Theory of Science by Roy Bhaskar.’ The Philosophical Review 86: 114-18.

Tilley, Christopher. 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape. Oxford: Berg. Tilley, Christopher Y. and Wayne Bennett. 2004. The Materiality of Stone. Explorations in Landscape Phenomenology, 1. Oxford: Berg. Trigger, Bruce G. 1980. Gordon Childe. Revolutions in Archaeology. London: Thames and Hudson. Trigger, Bruce G. 1984. ‘Alternative Archaeologies: Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist.’ Man 19: 355–70. Trigger, Bruce G. 1989. A History of Archaeological Thought. Antiquity. Vol. 64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Trigger, Bruce G. 1990. ‘A History of Archaeological Thought.’ Antiquity 64(245): 958–60. Tsountas, Christos. 1908. Oi proistorikes akropoleis Diminiou kai Sesklou. Athina: I en Athinas Arxaiologiki Etairia. Valamoti, Soultana-Maria, Stefanie Jacomet, Hans-Peter Stika, Andreas G. Heiss. 2017. ‘The PLANTCULT Project: Identifying the Plant Food Cultures of Ancient Europe.’ Antiquity 91(358): N.PAG. Vouzaxakis, Konstantinos. 2008. Geographical Patterns and Theories of the Intercommunal Space in the Neolithic Thessaly. PhD diss., Thessaloniki: Aristotle Universtiy. Wace, Alan J.B. and Maurice S. Thompson. 1900. Prehistoric Thessaly Being Some Account of Recent Excavations and Explorations in North-Eastern Greece from Lake Kopais to the Borders of Macedonia. Cambridge: University Press.

15

2 Timelines in the Neolithic of Southwestern Anatolia, the Circum-Aegean, the Balkans and the Middle Danube Area Agathe Reingruber Freie Universität Berlin Abstract: Chronological frameworks as we conceive of them today are the result of the investment of many generations of prehistoric archaeologists. Each of these generations has optimised the system by introducing new, partly revolutionary investigation methods such as radiocarbon dating. Even 70 years after its introduction in 1949, our generation still benefits from its potential. Before, comparative stratigraphy and relative chronological evaluation were used to search for simultaneous changes in human behaviour over large areas, leading to the definition of so-called horizons. Later, the first absolute dates both appalled and appealed to archaeologists, changing their perception of the depth of time and synchronicity. Today, sequences of absolute dates suitable for statistically tested models are essential for verifying the existence and duration of such horizons and for making gaps and interruptions more visible. This chapter highlights three timelines that are crucial in such a supra-regional context: the first at the beginning of the Neolithic in the AnatolianAegean sphere, the second at the beginning of the Neolithic in the Aegean-Balkan sphere and the third at the beginning of the Neolithic in the Central European-Danubian sphere. Keywords: Neolithic, relative and absolute chronology, radiocarbon dates, modelled sequences, southwestern Anatolia, the circum-Aegean, the Balkans, the Middle and Lower Danube area Introduction

approaches (e.g. Bayliss et al. 2007). Adjustments are everongoing and we are always in the midst of this process (e.g. the re-appraisal of the start of the Vinča culture and of the earliest LBK: Whittle et al. 2016; Bánffy et al. 2018).

Since the very beginning of Neolithic research, transregional comparisons have been fundamental for understanding and explaining human adaption to everchanging conditions (Childe 1929). The application of modern scientific methods and interdisciplinary intellectual discourses has broadened our horizons greatly: every generation of prehistoric archaeologists has been and still is seeking new approaches and perspectives, and arriving at new interpretations. Our present interpretative models are grounded in and derive from the tremendous wealth of insights and explanations drawn from the ‘history of research’, although some new results and approaches were only accepted decades after their first application, such as radiocarbon analysis.

A widespread preconception regarding radiocarbon dates is that the dates were, as the method’s full name indicates, indeed absolute, and had to be accepted as such: as irrevocable. Therefore, the oldest dates from sites were readily recognised just as they were calculated by the laboratories – and furthermore, the upper (older) end of a date has almost always been used for chronological interpretations, regardless of standard deviation (which in the beginning were huge). This outright and positivistic position calls for reservations – and indeed, with the possibility of statistically modelling whole sequences of dates, such extreme interpretations are open to review.

Using both ‘absolute’ and ‘relative’ dates, single events or a sequence of events can be almost precisely dated, and periods, phases and sub-phases can be better contoured. As a most telling example, V.  Milojčić’s 1944 and 1949 calendar-year appraisals using relative-chronological schemes were invalidated by C. Renfrew’s 1971 appraisals using radiocarbon dating. Subsequently, early radiocarbon dates have not only provided important knowledge but also led to misapprehensions (e.g. the early start of the Aegean Neolithic even before 7000 calBC versus a later start at 6600 calBC). Such and other contradictions were clarified only by new sets of data or new methodological

Since the turn of the millennium, monthly, even weekly, new and ever more precise radiocarbon dates are published, sharpening our view and our chronological schemes. Online databases make them easily accessible and some of them, like the database www.14SEA.org, also offer analyses of ‘places’ within ‘spaces’, supported by descriptions of the geographical settings. But even with all this new input, we still bear the burden of sometimes misleading results, not only from the early days of the method’s application but even from more recent times. For example, we still sometimes put too much emphasis on the 17

Agathe Reingruber 8 per cent of human bones involved). Only exceptionally have the C/N-ratios been determined to exclude this possibility. These dates too can at best be used as TPQs.

single date rather than on dates belonging to a sequence, let alone to a modelled sequence (as seen e.g. in the northern Aegean). And since there are not enough dates available from every region, in some cases we ‘borrow’ and transfer the results from even further distant regions, creating the impression of simultaneous occurrences over vast areas (e.g. in the case of Starčevo-Körös-Criş culture).

The dating of pottery fragments also creates results that cannot be taken at face value, but need to be discussed: more often than not the results are very high, exceeding expectations. The reason for this may be the insufficient amount of material for conventional dating methods and/ or contamination with the geological fossil organic carbon included in the clay source (Kulkova 2014, 122). For 7 per cent of the total, the material dated has not been indicated, and 3 per cent were obtained from shells, peat and ashy sands – they are not included in this evaluation.

Only slowly and only since recent times have we become aware of such misapprehensions that may skew our interpretations. For this reason, one of the most important developments in recent years is a more thin-meshed coverage, with ever more precise dates from good contexts and reliable materials. In contrast to the situation a few years ago, today we can limit much more precisely the duration of certain Neolithic settlements or of single occupation levels within tell-sites, so that we no longer speak in terms of centuries, but of decades. Besides, absolute dates convincingly illustrate continuities on the one hand and breaks on the other, which can be followed up across larger regions.

Due to the absence of well-constructed series of dates obtained from articulated bones, special attention is given in this contribution to short-lived species like the various kinds of grains and pulses (13 per cent of the total). Nevertheless, their stratigraphic position is not beyond doubt, due to their tininess and liability to have intruded from the levels above. It goes without saying that future evaluations will be ever more precise, since more care is now paid to sampling and dating processes. In essence, this contribution is an interim report that will certainly be challenged by future datasets.

Three cases will be discussed here that have led (and will lead) to the re-interpretation of trans-regional narratives: the Neolithisation of southwest Anatolia and the Aegean; the beginning of the Neolithic in the southern Balkans; and the transition from painted to dark polished pottery across large parts of the middle and lower Danube catchment.

Timeline 1: 6600–6400 calBC

General remarks regarding the quality of the dates

Case A: Mediterranean and southwestern Anatolia

The evaluation of absolute dates used in this contribution relies largely on the database 14SEA, available online, with 3025 entries (Reingruber and Thissen 2017). The dates were gathered from various publications, and some have been added based on personal communications with excavators.9 All information available regarding context and sample material has been included, but, as a word of caution: the quality of both sample materials and information regarding find circumstances is very varied and often even lacking. Generally, the majority of the dates were obtained from charcoal (ca. 50 per cent, of which only 7 per cent was identified – mostly as Quercus). As species and maturity are not known, these dates can only be used as termini post quos (TPQs) for specific (undated) events. The samples of charred structural elements (posts, corner posts, beams) are additionally subject to a possible old-wood effect.

Evidence and problems In discussions concerning the Neolithisation processes of southwestern Anatolia and the circum-Aegean, much attention has been paid to influences from central and southeastern Anatolia, but not enough to Mediterranean Anatolia. The reason for this may be that the coastal plains around Adana in the east and Antalya in the west have not been systematically investigated yet. From the Gulf of Antalya, we are confronted with mostly antiquated research and accordingly outdated interpretations. But also, from the areas farther inland, the Lake District, the quality of information is often ambiguous. This has to do with the tendentious interpretation of the lowest levels in Hacılar. As Mellaart himself stated in 1970, the ‘right’ interpretation of Hacılar had not been possible without the experience gained in Çatalhöyük (Mellaart 1967). The ‘Aceramic’ level in Hacılar, though, had been discovered in the last days of excavation, and was thus not subjected to detailed examination, as was the case in Çatalhöyük (see the critical discussion of Aceramic Hacılar in Reingruber 2008, 420–32). Crucial for its interpretation was the single high date from the earliest days of the radiocarbon method (BM-127: 8700±180 BP; 8170–7570 BC), fitting well with the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPN B) of Central Anatolia. No Aceramic levels have appeared in subsequent excavations directed by R. Duru (1989) at the periphery of the mound, and Duru clearly dismisses the existence of such

The samples deriving from animal bones without articulation, and especially those from antler, could be curated or residual (ca. 19 per cent of the total). They also provide a TPQ at best. In the case of bone samples, species are often not indicated, leaving doubts about whether the animal in question ate fish (as a boar or pig might) and was therefore susceptible to the reservoir effect (like also the 9 For all the dates mentioned here, reference is made to their original source of publication (unless otherwise indicated) at http://www.14sea. org/2_dates.html.

18

Timelines in the Neolithic

Figure 2.1. Map of the areas covered in the text (the Mediterranean and south-west Anatolia, the circum-Aegean, the Marmara region, the Balkans, and the middle/lower Danube region) and some of the main sites discussed.

a phase at this site. Yet he does not question the relevance of the high date BM-127, even though this date has not been backed by any other dates, either from the site itself or from the broader region, and should be dismissed as an outlier. The date BM-125 from layer VII is derived from the same dating event in the early days of the radiocarbon method: it too stands in isolation and should not be included in any evaluation.

coastal areas. Only three dates each from the Öküzini and Karain caves (Figure 2.1) date back to the 7th millennium BC. However, two seeds without reliable context from the Öküzini cave (Martinoli 2004) point towards a probably only short occupation event anywhere between 7000 and 6800 calBC, as previously indicated by a single date on charcoal. On the other hand, the dates from Cave B at Karain, all from unidentified charcoal, suggest three different events: the oldest from ‘AH13’, around 6660–6440 calBC, followed by a single date for ‘AH12’ at 6380–6230 calBC and 6050– 5900 calBC for ‘AH11.’ Nevertheless, these three events may be meaningful compared to the dates from the Lake District. There, exclusive of the dates BM-125 and BM-127 from Hacılar, a total of 24 dates cover the period prior to the

Proposals The absence of sequences of dates from the Antalya coastal area is detrimental for the interpretation of the spread of the Neolithic way of life from Mediterranean into Aegean 19

Agathe Reingruber Taurus. The Central and Eastern Taurus further separate the plateau of Central Anatolia towards the southeast from the PPN A koine of the ‘Fertile Crescent.’ Such geographical boundaries may be one of the reasons for the ‘arrhythmic’ spread of Neolithic innovations (Guilaine 2007) or for ‘agricultural frontier zones’ (Zvelebil and Lillie 2000). On the other hand, the sea itself obviously did not act as a barrier, since Cyprus had been inhabited since the 10th millennium by seafaring communities: either the coastal Anatolian areas north of the island need more systematic investigation since such early places may have eluded our attention, or the primary settlers arrived from the eastern, Levantine coast.

6000 calBC-marge (Thissen 2017, Figure 1: www.14sea. org/3_Ie.html). One date on unidentified charoal from the first level of the Early Neolithic (henceforth EN) at Bademağacı (Hd-22340) falls into the first half of the 7th millennium calBC and stands in isolation, not fitting into the sequence continuing after 6400 calBC with phase EN II (compare Figure 2.2). This sequence, when modelled, is of low agreement (Amodel: 35), pointing to the complex stratigraphical situation at the site and the lack of precise information regarding the samples. At the most, the start of the boundary at 6450 calBC can serve as a TPQ. Again, there are only TPQ results from the animal bone (species not identified) from Höyücek’s Earliest Settlement Phase (ESP) around 6300 calBC. The subsequent Shrine Phase (SP) is again insufficiently well dated by three unidentified charcoal samples (inclusive of the old-wood effect) that may suggest an end of the phase around 6100 calBC. Three dates from animal bones from Kuruçay confirm that this site was founded only at the end of the 7th millennium BC.

The few and often ambiguous dates from the Antalya region and farther inland in the Lake District may be indicative of a declivity from south (Öküzini prior to 6700 calBC) to north (Bademağacı to Kuruçay after 6600 calBC). Therefore, the spread of farming into the Lake District may have come from the southwestern coastal area, and not from the inland, across the mountains. After 6700 calBC, also near the Aegean coasts, there do appear the first elements indicative of a Neolithic way of life (domesticated animals and plants). The pivotal point for the Neolithisation of both the Lake District and the Aegean was probably the coastal area near Antalya.

No satisfactory interpretation of the dates from Hacılar can be offered unless new dates are added to the sequence. One interpretation among several is that the earliest possible time for the beginning of Level VI might be anywhere between 6370–6220 calBC (Thissen 2017: www.14sea. org/3_Ie.html) or, even later, between 6220–6070 calBC (median 6140 calBC). The Hacılar IX date P-314 with a median date at 6210 calBC is not compatible with the first suggestion, but is in line with the second one.

Case B: The circum-Aegean Evidence and problems

General assessment

The plateau in the calibration curve during the first half of the 7th millennium BC has created many misunderstandings regarding the interpretation of 14C dates not only in Bademağacı but also throughout the Aegean. A brief

The PPN B koine of Central Anatolia (with sites like Çatalhöyük) is separated from the Pottery Neolithic (PN) of SW Anatolia by the steep mountain ranges of the Western

Figure 2.2. The modelled dates from the site of Bademağacı in the Lake District of south-west Anatolia.

20

Timelines in the Neolithic explanation of this problem is therefore appropriate: between ca. 7000 and 6600 calBC, due to the fluctuating amount of radioactive carbon in the atmosphere, the curve does not form a steep or even an inclined line, since the many wiggles result in a so-called ‘plateau.’ This situation has induced archaeologists always to regard the older and never the younger end of it as indicative of the start of the Neolithic. It has been argued that the Neolithic way of life was implemented around 7000 calBC, for example in Knossos, Franchthi or Ulucak (Evans 1971, Perlès 2013, Çilingiroǧlu and Cakırlar 2013). Yet dates obtained from short-lived samples even from the same sites have proven that in fact the younger part of the plateau provides the correct dating for this important transition from a foodgathering to a food-producing economy.

has recently been revitalised by Çilingiroǧlu and Cakırlar 2013 and Erdoǧu 2017: although Duru cautioned that in Hacılar sherds were found not only on but even inside redplastered floors (Duru 1989, 101, Figure 1, Pl. 19.4–9), such floors from the sites of Ulucak and Uğurlu are connected by the cited authors to an Anatolian PPN tradition. However, the Aceramic in the secondary Neolithisation zone of the Lake District and the Aegean was clearly distinguished by J. Mellaart and J. D. Evans from the PPN farther east. They regarded basal Hacılar and Knossos X as coeval with the Anatolian PN (Mellaart 1970, 6) and considered that there was ‘some delay in organizing pottery production’ (Evans in Warren et. al. 1968, 271). Other than in Central Anatolia, it appears that Aceramic sites in the Aegean catchment are the exception rather than the rule.

Even more grave is the case of the high dates from Argissa Magoula in the western Aegean (Thessaly): there, in the early 1970s dates were obtained from bones of around or even prior to 7000 calBC. Not only was the dating of collagen problematic at that time, but these dates may even have been faked (see below).

Proposals Çukuriçi Höyük and Ulucak All radiocarbon dates from the basal deposits at Çukuriçi Höyük, Levels XIII–VIII are from short-lived botanical samples (cereals, wheat, legumes or grass) and animal bones (cattle, boar or goat). Modelling the sequence from this site, Weninger was able to pinpoint the decades around 6630 calBC as its starting point (Weninger et al. 2014, 17–18; Horejs et al. 2015).

Another bias relates to the wrong view that the Preceramic/ Aceramic Period was coeval with at least the final part of the PPN B, around 7000 calBC. As was shown a decade ago, understanding of the Preceramic Period in Greece was ill conceptualised and was not the result of detailed observation but rather of subjective interpretations (compare Reingruber 2008). Especially the Thessalian sites, fundamental for the definition of this phase, were shown to have been founded centuries after pottery came into use in Central Anatolia.

More complicated is the sequence from Ulucak, and simply sequencing the dates according to the phasing yields an unsatisfactory model with very low agreement (Thissen 2017, Figure 2: http://www.14sea.org/3_IIa. html#site2). A simple calibration of the dates from level VI, separated according to the materials dated (charcoal or grains: Figure 2.3) shows the misapprehension to which one is liable when putting too much emphasis on the

The discussion regarding the existence of an Aceramic Period in the Aegean comparable to the PPN in Anatolia

Figure 2.3. The calibrated dates from the site of Ulucak, in the eastern Aegean.

21

Agathe Reingruber long-lived charcoal samples: those dates are artificially extended to 7000 BC due to the plateau in the calibration curve. On the other hand, short-lived samples on emmer from level VI possibly stem from the same event or from a short sequence of events (Çilingiroğlu et al. 2012, 14). In Ulucak, the lowest level without pottery can thus be dated to around 6700–6500 calBC, well after the introduction of pottery production in Anatolia.

and Groningen date the beginning of the site to the mid7th millennium BC. Thus, they fit well with the sequence from Sesklo, where new dates were obtained from old samples (Y. Maniatis, personal communication Nov. 2016), corroborating the placement of the beginning of the Neolithic in Thessaly around or after 6500 BC (Reingruber et al. 2017). Mavropigi-Filotsairi and Paliambela-Kolindros

Knossos and Franchthi

From Mavropigi (in western Macedonia) and PaliambelaKolindros (in central Macedonia) high dates between 6600 and 6400 calBC have been obtained as well. As in Argissa and Sesklo they derive from charcoal or animal bones of unknown species and can therefore serve also only as TPQs. The dates from grains from Mavropigi, at 6300–6100 calBC, are much younger, while those from human bones fall into two different groups, at 6400–6230 and 6060–5910 calBC.

The early dates from the eastern Aegean are promptly followed by those from the southern Aegean, from Knossos on Crete and from Franchthi in the Argolid. Whereas they were previously also placed by their highest possible values at 7000 calBC, more recent insights offer a different conclusion, namely that the EN started there only after 6600 calBC (Reingruber and Thissen 2009; Douka et al. 2017, 308). Even the charred grains from Franchthi confirm this view, although more weight was given to the older charcoal samples (Perlès et al. 2013).

Pending their final publication, only a very general appraisal of the two sites is possible: they antedate the sequence from Nea Nikomedeia and coincide with the beginning of the Aegean EN. Yet, unlike the case in the eastern Aegean, these dates cannot be statistically modelled yet. Therefore, it is methodologically problematic to compare single high dates deriving from different materials (inclusive of human bone as in Mavropigi) with modelled sequences of dates from grains like those from Ulucak or Çukuriçi Höyük.

The dates from both sites confirm that, when one looks especially at the grain samples, the Aceramic event can probably be dated even to the post-6600 calBC period. After this initial short phase, the sequence in Franchthi is interrupted – a gap for the next 500–600 years is attestable (Reingruber 2017a, Figure 3: http://www.14sea.org/3_ IIa-d.html#site1). As no dates are to be expected in the near future from the open-air sites of the Argolid, labelled ‘Early Neolithic’ (like Franchthi Paralia, Korinth, Nemea or Lerna), the nature of this gap – a gap in knowledge or in occupation? – will not be easily understood. From a circum-Aegean perspective these sites can be related to the Middle Neolithic (MN).

Case C: The northeastern Aegan and the Marmara region Evidence and problems

Argissa and Sesklo

As has been shown elsewhere (Reingruber 2016a), the tongue of land surrounded by the three seas of the Northern Aegean, the Sea of Marmara and the Black Sea was possibly more affected by the changes in sea levels than the southern Aegean. The area around the Sea of Marmara, with its own catchment, is in our understanding not part of the circum-Aegean sphere, but is treated as a neighbouring area.

Four (or five?) bone samples from Argissa Magoula , run at the University of Los Angeles, fostered the discussion on indigenous domestication of animals (cattle, sheep and dogs) as early as 7000 calBC. In the documentation of the site no references to the provenance and context of these bones can be found. Two dates gave results between 7300 and 6700 calBC (UCLA-1657A, UCLA-1657D), and one to around 5600 calBC (UCLA-1657E), whilst the sample UCLA-1657B failed (Protsch and Berger 1973, 236). These dates must be considered highly doubtful, not only because of the later career of the main author of the article: R. Protsch, when director of the Frankfurt radiocarbon laboratory, demonstrably made up or even faked results and was expelled from the University in 2005 (Reingruber 2017a: http://www.14sea.org/3_IIc.html#). Also, the wide variety of the results obtained from these bone samples throws some doubts on their quality: the dating of collagen especially necessitates complicated pre-treatments, and only after the introduction of the AMS-method in 1977 and the application of ultra-filtration in 1988 (Brown et al. 1988) could such results be regarded as reliable. On the other hand, the charcoal samples run in Heidelberg

Proposals Barcın and Uǧurlu Barcın is for the moment the oldest settlement in the Marmara area; the sequence, with 16 dates, starts around or after 6640 calBC (Gerritsen et al. 2013). A bit younger are the dates from Menteşe and Aktopraklık. But note that all these early sites are situated at some distance from the coast and only around 6000 BC were new sites established close by (Ilıpınar) or near (Fikirtepe, Pendik, Yenikapı) the shores (Reingruber 2016a, Figure 1). Of almost the same age as Barcın are the dates from Uǧurlu on the island of Gökçeada/Imbros: three dates 22

Timelines in the Neolithic from charred material and two from bone collagen fall in the period between 6650 and 6470 calBC (Erdoǧu 2017). Unlike the case of the new dates from Barcın and the Southern Aegean, in Uǧurlu a precise beginning for the site cannot be established yet: it may have occurred anywhere between 6780 and 6470 calBC. Its closest neighbouring sites are those in the Marmara region to the east and Hoca Çeşme to the north. The island of Gökçeada/Imbros may have functioned as a stepping-stone in navigating the open sea between the eastern and the northeastern Aegean, the straits of the Dardanelles being avoided.

been put on dating the lowest levels and not much attention paid in this respect to the upper levels. The dates seemingly cover 500 years of occupation – in contradiction to the relative-chronological appraisal of the three house phases with an estimated duration of between 50 and 150 years (Pyke 1996, 47–48; Yiouni 1996, 184). When looking at the northeastern part of the Aegean (Hoca Çeşme and Uǧurlu) one must observe that the pottery sequences and the chronological schemes there have not been related to Aegean but rather to Anatolian systems (Özdoǧan 1998; Erdoǧu 2017). Their relation with the circum-Aegean sphere must still be established in more detail.

Since the salinity of the Black Sea stabilised possibly only around 6000 calBC (Ryan et al. 1997; Reingruber 2016a, Tab. 2) transgressions and regressions may have affected the Marmara catchment until well into the 7th millennium, making navigation dangerous and, generally, the coastal strips not attractive for early farmers. The Sea of Marmara may not have acted as a bridge before 6000 calBC, but rather as a barrier (Gatsov et al. 2017): near the southern shores of the Sea of Marmara, close to the lakes that have formed there, the Neolithic way of life appeared much earlier than on its northern shores.

Proposals Nea Nikomedeia and Hoca Çeşme Initially, the excavators conceived of Nea Nikomedeia as a two-layered site (Pyke 1996, 9 and Figure 2.1), the ca. 60– 70 cm deep deposits being excavated in up to three spits of ca. 20 cm each (Pyke 1996, 35, Tab. 2.1). At first sight, the AMS-radiocarbon dates published only according to age and not to context (Youni 1996, 195) support the separation into three datable clusters (Reingruber and Thissen 2017, Figure 3: www.14sea.org/3_IId.html#site1): the oldest dates fall between 6350 and 6250 BC; a group of five dates covers the 62nd century BC, and the youngest combined date is shortly after 6000 calBC (with a median value at 5900 calBC). The latter would point to a continuation of the habitation into the early MN, the site of Nea Nikomedeia not being an exclusively EN site without any evidence for the MN (Pyke 1996, 48). Here, another disputed issue must be brought to mind: until recently, the EN was dated between 6500 and 5800 calBC. This view has now been modified, as the EN–MN transition can be dated to 6000 calBC (Reingruber et al. 2017). In this respect the 14C dates, together with the small finds from Nea Nikomedeia (especially the stamps), should also be published with more detailed information regarding their exact stratigraphical position and their precise context, and the topmost stratum itself should generally be more thoroughly described.

General assessment All statistically modelled sequences and especially the new dates obtained from short-lived samples from exactly those sites that previously supported the higher chronology of 7000 BC (Knossos and Franchthi) have shown that this appraisal needed revision: the beginning of the Neolithic in the Aegean must be re-dated to after 6700 calBC, well after pottery came into use (Reingruber and Thissen 2009; 2017: www.14sea.org/3_IIa-d.html). Hence, the discussion around a possible Preceramic or Aceramic period loses its subject matter. The impulse for the Neolithisation of the Aegean did not derive directly from the Anatolian Plateau, but rather from the coastal area where the Mediterranean and the Aegean Seas merge, and where seafaring hunter-gatherer communities lived in close proximity to the ‘frontier zone.’ While the dates from coastal sites or from sites close to the coasts are the oldest in the series, the dates from the hinterland (e.g. Argissa Magoula) are even younger, dating to after 6500 calBC (Reingruber et al. 2017).

From Hoca Çeşme in the Evros/Maritsa/Meriç Delta a sequence of 14 dates obtained from unidentified charcoal covers the periods of the EN and MN, roughly between 6500 and 5500 calBC (according to median values).10 Phase III has the most consistent series, the modelled dates clustering between 6000–5800 calBC at 1σ. But the dates from Phase IV spread widely between 6500–6000 BC, implying a long duration of this phase that is not supported by the pottery sequence (cf. Özdoğan 1999; Karul and Bertram 2005).

Timeline 2: 6200–6000 calBC Case A: The northwestern and the northeastern Aegean Evidence and problems Outliers of the early 7th millennium and even of the late 8th millennium BC have been encountered across the whole of the Aegean, including in its northwestern part the site of Nea Nikomedeia. Here, not only can these early dates be dismissed as untenable, but a more detailed consideration also throws a better light on the dates at the end of the 7th millennium. The sampling for dates in Nea Nikomedeia has not been well balanced, since too much emphasis has

In the boundary model (Thissen 2017, Figure 6: http://www.14sea. org/3_IId.html#site3) three of the Groningen dates (GrN-19355, GrN19357 and GrN-19310) have not been included, since they present very large standard deviations due to a low amount of carbon (pers. comm. J. van der Plicht).

10

23

Agathe Reingruber Case B: The central and eastern Balkans

Strymon valley no early sites have been reported yet, but farther upstream Kovačevo (near Sandanski) is known for two dates from seeds of around 6200–6000 calBC.

Evidence and problems From sites farther north along the Aegean coast some single high dates have significantly influenced our perception of the spread of the Neolithic. From North Macedonia, from the site of Porodin, two dates from grains were placed between 6200 and 6000 BC. North of the watershed, near the Morava valley, from the site of Blagotin-Poljna (near the hill of Trestnik) three dates were obtained: one from a red deer antler, one from a human bone and one from a perforator bone of an unspecified animal: none of the three materials is beyond doubt regarding their susceptibility either to old materials being reused (antler) or to the reservoir effect (human and animal bone). They can at best be used as TPQs. Farther north, again in the hilly areas of central Serbia, a single high date from Grivac-Barice of 6200–6000 calBC was obtained from unspecified charcoal and can serve only as a TPQ.

Whereas west of the river Nestos late 7th-millennium dates were reported from drillings in Dikili Tash and from Orfeas Alistratis, east of that river, the site of Hoca Çeşme still stands largely alone: the only other early site in the nearby mainland region, that of Makri, produced a date prior to 6000 BC, but has been interpreted by the excavator as an outlier, since it yielded too little carbon. All other dates postdate the 6000 calBC-marge, the sequence starting with Phase A after 5900 (Efstratiou et al. 1998). Not only the density of sites but also the watercourses may have been important factors for the interconnectedness and the dynamism in a given region: following the courses of the rivers upstream into the southern Balkans (still of Aegean catchment), we encounter early sites especially in their southern courses. But the higher upwards we move, the younger the dates become, post-dating the 6000 calBCmarge: On the Axios/Vardar, Amzabegovo and Vršnik; in the Struma valley, Gălăbnik and, behind the water divide, Sofia-Slatina; along the Nestos/Mesta, Elešnica.

Even farther north, from the site of Starčevo-Grad, a date obtained from organic fractions of sherds resulted in a date range of 6500–6420 calBC (GrN-6628). Sherds from Poljanica-platoto in the Bulgarian Ludogorie area were also dated: the four dates fall between 6400 and 6000 BC. These high results may be due to the insufficient amount of carbon needed for conventional dating and/or to the geological carbon not being completely eliminated from the sample, as has been argued in the case of the results obtained from pottery from the Bug-Dnjestr culture (Kulkova, 2014: 122; Thissen and Reingruber 2017). Also Marinova and Krauß (2014: 181) explain the high values as due to contamination with fossil organic material in the clay that was used to produce the vessels. No other site from this region has confirmed such an early start for the Neolithic: the other sequences begin around or after 6000 calBC, e.g. at Dzhulyunica-Smardesh.

Yet, farther upstream from Hoca Çeşme, along the Evros/ Meriç/Maritsa, no other early sites have been documented, possibly because the living conditions were not favourable (Reingruber 2017b). The closest site is that of Nova Nadežda (after 6000) and, ca. 30 km west of it, Yabalkovo (well after 6000 BC), suggesting a spread from east to west (although, from an overall perspective, Nikolov 2017 suggests a spread of farming from west to east). General assessment Based on today’s knowledge it can thus be ascertained that from the southernmost courses of rivers flowing into the Aegean the oldest sites indeed antedate the 6000 calBCmarge. However, an over-positivistic interpretation of the few single dates from the higher courses of the same rivers, or even from beyond the watershed farther north, must be questioned. Certainly, an interplay between newcomers and the local Mesolithic population may have existed that early, but the basis for such studies is still very thin (Borić and Price 2013). Interestingly, recent research points to Late Mesolithic traditions during the EN of the 6th millennium BC due to the continuation of the use of aquatic resources (Cramp et al. 2019).

Proposals It appears that the sites from the Northern Aegean are dictating the rhythm of the spread of Neolithic innovations into the central Balkans on the one hand and into the eastern Balkans on the other hand. From the NW Aegean, especially from the Aliakmon catchment, a number of sites produced dates earlier than 6000 calBC: e.g. Mavropigi, Paliambela-Kolindros, Nea Nikomedeia, Lefkopetra, Paliambela-Roditis and Varemenoi-Goulon (Thissen and Reingruber 2017). Coeval with the dates from grains from Mavropigi are those from Porodin (6200–6000 calBC) – as the two sites are less than 80 km apart, these hilly areas of western Macedonia and the southern part of North Macedonia look especially promising for EN-related research. Also, in the catchment of the Axios/Vardar the sites of Axos/Pellas and Giannitsa B have long been known for their early dates of 6200–6000 calBC. The farther east we proceed, the fewer are the early sites – this may be the result of poorer investigations, or indeed may reflect a decrease in the available evidence: from the mouth of the

The connection between the coastal sites of the northern Aegean and the sites farther inland is not yet well described, but there seems to emerge a pattern of interplay between coastal sites situated close to the mouth of a large river, and new sites established on their upper courses. And there may be a connection between the way the coastal areas were used during the Aegean EN in the western part of Northern Aegean and in its eastern part: in the western part a higher dynamism may be attested, with many sites discovered both from the start of the EN and throughout the 24

Timelines in the Neolithic Neolithic; the eastern part is much poorer in sites during the EN, with possibly less dynamic networks at play.

Whereas it seemed until recently that 5500 BC could be considered a safe starting point for the Vinča culture, two comprehensive articles have challenged this view (Borić 2015; Whittle et al. 2016): obviously, the Vinča culture cannot be dated prior to 5350 calBC. This finding certainly has far-reaching consequences, because the dates from the neighbouring areas east of the Vinča culture are now obviously older than those from the middle of the culture.

Timeline 3: 5500–5300 calBC Case A: The middle and lower Danube river Evidence and problems

Proposals

The two centuries between 5500 and 5300 BC are unfortunately not well documented in most parts of Southeast and Central Europe (except for the eastern Balkans). Whereas until recently the MN in Greece was dated from 5800 to 5300 calBC, it has been shown that the MN had ended already by around 5500 calBC, and no later (Reingruber et al. 2017). But from exactly these two centuries at the beginning of the Late Neolithic (LN) in the Aegean terminology we are left with very few dates, not only from Thessaly but also from other regions.

Lepenski Vir and Starčevo-Grad Lepenski Vir has stirred the interest not only of archaeologists but also of the interested larger community – the publications are copious and the 14C chronology is relatively well constructed, although the assignment of the single samples to phases is still a challenge, with two competing relative-chronological systems at its base (Bonsall et al. 2008; Borić 2011, Borić 2016, 13–20). As the contextual information on the samples obtained from animal bones and charcoal is incomplete, we refrain from modelling the dates statistically, yet a simple calibration shows that the duration of the EN at the site spans the period 6000–5500 calBC (Figure 2.4). For a probability distribution based on human bones and antlers, compare Borić 2016, 22, Figure 1.16.

In the Balkans the transition from the EN to the MN is conventionally dated to around 5500 BC. Supportive of this view are the dates from sites in present-day Bulgaria (Karanovo III-horizon). But on the northern shores of the Danube river, in southern Romania, the EN was related to the Starčevo culture, and the rhythm of change in terms of pottery production has been described accordingly. Such general adjustments over vast areas, inclusive of important geographical boundaries, may – but must not necessarily – be pertinent. The latter is the case for the final stage of the Starčevo culture in Romania: Milojčić defined the fourth and final phase of the Starčevo culture as a phase in decline, the latter being attestable only in northern Serbia (Milojčić 1949, 71). Whereas the first three phases of the StarčevoCriş culture were located in the Banat, Transylvania and Oltenia, with phase IV the Starčevo-Criş culture presumably expanded also to Moldova. It was determined that phase IV was encountered both in the Carpathian basin and beyond the Carpathian Arc (Lazarovici 1979, 53–55), covering, according to the dominant nationalistic discourse favoured by the communistic regime, the whole country uniformly (compare Reingruber 2016b).

Farther upstream, in Starčevo-Grad, we may be faced with a different situation: a total of 18 radiocarbon dates can be grouped according to the materials dated, and possibly also according to the pits they derive from (Figure 2.5). When the dates are sorted according to pits, they are suggestive of a horizontal shift in the settlement (Figure 2.6). The youngest among them, Pit 5a, dates well into the 55th century. Between the end of Starčevo and the beginning of Vinča A one has to acknowledge a hiatus of up to 200 years between 5500/5400 and 5350/5300 calBC (Tasić et al. 2015, Tab. 4). This later start for the Vinča culture would coincide with the beginning of the earliest LBK around 5350 calBC, as it has recently been dated based on bone samples from different Central European sites. These results have been doubted by Strien (2017) but were reinforced by Bánffy et al. 2018.

However, Lazarovici preferred to describe this phase as a phenomenon, and to put it in quotation marks in order to differentiate it from the chronological phase IV (Lazarovici 1979, 55–56). The ‘phenomenon’ was not considered by him to be part of the proper Starčevo-Criş culture, but allegedly there was no other name needed, although the pottery of the outer Carpathian area, decorated with incisions in zigzags, ripples and channelling, is strikingly different. Therefore, the ‘Starčevo IV phenomenon’ is a poorly defined phase, contemporaneous with or pre-dating Vinča A (Reingruber 2016b, 169). A fresh and unbiased description of this ‘phenomenon’ is a real desideratum in the discussion of Neolithisation processes in the contact zone between the lower Danube and Prut rivers: what was the relationship with the steppe farther east? And what was its impact on the transformations in the middle Danube area?

Măgura-Boldul lui Moş Ivănuş, Măgura-Buduiasca and Cârcea-Viaduct Downstream, along the lower course of the river Danube, the situation is different. Especially relevant are the new dates obtained from Măgura at two sites in direct proximity, Boldul lui Moş Ivănuş and Buduiasca (Mirea 2005). The finds from the former were assigned to the phase Criş I, and those from the latter to Criş III, without any interruption in the 14C sequence ending around 5600 calBC (note that no phase II has been acknowledged here: Figure 2.7). A 100-year-long break, at least in the dates if not also in occupation, is followed by another unbroken sequence of dates from around 5500 onwards, ending around 5150 calBC. In addition to the impracticality of defining a Criş 25

Agathe Reingruber

Figure 2.4. Calibrated dates from Lepenski Vir in the middle Danube area, sorted according to their age.

Figure 2.5. Calibrated dates from Starčevo-Grad in the middle Danube area, sorted according to materials.

26

Timelines in the Neolithic

Figure 2.6. Modelled dates from Starčevo-Grad in the middle Danube area, sorted by the pits to which they belonged.

within national borders and to research fostered under authoritative regimes or even dictatorships, no neutral and state-independent interpretations were desired. It is a truism that places and spaces should be interpreted according to the geographical and not the political setting; thus, it is about time to look into the final phases of the EN in the outer Carpathian area free of doctrines and ideologies. Instead of establishing a forced uniformity over a whole country, it makes sense instead to take a closer look at the specific dates and materials and describe them anew. Especially desirable is the unravelling of the ‘Starčevo IV phenomenon.’

II phase based on the pottery, no elements of the Criş IV phase have been detected here, let alone the ‘Starčevo IV phenomenon’ described. Instead, the materials were assigned to the Dudeşti and Vădastra cultures. A different nomenclature has been applied to the materials from Cârcea-Viaduct, halfway between Lepenski Vir and Măgura. Here, the sequence starts with the phase ‘Starčevo-Criş IV’ at ca. 5500 calBC, continuing with phase Dudeşti-Vinča B after 5350 calBC and DudeştiVinča C after 5000 calBC (Figure 2.8). These dates were not included in the study by Whittle et al. 2016, 15, since the samples could not be associated with Vinča pottery ‘at all’, but the authors give no explanation as to what they then could be related to. They acknowledge, though, ‘the lack of rigorous, quantitative typo-chronological studies on statistically viable samples of Vinča ceramics, and the lack of representative analysis and full publication of excavated assemblages’ (Whittle et al. 2016, 7). The solution, however, is not the exclusion of sites downstream of the Iron Gates/Đerdap-gorges from discussions of the formation of the Vinča culture (Whittle et al. 2016, Tab. 1 and Figure 26), since both ‘Starčevo-Criş IV’ at CârceaViaduct and ‘Dudeşti’ at Măgura-Buduiasca are coeval with the final phase in Starčevo-Grad and older than Vinča A. Instead, a closer look at the western Pontic area and even into the steppe region may provide additional information and more insight than the perpetual search for influences from Greece.

It appears that the sites closer to the steppe region of the Prut and lower Danube area underwent transformations earlier than those west of the mountainous bow that connects the Carpathians with the Stara Planina and separates the lower from the middle courses of the Danube (the Iron Gates/ Đerdap-gorges). Within the Carpathian Basin, major changes were occurring possibly only 200 years later. As Whittle et al. 2016, 41 have put it: ‘What we can stress here is the apparent synchronicity of the appearance of Vinča ceramics and the earliest LBK diaspora’ – as we now know, around 5350 calBC. Not to forget that E. Bánffy argued already a dozen years ago that the Neolithisation of Central Europe was much more complex than previously thought, and Starčevo influences played a major role in the emergence of Linear Pottery (Bánffy 2006, 132). Conclusions

General assessment

New and precise 14C dates on short-lived samples have opened new paths towards explaining prehistoric processes. The absolute dates have added enormously

The legacy of research history is nowhere more evident than on the middle/lower Danube: owing to strict confinements 27

Agathe Reingruber

Figure 2.7. Modelled dates from Măgura-Boldul lui Moş Ivănuş and Măgura-Buduiasca.

to our understanding of the nature and duration of relationships and exchange among people living in different areas. As a control mechanism to the previously elaborated relative chronological frameworks, we are today in the advantageous position of being able either to cement or to challenge the unsteady grounds of subjective appraisals. But let’s face it: 14C dates are also sometimes subject to interpretations and adjustments. Therefore, all chronological frameworks need continuous updates. Yet, compared even to the last decades of the 20th century, 14C dates today allow us to put forward new models and to

think of different trajectories and routes of contact. Last but not least, interruptions and gaps in sequences also become more evident (compare Bánffy et al. 2018, 127). A delay of several hundred years for the spread of innovations can be acknowledged between Central Anatolia and the Aegean: a possible explanation has been given by Zvelebil and Lillie 2000 for a different part of Europe: geographical spaces can also be described as social spaces separated from each other by frontier zones (zones of interaction between different groups). 28

Timelines in the Neolithic

Figure 2.8. Modelled dates from Cârcea-Viaduct.

It may not have been the decision of inland Anatolian farmers or migrants from farther east to cross these zones and ‘colonise’ their neighbouring coastal areas. Rather, more attention should be paid to coastal, mobile groups of ‘hunter-gatherers in transition’, especially to those of the Anatolian Mediterranean coast (around Antalya) and the southern Aegean coast. Their exchange networks, in place since earlier phases of the Mesolithic, may have been the basis for a continuous cultural, social, economic and genetic exchange well into the Neolithic (Reingruber 2018). Based on the almost simultaneous appearance of Neolithic elements in coastal areas, we can conclude that the contacts between the different coasts of the circumAegean koine were intensive and fruitful, with innovations and raw materials (obisidian) spreading throughout the Aegean not only from east to west but in other directions.

area even at the beginning of the Neolithic. The use of the area by Mesolithic communities remains elusive, except for single coastal sites (e.g. Yarımburgaz near the Sea of Marmara or a few sites in the Dobrogea: Özdoğan et al. 1991; Păunescu 1990). Certainly more of them await discovery. The interplay between the two catchments – that of the Aegean on the one hand and of the Black Sea on the other – is most interesting to observe around 5500 calBC when major transformations in both areas can be followed up. But now the evidence is much better from the eastern Balkans (Karanovo III culture), whereas upwards and downwards from the Iron Gates the centuries between 5500 and 5300 calBC need more targeted research. Acknowledgements

Although in the Northern Aegean some early dates point to a mid-7th-millennium spread of farming into this region too, and especially so in its western areas, it is only after 6200 calBC that the Neolithic way of life prevailed and many new sites were founded. Again owing to probably Mesolithic contacts, innovators and innovations spread fast along the lower courses of rivers debouching into the Aegean.

The author would like to thank Laurens Thissen for reading and commenting on the manuscript. Numerous ideas in this article arose from the joint work on the 14SEA database and fruitful discussions (not only) on the topics of chronology and chorology. References cited Bánffy, Eszter. 2006. ‘Eastern, Central and Western Hungary – variations of Neolithisation models.’ Documenta Praehistorica 33: 125–42.

A different picture emerges in the catchment of the Black Sea that is dominated by the river-system of the Danube. The comparatively late appearance of Neolithic sites in this area may be connected to the transgression of the Black Sea and the saturation of its salinity only around 6000 calBC. Comparing this situation to that of the central Balkans, one may assume much less dynamism in this

Bánffy, Eszter, Alex Bayliss, Anthony Denaire, Bisserka Gaydarska, Daniela Hofmann, Philippe Lefranc, János Jakucs, Miroslav Marić, Krisztián Oross, Nenad Tasić, Alasdair Whittle. 2018. ‘Seeking the Holy Grail: robust 29

Agathe Reingruber chronologies from archaeology and radiocarbon dating combined.’ Documenta Praehistorica 45: 120–36.

residues.’ Proceedings of the Royal Society B 286 (1894): 1-9 doi: 10.1098/rspb.2018.2347.

Bayliss, Alex, Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Johannes van der Plicht, Alasdair Whittle. 2007. ‘Bradshaw and Bayes: towards a timetable for the Neolithic.’ Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17, suppl.: 1–28.

Douka, Katerina, Nikos Efstratiou, Mette M. Hald, Peter S. Henriksen, Alexandra Karetsou. 2017. ‘Dating Knossos and the arrival of the earliest Neolithic in the southern Aegean.’ Antiquity 91(356): 304–21.

Bonsall, Clive. 2008. ‘The Mesolithic of the Iron Gates.’ In Mesolithic Europe, edited by Geoff Bailey and Penny Spikins, 238–79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Duru, Refik. 1989. ‘Were the Earliest Cultures at Hacılar really Aceramic?’ In Anatolia and the Ancient Near East: Tahsin Özgüç’e armağan; Studies in Honor of Tahsin Özgüç, edited by Kutlu Emre and Tahsin Özgüç, 99–104. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi

Borić, Dušan. 2011. ‘Adaptations and transformations of the Danube Gorges foragers (c. 13,000–5500 BC): An overview.’ In Beginnings – New research in the appearance of the Neolithic between Northwest Anatolia and the Carpathian Basin, edited by Raiko Krauß, 157–203. Rahden/Westf.: Verlag Marie Leidorf.

Efstratiou, Nikos, Maria P. Fumanal, Carlos Ferrer, Dushka Urem-Kotsou, Antonio Curci, Antonio Tagliacozzo, Georgia Stratouli, Sultana M. Valamoti, Maria Ntinou, Ernestina Badal, Marko Madella, Katerina Skourtopoulou. 1998. ‘Excavations at the Neolithic settlement of Makri, Thrace, Greece (1988–1996) – a preliminary report.’ Saguntum 31: 11−62.

Borić, Dušan. 2015. ‘The end of the Vinča world: modelling the Neolithic to Copper Age transition and the notion of archaeological culture.’ In Neolithic and Copper Age between the Carpathians and the Aegean Sea. Chronologies and Technologies from the 6th and 4th Millennium BCE, International Workshop Budapest 2012. edited by Svend Hansen, Pál Raczky, Alexandra Anders and Agathe Reingruber, 157–217. Archäologie in Eurasien 31. Bonn: Habelt

Erdoǧu, Burçin. 2017. ‘A preliminary report on the earliest Neolithic levels at Uǧurlu on the island of Gökçeada.’ Anatolica 43: 1–11. Evans, John D. 1994. ‘The Early Millennia: Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlement.’ In Knossos, A Labyrinth of History. Papers presented in Honour of Sinclair Hood, edited by Don Evely, Helen HughesBrock and Nicoletta Momigliano, 1–20. Oxford and Northampton: British School at Athens.

Borić, Dušan. 2016. Posmrtni obredi na Lepenskom Viru: Obrasci pogrebne prakse; Iskopavanja Dragoslava Srejovića. Belgrade: Srpsko arheološko društvo.

Gatsov, Ivan, Petranka Nedelcheva, Malgorzata Kaczanowska, Janusz K. Kozłowski. 2017. ‘Lithic Industries and their Role in Neolithisation Models in Southeast Europe.’ In Going West? The dissemination of Neolithic innovations between the Bosporus and the Carpathians, Proceedings of the EAA Conference, Istanbul 2014, edited by Agathe Reingruber, Zoï Tsirtsoni and Petranka Nedelcheva, 57–71. Themes in Contemporary Archaeology vol. 3. European Association of Archaeology. London, New York: Routledge.

Borić, Dušan and Douglas T. Price. 2013. ‘Strontium isotopes document greater human mobility at the start of the Balkan Neolithic.’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 110(9): 3298–3303. Brown, Tom A., Earl D. Nelson, John S. Vogel, John R. Southon. 1988. ‘Improved collagen extraction by modified Longin method.’ Radiocarbon 30(2): 171–77. Childe, Vere Gordon. 1929. The Danube in prehistory. Oxford: The Clarendon Press,.

Gerritsen, Fokke, Rana Özbal, and Laurens Thissen. 2013. ‘The earliest Neolithic levels at Barcın Höyük, Northwestern Turkey.’ Anatolica 39: 53–92.

Çilingiroğlu, Altan, Özlem Çevik, and Çiler Çilingiroğlu. 2012. ‘Towards understanding the early farming communities of central-western Anatolia: contribution of Ulucak.’ In Neolithic in Turkey, New excavations and new research. Western Turkey Vol. 4, edited by Mehmet Özdoğan, Nezih Bașgelen and Peter Kuniholm, 139– 75. Istanbul, Ege Yayınları.

Guilaine, Jean. 2007. ‘Die Ausbreitung der neolithischen Lebensweise im Mittelmeerraum.’ In Vor 12.000 Jahren in Anatolien. Die ältesten Monumente der Menschheit, edited by Clemens Lichter, 166–76. Stuttgart: Badisches Landesmuseum Karlsruhe.

Çilingiroǧlu, Çiler and Cakırlar Canan. 2013. ‘Towards configuring the neolithisation of Aegean Turkey.’ Documenta Praehistorica 40: 21–29.

Horejs, Barbara, Bogdana Milić, Felix Ostmann, Ursula Thanheiser, Bernhard Weninger, Alfred Galik. 2015. ‘The Aegean in the early 7th millennium BC: maritime networks and colonization.’ Journal of World Prehistory 28: 289–330.

Cramp, Lucy J. E., Jonathan Ethier, Dushka Urem-Kotsou, Clive Bonsall, Dušan Borić, Adina Boroneanţ, Richard P. Evershed, Slaviša Perić, Mélanie Roffet-Salque, Helen L. Whelton, Maria Ivanova. 2019. ‘Regional diversity in subsistence among early farmers in Southeast Europe revealed by archaeological organic

Karul, Necmi and Jan-K. Bertram. 2005. ‘From Anatolia to Europe: The Ceramic Sequence of Hoca Çeşme in Turkish Thrace.’ In How Did Farming Reach Europe? Anatolian-European relations from the second half 30

Timelines in the Neolithic of the 7th through the first half of the 6th millennium calBC, edited by Clemens Lichter, 117–30. BYZAS 2. İstanbul: Ege Yayınları.

Păunescu, Alexandru. 1990. ‘Scurtă privire asupra paleoliticului şi mezoliticului din Dobrogea.’ Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche şi Arheologie 41, nos. 3–4: 215−34.

Kulkova, Mariana. A. 2014. ‘Radiocarbon dating of ancient pottery.’ Samarskij naučnyj vestnik 3(8): 122.

Perlès, Catherine, Anita Quiles, and Hélène Valladas. 2013. ‘Early seventh-millennium AMS dates from domestic seeds in the Initial Neolithic at Franchthi Cave (Argolid, Greece).’ Antiquity 87: 1001–15.

Lazarovic, Gheorghe. 1979. Neoliticul Banatului. Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis, IV. Cluj-Napoca: Comitetul pentru cultură şi educaţie socialistăal judeţului Cluj.

Protsch, Reiner and Rainer Berger. 1973. ‘Earliest Radiocarbon Dates for Domesticated Animals.’ Science 179: 235–39.

Marinova, Elena and Raiko Krauß. 2014. ‘Archaeobotanical evidence on the Neolithisation of Northeast Bulgaria in the Balkan-Anatolian context: chronological framework, plant economy and land use.’ Bulgarian e-Journal of Archaeology 4(2): 179–94.

Pyke, Gillian. 1996. ‘Stratigraphy. Structures and Architecture.’ In Nea Nikomedeia  I: The Excavation of an Early Neolithic Village in Northern Greece 1961–1964, edited by Kenneth A. Wardle, 9–53. The British School of Archaeology at Athens, Suppl. Vol. 25. London: The British School at Athens.

Martinoli, Danièle. 2004. ‘Food plant use, temporal changes and site seasonality at Epipalaeolithic Öküzini and Karain B caves, southwest Anatolia, Turkey.’ Paléorient 30(2): 61–80.

Reingruber, Agathe. 2008. Die Argissa Magula. Das frühe und das beginnende mittlere Neolithikum im Lichte transägäischer Beziehungen. Die deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Argissa Magula II. Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 35. Bonn: Habelt.

Mellaart, James. 1967. Çatal Hüyük: a Neolithic town in Anatolia. London: Thames & Hudson. Mellaart, James. 1970. Excavations at Hacılar. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Milojčić, Vladimir. 1944. Das ältere Neolithikum in Serbien. PhD diss., Philosophische Fakultät der Universität Wien.

Reingruber, Agathe. 2016. ‘Coastal and riverine Thrace during the Mesolithic and the Neolithic.’ In Southeast Europe and Anatolia in prehistory. Essays in honor of Vassil Nikolov on his 65th anniversary, edited by Krum Bacvarov and Ralf Gleser, 93– 103. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 293. Bonn: Habelt.

Milojčić, Vladimir. 1949. Chronologie der jüngeren Steinzeit Mittel- und Südosteuropas. Berlin: Mann. Mirea, Pavel. 2005. ‘Consideraţii asupra locuirii StarčevoCriş din sud-vestul Munteniei.’ In Honorem Silvia Marinescu-Bîlcu, 70 de ani. Cultură şi Civilizaţie la Dunărea de Jos 22: 37–52.

Reingruber, Agathe. 2016. ‘A network of the steppe and forest steppe along the Prut and Lower Danube rivers during the 6th millennium BC.’ Documenta Praehistorica 43: 167–81.

Nikolov, Vassil. 2017. ‘Thrace, post-6000 BC.’ In Going West? The dissemination of Neolithic innovations between the Bosporus and the Carpathians, Proceedings of the EAA Conference, Istanbul 2014, edited by Agathe Reingruber, Zoï Tsirtsoni and Petranka Nedelcheva, 73–78. Themes in Contemporary Archaeology vol. 3. European Association of Archaeology. London, New York: Routledge.

Reingruber, Agathe. 2018. ‘Assessing chronological trajectories per subregion based on selected key sites.’ In The 14SEA Project. A 14C database for Southeast Europe and Anatolia (10,000–3000 calBC), by Agathe Reingruber and Laurens Thissen. Online publication, http://www.14sea.org/3_analysis.html (last accessed June 1, 2018).

Özdoğan, Mehmet. 1998. ‘Hoca Çeşme: An Early Neolithic Anatolian Colony in the Balkans?’ In Man and the Animal World. Studies in Archaeozoology in Honour of Sándor Bökönyi, edited by Peter Anreiter, 435–51. Archaeolingua 8. Budapest: Alpitvány Akaprint.

Reingruber, Agathe. 2017. ‘The Beginning of the Neolithic Way of Life in the Eastern Lower Danube Area: A View from the North.’ In Going West? The dissemination of Neolithic innovations between the Bosporus and the Carpathians, Proceedings of the EAA Conference, Istanbul 2014, edited by Agathe Reingruber, Zoï Tsirtsoni, and Petranka Nedelcheva, 91–111. Themes in Contemporary Archaeology vol. 3. European Association of Archaeology. London, New York: Routledge.

Özdoğan, Mehmet. 1999. ‘Northwestern Turkey: Neolithic Cultures in between the Balkans and Anatolia.’ In Neolithic in Turkey. The cradle of civilisation, edited by Mehmet Özdoğan and Nezih Başgelen, 203–24. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları.

Reingruber, Agathe. 2018. ‘Geographical mobility and social motility in the Aegean before and after 6600 BC.’ Praehistorische Zeitschrift 93, no. 1: 1–24.

Özdoğan, Mehmet, Yutaka Miyake, and Nilgün Özbaşaran Dede. 1991. ‘An Interim Report on Excavations at Yarımburgaz and Toptepe in Eastern Thrace.’ Anatolica 17: 59–121. 31

Agathe Reingruber Weninger, Bernhard, Lee Clare, Fokke Gerritsen, Barbara Horejs, Raiko Krauß, Jörg Linstädter, Rana Özbal, Eelco J. Rohling. 2014. ‘Neolithisation of the Aegean and Southeast Europe during the 6600–6000 calBC period of Rapid Climate Change.’ Documenta Praehistorica 41: 1–31.

Reingruber, Agathe and Laurens Thissen. 2009. ‘Depending on 14C Data: Chronological Frameworks in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic of Southeastern Europe.’ Radiocarbon 51: 751–70. Reingruber, Agathe and Laurens Thissen. 2018. The 14SEA Project. A 14C database for Southeast Europe and Anatolia (10,000–3000 calBC). Online publication, www.14sea.org (last accessed June 1, 2018).

Whittle, Alasdair, Alex Bayliss, Alistair Barclay, Bisserka Gaydarska, Eszter Bánffy, Dušan Borić, Florin Draşovean, János Jakucs, Miroslav Marić, David Orton, Ivana Pantović, Wolfram Schier, Nenad Tasić, Marc Vander Linden. 2016. ‘A Vinča potscape: formal chronological models for the use and development of Vinča ceramics in south-east Europe.’ Documenta Praehistorica 43: 1–60.

Reingruber, Agathe, Giorgos Toufexis, Nina KyparissiApostolika, Mihalis Anetakis, Yannis Maniatis, Yorgos Facorellis. 2017. ‘Neolithic Thessaly: Radiocarbon dated periods and phases.’ Documenta Praehistorica 44: 34–53. Renfrew, Colin, 1971. ‘Sitagroi, Radiocarbon and the Prehistory of South-East Europe.’ Antiquity 45: 275–82. Ryan, William B. F., Walter C. Pitman III, Candace O. Major, Kazimieras Shimkus, Vladamir Moskalenko, Glenn A. Jones, Petko Dimitrov, Naci Gorür, Mehmet Sakinç, Hüseyin Yüce. 1997. ‘An abrupt drowning of the Black Sea shelf.’ Marine Geology 138: 119−26.

Yiouni, Parakevi., 1996. ‘The Early Neolithic Pottery: Technology, Typology, Functional Analyses.’ In Nea Nikomedeia  I: The Excavation of an Early Neolithic Village in Northern Greece 1961–1964, edited by Kenneth A. Wardle, 55–196. The British School of Archaeology at Athens, Suppl. Vol. 25. London: The British School at Athens.

Strien, Hans-Christoph. 2017. ‘Discrepancies between archaeological and 14C-based chronologies: Problems and possible solutions.’ Documenta Praehistorica 44: 272−80.

Zvelebil, Marek and Malcolm Lillie. 2000. ‘Transition to agriculture in eastern Europe.’ In Europe’s First Farmers, edited by Douglas T. Price, 57–92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tasić, Nenad, Miroslav Marić, Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Bernd Kromer, Alistair Barclay, Alex Bayliss, Nancy Beavan, Bisserka Gaydarska, Alasdair Whittle. 2015. ‘Vinča-Belo Brdo, Serbia: The times of a tell.’ Germania 93: 1–75. Thissen, Laurens. 2000. Early Farming Communities in Anatolia and the Balkans, 6500–5500 calBC. Leiden: PhD diss. Thissen, Laurens. 2018. ‘Assessing chronological trajectories per subregion based on selected key sites.’ In The 14SEA Project. A 14C database for Southeast Europe and Anatolia (10,000–3000 calBC), by Agathe Reingruber and Laurens Thissen. Online publication, http://www.14sea.org/3_analysis.html (last accessed June 1, 2018). Thissen, Laurens and Agathe Reingruber. 2017. ‘14C database for Southeast Europe between the Northern Aegean and the Northern Carpathians (6600–5000 calBC).’ In Going West? The dissemination of Neolithic innovations between the Bosporus and the Carpathians, Proceedings of the EAA Conference, Istanbul 2014. edited by Agathe Reingruber, Zoï Tsirtsoni and Petranka Nedelcheva, 123–77. Themes in Contemporary Archaeology vol. 3. European Association of Archaeology. London, New York: Routledge. Warren, Peter, Michael R. Jarman, Heather N. Jarman, Nick J. Shackleton, John D. Evans. 1968. ‘Knossos Neolithic, Part II.’ Annual of the British School at Athens 63: 239–76.

32

3 By the Rivers They Settled: Settlement Patterns and the Neolithic Landscape in Albania Gazmend Elezi Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UCLA Abstract: Over a century of research in Albanian prehistory, a number of historical, political and economic factors have contributed to the marginalisation of Neolithic studies. As a result, there are still many unresolved questions about communities and their settlements in this part of the Balkans. Neolithic sites excavated in Albania, most of them before the 1990s, do not offer much information about the spatial organisation of the settlements. However, the relation between the Neolithic communities and the location of their settlements is of particular interest. The presence of the settlements in the mountainous landscape of Albania provides evidence for a complex relationship between humans and the environment. Many of the Neolithic sites are located in river valleys or near lakes. River valleys not only offer a means of subsistence, but were also the primary channel of communication between Neolithic settlements. The choice of locations may also be associated with the historic and symbolic past of these communities, as many of the sites were used or reused for long periods of time. Keywords: Albania, prehistory, Neolithic, settlement pattern, landscape of settlements have been recognised in Albania: openair and pile-dwelling settlements. In addition, there was an intensive use of caves throughout the Neolithic period in Albania (Prendi 1976; Korkuti and Prendi 1992, 7). In general terms, the choice of locations for settlement seems to be closely related to water and the environment around it. This phenomenon is most pronounced in the earlier phases of the Neolithic period, when a number of sites were located next to rivers (Figure 3.2) or in the middle of alluvial valleys.

There has been over a century of prehistoric research in Albania since the seminal publications of Theodor Ippen (1910) and Franz Nopcsa (1912). These studies, along with the pioneering work of Shtjefën Gjeçovi (Islami 1979), presented the first prehistoric finds collected in Albania (Tsonos 2009). The study of prehistory, however, remained infrequent until the first years after the Second World War, and it was resumed systematically in the 1950s, when the framework of archaeological studies in Albania was established (Prendi 1985; Korkuti 1987). Within this theoretical framework, the study of Neolithic communities has been overshadowed by the efforts of Albanian archaeologists to support what became the main goal of Albanian archaeology, namely, the connection of the contemporary Albanians with the ancient Illyrians (Korkuti 1987; Prendi 1988; Gori 2012), as well as by the archaeological anachronism created by the strict political control on archaeological studies and the isolation of Albanians, including archaeologists, from the rest of the world during the Hoxha regime (Bejko 1996). These should be considered the main factors that led to the marginalisation of Neolithic studies for 40 years. Systematic research and the great efforts of Albanian prehistorians during the second half of the 20th century, however, has brought to light several aspects of the Neolithic period in this part of the Balkans. In this brief overview, I will try to focus on the key features of Neolithic settlements, and of the Neolithic landscape in Albania.

In these earlier phases, there are also settlements at the edges of plains, such as Podgoria (Figure 3.3) or Vashtëmi, indirectly associated with Lake Maliq, which, until the 1950s, when it was dried out for agricultural purposes, covered a significant part of Korçë Basin (Lera 1971; Korkuti 1982; Prendi 1982; Fouache et al. 2010). Other settlements, such as Dunavec, Sovjan or different sites at various spots beside the same lake seem to have been closely related to it (Korkuti 1971; Lera et al. 1994; Fouache et al. 2010). The location of Neolithic settlements in valleys was linked with agriculture, potentially reflecting prioritisation of the selection of light arable soils watered by rain on river terraces (Prendi 1976). Similar suggestions have been made for the Early Neolithic settlements located near the river Peneus in Thessaly, Greece (Theocharis 1973; Halstead 1984; Van Andel et al. 1995). The relation between the Neolithic communities in Albania and the specific features of the landscape goes beyond environmental considerations (Prendi 1982). The Albanian landscape is dominated by mountains and valleys formed

Previous research has identified dozens of Neolithic sites, both open-air sites and caves, 30 of which have been systematically excavated (Figure 3.1). Two types 33

Gazmend Elezi

Figure 3.1. Map showing excavated Neolithic sites in Albania, based on Prendi 1976 and Gjipali 2012.

by the path of rivers and seasonal streams to the sea (Fouache 2002). They are two contrasting elements of the Neolithic landscape. The differences between them are not only spatial, altitudinal or kinaesthetic, as Ingold (1993, 154) argues, but are also related to the way in which those two environmental units were incorporated into the daily activities of residents living in the region. The interaction between Neolithic communities and the rivers or streams is more active. The seasonal floods, the alluvium and the changes of a river’s path with their intensity and density must have affected the life of settlements located in river valleys more directly. The relationship of the communities with the mountains, on the other hand, is more distant and stable. The edges of mountains, which constitute the borderlines of the valleys, are also the physical and, possibly, symbolic boundaries of the people who lived in them. As a result, the valleys provide the most convenient way of bridging these boundaries to construct channels of communication with the rest of the world. So, the decision to settle in these

locations may also be linked with inter-communal contacts between the Neolithic settlements of various regions in Albania, but also with other neighboring areas, and this is something that continued in later periods (Douzougli and Papadopoulos 2010, 14–16; Martin-McAuliffe 2014). The existence of such contacts may be supported by the similarities in material culture and the circulation of goods, which are demonstrated by the presence of imported pottery from northern Greece (Prendi 1976; Korkuti 1987) and of obsidian tools from Melos and Lipari in southern Albania (Ruka et al. 2019). The network connections between southern Albania and northern Greece must have been established at least from the late 6th millennium BC, as imported pottery of the Late Neolithic I period (Tsangli Phase) from Thessaly has been recognised in Cakran and Dunavec (Prendi 1982, 200; Korkuti 1985, 45). This specific relation of Neolithic settlements with river valleys continues in the later phases of the Neolithic. In 34

By the Rivers They Settled

Figure 3.2. Kolshi (Archive of Albanian Institute of Archaeology).

these periods (the Late and Final Neolithic), however, there are settlements located on hill tops, and in mountainous areas (Korkuti 2010). This episode cannot be explained by the limited available data. One could, however, adapt the interpretations that have been proposed for the presence of

settlements in mountainous regions in the Late Neolithic period in northern Greece, where the same phenomenon was linked to population pressure, which in turn caused an increase in the number of settlements (Gallis 1992; Halstead 1994; Kotsakis 1999). This model could be

Figure 3.3. View of Podgori and the Korçë basin, formerly Lake Maliq.

35

Gazmend Elezi Another remarkable characteristic of Neolithic sites in Albania is the duration of their use. The majority of them have more than one habitation phase (Figure 3.5). Half of the settlements were inhabited for a long period of time without interruption, while others were reused after a long absence of human activity at the site (Prendi 1976; Korkuti 2010). This phenomenon is most pronounced in the caves, since most of them have multiple anthropogenic layers not only during the Neolithic but also during earlier and later prehistoric periods, or even later (Korkuti and Prendi 1992, 12; Korkuti et al. 1996, 197; Richter et al. 2014).

applied also to the Korçë Basin, where the increase in the density of settlements is evident. The rest of Albania, however, can hardly be placed in a similar interpretive framework. The settlement of Kamnik, for example, is located in a mountainous area 1000 m above sea level in a narrow and deep valley in southeast Albania (Figure 3.4), located far away from fertile plains (Aliu and Jubani 1969). Among other special features of this site is the presence of a wall along the north edge of the settlement. This feature has been interpreted either as a stone rampart (Prendi 1982, 204) or as part of a retaining wall (Korkuti 2010, 203). Five pottery kilns have also been discovered at Kamnik, some of which were found in situ with intact semi-fired vessels inside. Based on the intensive use of the ceramic kilns and the finds inside them, the excavators speculated that pottery production would have been the most important activity for the inhabitants of Kamnik (Aliu and Jubani 1969, 8–12). It has also been argued that the site had close connections with Neolithic Maliq on account of the high degree of similarity in their pottery, while vessels from Dimini in Thessaly were also found at Kamink (Prendi 1976, 37). It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that the location of this settlement could be associated in some way with the basic activity that took place in it: pottery production. Kamnik is a very interesting case that permits us to trace some kind of specialised production activities, as they were defined by Costin (1991), though further investigation is required.

In the Balkans, the persistence of habitation at the same location by Neolithic groups has been linked with a special care and attention given to the continuity of communities in a certain space (Chapman 1990; Kotsakis 1999). Similarly, in Albania, the long-term use of the same site and the act of returning to it may be associated with what is known in literature as collective memory (Halbwachs 1992 [1950]; Alcock 2002), and the specific relationship that the community had created with this place beyond the framework of subsistence. By using and reusing the same spaces for lengthy periods of time, these communities create links between the present and past by remembering, which, according to Connerton (1989, 26), is the act of creating meaningful narrative sequences. The performance of these memories on the landscape constructs and supports the different levels of their sociocultural identity (Basso 1996; Yoffee 2007). This form of communal memory

Figure 3.4. Southeast view of the Kamnik Crest.

36

By the Rivers They Settled

Figure 3.5. The habitation phases of the excavated Neolithic settlements in Albania.

communities in Albania with their past becomes more obvious through the presence of burials inside houses, beneath the floor, in Early Neolithic Podgorie (Andrea 1983, 112–13, Figure 17) and in Middle Neolithic Cakran (Korkuti and Andrea 1969, 23–24), or within the inhabited area as well as between the piles under the houses in Maliq (Prendi 1982, 209; Prendi 2018, 184). As in other cases in the Neolithic Balkans (Chapman 1994; Triandaphyllou 2008), the inhabitants of these settlements used to live not only with their past and through it, but also with some of their dead ancestors.

must have been the reason that the inhabitants of Neolithic Maliq (Prendi 1966) and Dunavec (Korkuti 1974) insisted on living in almost the same location even after the fluctuation in water level of the lake, which is indicated by the palaeogeographical reconstruction (Fouache et al. 2010). When faced with the reduction of water levels of the Lake Maliq, the residents of Dunavec opted to change the way they built their houses, from pile dwellings to houses set directly on the ground, in order to remain at the same location rather than shift to another position, following the shore of the lake. The specific relation with the location of the settlement is more obvious in Maliq (Prendi 1980). When the water level rose during the Maliq IIa phase, people abandoned the houses on the shore to set up pile dwellings without leaving the site. In a later phase, Maliq IIb, they built their settlement on the shore again, abandoning the piles technique to remain in the same place. This intriguing relation between the locus and the inhabitants of Neolithic Maliq, which emphasises the continuity of the occupation of this site, may be better understood within the context of the treatment of the past as a means of constructing their social identities (Ashmore and Knapp 1999; Yoffee 2007). They had constructed a landscape of memory where their communal identities were embedded in these particular places. At the same time, these identities were part of a continuous (re)negotiation materialised by the changes in house construction. This specific relation of the Neolithic

In Albania Neolithic tell settlements have not been identified (Prendi 1982, 205; Korkuti 2010, 309) as they have been in other areas of the Balkans and beyond (Wace and Thompson 1912; Tringham et al. 1980; Kotsakis 1994), except at the site of Sovjan (Lera et al. 1994). Many Neolithic settlements in Albania have multiple habitation phases (Figure 3.5) at the same location without forming an anthropogenic mound, which is a distinctive feature of Neolithic tells in the Balkans (Sherrat 1983; Chapman 1990; Kotsakis 1999). Conversely, these sites cannot be classified as ‘flat extensive settlements’ as they have a limited extent, from less than one to five hectares (Korkuti and Prendi 1992, 18; Korkuti 2010, 270–72). According to the definition of flat extended sites in northern Greece proposed by Andreou and Kotsakis (1986), settlements 37

Gazmend Elezi do not have a clear picture of the arrangement of houses within the settlement, nor do we know much about the relation between social and economic areas of activities, which are used as significant features distinguishing tells and flat extended settlements (Kotsakis 1999; 2004). It is, however, reasonable not to exclude the existence of other types of site formation that combine elements of both tells and flat extended settlements.

of this type were developed horizontally by displacing the inhabitation spaces during the successive phases of the site, covering large areas. However, at Maliq the area covered by the phases of the settlement is relatively large (Korkuti and Prendi 1992, 18), while there a horizontal shift of the habitation phases has been observed, as happens in flat extended settlements. Another Neolithic site that is considered a flat settlement is Kallamas, which is located at the shore of Grand Lake Prespa (Oberweiler et al. 2017). On the other hand, if we consider the formation of these two types of settlement not only as a simple vertical accumulation or horizontal shift of cultural layers, but mainly as a result of different ways of spatial organisation, as has been suggested by Kotsakis (1999) for the Neolithic sites of northern Greece, then the classification of Neolithic settlements in Albania into these two broad groups is even more difficult. Because of the fragmented preservation, we

Poor preservation of architectural remains prevents us from collecting sufficient information regarding the use of space within Neolithic settlements and the architecture of the Neolithic dwellings. The houses at Vashtëmi and Cakran were situated around a central open space (Korkuti and Andrea 1974; Korkuti 1982), while the pile-dwelling settlement at Maliq was surrounded by a double stake fence (Figure 3.6, Prendi 1966, 257).

Figure 3.6. Pile-dwelling phase of Maliq (Archive of Albanian Institute of Archaeology).

38

By the Rivers They Settled The Neolithic houses were mostly quadrangular and semisubterranean, on the ground, or on piles, of one or two rooms, with an oval or rectangular hearth and oven inside. The walls were built mainly with sticks and branches, which were then daubed with clay mixed with straw. In addition, the research has also identified houses on wooden piles, located on the ground, and others with foundations built with small and medium-sized stones (Prendi 1982, 205–206). While there is no information about the roofs, the floors consisted mainly of baked or unbaked clay (Prendi 1982, 205), and were placed either on horizontal beams (Korkuti 1974, 3) or on stone slabs (Korkuti 1982, 94). The existence of these materials under the floor of houses in Maliq (Prendi 1966, 256), Rajce (Gjipali 1997, 28), and other settlements (Prendi and Andrea 1981, 17) has been interpreted as a technique for hydro insulation of houses. There is not much information about the interior arrangement of the buildings, except for the existence of a quadrangular building consisting of two rooms in Maliq (Prendi 1966, 156, Figure 2). Quadrangular or round hearths situated on platforms formed by small stones or ceramic sherds have been found inside houses at many sites (Prendi 1982).

and so future exploration may well bring more sites to light. One reason for the variability of habitation density is the disparity in the intensity and the extent of the investigation. In Korçë Basin there has been much more research than in any other part of Albania (Korkuti 2010, 107). Furthermore, some Neolithic sites, especially those located near rivers or in valleys, could have been damaged by changes in the course of the river, or covered by several metres of alluvial deposits. Geological surveys in Albania have revealed dynamic changes in river valleys, with the most important change being that from the zigzag course of the rivers into the braided system during the so-called Little Ice Age between AD 1550 and 1850 (Fouache and Ghilardi 2011, 39). A similar process may also be assumed for possible coastal Neolithic sites (Figure 3.7). The coastline has shifted hundreds of metres inland, while the alluvial deposits at estuaries have created alluvial deltas, possibly burying Neolithic settlements (Fouache 2002; Fouache and Pavlopoulos 2011, 162). As I have argued in this brief overview, the location of Neolithic settlements in Albania is strongly related to rivers, seasonal streams, valleys and lake environments. The valleys not only offered a means of subsistence, but also provided the main communication channel between Neolithic settlements, as is shown by the material remains of the history embodied in them. Long-term use of the same site and the act of returning to it has constructed a landscape memory. Therefore, the location of the Neolithic settlements indicates that the importance of these places may be related also to social memory and to their position in regional social networks. These sites are not marked by monumental architectural features, and certainly none

The current map of Neolithic sites in Albania shows a significant density of habitations in the Korçë Basin (Prendi 1982; Korkuti 2010; Lera, et al. 2009). In other parts of the country there is currently only a weak presence of Neolithic sites, and the northwestern part of Albania along the Adriatic coast seems to have been uninhabited in this period (Korkuti 1987; Lafe and Galaty 2009, 107). The general picture may be misleading, however, and is subject to the variability of preservation and discovery,

Figure 3.7. Prehistoric site Kepi i Palit, Durrës (courtesy of I. Gjipali).

39

Gazmend Elezi Connerton, Paul. 1989. How Societies Remember. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

have been found. Instead, the diverse landscape itself – the edges of mountains, the lakes, and the caves – provided the reference points for their historical loci, which were embedded in communal memory. In closing: the results of previous Neolithic research in Albania have left open many questions about the nature of Neolithic communities and their ways of life, thus providing many interesting prospects for future Neolithic research in Albania.

Costin, Cathy L. 1991. ‘Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Documenting, and Explaining the Organization of Production.’ Archaeological Method and Theory 3: 1–56. Douzougli, Angelica and John K. Papadopoulos. 2010. ‘Liatovouni: A Molossian Settlement and Cemetery in Epirus.’ Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Institut 125: 1–87.

Acknowledgements I am grateful to John Papadopoulos, Kostas Kotsakis, Nenad N. Tasić and Dushka Urem-Kotsou for the valuable contribution made by their comments during the preparation of this paper. I would also like to thank Ilir Gjipali for providing one of the pictures illustrated here, and Filipo Stefanou for his contribution on the visualisation of the data.

Fouache, Eric. 2002. ‘Dynamiques PaléoEnvironnementales En Albanie À L’holocène.’ In L’Albanie dans L’Europe Préhistorique, Actes du Colloque de Lorient, edited by Gilles Touchais and Josette Renard, 3–42. Athens: École française d’Athènes. Fouache, Eric, Stéphane Desruelles, Michel Magny, Amandine Bordon, Cécile Oberweiler, Céline Coussot, Gilles Touchais. 2010. ‘Palaeogeographical Reconstructions of Lake Maliq (Korça Basin, Albania) between 14,000 Bp and 2000 Bp.’ Journal of Archaeological Science 37(3): 525–35.

References cited Alcock, Susan E. 2002. Archaeologies of the Greek Past: Landscape, Monuments and Memories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Aliu, Skender and Bep Jubani. 1969. ‘Vendbanimi Prehistorik i Kamnikut (Kolonjë).’ Buletin Arkeologjik 1: 1–15.

Fouache, Eric and Matthieu Ghilardi. 2011. ‘Human Societies and Environmental Changes since the Neolithic in Greece and Albania.’ Méditerranée 117: 35–43.

Andrea, Zhaneta. ‘Archaeology in Albania, 1973–83.’ Archaeological Reports 30: 102–19.

Fouache, Eric and Kosmas Pavlopoulos. 2011. ‘The Interplay between Environment and People from Neolithic to Classical Times in Greece and Albania.’ In Landscapes and Societies, edited by Peter I. Martini and Ward Chessworth, 155–66. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer.

Andreou, Stelios and Kostas Kotsakis. 1986. ‘Diastasis Tou Khorou Stin Kentriki Makedonia. Apotiposi tis Endokoinotikis Organosis tou Khorou.’ In Amitos, Timitikos Tomos gia ton Kathigiti Manoli Androniko, 57– 88. Thessaloniki: Aristotelio Penepistimio Thessalonikis.

Gallis, Kostas. 1992. Atlas Ton Proistorikon Theseon stin Anatoliki Thessalia. Larissa: Etaireia Istorikon Erevnon Thessalias.

Ashmore, Wendy and Bernard A. Knapp. 1999. ‘Archaeological Landscapes: Constructed, Conceptualized and Ideational.’ In Archaeologies of Landscape, edited by Wendy Ashmore and Bernard A. Knapp, 1–32. Oxford: Blackwell.

Gjipali, Ilir. 2012. Epoka e Gurit dhe Shqipëria. Tiranë: QSA and BOTART.

Basso, Keith H. 1996. Wisdom Sits in Places: Landscape and Language among the Western Apache. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Gjipali, Ilir. 1997. ‘Vendbanimi Neolitik I Rajcës (Rajcë I).’ Iliria XXVII, no. 1–2: 23–56. Gori, Maja. 2012. ‘Who Are the Illyrians? The Use and Abuse of Archaeology in the Construction of National and Trans-National Identities in the Southwestern Balkans.’ In Archaeology and the (De)Construction of National and Supra-National Polities, edited by Russell Ó Ríagáin and Cătălin Nicolae Popa, 71–84. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 27.2.

Bejko, Lorenc. 1996. ‘Drejt një Shpjegimi të Neolitit Shqiptar.’ Arkeologjia 4: 11–24. Chapman, John. 1994. ‘The Living, the Dead and the Ancestors: Time, Life Cycles and the Mortuary Domain in Later European Prehistory.’ In Rituals and Remembrance: Responses to Death in Human Societies, edited by Jon Davies, 40–85. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Halbwachs, Maurice. 1992. On Collective Memory. Translated by Lewis A. Coser. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Chapman, John. 1990 ‘The Neolithic in the MoravaDanube Confluence Area: A Regional Assessment of Settlement Pattern.’ In Selevac. A Neolithic Village in Yogoslavia, edited by Ruth Tringham and Dušan Krstić, 13–43. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology. University of California.

Halstead, Paul. 1994. ‘The North–South Divide: Regional Paths to Complexity in Prehistoric Greece.’ In Development and Decline in the Mediterranean Bronze Age, edited by Clay Mathers and Simon Stoddart, 195– 219. Sheffield: J. R. Collis Publications. 40

By the Rivers They Settled Halstead, Paul. 1984. Strategies for Survival Early Farming Communities of Thessaly, Greece. PhD diss., University of Cambridge.

Society in Greece, edited by Paul Halstead, 66–76. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Lafe, Ols and Michael L. Galaty. 2009. ‘Albanian Coastal Settlement from Prehistory to the Iron Age.’ In A Connecting Sea: Maritime Interaction in Adriatic Prehistory, edited by Stašo Forenbaher, 105–12. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Ingold, Tim. 1993. ‘The Temporality of the Landscape.’ World Archaeology 25(2): 152–74. Ippen, Theodor. 1910. ‘Denkmäler Verschiedener Altersstufen in Albanien.’ Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen aus Bosnien und der Herzegowina 10: 3–155.

Lera, Petrika. 1971. ‘Informata mbi Zbulime të Reja Arkeologjike në Korçë.’ Buletin Arkeologjik 3: 191–95.

Islami, Selim. 1979. ‘Shtjefën Gjeçovi si Arkeolog.’ Studime Historike 4: 257–59.

Lera, Petrika, Frano Prendi, Gilles Touchais, René Treuil. 1994. ‘Sovjan (Albanie).’ Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 118: 531–33.

Korkuti, Muzafer. 1987. ‘25 Vjet Kërkime Për Neolitin dhe Eneolitin në Shqipëri (1961–1986).’ Iliria XVII, no. 2: 5–20.

Lera, Petrika, Gilles Touchais, and Cecile Oberweiler. 2009. ‘Basin De Korëç, Kallamas.’ Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 133(2): 689–724.

Korkuti, Muzafer. 1985. ‘Probleme Etno-Kulturore të Epokës së Eneolitit në Shqipëri.’ Iliria XV, no. 2: 43– 82.

Martin-McAuliffe, Samantha. 2014. ‘Lofkënd as Cultivated Place.’ In The Excavation of the Prehistoric Burial Tumulus at Lofkënd, Albania, edited by John K. Papadopoulos, Sarah P. Morris, Lorenc Bejko and Lynne A. Schepartz, 537–53. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology.

Korkuti, Muzafer. 2010. Qytetërimi Neolitik dhe Eneolitik në Shqipëri. Tiranë: Akademia e Shkencave e Sqipërisë. Korkuti, Muzafer. 1974. ‘Raport mbi Rezultatet e Gërmimeve të Vitit 1973 në Vendbanimin Neolitik të Dunavecit.’ Buletin Arkeologjik 4: 1–13.

Nopcsa, Franz. 1912. ‘Beiträge Zur Vorgeschichte und Ethnologie Nordalbaniens.’ Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen aus Bosnien und der Herzegowina 12: 168–255.

Korkuti, Muzafer. 1982. ‘Vashtëmia një Vendbanim i Neolitit të Hershëm.’ Iliria XII, no. 2: 91–146. Korkuti, Muzafer. 1971. ‘Vendbanimi Dunavecit.’ Buletin Arkeologjik 3: 5–21.

Neolitik

i

Oberweiler, Cecile, Gilles Touchais, and Petrika Lera. 2017. ‘Synchronization of the Albanian and North Aegean Late Neolithic Periods. New Data from the Lakeside Dwelling of Kallamas (Albania).’ In Communities in Transition: The Circum-Aegean Area in the 5th and 4th Millennia BC, edited by Søren Dietz, Fanis Mavridis, Žarko Tankosić and Turan Takaoğlu, 185-96. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Korkuti, Muzafer and Zhaneta Andrea. 1969. ‘Rezultatet e Gërmimeve në Venbanimin Prehistorik Të Cakranit, Fier.’ Buletin Arkeologjik 1: 14–29. Korkuti, Muzafer and Zhaneta Andrea. 1974. ‘Stacioni i Neolitit të Mesëm në Cakran të Fierit.’ Iliria III: 45–78. Korkuti, Muzafer, Karl M. Petruso, Lorenc Bejko, Brooks B. Ellwood, Julie M. Hansen, Francis B. Harrold, Nerissa Rusell, Sytze Bottema. 1996. ‘Konispol Cave, Albania: A Preliminary Report on Excavation, 1992– 1994.’ Iliria XXVI, no. 1–2: 183–224, (In Albanian with English summary).

Prendi, Frano. 1988. ‘Kerkimet Arkeologjike në Fushën e Kulturës Pre- dhe Protohistorike Ilire në Shqipëri.’ Iliria XVIII, no. 1: 5–33. Prendi, Frano. 1966. ‘La Civilisation Prehistorique De Maliq.’ Studia Albanica III, no. 1: 255–98.

Korkuti, Muzafer and Frano Prendi. 1992. ‘Forma dhe Struktura e Vendbanimeve Neolitike dhe Eneolitike në Shqipëri.’ Iliria XXII, no. 1–2: 7–22.

Prendi, Frano. 1980 ‘La Culture Eneolithique Maliq II En Albanie Sud-Est.’ In Interaction and Acculturation in the Mediterranean, edited by Jan B. G. Best and Nanny M. W. de Vries, 33–73. Amsterdam: B. R. Gurner Publishing.

Kotsakis, Kostas. 2004. ‘O Neolithikos Oikismos: Xoros Paragogis kai Ideologias.’ In I Istoria tis Ellinikis Polis, edited by Aleksandros Lagopoulos, 55–68. Athens: Ermis.

Prendi, Frano. 1985. ‘Mbi Forminin e Kulturës dhe Etnosit Ilir në Territorin e Shqipërisë.’ Iliria XV, no. 2: 83–118.

Kotsakis, Kostas. 1994. ‘The Use of Habitational Space in Neolithic Sesklo.’ In La Thesalie. Quinze annees de recherches archaeologiques, 1975–1990. Bilans et perspectives, Actes du Colloque International Lyon, 17-22 Avril 1990, 125–30. Athens: Kapon

Prendi, Frano. 1976. ‘Neoliti dhe Eneoliti në Shqipëri.’ Iliria VI: 21–99. Prendi, Frano. 1982. ‘The Prehistory of Albania.’ In The Cambridge Ancient History, edited by John Boardman, Iorwerth E. Edwards, Nicholas G. Hammonds and Edmond Sollberger, 187–231. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kotsakis, Kostas. 1999. ‘What Tells Can Tell: Social Space and Settlement in the Greek Neolithic.’ In Neolithic

41

Gazmend Elezi Prendi, Frano. 2018. The Prehistoric Settlement of Maliq. Tiranë. Academy of Albanological Studies–Institute of Archaeology. Prendi, Frano and Zhaneta Andrea. 1981. ‘Të Dhëna të Reja mbi Neolitin në Shqipëri.’ Iliria XI, no. 2: 15–40. Richter, Jürgen, Ilir Gjipali, Thomas C. Hauck, Rudenc Ruka, Oliver Vogels, Elvana Metalla. 2014. ‘The Early Prehistory of Albania: First Results of the “GermanAlbanian” Palaeolithic (Gap) Programme.’ Paper presented at the International Congress of Albanian Archaeological Studies: 65th Anniversary of Albanian Archaeology, (21–22 November, Tirana 2013). Ruka, Rudenc, Michael L. Galaty, Danielle J. Riebe, Robert H. Tykot, Ilir Gjipali, Georgia KourtessiPhilipaskis. 2019. ‘pXRF analysis of obsidian artifacts from Albania: Crossroads or cul-de-sac?’ Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 24: 39–49. Sherrat, Andrew. 1983. ‘The Eneolithic Period in Bulgaria and Its European Context.’ In Ancient Bulgaria: papers presented to the International Symposium on the Ancient History and Archaeology of Bulgaria, edited by Andrew G. Poulter, 188–98. Nottingham: University of Nottingham. Theocharis, Demetrios R. 1973. Neolithic Greece. Athens: National Bank of Greece. Triandaphyllou, Sevasti. 2008. ‘Living with the Dead: A Consideration Ofmortuary Practices in the Greek Neolithic.’ In Escaping the Labyrinth: The Cretan Neolithic in Context, edited by Valasia Isaakidou and Peter Tomkins, 139–57. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Tringham, Ruth, Dušan Krstić, Timothy Kaiser, Barbara Voytek. 1980. ‘The Early Agricultural Site of Selevac, Yugoslavia.’ Archaeology 33(2): 24–32. Tsonos, Akis. 2009. Skavontas stin Alvania: Istoria kai Ideologia ton Arxaiologikon Erevnon Kata to 19o kai 20o Aiona. Ioannina: Isnafi. Van Andel, Tjeerd H., Gallis Kostas, and Georgios Toufexis. 1995. ‘Early Neolithic Farming in a Thessalian River Landscape, Greece.’ In Mediterranean Quaternary River Environments, edited by John Lewin, Mark G. Macklin and Jamie C. Woodward, 131–43. Rotterdam: Balkema. Wace, Alan J. B. and Maurice S. Thompson. 1912. Prehistoric Thessaly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yoffee, Norman. 2007. ‘Peering into the Palimpsest: An Introduction to the Volume.’ In Negotiating the Past in the Past. Identity, Memory and Landscape in Archaeological Research, edited by Norman Yoffee, 1–9. Arizona: The University of Arizona Press.

42

4 Transformations of Settlement Space at Neolithic Avgi, NW Greece Georgia Stratouli Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports Dimitris Kloukinas National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Abstract: This paper addresses the transformation of inhabited space at the Neolithic settlement of Avgi (Kastoria, Greece). The excavations at the site have brought to light three major phases of occupation dated to the Middle and mainly the Late Neolithic periods (ca. 5700–4500/4300 calBC). The assemblages uncovered comprise building remains in the form of fire-hardened rubble, foundation trenches, enclosure ditches and other spatial-organisational features, open areas or ‘yards’ with dense concentrations of artefacts, thermal structures and a large number of pits, as well as burial remains. The picture provided by their analysis, rather than being static, reveals changing attitudes towards the use and configuration of settlement space throughout the chronological period under consideration. Changes in the residential character of certain parts of the site and in the overall arrangement of the built environment between phases point to different perspectives or notions of space and place. It is here argued that these transformations can, in turn, be associated with prevalent social dynamics and, especially, with the interplay between social units and the community. Keywords: Avgi, Neolithic, Greece, settlement organisation, transformations Introduction

In the case of northern Greece (i.e. Macedonia and Thrace), intensive fieldwork, as a result of development works or of more systematic projects, has brought to light a considerable number of Neolithic sites (Andreou et al. 2001; Grammenos 2010). During the last three decades, certain settlements have been extensively excavated, thus

In the near absence of ritual or funerary contexts outside habitation sites (Souvatzi 2008, 47), settlements provide the major corpus of archaeological evidence for the Neolithic period in Greece and the wider Balkan region.

Figure 4.1. Map of central and northern Greece, indicating the location of the Avgi settlement.

43

Georgia Stratouli & Dimitris Kloukinas present at higher altitudes, whereas the zones of altitudinal transition were dominated by mixed deciduous and coniferous woodlands.

offering the opportunity for a more thorough discussion of the organisation of the built environment and the use of space. The Neolithic settlement of Avgi constitutes one of the most prominent sites in this respect.

The site’s chronology has so far been determined by a series of nineteen radiocarbon dates. According to the calibrated samples, the initial occupation can be traced to the first half of the 6th millennium BC, while the abandonment of the site dates to the second half of the 5th millennium BC. Three major occupational phases, each including various episodes, have been identified. The earliest Avgi I phase was founded on the natural clayey bedrock and is dated to the 6th millennium (ca. 5700–5200/5100 calBC). The following Avgi II phase consists of deposits rich in anthropogenic material and seems to span the transition from the 6th to the 5th millennium (ca. 5200/5100–4900 calBC). The later Avgi III phase dates mainly to the first half of the 5th millennium (ca. 4900–4500/4300 calBC) and has been highly eroded and disturbed by geomorphic and post-occupational processes.

Settlement space and its social construction into place are at the central position of archaeological enquiry (Hodder 1982; Kent 1990; Parker Pearson and Richards 1994). Site typologies, ethnographic analogies and diverse theoretical models have often been employed to approach spatial manifestations and to extract socio-cultural inferences. Nevertheless, the interpretative analysis of settlement space is by no means a straightforward process. The limitations are posed, for instance, by the various post-depositional disturbances and the use of perishable construction materials. In addition, the more or less restricted areas that have been excavated in each case are not necessarily representative of a site as a whole. The uncovered layouts, even when belonging to the same horizon, are often but a snapshot of spatial arrangements, while their synchronicity may only be established in archaeological terms.

Settlement space through time: A short overview

The present paper will try to avoid some of the inherent fallacies of the archaeological record. Besides, research is still ongoing, and the current results are of a preliminary nature. The goal here will be to summarise the architectural features and spatial arrangements and to focus on those components that are most relevant to the establishment of social perspectives.

The 2002–2008 Avgi excavations have provided valuable insights into the organisation of settlement space through time. One of the most prominent architectural features unearthed was a system of enclosures identified through geophysical survey and trial trenches (Stratouli 2005; 2013; Tsokas et al. 2005). It seems that the western boundary of the site was, at some point, defined by two ditches cutting through the natural subsoil. The outer Ditch A is a U-shaped, curvilinear feature that must have initially exceeded 5.50 m in width and 3.00 m in depth, and probably encircled the whole site. Apart from delimiting settlement space, both physically and symbolically, it could also have served for drainage and protection from floodwater (Stratouli 2013).

The Neolithic settlement of Avgi The Neolithic settlement of Avgi is located on an eroded hilly terrain (ca. 700 masl.) of clay-rich deposits, ca. 10 km SW of Lake Orestis (Figures 4.1 and 4.2). It was initially traced during the early 1990s. The abundance of surface finds that were brought to light by ploughing attested to the presence of a significant settlement 0.5 km to the north of the modern village of Avgi. Trial trenches and the geomagnetic survey carried out during 2004 and 2005 (Tsokas et al. 2005) indicated a total size of ca. 5.0–5.5 ha. The 2002−2008 excavations conducted by the former 17th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities under the direction of Dr Georgia Stratouli uncovered a total area of 2000 m2 (Stratouli 2007; 2013), seemingly coinciding with the settlement’s main residential area.

The western boundary of the site was further demarcated by Ditch B, which runs almost parallel to the former ditch and is located 10.00 m to the east of Ditch A. Its maximum width reaches 2.60 m, while its preserved depth is 1.20  m. The crosscutting profiles of the ditch suggest two successive phases of (re)construction. In addition, the upper part of its fill comprises daub fragments that could be associated with an above-ground structure (e.g. in the form of a palisade). Whatever the case may be, the exact function and chronology of the features remain to be firmly established. Where chronology is concerned, preliminary observations indicate that they should probably be attributed to the Avgi III phase.

The settlement is situated on the gentle slopes of a wide terrace (Figure 4.2), bounded by a Pleistocene/ Early Holocene stream to the North. Geoarchaeological investigations (Krachtopoulou 2009) have shown that the site’s morphology has been seriously affected by alluvial and colluvial sedimentation, stream migration, arable cultivation and hillslope erosion. Charcoal analysis (Ntinou 2008) reveals that the Neolithic landscape was more densely covered. Oak woodlands with a variety of deciduous species were dominant in the immediate surroundings of the settlement, while hydrophilic vegetation was growing in nearby humid woodland areas and streams. Forests of black pine and (sparse) fir were

Avgi I (ca. 5700–5200/5100 calBC) The earliest building horizon is characterised by the remains of at least ten post-framed buildings and associated structures belonging to successive sub-phases (Figures 4.3 and 4.4). The buildings were preserved in the form of dense concentrations of fire-hardened rubble, occasional postholes, and earthen floors or use 44

Transformations of Settlement Space at Neolithic Avgi, NW Greece

Figure 4.2. The Neolithic settlement of Avgi and its surrounding hilly landscape. The inset photo shows the main excavated area (view from the East), i.e. the covered West Sector and the Central and East Sectors with remains of burnt houses and open areas dating mainly to the Avgi I phase.

Building inventories attest to the structures’ domestic character. They frequently comprise small amounts of pottery, stone implements and various artefacts, as well as food remains (charred cereals, animal bones, and a few fish bones and freshwater molluscs). There is also evidence for the small-scale storage of grains (Margaritis 2007), as well as some scarce evidence for the existence of thermal structures and/or internal facilities (Kloukinas 2014, 178–79). Micromorphological analyses of the floor/ use surfaces (Kyrillidou 2016) reaffirm the presence of various organic and inorganic by-products of domestic activities. In any case, it seems that the outdoor space constitutes an integral part of the household, as well as the venue for a significant component of social interaction.

surfaces. They were essentially free-standing, roughly rectangular in ground plan, and were made of timber and mud. Although not sharing a common orientation, all buildings seem to follow either a north–south or east– west axis, leaving more or less extended open areas in between. As for building replacement practices, a roughly horizontal or partially overlapping replacement pattern can be supported in the case of the rubble areas of the so-called Buildings 1 and 3. In addition, the vertical superimposition of successive buildings is indicated by trial trenches excavated within the rubble of Building 1, Building 3 and, probably, Building 5. In terms of building technology, the analysis of firehardened daub from three Avgi I assemblages (Kloukinas 2014) reveals a remarkable standardisation of the construction process. This refers both to the building and the tempering of the materials used, and to the specific techniques applied for wall construction. The latter comprise the use of closely set stakes and split timbers and the weaving of pliant branches in a wattle-and-daub fashion, as well as planking for reinforcement or as weather-board cladding. Similar techniques have been identified in other northern Greek sites (Kloukinas 2017).

The open spaces in between the rubble areas commonly take the form of midden-like deposits, which are rich in organic remains, various artefacts and features. The latter include several thermal structures, such as hearths and ovens (Kalogiropoulou 2013), as well as a limited number of pits. The emerging picture is one of highly active areas associated with a broad spectrum of domestic and non-domestic activities. Although the distribution of finds and features is commonly irregular, their occasional 45

Georgia Stratouli & Dimitris Kloukinas

Figure 4.3. Plan of the Avgi I building horizon.

Figure 4.4. Avgi I, West Sector: remains of the burnt Building 5 and the open spaces around it.

46

Transformations of Settlement Space at Neolithic Avgi, NW Greece arrangement allows for the identification of certain activities taking place outdoors, e.g. food preparation and cooking. Other areas (e.g. the area east of Building 5) seem to be characterised by more intense rubbish disposal (Stratouli et al. 2011). The ongoing study of the material, as well as the synthesis of field observations and micromorphological analyses, will provide finer-grained information.

character? Whatever the case may be, later structures were occasionally built on top of the Avgi I rubble, rendering it possible that the older building remains were still visible and ‘remembered.’ Avgi III (ca. 4900–4500/4300 calBC) The Avgi III phase encompasses all the LN II habitation episodes (Figure 4.5). No floor-level deposits belonging to this phase have been preserved, due to erosion and modern ploughing. The available evidence is, therefore, restricted to a number of features cutting through the earlier deposits. These mainly include the foundations of post-framed structures, as well as a considerable number of pits rich in anthropogenic material. The numerous cuttings sometimes intersect with each other, thus supporting the existence of several sub-phases.

Avgi II (ca. 5200/5100–4900 calBC) The subsequent Avgi II phase has mainly been identified at the western part of the excavation. It corresponds to an extended, macroscopically homogeneous and, occasionally, thick layer, which covers the earlier remains and reaches up to the plough zone. Although no definite ground plans have been associated with this phase so far, the Avgi II deposits contain numerous anthropogenic remains, as well as a number of features found in situ. Thermal structures, such as hearths and domed ovens, were identified on various levels and sections of the excavated area. Their arrangement, sometimes in clusters, as in the case of three thermal structures in the area north of Building 5, points to the presence of open areas, where cooking and other fire-related activities were taking place.

The most prominent features are two neighbouring, almost parallel and roughly rectangular buildings (Buildings 2b and 6) measuring ca. 70–90 m2 and sharing a common N/NW–S/SE orientation (Figure 4.6). The north, east and west walls of both buildings are firmly placed inside U-shaped foundation trenches, while the line of the south, narrow wall has not been securely identified. It probably follows different foundation techniques that could be linked to the presence of an entrance. In any case, the use of trenches for the foundation of post-framed walls constitutes an innovative technological characteristic, probably associated with the extra stability, durability and waterproofing of the timber frame (Stratouli 2007; 2013). Another plausible explanation would be that trenches

The question to be examined is whether the activities identified necessarily involve permanent habitation. Are the Avgi II remains linked to households that remain to be found, thus supporting a horizontal shift and reorganisation of the settlement’s central residential area, or do they reflect a more radical transformation of the site’s

Figure 4.5. Plan of the Avgi III building horizon.

47

Georgia Stratouli & Dimitris Kloukinas

Figure 4.6. Avgi III, West Sector: remains of foundation trenches, postholes and post-pits belonging to Building 2b (to the west), Building 6 (to the east) and the ellipsoid Building 4 (to the north of Building 2b), as well as pits of various functions.

were dug so as to ensure the sinking of the load-bearing elements into the natural subsoil with no need of ground preparation and extensive clearance of the earlier remains (Kloukinas 2014, 234).

potentially postdating the rectangular Avgi III buildings. It still remains doubtful, though, whether the feature should be interpreted as an apsidal dwelling or as a structure serving different functions.

In the case of Building 6, the arrangement of postholes seems to reflect a timber frame comprising sizeable corner posts and very few intermediate posts (Figure 4.6). In contrast to that, the less sizeable and more numerous postholes of Building 2b were densely arranged in various configurations, including single and double rows of timbers. The presence of interior postholes and circular post-pits at the northern part of the building may support the existence of a loft or a second storey (Figure 4.6). Alternatively, they could reflect the presence of a platform-like construction dealing with the S–N inclination of the site, as well as with the increased subsoil moisture (Stratouli 2013).11 In any case, the building’s morphological characteristics have led to the assumption that it could have been of a special status or of a supra-household function (Stratouli 2007; 2013). Evidence for its successive reconstruction seems to support such an assertion.

Several trenches or ditches of different sorts have been identified in other parts of the site. In certain cases, they could be linked to the poorly preserved foundations of buildings bearing characteristics similar to those of the aforementioned examples. In other instances, however, they seem to represent boundaries between buildings or activity areas, possibly also serving to improve the runoff of rainwater (Stratouli and Bekiaris 2008). It is noted that all identified features follow a similar orientation, thus giving the impression of a predetermined arrangement. A further characteristic aspect of the Avgi III settlement space is the presence of numerous pits and pit-like features cutting through earlier deposits. These present considerable variability in size, shape and preserved depth, while their fill is commonly rich in anthropogenic materials. Although their stratigraphic correlation is not always straightforward, they seem to belong to successive episodes of habitation. As for their exact nature and function, the study of their deposits is still in progress. Some of them may have initially been cut for the procurement of clayey earth, and later used as refuse pits. According to the preliminary study of various assemblages, the ‘structured deposition’ of different types of materials within certain pits can be supported (Stratouli et al. 2014). Whatever the case may be, the abundance of pits during the Avgi III phase could

Further to the north of Building 2b, the foundation trench of an ellipsoid structure (Building 4) was partially uncovered (Figure 4.5 and 4.6). On the basis of field observations, this may be attributed to a later stage of the site’s occupation, 11 Besides, similar methods were not uncommon in the region (e.g. the platform structures at the lake-side Neolithic site of Dispilio: see Chourmouziadis 2002).

48

Transformations of Settlement Space at Neolithic Avgi, NW Greece

Figure 4.7. Avgi III, West Sector – ‘burial area’: different stages during the unearthing of small burial pots with tiny amounts of burned human remains.

support the establishment of different attitudes to waste management.

Settlement space, rather than being abstract, should be conceived as background potentiality (McFayden 2007, 350). In other words, spatial arrangements involve already existing and culturally informed notions about the suitability of certain locales for accommodating human activity and structures. Whether in the hands of ‘specialists’ or regulated by customary practice, the structuring of domestic space should be viewed as an act of ‘revealing’ different locales (sensu Heidegger 1971) that does not take place in a vacuum. Following this principle, the unearthed spatial layouts should be treated as the end results of long-lasting processes of becoming that are relevant to pre-existing conditions, as well as of social practice and memory.

Last but not least, an exceptional feature of the Avgi III phase is a ‘burial area’ covering ca. 3.0 m2 at the approximate centre of the site (Stratouli et al. 2010). Its chronology is based upon a recent radiocarbon dating (4721–4555 [2σ] calBC) of charred lentil seeds found inside a burial pot (Stratouli 2019).12 The assemblage comprises a total of at least eleven small pots containing tiny amounts of burnt human remains, as well as small quantities of carbonised seeds in two cases. The burial urns were commonly found covered by larger pottery sherds (Figure 4.7), while their arrangement might suggest that they were buried in pairs in more than one episode. In terms of the demographic information provided, six out of ten burials belong to adults, while only one belongs to an infant (Stratouli et al. 2009).

This rather brief analysis of the archaeological evidence reveals significant aspects of the Avgi built environment. In order, however, to approach its various components in a meaningful way, it is essential to add a few comments.

In the case of Avgi, all houses belonging to the earliest building horizon were destroyed by fire, probably involving intentional conflagration (Stevanović 1997). Whether the motivation behind this practice was pragmatic or symbolic, it marked the landscape and created a new sense of place for future inhabitants. It seems that for a certain period of time (Avgi II) no buildings were actually erected at the excavated area. The possible horizontal relocation of the residential centre has already been mentioned and could be linked to social strategies and/or property claims. Even if this is the case, human activity remains intensive, while structures are sometimes built on top of the still visible Avgi I dwelling remains. The installation of thermal structures on top of earlier rubble is also evident in other northern Greek sites (Ζiota et al. 2011, 64). It should be associated with the attitude of the inhabitants to past ruins and their incorporation within daily activity.

The burial area was initially attributed to the Avgi II phase (see Stratouli et al. 2010).

During the subsequent Avgi III phase, the architectural process had to take into consideration all past developments.

What remains to be determined in relation to the ‘burial area’ is whether its formation postdates the Avgi III buildings, and is thus potentially associated with the end of their habitation. In any case, it is evident that only a small group of the total population was treated in such an exceptional way post mortem. Approaching spatial transformation

12

49

Georgia Stratouli & Dimitris Kloukinas The new architectural plan included the erection of buildings on top of the older rubble (e.g. Building 2b) and activity areas. This practice, which may have influenced the adoption of specific foundation techniques, was probably not unrelated to social memory and notions of belonging (Tringham 2000). Last but not least, the creation of a burial area during the later phase of occupation ascribed a strong symbolic meaning either to the whole site or to a specific part of it.

static throughout the year or the period of occupation. More importantly, the assumed ‘openness’ of the Avgi I households does not take into consideration crucial spatial information that is missing from the archaeological record. We refer here to the identification of entrances, which constitute a significant element in trying to decipher the channeling of visual perception and movement between neighbouring buildings and/or features.

In terms of spatial transformations, it can be argued that structures and spatial layouts are continually modified according to prevailing social practices (Parker Pearson and Richards 1994). This does not imply that transformations in the construction of space into place are to be equated with processes of social change in a cause and effect relationship. Rather than a direct reflection of social organisation, settlement space can be seen as an expression of culturally shared perceptions and social dynamics. Following Barrett (2006), spatial arrangements and architectural features can be understood as agents that orientate experience and generate perspectives through which the world is apprehended.

Moving to the 5th millennium calBC, the Avgi III phase presents greater visibility in the physical demarcation of both the settlement and the intra-site space. The general impression is one of a more neatly ordered built environment, with a greater emphasis on intra-community limits and a more prominent sense of boundedness. The possible construction of a system of enclosures is of particular importance in terms of spatial interrelations and perception. Apart from dividing settlement from nonsettlement space, enclosures also constitute a break in space that reveals fixed points for all future construction projects and orientation. Intra-site boundaries and architectural features generate similar series of interrelations between different locales.

In the case of Avgi, the two building horizons excavated attest to the prevalence of considerably diverse spatial perspectives. The lack of archaeologically visible demarcations during the Avgi I phase implies that movement, sensory experience and interaction were, by and large, architecturally unchannelled (Robb 2007, 90). This does not necessarily mean that the outdoor space was conceptually homogeneous and undifferentiated (Parker Pearson and Richards 1994, 24). It is possible that intra-site delimiting was achieved by symbolic or less conspicuous features. However, the more abstract and transient nature of these demarcations suggests that the ordering of activity areas, as well as the physical and social boundaries between dwelling groups, were flexible or, at least, less rigid.

As is the case for enclosures, the parallel arrangement of dwellings and the sharing of a common north–south orientation point to some sort of predetermined planning and decision-making. Whether linked to collective decisions or to more centralised planning, the selection of the buildings’ locality seems to have been organised at the suprahousehold level (Souvatzi 2008, 95). The open spaces in between are more limited in extent, while the increased autonomy of structures is emphasised by the occasional presence of ditches, probably functioning as spatial boundaries. In general, the sharing of outdoor space seems to be less pronounced. The successive reconstruction of Building 2b at the same place reinforces the close relationship between certain locales or plots of land and social units. This, in turn, is in accordance with the assertion that spatial interrelations are less flexible during the late LN period.

It has been suggested (Chourmouziadis 2009) that Neolithic Greek houses and their surrounding open spaces should be examined as single entities. In addition, Chapman (2010, 75–76) has proposed the existence of the ‘house and garden complex’ within the so-called ‘dispersed’ Balkan sites. However, in the case of Avgi I, it is difficult to establish the relationship between specific dwellings and their surrounding open areas. On the contrary, the lack of clearly visible boundaries and the distribution of various features and finds suggest that outdoor space was a dynamic locale where household activities were not secluded. As a result, a certain degree of ‘openness’ or ‘sharing’ between neighbouring units can be hypothesised. It is also possible that the selection of building locales and activity areas was heavily influenced by social interrelations and daily routines organised at the household level and regulated by kinship-based or other prescriptions.

The presence of numerous LN II pits and pit-like features may also testify to the more ordered layout of settlement space. A series of refuse pits, taking the final form of a large oblong pit during their infill, seem to be closely associated with Building 2b, as their ground plan follows the building’s west wall line. The use of pits by specific households for waste disposal or other practices attests to the more pronounced boundedness of social units and, perhaps, some sort of privatisation of the outdoor space. Furthermore, the ‘structured’ deposition of materials in a series of small or larger pits, although difficult to associate with specific households, reveals an intentional practice that can be related to the more ordered use and maintenance of open areas. In general, attitudes to waste management should be considered as culturally determined (Hodder 1982) and, therefore, indicative of transformations in social perspectives.

It should be stressed here that spatial relationships and the socialities involved should not be perceived as 50

Transformations of Settlement Space at Neolithic Avgi, NW Greece Discussion

Chourmouziadis, George C. (ed.). 2002. Dispilio: 7500 chronia meta. Thessaloniki: University Studio Press.

Although the picture at hand remains compartmentalised in many respects, it still offers valuable insights into the organisation of settlement space through time. Earthworks, building layouts and other architectural features should be viewed as agents channelling everyday experience and social interaction between and within groups. Following this principle, the differences observed between the two main building horizons are of specific importance. These are expressed, for instance, in the differential segregation of space, the visibility of spatial demarcations, the relationship between built and outdoor space, the management of waste and other factors. The question to be addressed is whether the observed differences can somehow be related to wider socio-economic transformations.

Chourmouziadis, George C. 2009. ‘Built space and Neolithic builders.’ In A history of the Greek city, edited by Alexandros Ph. Lagopoulos, 41–46. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Grammenos, Dimitrios V. 2010. ‘Oi neolithikes erevnes stin Ellada – me emphasi sti voreia – kata tis prosfates dekaeties.’ In I Ellada sto evrytero politismiko plaisio ton Valkanion kata tin 5 kai 4 chilietia p.Ch., edited by Nikos Papadimitriou in collaboration with Zoi Tsirtsoni, 30–37. Athens: Museum of Cycladic Art – N.P. Goulandris Foundation. Halstead, Paul. 1995. ‘From sharing to hoarding: the Neolithic foundations of Aegean Bronze Age society.’ In Politeia: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age (Aegeum 12), edited by Robert Laffineur and WolfDietrich Niemeier, 11–20. Liège: University of Liège Press.

It has been argued by Halstead (1995; 1999), based primarily on Thessalian evidence, that the later stages of the Neolithic period in Greece are characterised by the gradual isolation of households. This could be supported by the intensification of agricultural production at the household scale, the gradual appearance of storage facilities within dwellings, the more prominent subdivision of settlement space by walls or ditches, the lower permeability of LN/FN households and the development in architectural form and/or building technology. The segregation of settlement space at LN II Avgi could be viewed as a metaphor for social structure and could, therefore, be approached in similar terms. The exceptional characteristics of Building 2b could also support an increased differentiation of LN II households.

Halstead, Paul. 1999. ‘Neighbours from hell? The household in Neolithic Greece.’ In Neolithic Society in Greece, edited by Paul Halstead, 77–95. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Heidegger, Martin. 1971. Poetry, language, thought. Translated by Albert Hofstadter. New York: Harper & Row. Hodder, Ian. 1982. The present past: an introduction to anthropology for archaeologists. Barnsley: Pen & Sword Books.

Nevertheless, the link between spatial and social organisation is not a straightforward one, and the evidence may also attract alternative readings (Nanoglou 2008). In order to approach such issues, finer-grained analyses of the cultural phenomenon are required. The contextual analysis of material culture, the reconstruction of subsistence practices and the juxtaposition of the regional evidence will essentially allow for the formulation of bettergrounded assumptions.

Kalogiropoulou, Evanthia. 2013. Cooking, space and the formation of social identities in Neolithic northern Greece: evidence of thermal structure assemblages from Avgi and Dispilio in Kastoria. Unpublished PhD diss., Cardiff University. Kent, Susan. 1990. ‘A cross-cultural study of segmentation, architecture, and the use of space.’ In Domestic architecture and the use of space, edited by Susan Kent, 127–52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

References cited Andreou, Stelios, Michael Fotiadis, and Kostas Kotsakis. 2001. ‘Review of Aegean Prehistory V: The Neolithic and Bronze Age of Northern Greece.’ In Aegean Prehistory: A Review, edited by Tracey Cullen, 259– 327. Boston: Archaeological Institute of America.

Kloukinas, Dimitrios. 2014. Neolithic building technology and the social context of construction practices: the case of northern Greece. Unpublished PhD diss., Cardiff University. Kloukinas, Dimitrios. 2017. ‘Pictures of home: regional perspectives into the Neolithic building technology of northern Greece.’ In Communities, Landscapes, and Interaction in Neolithic Greece, edited by Apostolos Sarris, Evita Kalogiropoulou, Tuna Kalayci, Lia Karimali, 167–86. Ann Arbor, MI: International Monographs in Prehistory.

Barrett, John C. 2006. ‘A perspective on the early architecture of western Europe.’ In Constructing Power: Architecture, Ideology and Social Practice, edited by Joseph Maran, Carsten Juwig, Hermann Schwengel and Ulrich Thaler, 5–30. Hamburg: Lil Verlag. Chapman, John C. 2010. ‘Houses, households, villages and proto-cities in southeastern Europe.’ In The lost world of old Europe: the Danube Valley, 5000–3500 BC, edited by David W. Anthony and Jennifer Y. Chi, 58–73. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Krachtopoulou, Athanasia. 2009. ‘Geoarchaeological investigations of the environs of the Neolithic site of Avgi.’ In http://www.neolithicavgi.gr/?page_id=118&­ langswitch_lang=en. 51

Georgia Stratouli & Dimitris Kloukinas Kyrillidou, Stella. 2016. Settlement form and highresolution microhistory of houses in prehistoric Greek Macedonia. Unpublished PhD diss., University of Reading.

Kastorias.’ In I antipera ochthi: koinonikos choros kai ideologia stis proistorikes koinotites. Workshop in memory of professor G.C. Chourmouziadis, edited by Kostas Kotsakis, Stelios Andreou, Tania Valamoti, Aikaterini Papaefthymiou-Papanthimou, Sevi Trianphyllou. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Thessaloniki.

Margaritis, Evi. 2007. ‘Archaiovotanikes meletes sto neolithiko oikismo Avgis Kastorias, 2005-2007.’ In http://www.neolithicavgi.gr/wp-content/uploads/ file/­AVGI%20-%20Archaeobotanical%20Report%20 E_­%20Margariti%20June%202007.pdf.

Stratouli, Georgia and Tasos Bekiaris. 2011. ‘Avgi Kastorias: stoicheia tis viografias tou neolithikou oikismou.’ Archaiologiko Ergo sti Makedonia kai sti Thraki 22 (2008): 1–10.

McFayden, Lesley. 2007. ‘Making architecture.’ In Building memories: the Neolithic Cotswold long barrow at Ascott-under-Wychwood, Oxfordshire, edited by Don Benson and Alasdair Whittle, 348–54. Oxford: Oxbow.

Stratouli, Georgia, Niels H. Andreasen, Evita Kalogiropoulou, Nikos Katsikaridis, Dimitris Kloukinas, Georgia Koromila, Evi Margaritis, Tasos Bekiaris. 2015. ‘“Spitia kai avles” sto neolithiko oikismo Avgis: to ktirio 5 kai oi geitonikoi anoichtoi choroi.’ Archaiologiko Ergo sti Makedonia kai sti Thraki 25 (2011): 7–18.

Nanoglou, Stratos. 2008. ‘Building biographies and households: aspects of community life in Neolithic northern Greece.’ Journal of Social Archaeology 8: 139–60.

Stratouli, Georgia, Nikos Katsikaridis, Tasos Bekiaris, Vasiliki Tzevelekidi. 2014. ‘Integrating the past, determining the present, establishing the future: identification and interpretation of structured deposition at the Neolithic settlement of Avgi in Kastoria, Northern Greece.’ In 1912–2012: A Century of Research in Prehistoric Macedonia, International Conference Proceedings, Thessaloniki, 22–24 November 2012, edited by Evangelia Stefani, Nikos Merousis and Anastasia Dimoula, 349–58. Thessaloniki: Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki.

Ntinou, Maria. 2008. ‘I efarmogi tis anthrakologias sto neolithiko oikismo tis Avgis.’ In http://www. neolithicavgi.gr/?page_id=116&langswitch_lang=el. Parker Pearson, Michael, and Colin Richards. 1994. ‘Ordering the world: perceptions of architecture, space and time.’ In Architecture and Order: Approaches to Social Space, edited by Michael Parker Pearson and Colin Richards, 1–37. London and New York: Routledge. Robb, John. 2007. The early Mediterranean village: agency, material culture, and social change in Neolithic Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stratouli, Georgia, Sevi Triantaphyllou, Nikos Katsikaridis, Tasos Bekiaris. 2013. ‘I diacheirisi tou thanatou: choros tafikis praktikis sto neolithiko oikismo Avgis Kastorias.’ Archaiologiko Ergo sti Makedonia kai sti Thraki 23 (2009): 9–18.

Souvatzi, Stella G. 2008. A social archaeology of households in Neolithic Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stratouli, Georgia, Sevi Triantaphyllou, Tasos Bekiaris, Nikos Katsikaridis. 2010. ‘Manipulation of death: a burial area at the Neolithic Settlement of Avgi, NW Greece.’ Documenta Praehistorica 37: 95–104.

Stevanović, Mirjana. 1997. ‘The age of clay: the social dynamics of house destruction.’ Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16: 334–95. Stratouli, Georgia. 2007. ‘Metaxi pilon, plinthon kai passalon, magnitikon simaton kai archaiologikon erotimaton: tafroi oriothetisis kai themeliosis ston neolithiko oikismo Avgis Kastorias.’ Archaiologiko Ergo sti Makedonia kai sti Thraki 19 (2005): 595–606.

Tringham, Ruth. 2000. ‘The continuous house: A view from the deep past.’ In Beyond kinship: social and material reproduction in house societies, edited by Rosemary A. Joyce and Susan D. Gillespie, 115–34. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Stratouli, Georgia. 2010. ‘Neolithikos oikismos Avgis Kastorias 2006-2007: choro-organotikes praktikes 6hs kai 5hs chilietias.’ Archaiologiko Ergo sti Makedonia kai sti Thraki 21 (2007): 7–14.

Tsokas, Grigoris, George Vargemezis, Alexandros Stampolidis, Georgia Stratouli. 2007. ‘Prota symperasmata tis geofysikis diaskopisis ston neolithiko oikismo tis Avgis Kastorias.’ Archaiologiko Ergo sti Makedonia kai sti Thraki 19 (2005): 323–32.

Stratouli, Georgia. 2013. ‘Neolithikos oikismos Avgis Kastorias: mia agrotiki koinonia tis 6hs kai 5hs chilietias se metavasi.’ Archaeology & Arts, (October 7). http://www.archaiologia.gr/blog/­2013/­10/07/νέεςανασκαφικές-έρευνες-στη-νεολιθι-4/ (accessed June 27, 2017).

Ziota, Christina., Areti Chondroyianni-Metoki, Εvanthia Maggouretsiou. 2013. ‘Recent prehistoric research in the Kitrini Limni area of the Kozani prefecture.’ Archaiologiko Ergo stin Ano Makedonia 2 (2011): 57–83.

Stratouli, Georgia. 2019. ‘“Etoutoi… tou nerou” kai “ekeinoi… tou vounou”: I dinamiki topon kai I diapragmatefsi koinonikon choron sti Neolithiki tis 52

5 Outside the Residential Place at the Neolithic Settlement of Toumba Kremastis Koiladas, Northern Greece Areti Chondroyianni-Metoki Ephorate of Antiquities of Kozani Abstract: Toumba Kremastis Koiladas is a Late Neolithic settlement situated in Western Macedonia (northern Greece). The excavations on the margins of the settlement uncovered 462 pits, seven ditches, 23 cremation burials and two inhumations. The finds suggest a variety of nondomestic uses of the space, from rubbish deposition to the disposal of the remains of diverse ritual activities. The site represents some of the best examples of structured deposition in the Greek Neolithic, including burials of humans and animals, houses and house models, intact vessels of miniature and regular size, flutes made of human femur, and other objects and materials. This work presents the finds from this area and discusses the activities related to them. Keywords: Late Neolithic, northern Greece, off-settlement area, structured depositions, ritual activities Introduction

2002, 626–30; 2007, 523–32; Karamitrou-Mentesidi et al. 2014; Chondroyianni-Metoki in press).

Toumba Kremastis Koiladas (hereafter TKK), which was discovered in 1985, is situated at the southeastern edge of the Kitrini Limni (Sarigiol) basin, close to the swamp, in the Prefecture of Kozani (northern Greece) (KaramitrouMentesidi 1986; Fotiadis 1991; Ziota 1996, 539–40; Chondroyianni-Metoki 2001; 2009; 2010; 2015; Andreou et al. 1996, 568–70; Fotiadis et al. 2000). The basin stretches for 35 km at an altitude of 656–80 m (Figure 5.1). The lowest part was a marsh, which must have already been present during the Neolithic and was artificially drained in the 1950s (Fotiadis and Chondroyianni-Metoki 1997, 21, 26). This basin was inhabited throughout the Neolithic period, from the middle of the 7th millennium BC onwards, and more densely during the Late and the Final Neolithic.

The settlement at TKK is a low tell, inhabited during the Late Neolithic, which was established on alluvial deposits of pale yellowish clay, at an altitude of 661 m. The surface material was scattered in an area of ca. 0.35 ha but the excavations indicate that the extent of the settlement was at least 0.8 ha and the original height of the tell approximately 2–2.50 m (Figure 5.3). The site In 1998–1999, as part of the construction of the new Egnatia highway (Figure 5.4), extensive rescue excavations were conducted at the northeastern edge of the settlement, outside the established residential areas (Figure 5.3), covering an area of ca. 0.7 ha. In this area the archaeological material that would have indicated the use of the space in antiquity was not present on the surface. The excavation uncovered 462 pits, seven ditches, 23 cremation burials and two inhumations in pits (Figure 5.2), all dating to the early phase of the Late Neolithic period. This area is contemporaneous with the nearby settlement according to pottery from the excavated part of the settlement (Chondroyianni-Metoki 2009). Four archaeological layers with thicknesses varying between 10–20 cm and 35–50 cm were discovered above the natural clayey bedrock. The stratigraphy indicates intermittent use of this area throughout the early phase of the Late Neolithic, with small lateral shifts in the location of activities and changes in the use of space. The excavations confirmed that activities of ritual significance were taking place in this area.

From 1995 onwards, as part of the works by the Public Power Corporation, a considerable number of large-scale surface surveys and rescue excavations were carried out. These uncovered more than 35 prehistoric settlements13 that date from the 7th to the 2nd millennium BC, 19 of which belong to the Late and/or Final Neolithic periods. Six of these settlements have been excavated. One of them, Toumba Kleitos, has been completely excavated, revealing well-preserved remains of houses and burials, thus providing data for the site’s extent, organisation and use of space (Ziota et al. 2013a; Ziota et al. 2013b). In addition, excavations at three sites dating to the Early and Middle Neolithic have enriched our knowledge of the Neolithic period, giving an insight to the cultural background of the Late Neolithic period in this area (Karamitrou-Mentesidi 13 Finds from the wider area increase this number to 50. See KaramitrouMentesidi 2014; Chondroyianni-Metoki et al. in press; ChondroyianniMetoki in press.

Radiocarbon dates from the 19 charcoal samples place the use of the site between years 5340 and 4930 BC, 53

Areti Chondroyianni-Metoki within each context and in close relation to the chronology. The results, however, revealed mostly general trends and variations through time rather than clear characteristics of any particular phase.

which corresponds well with the earlier phase of the Late Neolithic in the region.14 Dates for each distinguished layer in the excavated part of the site are as follows: TKK 1 = layer D = 5340–5200 BC ΤKK 2 = layer C = 5210–5060 BC ΤKK 3 = layer B = 5060–4930 BC ΤKK 4 = layer A = radiocarbon dates are not available for this phase, but according to pottery it could be dated to shortly after 4930 BC and before the beginning of the Final Neolithic (i.e. before 4700/4500 BC) (Andreou et al. 1996, 538).

The size of the pits varies according to maximum diameter/ length, between 0.30 m and 3.75 m, and depth, 0.10 m to 2.90 m, measured from the surface from which they were originally dug out. The location of the maximum diameter varies depending on the shape of the pits – sometimes it is at the mouth, sometimes at the belly, and sometimes at the bottom. In order to determine their primary function, the pits were classified into categories: small (less than 2 m in diameter) and large (more than 2 m in diameter) – the latter may have served as buildings; and shallow (up to 1 m depth) and deep. According to these criteria, the small and shallow pits dominate in all phases of the use of the area, but their depth gradually decreases and their size increases from the earlier to the later phases.

The site is contemporaneous with other settlements in northern Greece such as Kleitos 1 (Ziota et al. 2013a, 51; Ziota et al. 2013b), Megalo Nisi Galanis (Fotiadis et al. 2000, 217; Andreou et al. 1996, 568–70), Dispilio (Anagnostou et al. 1997, 14), and Avgi (Stratouli 2010, 8) in Western Macedonia; Makriyalos Ι (Pappa and Besios 1999, 180), and Stavroupoli Ι (Grammenos and Kotsos 2002, 328) in Central Macedonia; Promachonas – Topolnica Ι–ΙΙ (Koukouli-Chrysanthaki et al. 1997b, 756–58), Sitagroi Ι–ΙΙ (Renfrew 1986, 173) and Dikili Tash Ι (Koukouli-Chrysanthaki et al. 1997a, 681) in Eastern Macedonia; Makri ΙΙ in Thrace (Efstratiou and Kallintzi 1997, 886); with the Arapi phase (the second Pre-Dimini phase) in Thessaly (Gallis 1992, 49–61); and the settlements Anza IV (Gimbutas 1976, 29), Divostin II (McPherron and Christopher 1988, 468), Selevac I (Tringham and Krstic 1990, 3, 54) and Vinča A–B (Tasić N.N. et al. 2015) in the Balkan hinterland.

In terms of the construction characteristics, pits of circular and ellipsoidal ground plan were identified, with the former being dominant. According to their cross sections they were classified into bell-shaped, hemispherical, barrel-shaped, cylindrical, conical and convex types. The dominant shape in all phases was the hemispherical. The bell-shaped pits were more common during the earliest phase (TKK 1), while their number gradually decreased during the later phases. The convex pits dominated in the last phase (TKK 4). All other shape types appeared in some phases, but are always rare. More specifically, pits with a barrel-shaped cross section were found in TKK 1, 2 and 3; those with a conical cross section in TKK 2 and 3; and the cylindrical and hemispherical pits appeared sporadically in all four phases. The deepest pits are barreland bell-shaped (Figure 5.7), while the largest in extent are the hemispherical (Figure 5.5). In many cases, the initial shape of the pit was altered by erosion, re-digging or disturbance from later constructions. Several pits were deliberately re-dug between use episodes, especially in layer B, which implies both that the pits remained visible for some time after they were dug and that there was a desire to reuse them. The bottoms of the pits are flat in most cases and rarely concave or irregular, although a few pits in layer C have one or two steps or small pits instead, which are features usually related to buildings (Figure 5.5). Their surfaces did not show traces of fire, apart from rare examples that had a reddish (burnt) surface on the bottom.

The finds Pits and ditches are the two main types of construction identified in this part of the settlement, which had diverse and sometimes multiple functions. There is also a certain chronological difference between discovered features, as initially only pits were dug in this area, while ditches were made somewhat later. Given the presence of a series of cremations, the area was used as a burial ground during its final phase, though a few burials were found in earlier phases as well. These numerous contexts, precisely defined in both time and space, provide assemblages of material which we have studied according to the principles of a contextual theoretical approach. This approach contributes to a better understanding of the meaning of material culture within specific, unique and ‘historically’ determined frames of reference (Hodder 1982, 213–17; 2002, 38, 202–49; Κotsakis 2002, 21, 23; ChondroyianniMetoki 2009, Vol. Α΄, 632–36).

The stratigraphy of the pits was analysed in relation to their number of use episodes, the sealing of the content after each use, the existence of erosion between use episodes, the composition of the deposits, and the presence of finds in deposits above the level from which they were dug out. According to the stratigraphy, it appears that, in all chronological phases, single-use pits occurred much more frequently than two- or multiple-use pits. The greatest number of pits with their contents sealed after each use, either single, two- or multiple use, is recorded in the earliest layer, D, indicating a particular use of this area during

The pits The 462 excavated pits were analysed with the following parameters taken into account: size, construction details, individual stratigraphy and finds. The data was analysed 14 The Late Neolithic in Northern Greece spans the period from 5400/5300 to 4700/4500 BC (Andreou et al. 1996, 538)

54

Outside the Residential Place at the Neolithic Settlement of Toumba Kremastis Koiladas, Northern Greece daub) from the superstructure (mainly) or floors (rarely) of the buildings found in many pits, primarily from layers C and B, suggest the existence of post-framed buildings throughout the settlement lifespan, and their destruction (possibly deliberately) by fire (Figure 5.11). Lithic material, comprised of ground stone (Stroulia 2005; 2014; Chondrou 2010; Stroulia and Chondrou 2013) and chipped stone tools, was also abundant. The archaeobotanical material from this area is mainly related to processing waste, apart from a large storage vessel with four kilograms of burnt grass pea seeds found in pit 314 together with some burnt clay from a wattle-and-daub building (Figure 5.12) (Κarathanou 2009; Karathanou and Valamoti 2011; Valamoti et al. 2011; chapter 6 in this volume).

the initial phase. This practice of sealing the pit contents gradually decreased over time, pointing to some changes in the use of space. Of particular interest are the multipleuse pits, which are predominant in layer C. The number of use episodes is directly related to the dimensions of the pits. Their distribution suggests that pits of larger volume (and multiple-use episodes) belong to the second phase of the use of space (layer C) and that the digging of large pits for repeated use was practised especially in that phase. The frequent presence of clay layers from the erosion of the walls, especially at the periphery of the large pits, suggests that they remained open longer and were gradually filled in over time. Another interesting characteristic of the pits of layer C is that they were also sealed with a heap of soil mixed with archaeological material, creating a small ‘tumulus’, which implies an intention to mark their position.

It is interesting to note the way the basic content of the pits was composed, which implies specific associations and exclusions of materials and objects: not only during deposition, but also in pre-deposition activities, which reflect the variety of sources and ways of formation of the pit deposits. Pits containing large quantities of pottery and zooarchaeological material predominate, followed by those which combine pottery and burnt daub, or pottery, zooarchaeological material and burnt daub, while pits containing only zooarchaeological material together with burnt daub were not recorded.

The composition of the deposits in multiple-use pits are either uniform or vary from layer to layer. The basic distinction is related to the presence or absence of burnt materials. Deposits that include such materials are fewer and belong to the two earlier phases (D and C). The absence of burnt walls in the pits, however, is a proof that burnt material was transferred from another part of the settlement. Some pits have deposits, either only in the deepest layer or throughout, formed by eroded material, suggesting that the reason for their opening is connected with the extraction of clay. They were clustered in a specific area, suggesting a difference in the use of space. Furthermore, they were not used secondarily for rubbish disposal, despite the large dimensions of some of them, which further supports the assumption that the pits vary in terms of their use and that these uses seem to have been pre-planned.

Other finds that point to specific content and activities of special character related to the formation of the pit deposits include clay objects, with miniature vessels being the dominant category. Miniature vessels comprise the basic content of 15 pits and were found in groups or along with vessels of regular sizes, with animal (and in one case, human) bones or with querns (Figures 5.13– 5.15). Other clay objects include seals and fragmented anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines found in various contexts. One of the most important finds is a rectangular two-storey house model with a pitched roof (Chondroyianni-Metoki 2014), which points to the existence of similar types of buildings and advanced architecture in the settlement (Figure 5.16). Another clay house model was found in another pit, but is poorly preserved. There are also bone tools, and Spondylus shell and stone jewellery. Equally important are four bone flutes made from human femurs, attesting at the same time to the development of music in the settlement and the inhabitants’ relationship to the deceased (Figure 5.17).

The pits show significant variation in their content. Categories of material found in large quantities within the pits appear to be of crucial importance in identifying their use. The dominant category of material is pottery, which includes intact vessels or parts of them in a more or less fragmentary state (Figures 5.7, 5.9, 5.15) (Kotsakis 2010, 71, εικ. 5-4.α). The level of pottery fragmentation and the proximate location of cross joins indicate that the content of each pit, or of each use episode, was formed at a different time and is associated with a different event (see chapter 6 in this volume). Zooarchaeological material also represents a bulk category, but was present in large quantities in some pits, while in others the quantity was small (Tzevelekidi 2012, 72–73; Tzevelekidi et al. 2014). In addition to unarticulated bones, burials of whole animals (two dog skeletons in pits 76 and 110, two sheep skeletons in pit 225, a nearly complete pig skeleton in pit 132) (Figure 5.10), or parts of them (four pits with goats and pigs) were also found. The largest quantities of both pottery and animal bones, including intact vessels and burials of whole or partially whole animals, were found in the two earliest layers, D and C. Human burials were also found in this area, while some of the pits contained scattered human bones (see below). The architectural remains (burnt

Up to 90 per cent of some categories of the small finds are fragmented, suggesting that the pits were filled with waste. However, their coexistence with intact or/and unused objects indicates that these assemblages were formed on the basis of criteria other than their suitability (or not) for use. The analysis of the distribution of pits shows the existence of two large pits in the vicinity of the settlement. The size, contents and position of these pits suggest semisubterranean or subterranean buildings, used as workshops or for some other auxiliary purposes such as storage. One 55

Areti Chondroyianni-Metoki is hemispherical, with an opening 3.20 m in diameter and with two steps into its interior (Figure 5.5), while the other is almost cylindrical, 2.40 m in diameter and with one step at the bottom (Figure 5.6). Both belong to layer C. A few other larger pits (over 3 m in diameter) scattered in different areas may have also been subterranean parts of buildings, but the characteristics of their construction and the lack of hearths and floors would allow only for temporary or seasonal use. Importantly, the archaeological record from the region, including the neighbouring settlements (Ζiota et al. 2013a), clearly shows that rectangular, above-ground buildings, rather than pit-huts, are the region’s usual architectural type of Neolithic house. To this should be added the fact that the two largest pits (nos. 344 and 27) of the earliest layer D at TKK, with diameters of 3.20 m and 2.60 m respectively, contained burials, which suggests that the initial use of the area was not related to habitation (Figure 5.8). Several lines of evidence suggest, therefore, that if the large pits were part of semi-subterranean buildings they were not used as permanent houses.

reaching 74 m (Figures 5.19, 5.20). It is of orthogonal (‘Γ’) shape, with the two parts equal in length (37 m each) and a V-shaped cross section. The width of the bottom of both parts is uniform, but their initial width and depth are not. The east–west section is 1.40–3 m wide and 1.50– 2.45 m deep, while the north–south one is 1–1.6 m wide and 1–1.4 m deep, deepening abruptly at the point of their connection. During its opening, the ditch cut through many earlier pits and another ditch (C1). According to the stratigraphy the earliest of the ditches seems to be C1 (layer D), followed by ditch C (layer D or C) and then ditch D (layer C). Ditch B is later and belongs to layers C and B. Layer B also includes ditch A, and probably E and Z. The presence of the ditches in almost all phases of the use of this area suggests that they coexisted with the pits, but are not related to the initial use of this area, since the earliest ditch cuts through the earliest pits. None of the ditches surrounds the settlement or any group of buildings or pits outside the residential area. The available evidence shows that they were formed gradually, without any effort to maintain them, and were filled gradually with a variety of materials, suggesting that they were not constructed according to a single concept, but were formed over time.

Furthermore, the study of the pits’ content in relation to their shape and size shows differentiation, especially between open- and closed-shaped pits. The open pits (hemispherical, cylindrical, convex) are associated with the architectural remains and the material of daily life activities, such as fragmented pottery, bones and loom weights. Some of those pits must have been formed by the extraction of clay, while others were dug to support large vessels. Closed-shaped pits (bell-shaped, barrel-shaped) are closely related to burials of humans and animals, and with depositions of material which seem to have been formed during periodic events of particular importance to the community rather than by the daily activities of the residents. These include ceremonies related to burials or to events of a more secular character, including the biography of the houses (i.e. displacement and burial of burnt old houses or the construction of new ones, in terms of the extraction of clay to built them).

The material found in their deposits supports neither the interpretation of the ditches as burial places, nor as places for the deposition of remains related to ritual/ ceremonial activities, nor for the collection of water. Similar uses were secondary and occasional. Most probably they were formed by the extraction of building material. If this reading is correct, the length of ditch B’s sections and of the other ditches (the shortest measures 5  m) may reflect the size and number of structures for which the extracted material was intended, justifying both the partial and the successive formation of the ditches. Thus, the archaeological data strongly suggests that the function of the ditches is different from that of the pits (especially of the closed-shaped ones), as their formation was determined by practical needs.

To summarise, the data indicates a differentiation in the use of the pits which correlates to their shape, with the open-shaped ones being associated mainly with life-related activities and the closed-shaped ones with death. However, each pit was formed for a particular reason, including both the open- and closed-shaped. The construction of the closed-shaped pits must have been pre-planned according to both their contents, which are associated with a variety of non-residential activities, and their limited secondary use. Their contents are obviously related to ceremonial and ritual activities of diverse character, and are related to the ideological sphere of the TKK community.

Burials Based on the manipulation of the deceased, human burials at Toumba Kremastis Koiladas fall into three categories: a) cremations; b) inhumations; c) scattered bones. Burials are not located in a particular part of this area but are scattered across it. Cremations Cremation, as a burial practice, is attested from the second phase (layer C, 5210–5060 BC) of the use of this area, but characterises the final phase (layer A), in which 22 of the 23 cremated burials were found (Figures 5.22, 5.23). The archaeological record shows that these cremations are secondary burials, located in various parts of the excavated area, either in groups or in a single grave (ChondroyianniMetoki 2010). Two types of burials can be distinguished

The ditches Seven ditches were revealed in the excavated part outside the residential area of the settlement. They run east–west or north–south (Figure 5.2), have either V- or U-shaped cross sections and are related to different phases of the use of space. Ditch B has been excavated to its total length, 56

Outside the Residential Place at the Neolithic Settlement of Toumba Kremastis Koiladas, Northern Greece honouring the ancestors, as they were systematically used as a place for secondary burials of selected human bones.

on the basis of their elaboration. One type consists of one or two burial pots that were covered with fragments of one or more other vessels. The other consists of burials in which ceramic fragments mixed together with burnt bones and ash formed a small pile. The dominant type of burial pot is represented by a variety of common open-shaped, medium-sized vessels (fialae). Notable is the practice of cutting large amphorae to turn them into fialae, despite the common occurrence of the latter, suggesting the conceptual significance of the former vessels (see chapter 6 in this volume). The vessels used in burials are the standard pottery for the TKK settlement, except for one, which is not a container but a model of a table (trapeza). The very poor state of preservation and the traces of burning which all burial pots display attest that they were placed in the fire and burnt together with the deceased.

The anthropological material of Toumba Kremastis Koiladas indicates systematic (or at least occasional) use of the space on the margins of the residential area for the disposal of human bones. Some contexts show clear ritual connotations related either to the primary burial of the deceased (inhumations) or of the ancestors (unarticulated bones), while the cremations that also represent secondary burials confirm the specific use of this area throughout the settlement lifespan. The coexistence of two or more burial practices in the same settlement occurs at many sites in Greece during the Neolithic period. The practice of cremation is characteristic of Thessaly (Gallis 1982) and the region of Western Macedonia, where it appears to have been especially practised during the Late Neolithic (P. Chrysostomou 2012; Chourmouziadis et al. 2001, 626– 28; Stratouli 2013; Ziota et al. 2013a, 49; ChondroyianniMetoki 2009, 451, 453). The use of pits for disposal of the deceased was frequent in the earliest periods in the area of Kitrini Limni (Karamitrou-Mentesidi 2002, 627; Papathanassiou and Richards 2011). The practise of the secondary treatment of the dead, which is common at TKK, is also found in Neolithic settlements of the wider region (Ziota et al. 2013a, 47; Papathanassiou and Richards 2011; Karamitrou-Mentesidi 2000, 472–74; Chourmouziadis et al. 2001, 626–28; P. Chrysostomou 2012; Triantaphyllou 2008).

Another characteristic of cremations is the funereal use of jewellery. These are mainly Spondylus shell beads and some stone ornaments, which bear traces of burning indicating that they accompanied the deceased in the pyre (Figure 5.18). Notable also is the presence of a stone axe as a burial offering, which adds a symbolic connotation to the object. Inhumations Two undisturbed burials in pits were found in layers D (burial 25) and B (burial 24) respectively. Burial 24 belongs to a 4-year-old child, whose skeleton is articulated and partially preserved. It appears that the body was placed on its left side, oriented north–south with the head to the south. Burial 25 belongs to a 12-year-old child and is connected with the second (or third) layer of use of the multi-use pit 76: the deceased was buried in a small pit dug out in the pre-existing fill of pit 76, at its western edge. The body in burial 25 was placed on its right side in a slightly contracted position, oriented north–south with the head to the north. The skeleton is well preserved, though some parts of the hand and left foot bones are missing, either due to slight disturbance or because they were deliberately removed (Figure 5.21).

Conclusions According to the excavation data, the settlement at Toumba Kremasti Koilada is characterised by continuity in the location of the houses on the tell and the diversity in the use of space on the margins of the residential area. Similar organisation and use of space is recorded at the neighbouring and contemporary settlement of Kleitos, where pits with remains of ritual activities including burials were found outside both the residential area and the ditch which encircled it (Chondroyianni-Metoki 2011; Ziota 2014). The tendency to delineate settlements with one or more ditches characterises the Neolithic in southeastern Europe (Bailey 2000, 153), especially its later periods (Late and Final Neolithic), and this also holds true for northern Greece (Ziota et al. 2013b; Stratouli 2007, 596–98; Pappa and Besios 1999; Grammenos and Kotsos 2004, 16–17, 20–21, 145–46). At TKK, however, a ditch encircling the settlement has yet to be found; but, the settlement itself has not been systematically investigated.

Scattered human bones A total of 123 unarticulated human bones, representing a minimum of 14 individuals, which include both females and males of all ages, have been unearthed in this area. The bones come from different parts of the skeleton, but the prevalence of long bones is discernible. The scattered bones are not a result of disturbed burials but represent selective secondary burials, placed in this area long after the initial disposal of the body, where it decomposed. At least 46 of the pits scattered throughout the excavated area contained unarticulated human bones, and the data supports their deliberate deposition. Many of these pits contain either human bones in multiple layers together with other objects, or appear to have been used only for the purpose of the disposal of human bones. These pits may hold symbolic or ritual value, perhaps linked with rituals

The finds outside the residential area at TKK suggest variety in the non-domestic uses of space, from rubbish deposition to the disposal of the remains of diverse ritual activities, including human and animal burials. TKK offers some of the best examples of ‘structured deposition’ in the Neolithic period, not only in Greece (Koukouli-Chrysanthaki et al. 2005, 101–105; Pappa et 57

Areti Chondroyianni-Metoki embedded in the lives of individuals and communities in the bordering zone of the Kitrini Limni basin.

al. 2004; Chondroyianni-Metoki 2011), but also in the Balkan hinterland (Chapman 2000a, 61–63; Hill 1995, 95; Chondroyianni-Metoki 2009, 502–503, 647–51, with all the relevant bibliography; Chondroyianni-Metoki 2015).

References cited Anagnostou, Ioanna, Savvatia Thomaidou, Georgia Stratouli, Marina Sofronidou, Kosmas Touloumis. 1997. ‘Anaskafi Dispiliou Kastorias: To hronologiko provlima.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 7 (1993): 13–17.

The contents of the pits and ditches, with the observed correlations of different material categories and the types of objects (and indeed the exclusion of others) which repeatedly occur, in some cases in patterns, indicates the existence of structured deposition.15 This reflects different pre-depositional paths and ideological correlations between objects and materials. The evidence for structure in the deposition of refuse, and even more so of the assemblages of intact vessels and other objects at TKK, is found in their correlation within the individual contexts; in the activities that produced such contexts (e.g. funeral) and their distribution (e.g. types of contexts located close to one another); the types of objects that comprise deposits linked to ritual activities; and in the ‘biographies’ of the objects themselves. The remains of daily or recurring activities that ended up in this area suggest intense ritual activity connected to various aspects of the life of the inhabitants. The house and the activities related to it, the burials of the deceased and the associated rituals, and a variety of other communal ceremonies appear to be the principal sources of the content of the pits at TKK. At the same time, the level of preservation of the finds and the coexistence of intact and broken objects at TKK support the importance of the practice of intentional fragmentation suggested for the prehistoric societies of southeastern Europe (Chapman 2000b).

Andreou, Stelios, Michael Fotiadis, and Kostas Kotsakis. 1996. ‘Review of Aegean Prehistory V: The Neolithic and Bronze Age of Northern Greece.’ American Journal of Archaeology 100: 537–97. Bailey, Douglass. 1999. ‘The built environment: pit-huts and houses in the Neolithic.’ Documenta Praehistorica 26: 153–62. Bailey, Douglass. 2000. Balkan Prehistory. Exclusion, incorporation and identity. London; New York: Routledge. Chapman, John. 2000a. ‘Pit-digging and Structured Deposition in the Neolithic and Copper Age of Central and Eastern Europe.’ Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 66: 61–87. Chapman, John. 2000b. Fragmentation in Archaeology: People, Places, and Broken Objects in the Prehistory of South Eastern Europe. London; New York: Routledge. Chondroyianni-Metoki, Areti. 2001. ‘Egnatia Odos, anaskafi sti thesi Toumba Kremastis Koiladas Nomou Kozanis.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 13 (1999): 399–414.

This area is characterised by intense ritual activity which, to a significant degree, is funerary in character and involves primary and secondary burials, with some of them related to the community’s ancestors, the public nature of these activities and the location on the margins of the settlement. They would reinforce social cohesion and stability, and the maintenance of the social structure (Hodder 1982, 162, 182–83; Dietler 2001, 65; Parker Pearson and Richards 1994, 24–29). Actual burials of humans and animals, and symbolic burial of houses (both real ones and models that underline the significance of the house), and of the variety of objects, all receiving similar treatment, comprise a specific public cemetery. The ideological perceptions and the practices of the inhabitants appear to be based on the general dichotomy of life and death and on the concept of fertility, while echoing the concepts of purity, catharsis and social equality.

Chondroyianni-Metoki, Areti. 2009. Mi oikistikes hriseis horou stous neolithikous oikismous: to paradeigma tis Toumbas Kremastis Koiladas. PhD diss., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Chondroyianni-Metoki, Areti. 2010. ‘H kafsi ton nekron sto neolithko oikismos tis Toumbas Kremastis Koiladas stin Kitrini Limni N. Kozanis.’ In Iris: meletes sti mnimi tis kathigitrias Angelikis Pilali-Papasteriou, edited by Nikos Merousis, Evangelia Stefani, and Marianna Nikolaidou, 213–34. Thessaloniki: Kornelia Sfakianaki. Chondroyianni-Metoki, Areti. 2011. ‘Kleitos 2009. H anaskafi sta anatolika oria tou neolithikou oikismou “Κleitos 1” kai ston oikismo “Κleitos 2”.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo stin Αno Μakedonia 1 (2009): 231–44.

This ritual activity must have been important for the community as a whole reflecting the inhabitants’ need for protection from the various real and symbolic threats

Chondroyianni-Metoki, Areti. 2014. ‘Architektonikes morfes tis proistorias stin koilada tou mesou rou tou Aliakmona.’ In A century of research in prehistoric Macedonia 1912–2012. International conference proceedings, edited by Evangelia Stefani, Nikos Merousis and Anastasia Dimoula, 337–48. Thessaloniki: Archaeological Museum Thessaloniki.

15 The existence of structured deposition is demonstrated by all the separate studies of material from Toumba Kremastis Koiladas which have been conducted so far. See Stroulia and Chondrou 2013; Stroulia 2014; Tzevelekidi 2012; Valamoti et al. 2011; chapter 6 in this volume. For burial remains, see Triantaphyllou 2008, who also identified the material of all four flutes as human bone.

Chondroyianni-Metoki, Areti. 2015. ‘O neolitikos oikismos tis Toumbas Kremastis Koiladas, stin Kitrini 58

Outside the Residential Place at the Neolithic Settlement of Toumba Kremastis Koiladas, Northern Greece Monumenta Archaeologica 1. Los Angeles: The Institute of Archaeology, University of California. Los Angeles.

Limni Kozanis.’ In Arhaiologia kai Tehnes. www. arxaiologia.gr. Chondroyianni-Metoki, Areti. In press. ‘Kitrini Limni 2016–2017: Ta anaskafika dedomena apo tin periohi ton lignitorihion tis DEI.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 31 (2017).

Gimbutas, Marija. 1980. ‘The Temples of Old Europe.’ Archaeology 33(6): 41–50. Gimbutas, Marija. 1999. The Living Goddess. Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Chondroyianni-Metoki, Areti, Paraskevi Evaggeloglou, Charikleia Lokana, Vasiliki Laina, Athanasia Touliopoulou, Eleftheria Kakavitsa. In press. ‘Orihio Mavropigis. H arhaiologiki erevna gia to 2015.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 29 (2015).

Grammenos, Dimitris and Stavros Kotsos. 2002. Sostikes anaskafes sto neolithiko oikismo Stavroupolis Thessalonikis. Thessaloniki: Arhaiologiko Instituto Voreias Elladas.

Chondrou, Danai. 2010. Tripta ergaleia apo ti neolithiki thesi tis Toumba Kremastis Koiladas. MA diss., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

Grammenos, Dimitris and Stavros Kotsos. 2004. Sostikes anaskafes sto neolithiko oikismo Stavroupolis Thessalonikis, Meros 2 (1998–2003). Thessaloniki: Arhaiologiko Instituto Voreias Elladas.

Chourmouziadis, Georgios, Nana Almatzi, and Marina Sofronidou. 2001. ‘Anaskafiki pragmatikotita kai kathimerines erminies.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 13 (1999): 623–30.

Hill, James. 1995. Ritual and Rubbish in the Iron Age of Wessex: A Study on the Formation of a Specific Archaeological Record. British Archaeological Reports British Series 242. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Chrysostomou, Panikos. 2012 ‘O politismos ton tessaron limnon. Nea stoiheia gia tin diahroniki parousia sto lekanopedio Amintaiou Florinas.’ Paper presented at the Conference Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki held in Thessaloniki (Greece) 2012.

Hodder, Ian. 1982. Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]; New York: Cambridge University Press. Hodder, Ian. ‘The Haddenham Causewayed enclosure – A Hermeneutic circle’, In Theory and Practice in Archaeology, edited by Ian Hodder, 213–40. London: Routledge.

Dietler, Michael and Brian Hayden. 2001. Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power. Washington D.C: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Kalicz, Nandor and Paul Raczky. 1987. ‘Berettyoujfalu – Herpaly. A settlement of the Herpaly culture.’ In The Late Neolithic of the Tisza region, edited by Paul Raczky and Laszlo Talas, 105–25. Budapest; Szolnok: Szolnok County Museums.

Efstratiou, Nikos and Ntina Kallintzi. 1997. ‘Arhaiologikes erevnes stin Makri Evrou. Ektimiseis kai provlimata.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 10Β (1996): 881–916. Fotiadis, Michael. 1991. ‘Proistoriki erevna sti Kitrini Limni N. Kozanis, 1988.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 2 (1988): 41–54.

Kalogirou, Alexandra.1994. Production and consumption of pottery in Kitrini Limni, West Macedonia, Greece, 4500 B.C.– 3500 B.C., PhD diss., Indiana University.

Fotiadis, Michael and Areti Chondroyianni-Metoki. 1997. ‘Kitrini Limni: Diahroniki sinopsi, radiohronoloseis kai i anaskafi tou 1993.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 7 (1993): 9–31.

Karamitrou-Mentesidi, Georgia. 1986. ‘Proistorikoi oikismoi Kitrinis Limnis (Sarigiol) Kozanis.’ In Amitos, Timitikos Tomos gia ton kathigiti Manoli Androniko, 391–416. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

Fotiadis, Michael, Areti Hondroyianni-Metoki, Alexandra Kalogirou, Christina Ziota. 2000. ‘Megalo Nisi Galanis (Kitrini Limni Basin) and the Later Neolithic of Northwestern Greece.’ In Karanovo, edited by Stefan Hiller and Vassil Nikolov, 217–28. Vienna. Beitrage zum Neolithikum in Sudosteuropa. Band III.

Karamitrou-Mentesidi, Georgia. 2000. ‘Xirolimni Kozanis 1998.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 12 (1998): 465–80. Karamitrou-Mentesidi, Georgia. 2002. ‘Nomos Kozanis 2000. Anaskafes en odois kai parodies.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 14 (2000): 607–40.

Gallis, Kostas. 1982. Kafseis nekron apo ti Neolithiki Epohi sti Thessalia. Athens: TAPA.

Karamitrou-Mentesidi, Georgia. 2007. ‘Mavropigi 2005: Lignitorihia kai arhaiotites.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 19 (2005): 511–39.

Gallis, Kostas. 1985. ‘A Late Neolithic foundation offering from Thessaly.’ Antiquity 59(225): 20–24. Gallis, Kostas. 1992. Atlas proistorikon oikismon tis Anatolikis Thessalikis pediadas. Larissa: Ekdosi Etaireias Istorikon Erevnon Thessalias.

Karamitrou-Mentesidi, Georgia. 2014. ‘Peri proistorikon theseon sti dytiki Makedonia: nomoi Kozanis kai Grevenon.’ In A century of research in prehistoric Macedonia 1912–2012. International conference proceedings, edited by Evangelia Stefani, Nikos

Gimbutas, Marija. 1976. Neolithic Macedonia, as reflected by excavation at Anza, Southeast Yugoslavia. 59

Areti Chondroyianni-Metoki Pappa, Maria, Paul Halstead, Kostas Kotsakis, Dushka Urem–Kotsou. 2004. ‘Evidence for large-scale feasting at Late Neolithic Makriyalos, N. Greece.’ In Food, Cuisine and Society in Prehistoric Greece, edited by Paul Halstead and John C. Barrett, 16–44. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Merousis and Anastasia Dimoula, 233–50. Thessaloniki: Archaeological Museum Thessaloniki. Karamitrou-Mentesidi, Georgia, Charikleia Lokana, and Katerina Anagnostopoulou. 2014. ‘Dio theseis tis arhaioteris kai mesis neolithikis sti Mavropigi kai Pontokomi Eordaias.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 24 (2010): 39–52.

Parker Pearson, Mike and Colin Richards. 1994. ‘Ordering the world: Perceptions of architecture, space and time.’ In Architecture and Order. Approaches to social space, edited by Mike Parker Rearson and Colin Richards, 1–37. London; New York: Routledge.

Karathanou, Angeliki and Sultana-Maria Valamoti. 2011. ‘H arhaiovotaniki erevna sti neolithiki thesi TKK Koiladas.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 22 (2008): 57–70.

Papathanasiou, Αnastasia and Michael P. Richards. 2011. ‘Anthropologika kataloipa apo tis proimes theseis Mavropigis, Xirolimnis kai Pontokomis tis Arhaioteris Neolithikis sti Ditiki Makedonia.’ To Arhaiologiko Ergo stin Ano Makedonia 1 (2009): 257–74.

Karathanou, Angeliki. 2009. Arhaiovotanikes erevnes sti neolithiki thesi TKK Kozanis. MA diss., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Kotsakis, Kostas. 2002. ‘Eisagogi tou Epimeliti.’ In Ian Hodder Reading the Past. Greek translation by Panayiotis Moutzouridis, Konstantinos Nikolentzos and Maria Tsouli, 15–25. Athens: Ekdoseis tou eikostou protou.

Renfrew, Colin. 1986. ‘The Sitagroi Sequence.’ In Excavations at Sitagroi. A Prehistoric Village in Northern Greece. Vol. 1, edited by Colin Renfrew, Marija Gimbutas and Ernestine S. Elster, Monumenta Archaeologica 13, 147–74. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Kotsakis, Kostas. ‘H keramiki tis Neoteris Neolithikis stin voreia Ellada.’ In H Ellada sto evritero politismiko plaisio ton Balkanion kata tin 5 kai 4 chilietia p.Ch., edited by Νikos Papadimitriou in collaboration with Zoi Tsirtsoni, 66–75. Athens: Museum of Cycladic Art, Idrima N. P. Goulandri.

Shimabuku, Daniel and Shan Winn. 1989. ‘Neolithic and modern Achilleion. The architectural link.’ In Achilleion. A Neolithic settlement in Thessaly, Greece, 6400–5600 BC, edited by Marija Gimbutas, Shan Winn and Daniel Shimabuku, 69–74, Monumenta Archaeologica 14, Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Chaido, René Treuil, and Dimitra Malamidou. 1997a. ‘Proistorikos oikismos Filipon ‘Dikili-Tash.’ Deka xronia anaskafikis erevnas.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 10Β (1996): 681–704.

Stratouli, Georgia. 2007. ‘Metaxi pilon, plinthon kai passalon, magnitikon simaton kai arhaiologikon erotimaton: tafroi oriothetisis kai themeliosis sto neolithiko oikismo Avgis Kastorias.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 19 (2005): 595–606.

Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Chaido, Henrietta Todorova, Ioannis Aslanis, Javor Bojadziev, Foteini Konstandopoulou, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalini Valla. 1997b. ‘Promaxonas-Topolnica. Neolithikos oikismos ellinovoulgarikon sinoron.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 10Β (1996): 745–67.

Stratouli, Georgia. 2010. ‘Neolithikos oikismos Avgis Kastorias 2006–2007: horo-organotikes praktikes tis 6 kai 5 hilietias.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 21 (2007): 7–14.

Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Chaido, Ioannis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalini Valla. 2005. ‘Promahonas-Topolnica 2002–2003.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 17 (2003): 91–110.

Stratouli, Georgia. 2013. ‘H diaheirisi tou thanantou: horos tafikis praktikis sto neolithiko oikismo Avgis Kastorias.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 23 (2009): 9–18.

Marangou, Christina. 1992. Εidolia, Figurines et miniatures du Neolithique Recent et du Bronze Ancien en Grece. British Archaeological Reports International Series 576. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Stroulia, Anna. 2005. ‘Lithina tripta apo tin Kitrini Limni Kozanis: Mia proti prosegisi, prota erotimata.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 17 (2003): 571–80.

McPherron, Alan and Chris K. Christopher. 1988. ‘The Balkan Neolithic and the Divostin Project in Perspective.’ In Divostin and the Neolithic of Central Serbia. Ethnology Monographs 10A, edited by Alan McPherron and Dragoslav Srejovic, 463–89. Pittsburgh: Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh.

Stroulia, Anna. 2014. ‘Ergaleia me kopsi apo tin KremastiKoilada, nomou Kozanis: viografikes paratiriseis.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 24 (2010): 63–72. Stroulia, Anna and Danai Chondrou. 2013. ‘Destroying the Means of Production: The Case of Ground Stone Tools from Kremasti-Kilada, Greece.’ In Destruction: archaeological, philological and historical

Pappa, Maria and Manthos Besios. 1999. ‘The Neolithic settlement at Makriyalos, Northern Greece: Preliminary Report on the 1993–1995 Excavations.’ Journal of Field Archaeology 26(2): 177–95. 60

Outside the Residential Place at the Neolithic Settlement of Toumba Kremastis Koiladas, Northern Greece perspectives, edited by Jan Driessen, 109–31. LouvainLa-Neuve: Press Univ. de Louvain.

Ziota, Christina. 2014. ‘The settlement of Kleitos Kozanis in its wider natural and anthropogenic environment during the Late and Final Neolithic periods.’ In A century of research in prehistoric Macedonia 1912– 2012. International conference proceedings, edited by Evangelia Stefani, Nikos Merousis, and Anastasia Dimoula, 323–36. Thessaloniki: Archaeological Museum Thessaloniki.

Tasić, Nenad, Miroslav Marić, Kristina Penezić, Dragana Filipović, Ksenija Borojević, Nicola Russell, Paula Reimer, Alistair Barclay, Alex Bayliss, Dušan Borić, Bisserka Gaydarska, Alasdair Whittle. 2015. ‘The end of the affair: formal chronological modelling for the top of the Neolithic tell of Vinča-Belo Brdo.’ Antiquity 89(347): 1064–82.

Ziota, Christina, Areti Chondroyianni–Metoki, and Evanthia Maggouretsiou. 2013a. ‘H arhaiologiki erevna ston Kleito Kozanis to 2009.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 23 (2009): 37–52.

Toufexis, Georgios. 1996. ‘Omoioimata spition.’ In Neolithikos politismos stin Ellada, edited by George A. Papathanasopoulos, 161–62. Athens: Museum of Cycladic Art, N. P. Goulandris Foundation.

Ziota, Christina, Areti Chondroyianni–Metoki, and Evanthia Maggouretsiou. 2013b. ‘Recent prehistoric research in the Kitrini Limni area of the Kozani prefecture.’ Arhaiologiko Ergo stin Ano Makedonia 2 (2011): 57–83.

Toufexis, Georgios and Evaggelia Skafida. 1996. ‘Neolithic house models from Thessaly, Greece.’ In International Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Proceedings of the XIII Congress, no. 3, Forli – Italia, 8–14 Sept. 1996: 339–46. Triantaphyllou, Sevasti. 2008. ‘Living with the Dead: a Re-Consideration of Mortuary Practices in the Greek Neolithic.’ In Escaping the Labyrinth: The Cretan Neolithic in Context, edited by Valasia Isaakidou and Peter Tomkins, 139–57. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Tringham, Ruth and Dušan Krstić 1990. ‘Selevac. A Neolithic Village in Yugoslavia.’ Monumenta Archaeologica 15. Los Angeles: University of California. Tzevelekidi, Vasiliki. 2012. Dressing for Dinner: Butchery and Bone Deposition at Late Neolithic Toumba Kremastis-Koiladas, Northern Greece. British Archaeological Reports International Series 2451. Oxford: BAR Publishing. Tzevelekidi, Vasiliki, Valasia Isaakidou, and Paul Halstead. 2014. ‘Prosklisi se gevma: praktikes katanalosis kai apothesis oston zoon sto Makriyialo Pierias kai stin Toumba Kremastis-Koiladas Kozanis.’ In A century of research in prehistoric Macedonia 1912–2012. International conference proceedings, edited by Evangelia Stefani, Nikos Merousis and Anastasia Dimoula, 425–36. Thessaloniki: Archaeological Museum Thessaloniki. Valamoti, Sultana-Maria, Aikaterini Moniaki, and Angeliki Karathanou. 2011. ‘An Investigation of Processing and Consumption of Pulses among Prehistoric Societies: Archaeobotanical, Experimental and Ethnographic Evidence from Greece.’ Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 20: 381–96. Ziota, Christina. 1996. ‘Kitrini Limni.’ Αrhaiologiko Deltio 51, no Β2: 536–40. Ziota, Christina. 2007. Tafikes praktikes kai koinonies tis epohis tou Halkou stin Ditiki Makedonia: nekrotafeia stin Koilada kai stis Goules Kozanis. PhD diss., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

61

Areti Chondroyianni-Metoki

Figure 5.1. Map of the Kitrini Limni basin, with the location of the Toumba Kremastis Koiladas settlement and of other settlements in the area known before 1994 (based on a Military Geographic Service map).

Figure 5.2. Site plan with pits, ditches and cremation burials discovered on the margins of the Neolithic settlement of Toumba Kremastis Koiladas.

62

Outside the Residential Place at the Neolithic Settlement of Toumba Kremastis Koiladas, Northern Greece

Figure 5.3. The location of the Neolithic settlement of Toumba Kremastis Koiladas (on the left) and of the excavation on the north-east margins of the settlement (on the right).

Figure 5.4. The 1998 excavation area on the margins of the settlement (with the old national highway on the left and the new Egnatia highway on the right).

63

Areti Chondroyianni-Metoki

Figure 5.5. Large hemispherical Pit 11, with two steps that provide access to its interior and a small pit on the bottom, which may have served for storage (layer C).

Figure 5.6. Row of aligned pits (nos. 12, 13, 14, 15) of possible auxiliary or storage function. A step that provides access to the interior of the central pit is visible, as well as a row of postholes, which probably supported a timber roof or floor that covered the pit (layer C).

64

Outside the Residential Place at the Neolithic Settlement of Toumba Kremastis Koiladas, Northern Greece

Figure 5.7. Large bell-shaped Pit 4, which contained a substantial quantity of vessels and animal bones (layer D).

Figure 5.8. Large bell-shaped Pit 344, with multiple-use episodes that contained variety of materials including the bones of human infants. The pit was sealed after its last use (layer D).

65

Areti Chondroyianni-Metoki

Figure 5.9. Large barrel-shaped Pit 42, with fragments of pottery on the bottom (layer C).

Figure 5.10. Pit 225, which contained interments of entire or parts of animals (sheep) and pottery (layer C).

66

Outside the Residential Place at the Neolithic Settlement of Toumba Kremastis Koiladas, Northern Greece

Figure 5.11. Large hemispherical, single-use Pit 430, which contained burnt architectural remains (layer C).

Figure 5.12. Pit 314, which contained burnt architectural remains of a post-framed building and a storage vessel filled with burnt grass pea seeds (layer C).

67

Areti Chondroyianni-Metoki

Figure 5.13. Pit 389, with remains of ritual activity (miniature vessels and a quern stone) (layer C).

Figure 5.14. Pit 388, with remains of ritual activity (miniature vessels and bones) (layer C).

68

Outside the Residential Place at the Neolithic Settlement of Toumba Kremastis Koiladas, Northern Greece

Figure 5.15. Pit 387, with remains of ritual activity, probably of funerary character, which contained numerous vessels of both standard and miniature size, a quern stone, animal bones and a single human bone (layer C).

Figure 5.16. Two-storey clay house model from Pit 296.

69

Areti Chondroyianni-Metoki

Figure 5.18. Beads made of Spondylus shell from a necklace probably worn by the dead woman (cremation burial no. 21).

Figure 5.17. Flutes made of human bone.

Figure 5.19. Pits and ditches B, C1, D.

Figure 5.20. Part of ditch B, which cut earlier pits (134, 186, 187).

70

Outside the Residential Place at the Neolithic Settlement of Toumba Kremastis Koiladas, Northern Greece

Figure 5.21. Child inhumation in Pit 76 (burial no. 25).

Figure 5.22. Cremation burial no. 3.

Figure 5.23. Cremation burials nos. 18 and 19.

71

6 Identifying Ritual at Late Neolithic Toumba Kremastis Koiladas: Ceramic Assemblages of Representative Contexts Teresa Silva Democritus University of Thrace, Komotini, Greece Marianna Lymperaki Democritus University of Thrace, Komotini, Greece Areti Chondroyianni-Metoki Ephorate of Antiquities of Kozani, Greece Dushka Urem-Kotsou Democritus University of Thrace, Komotini, Greece Abstract: Contextual analysis provides a valuable tool to understand the diversity of ways in which ritual ties a place to the lives of a group of people. Using four case studies from the Late Neolithic off-settlement site of Toumba Kremastis Koiladas, this chapter provides an insight into the variety of activities that took place outside the residential area, many of them presumably of ceremonial/ritual character. Stratigraphy and all the finds from well defined contexts were taken into account, but further emphasis is put on pottery to show how the interplay of ritual and mundane domestic aspects of life may leave marks on an assemblage. Two of the four distinct contexts contain remains of ritualistic behaviours relating to the dead, but with obvious differences. The other two contexts are more focused on the house, with specific emphasis on storage and rubbish removal respectively. Keywords: ritual, ceramics, contextual analysis, off-settlement pit field, structured depositions, northern Greece, Late Neolithic Introduction

in Greece, but such sites are not unknown in other parts of the Balkans, where the off-settlement areas tend to be more ritualistically defined (Bacvarov and Gorczyk 2017; 2018; chapter 15 in this volume; Nikolov 2015). The off-settlement area at TKK offers its own complexities relating to the idea of ritual. Ritual has classically been understood as something separate, special, and esoteric, but recent theoretical approaches have emphasised that ritual is something much more intimate and inextricable from the complexity of peoples’ daily life. It has been proposed that ritual need not necessarily be relegated to a specific separate context, but is entangled with the entirety of people’s lives (Hodder 2012), and since pottery is inherently tied to the domestic sphere of a settlement (Hodder 1990), it may function on multiple planes of symbolism wherein the domestic is transferred elsewhere, into different contexts, as at TKK.

It has long been assumed that the place where someone lives becomes layered with the detritus and symbolism of a life lived there. Sites like Toumba Kremastis Koiladas (hereafter TKK) provide a different sense of how to make special and unique a place wherein a cultural memory (Kuechler 1994) is defined and redefined. Located not far from the settlement, this off-settlement set of pits and ditches was not a space where people lived but nevertheless was a place imbued with importance alongside practicality, and in which the two were intertwined and layered together. According to the excavator, Areti Chondroyianni-Metoki (see chapter 5 in this volume), the pits must have been related to a variety of activities ranging from the extraction of clay and rubbish disposal to structured burials of diverse forms of material culture. The nature of the artefacts and the behaviour visible in the depositional history form a grounding effect (Chapman 2000, 31) for the people continually using the space. This kind of off-settlement area with the remains of diverse activities, including ceremonial ones, is a unique discovery for the Neolithic

The materials, pit shapes, stratigraphies and behaviours visible in the archaeological record at TKK are diverse, which enables the identification of some contexts as different from others: perhaps as having a special use related 73

Teresa Silva, Marianna Lymperaki, Areti Chondroyianni-Metoki & Dushka Urem-Kotsou to ritual activities. Some of the pits remained open after the first deposition of material and were then gradually filled during different episodes, while others included material deposited during a single episode. Additionally, while in some pits the deposition of their contents did not seem to follow any pattern, there are marks of structured deposition in others, where the material was placed carefully, as if there were logics behind the placement of each object. The diversity of behaviours surrounding the pits at TKK points to multiple pathways, multiple logics, at play and visible in the archaeological record, which must have been linked to individual and group identities and to the ‘communities of practice in which ceremonial knowledge was shared and transmitted’ (Mills 2015, 252–53).

(Rapapport 1994, 24), which means that ritual actions can be different according to the intents, needs, and actors involved. Often, ritual is connected to ceremonies surrounding the dead, as is likely the case with several contexts at TKK, where human bones are found either as intact burials (inhumations and cremations) or scattered and intermixed with the rest of the pit material (see chapter 5 in this volume). However, ritual could be used to support other endeavours, such as the maintenance of a community. LaTour (2005, 34–35) touches on ritual in terms of speech acts and the like, but his insistence that it is the recurring actions which maintain connections within networks, or rather the bringing together of people to undertake similar actions, certainly adheres to more archaeologically visible ideas of ritual, situating ritual more in the realm of social and community practice. Ritual is thus also seen as a ‘mechanism of shaping beliefs, ideologies and identities’ (Kyriakidis 2007, 1).

In this chapter we discuss four distinct contexts with the aim of representing some of the variety of activities that took place in this area, focusing on ritualistic aspects. The emphasis will be on pottery, but other materials deposited will be also considered. After a brief outline of what ritual represents, we will first address a strictly ritual deposition – a cremation, to contrast with the structured depositions found in the single-use pits devoted to different ritualistic/ ceremonial activities (Pits 4 and 314), and later we will discuss a multiple-use context with less obvious structure: the linked Pits 175, 176, and 177. Though the pottery is all undeniably of TKK’s pottery tradition in stylistic terms, further examination highlights different factors at play in their use and deposition.

People often rely upon visible symbols and recurring activities (Hill 1985) to do so. Decoration motifs and ceramic typology have long been interpreted as a carrier of such visible symbols (Wiessner 1990, 104). It is assumed that material culture has been actively involved in the formation of people’s identities, an assumption further supported by ethnographic studies which clearly show the connection of visible symbols to a group’s sense of belonging and identity (e.g. Gosselain 2011; Hodder 1982). It follows that pottery and its style (e.g. vessel shape, colours, the presence or absence of decoration, decoration motifs), have the potential to be actively involved in the formation of identities. There are numerous studies which show that ceramic style is generally symbolically charged and is actively involved in the formation and reproduction of social order, even though specific motifs do not always convey particular meanings (e.g. Miller 1985). The ceramic style at TKK is remarkably homogeneous over time, suggesting that the manipulation and use of style might be, in and of itself, a visible symbol of the ideologies and intent of its users.

Ritual The study of ritual has gained much interest among archaeologists for some decades, and has been characterised by controversies. Many general definitions of ritual have been suggested within the literature, each of which elucidate what we may mean when we refer to ritual that is of crucial importance for the identification of such events, which are usually of low visibility in the archaeological record. Turner (1986, 75) defines it as ‘the performance of a complex sequence of symbolic acts.’ Thus, people could not have lived in one area for generations, returning to a specific site to dig pits to deposit their items both carefully and somewhat haphazardly without conferring value onto the place. Surely that investment is a result of valuing the idea of what this off-settlement area represents – an area not only of rubbish disposal and clay extraction but also of multiple kinds of ritual that reinforce and support the domestic sphere and the day-to-day lives of the people of TKK. Richards and Thomas (1984) believe that the basic characteristic of ritual is its formality, which would include the sometimes very specific depositional behaviour visible at TKK.

A basic difficulty where ritual practices are concerned is the ability to identify or interpret the remains of such acts (Renfrew 1985; Bradley 2005). In many cases the remains are not differentiated from objects of everyday life and, in fact, they may not constitute a special set of objects. This is another feature of ritual that we consider it essential to clarify. Though there are certainly items that are unique within the TKK assemblage, such as clay house models, flutes and miniature vessels, the majority of the pottery,16 which is the most numerous category of finds, is very functional and ‘typical’ for the settlement. The decorated (tableware) vessels are almost always found alongside the cooking pottery. It has been suggested that ritual should

The visible diversity implies that the ritual behaviour must be fulfilling many purposes, as Sackett (1982) suggests for the diversity seen in patterns of social interaction. Rapapport, indeed, emphasised ritual as ‘the performance of more or less invariant sequences of formal acts and utterances not entirely encoded by the performers’

Special ceramics at TKK range from small bottles to very large and intensively decorated black-topped vessels. However, they are considered special more due to their rarity than because they are obvious ritual items.

16

74

Identifying Ritual at Late Neolithic Toumba Kremastis Koiladas not be distinguished from everyday life, and that various actions and events can be ritualised (Mills 2015; Bradley 2005; Marcus 2007; Humphrey and Laidlaw 2007; Dietler and Hayden 2001, 67); thus, there could be an element of the ritual in all aspects of an assemblage.

undecorated storage vessels are also present in various sizes, though often open-shaped. Large-sized closeshaped storage vessels suitable for liquids often have shiny surfaces achieved through the use of mica-rich clays – the clay choice may have rendered these decorated as well. The cooking vessels show strong patterns of construction choices in their morphology.

By examining various mechanisms of visual representation and ritualistic behaviour that leave material remains in the archaeological record, it can often be possible to gain a better insight into social practices and beliefs, since ritual is ‘defined by the society that practices it’ (Kyriakidis 2007, 2).17 If ritual is characterised by its repetitive, standardised and stereotypical nature (Hill 1995, 98; Bradley 2005, 5; Hastorf 2007; Renfrew 2007; Bell 1997), it is potentially more identifiable, as it becomes distinguished from mundane acts, because the ritual acts are differentiated from everyday action in a symbolic way in their form, action and purpose (Dietler 2001, 67).

Overall, the ceramic assemblage is remarkably homogeneous from a stylistic point of view, being dominated by visually eye-catching technological expertise, and with subtle elaborations added upon that foundation. This set of characteristics is repeated with only minor differences19 over 400 years.20 This pottery was not produced primarily for deposition in the offsettlement pits, but was likely used in the day-to-day lives of the inhabitants. It does not differ from the pottery found in the settlement deposits, suggesting that these were domestic items too. Furthermore, the visually striking decorated pottery is often found within the same contexts as heavily used cooking vessels, underlining their strong ties to the daily acts of eating and living. Thus, the ceramic assemblage intertwines the realms of the domestic and the ritual, in which the pottery may function in one or the other, emphasising that not all of the pottery at TKK is ritual or domestic, but rather that ritual is just one aspect of the pottery and thus of the lives of the people who used them. In addition, the generally large size of the vessels also supports the importance of group activity over individual acts. Thus, the pottery at TKK emphasises the group identity of the people who occupied TKK for 400 years by providing a clear visual historical link which both the identity and memory was probably supported and enacted through ritual activity.

Bradley points out that ‘on an empirical level it is certainly possible to qualify the sharp distinction between the ritual and everyday uses of places, but any attempt to rationalise all the features ... seems to go too far’ (Bradley 2005, 20). This seems to be the case at the site of TKK, where a variety of pits clearly served a variety of purposes and pottery either supports or contrasts with what other classes of material suggest. Therefore, what often differentiates the pits of TKK as more ritual than the others is that the general principles and the symbolic conformations seem to be carefully planned in some way. The settlement of Toumba Kremastis Koiladas The tell site of Toumba Kremastis Koiladas is located 20 km northeast of the modern city of Kozani in Western Macedonia, Greece (see Chondroyianni-Metoki 2009; see chapter 5 in this volume). The excavations near the northeastern margin of the settlement uncovered 462 pits and a series of ditches where a large variety of materials were found, dating to 5340–4930 BC. The most dominant find in all pits is pottery, followed by zooarchaeological material, architectural remains (baked clay), and stone tools (Chondroyianni-Metoki 2009; see chapter 5 in this volume).

Selected contexts We have selected five pits and a cremation situated in different parts of the excavated area (see chapter 5, Figure 5.2) to provide an insight into the diversity of contexts unearthed outside the residential area. Although some of them share some similar characteristics, the differences are more striking. First, we discuss a cremation as an example of an unequivocally ritualistic/ceremonial context. Pit 4 may also involve a ceremony relating to the dead, but has a very different assemblage of finds. Pit 314 offers a glimpse of a ceremony more concerned with storage and the biography of the house. Both pits are single-use and bell-shaped. Linked Pits 175–77 showcase the typical pottery of the site overall, as a deposit largely related to domestic rubbish. Most of the ceramics discussed in this chapter are typical of the site in general, but their context

The study of the pottery has revealed vessels of different sizes, types and uses (see Table 6.1 for percentages). The most commonly identified category is that of decorated tableware, which comes in various sizes and shapes, followed by cooking pots and open- and close-shaped storage vessels (some of which were extremely large). For 400 years, the tableware vessels are predominantly blacktopped (92 per cent), often with additional decoration, especially the sharply carinated ones (Table 6.2). Large, storage-ware sized black-topped vessels18 suitable for dry goods are just as intensely decorated and formed. Other

These differences are more likely to be potters’ ‘hands’ than intentional shifts in style, as they are not statistically visible. 20 The vessels from the context with the earliest dates, 5355–5150 BC, (Chondroyianni-Metoki 2009, 152.) and the vessels from the context with the latest dates, 5040–4850 BC, (Chondroyianni-Metoki 2009, 152) follow the same schema in terms of typology, firing techniques, motifs, and size. No pit or context thus far studied has shown any statistically valid deviation from the general pattern, apart from, in certain aspects, the cremations/graves and one specific pit (not discussed in this chapter). 19

LaTour has at times essentially defined the entirety of archaeological research as the understanding of patterns of repetitive behaviour as a way to partially understand the internal structures of people’s interactions. 18 These vessels are described further in the discussion of Pit 4. 17

75

Teresa Silva, Marianna Lymperaki, Areti Chondroyianni-Metoki & Dushka Urem-Kotsou 188), as does the burial of the intact vessels. The ground stone tools also demonstrate wasteful consumption, in that they show visible signs of ‘planned, systematic, methodical’ deliberate fragmentation of whole tools which were refitted (Stroulia and Chondrou 2013, 120–24). All of the material buried in this pit thus show active choices made in fragmentation or lack thereof within a context of wasteful deposition.

and the behaviours shown in their deposition allow for a deeper understanding of the ritualistic aspects of the site. Cremation 7 Cremation 7 was set up directly on the ground (or in a small, vaguely defined pit), with two fragmented blacktopped vessels covering a storage-ware base which held the cremation itself (Chondroyianni-Metoki 2010, 218– 19). Other material was not found in this context. Both black-topped vessels show clear signs of secondary fire, which indicate that they were part of the cremation pyre. Both are typical of TKK’s black-topped tableware. One is a large piece of a conical black-topped bowl, representing roughly a third of the vessel (Figure 6.1: a). The other, a mostly intact carinated black-topped bowl, has unusually brittle fabric due to the secondary firing (Figure 6.1: b). It has a mending hole on its lower body, indicating that it was likely used for some time prior to its deposition. During deposition, most of the carinated bowl appears to have been sprinkled on top of the ashes, as if to cover them, in small pieces. Interestingly, the base holding the cremation does not show signs of secondary firing (Figure 6.1: c). The base is made of the mica-rich fabric commonly used at TKK for piriform or ovaloid close-shaped vessels suitable for the storage of liquids. Comparing it to the usual height of these vessels reveals that only a quarter or less of this pot was used to hold the human remains. Most unusual, however, is that the base of this vessel is incised (pre-firing) with an angular motif on its exterior base (Figure 6.1: c). It is one of only three known decorated storage-ware bases at TKK and is unique in its appearance, suggesting that this motif may have been related to this specific individual in some way. Thus, this particular cremation ceramic assemblage suggests an emphasis on both the individual (the unique motif) and the overall community (the typical black-topped vessels). Also notable is the fact that all three vessels were fragmented – two partial vessels are represented by large pieces, but the whole vessel is in many pieces. In addition, the use of the fragmented base of an ordinary storage vessel to hold human remains demonstrates that fine and usually heavily decorated tableware is not the sole carrier of ritualistic potential within the ceramic assemblage.

The ceramic material from Pit 4 is exceptionally well preserved. Most of the vessels were broken into many pieces, but could be reconstructed. Sixteen vessels are almost entirely intact, and many more vessels are represented by more than 50 per cent of the vessel (Figure 6.2: c, d, j). Such a low rate of fragmentation suggests that the material was arranged carefully in the pit and then immediately buried, which is supported by the exceptionally low level of abrasion. Pit 4 is also notable for the high quantity of vessels with paint (Figure 6.2: f, j),21 representing 48 per cent of the total of the decorated pottery from the pit, as opposed to the site average of 8–10 per cent (Table 6.2). All of this paint was applied upon black-topped vessels which themselves make up 74% of all of the decorated vessels in Pit 4. This intentional choice of high rates of painted vessels must have been related to the special character of the activities undertaken as part of the creation of Pit 4. Most of the decorated vessels show additional high levels of elaboration; for instance, one highly decorated black-topped vessel has white paint on the (slipped and polished) reduced surface (in a unique motif), rippled decoration, plastic nubs, and complex stepped22 carinated morphology, totalling six types of decorative elaboration on a single vessel (Figure 6.2: f). Even when unpainted, the black-topped vessels tend to be further decorated with a higher variety of additional decoration than usual: plastic, pattern burnish, incision, paint, impression, punctuation, channel, and rippled techniques all occur (Figure 6.2: d, e, g, h, i). The carinated black-topped vessels tend to be well fired, with a clear and even transition between the oxidised and reduced zones. The size of the vessels tends to be in the 28–32 cm rim diameter range, with probable capacities ranging from 1–2.5 litres, as is common at the site. The decorated material thus suggests a level of care and value being invested in these vessels, though they show a short use history and were buried without the signs of heavy use visible in the tableware of other pits. Stylistically, they deviate only slightly from the pottery of the site overall (in that they have more paint) but for the

Pit 4 One of the most striking features of the bell-shaped and flat-bottomed Pit 4 (see chapter 5, Figure 5.7) is the ceramic assemblage of intact or almost intact vessels (Figure 6.2: b, g, i) deposited within its deepest layer, dating to 5280– 5060 BC according to 14C dates (Chondroyianni-Metoki 1999, vol Α΄, 152, 154–55). The pit was also filled with human and cattle bones, beads, figurines, and stone tools of various types before the pit was sealed (ChondroyianniMetoki 2009, vol Β΄, 4–5). The human bones were found disarticulated and scattered among the rest of the material, while the cattle bones were articulated, with no signs of butchery. The archaeozoological material thus showcases a degree of wasteful consumption (Tzevelekidi 2012,

Though this high quantity of paint may be related to the good preservation achieved by immediately sealing the pit, it is also a direct result of the choice to put many painted vessels into the pit as part of the ritual. 22 Steps are a form of construction method commonly seen in Western Macedonia. Generally placed upon the upper edge of the carination, they are a solid addition that raises the carination to make the transition from the upper walls to the carination an abrupt, flat, raised zone. At TKK, they often create an additional register on which to place decoration. They are called steps to distinguish them from shoulders, which tend to be hollow on the interior and to have a different method of construction. 21

76

Identifying Ritual at Late Neolithic Toumba Kremastis Koiladas

Figure 6.1. Pottery from the Cremation 7 context: (a) conical black-topped vessel which functioned as a cap to the cremation, (b) carinated black-topped vessel (only the rim could be reconstructed; the rest of the vessel is fragmented into small pieces), (c) storage-ware base holding the cremation with (d) drawing of motif incised on base exterior.

most part they are well-decorated versions of the usual functional tableware.

The rest of the storage ware in this pit is mostly of micarich fabric, close-shaped, and suitable for liquids, of the same type as the base of the pot in Cremation 7 (Figure 6.3: a, b). However, other very large vessels made of the same fabric but in atypical shapes for the fabric were also recovered (Figure 6.3: c). Very little coarse storage ware was identified overall, and these vessels are primarily less common. These rarities and the overall finer fabric suggest that the storage vessels chosen for deposition are finerquality examples.

One very large black-topped, potentially storage vessel was recovered from the pit almost complete, and parts of two more were also reconstructed. These large, fine storage-size vessels have rim diameters of 52 cm, with a potential capacity of about 60 litres, but are found with no traces of any contents. They are well fired, with clear zones of oxidation and reduction, and have complex morphology with converging/concave upper walls, steps, and carinations. Strikingly, they are also decorated with labour-intensive subtle rippled decoration along the upper wall, and also have punctuation marks, paired lugs, and plastic button additions upon the step, all similar to those of their smaller tableware counterparts. They thus represent a high investment of work and perhaps value.

Pit 4 represents one of the rare instances on the site where relatively large portions of cooking pots were deposited (usually this ware is found highly fragmented in TKK) (Figure 6.4: a, b). Most of them are of open shapes (carinated, hemispherical, spherical) (Figure 6.4: a, b, d), which are suitable for boiling and stewing. One of the very 77

Teresa Silva, Marianna Lymperaki, Areti Chondroyianni-Metoki & Dushka Urem-Kotsou

Figure 6.2. Decorated vessels (all black-topped) found in Pit 4: (a) large vessel, (b–j) tableware of ordinary size, (f, j) examples of the use of additional paint.

few close-shaped cooking pots from this pit has a globular shape that is unique for TKK; it must have been ideal for the cooking of very liquid dishes (Figure 6.4: c). Another prominent category is pans (33 per cent of all the cooking pots of Pit 4). The pans are mainly conical, with some variation in the lip construction (Figure 6.4: e). Almost half of the pans of Pit 4 have sooted exterior surfaces that

would have been caused by their placement above the fire. However, only 10 per cent of the pans from this pit show clouds on their interiors that are presumably related to the processing of food without the use of liquid, such as baking or parching (Urem-Kotsou 2011; Lymperaki et al. 2016).

78

Identifying Ritual at Late Neolithic Toumba Kremastis Koiladas

Figure 6.3. Mica-rich coarseware undecorated storage vessels of close shape (a–b) and open shape (c) found in Pit 4.

The size of the cooking pots is larger than those in the other pits, with an average capacity of 16 litres; some of them exceed 20 litres. Vessels of such size, suitable for preparation of large amounts of food, must have been used as part of an event in which the number of participants probably exceeded the level of a household. Considered within the context of the overall pit, they were either memorabilia of public events in which food was consumed or utensils used for the preparation of food consumed by the participants during the opening of Pit 4 and the deposition of its contents.

Overall, this pit is notable for the intentional wastage of the ceramic vessels, which echoes the intentional wastage seen in the cattle bones and stone tools. The pottery seems to have been placed into the pit more or less intact, and immediately covered over. The pottery itself is very sophisticated in execution and often highly decorative. Paint, a rarer decorative technique overall at TKK, dominates in the assemblage. The cooking vessels show that a large quantity of food was possibly consumed. Comparing it with the overall ceramic assemblage of the site, it is safe to call Pit 4 a ritual assemblage with clear 79

Teresa Silva, Marianna Lymperaki, Areti Chondroyianni-Metoki & Dushka Urem-Kotsou

Figure 6.4. Cooking vessels from Pit 4: open-shaped (a, b, d), close-shaped (c), shallow pan (e).

signs of structured deposition. Considering that the vessels conform to the overall ceramic style of the site, it may also be considered to reference the group or overall community as well as the deceased individuals.

The ceramic material is badly preserved. Every sherd has high levels of abrasion, with flakes of red slip occasionally present on a few sherds, while many show clouds in their colouring, calcite voids and increased brittleness of the fabric, indicating that they have undergone secondary firing which has torn apart vessel walls and warped the sherds. Only the pithos holding the seeds is an intact vessel, and it is also partially burnt and warped (Figure 6.5: a).

Pit 314 Another flat-bottomed and bell-shaped pit with a singleuse episode is Pit 314 (see chapter 5, Figure 5.12). Its assemblage is dominated by a large amount of burnt daub from the walls of a building and a large storage pithos that held four kilos of burnt grass pea seeds, which were found lacking the processing necessary for human consumption (Valamoti et al 2011, 391). Apart from this, only fragmented pottery was found in the pit.

The pithos itself measures 95 cm at its opening and could have held roughly 342 litres23 or 205 kilos of barley were it filled to the rim. It thus represents a very large vessel, rarely This number was calculated using PotUtility (Thalmann 2006), and AquaCalc (website) was used to convert litres to volume of grain barley.

23

80

Identifying Ritual at Late Neolithic Toumba Kremastis Koiladas

Figure 6.5. Representative pottery from Pit 314: (a) pithos showing the clearest damage down the median line, (b–c) fragments of damaged storage-ware vessels, (d, e) fragments of black-topped vessels with rippled decoration (e).

found so nearly intact (though with only a small fraction of its contents). The other storage vessels which comprise the bulk of the material in this pit generally fall into two distinct categories. Some are smaller but very thick-walled storage vessels whose walls show evidence of slab construction. These vessels tend to have coarse fabric. Others are the thin-walled close-shaped vessels with mica-rich fabric24 (Figure 6.5: b, d). There is almost no tableware (5 per cent of the material, Table 6.1) in Pit 314. All are either black-

24

topped vessels or have rippled decoration25 (Table 6.2, Figure 6.5: e). Although in most of the pits studied there was a presence of at least some cooking pots or pans, in Pit 314 not even a small sherd was found. Overall, the ceramic assemblage of Pit 314 is that of material from a storage area. The rate of decoration and tableware is very low (cooking vessels are entirely 25 The degree of fragmentation does not always allow their secure identification as black-topped ware, though they are statistically more likely to be black-topped than just black burnished vessels.

The same type of vessel as was found in both Cremation 7 and Pit 4.

81

Teresa Silva, Marianna Lymperaki, Areti Chondroyianni-Metoki & Dushka Urem-Kotsou Table 6.1. Main pottery use categories for each context. TABLE WARE

STORAGE WARE

Cremation 7

CONTEXT

67%

33%

COOKING WARE OTHER CATEGORIES

Pit 4

27%

19%

33%

21%

Pit 314

5%

65%

-

30%

Pit 175

29%

9%

32%

30%

Pit 176

38%

4%

24%

34%

Pit 177

34%

6%

20%

40%

32%

10%

22%

36%

-

Pits 175-177

Average % at TKK

Table 6.2. Rates of decoration on black-topped ware including paint and other types of decoration (e.g. ripples and/or plastic additions). The final column represents decoration found on pottery other than black-topped ware. BLACK-TOPPED

BLACK-TOPPED added paint

BLACK-TOPPED other added decoration

DECORATED WARE not black-topped

67%

–

–

33%

Pit 4

74%

48%

39%

26%

Pit 314

90%

–

–

10%

CONTEXT Cremation 7

Pits 175-177

Average % at TKK

Pit 175

59%

5%

7%

41%

Pit 176

62%

7%

14%

38%

Pit 177

75%

8%

19%

25%

92%

9%

24%

32%

absent) compared to most of the site and the assemblage is dominated by undecorated storage vessels. The nature of the damage on most of the sherds suggests that they were thrown into the pit after being broken and burnt elsewhere. As the pit itself holds no signs of fire, it follows that its contents represent a secondary deposition (Chondroyianni-Metoki 2009, 592). It is obvious that, compared to Pit 4, the pottery within Pit 314 does not represent the remains of a similar ritual activity. However, something seems very intentional about a pit filled mostly with damaged storage vessel pieces and burnt daub. It is the only example of its kind at TKK, but nevertheless does not seem random. Perhaps this was a sequestering of material from a storage area that was deemed necessary to be removed to this off-settlement area and deposited together with the intact large storage vessel with a cache of seeds, likely representing a ritual offering, as suggested by Valamoti et al. (2011, 390). The material deposited in this pit does not conform to the classical ideas of ritual with special objects. Instead, the actions – the removal of burnt material from the settlement, the deposit of such a large intact vessel with a considerable amount of seeds, and the formation of this deposition – is what makes it more ritual in nature. The items in this pit were formally placed here, and are large enough in size that it would have taken one person a lot of time or, more likely, involved a number of people, thus providing an audience for the careful removal of a burnt domestic space. Pit 314,

with its deposit and symbolically used offering, may have been related to the biography of a house (or its storage area) and highlights the different types of ritual occurring concurrently at TKK. Pits 175, 176, and 177 Pits 175, 176 and 17726 primarily hold pottery, though animal bones and a few pieces of other small finds like parts of a figurine, flint tools, and beads were also found (Chondroyianni-Metoki 2009, 590). The pits represent two episodes of use, the later of which disturbed earlier layers. These three pits are ‘well-dug’, with flat floors and vertical walls. Pit 177 is the larger pit, notable for the deposition of charcoal and ash to seal it (ChondroyianniMetoki 2009, 590). Radiocarbon dates from Pit 177 show its earliest use between 5480 and 5370 BC (Chondroyianni-Metoki 1999). The ceramic assemblage shows no statistically significant change in style between the two use episodes of any of the pits, and in most ways it conforms to the typical overall ceramic assemblage of the site. However, the reuse of an earlier pit (176) to deposit more of the same material points to repetitive and orderly behaviour. Pit 175 is described as small and bell-shaped, Pit 176 is large and cylindrical and Pit 177 is large and bell-shaped (Chondroyianni-Metoki 2009).

26

82

Identifying Ritual at Late Neolithic Toumba Kremastis Koiladas that comes from a very large vessel (approximately 48 cm in diameter) with a very faint remnant of a spiral ripple, which is a very rare motif at TKK (comprising less than 1 per cent) (Figure 6.6: i).

The material from Pits 175–77 is fairly well preserved, regardless of where in the pits the items were found. Abrasion is present on all the sherds and scale is common, but slip has survived nevertheless, so the preservation rate is considered to be of a medium level for the site. A few vessels are represented by a shared distinctive fabric, but could not be refitted (Figure 6.6: a, o). Many larger vessels are in small pieces, but could be refitted (Figure 6.6: b, c, i). There are four to eight vessels that can be considered almost intact, which is about average for all the pits at TKK. Thus, it can be concluded that though some of the sherds may have come from vessels broken in the pit, most of the sherds come from material that was already broken before deposition. This conforms well with the excavator’s conclusion that these pits hold secondary deposited material (Chondroyianni-Metoki 2009, 590).

Pit 175 holds the most tableware (29 per cent, Table 6.1) and the most decorated sherds (59 per cent, Table 6.2) of the three linked pits. Pit 177 holds the least decorated ware. In all cases, the decoration is from black-topped vessels, which tend to be well fired, with a clear and even transition between the reduced and oxidised zones of the vessel, as is typical for the site (Figure 6.6: b, d, h, j, n). Additional decorative motifs are most commonly plastic nubs and rippled marks. Other notable decorations are found in Pit 176, which has impressed decoration on one of its blacktopped vessels, and Pit 175, which has one black-topped vessel with a painted spiral on its base and a sherd with red paint on white slip (Figure 6.6: e).

Despite most of the material seeming typical for the site, there are a few unique ceramic examples in these pits. Cups are exceedingly rare at TKK (comprising 1 per cent of the shapes), but two examples come from these pits (Figure 6.6: g, k). Both are black-topped, and one has a very small perforated lug. Another notable piece is a carinated sherd

Shapes tend to be open and carinated with a step, though Pit 177 holds slightly more conical vessels. Pit 176 holds a higher number of closed vessels than its counterparts; mica-rich fabric storage vessels are most common in Pit

Figure 6.6. Venn diagram of pottery from Pits 175–77 showing the degree of intermingling between the three pits. Circles represent pottery recovered from each specific pit, with the centre (f–i) representing commingled pottery from the overlap of Pits 175–77: (a, o) vessels of distinct fabric that cannot be reconstructed, (b, d, e, g, h, i, j, k, l, n) black-topped vessels, (g, k) black-topped cups, (f, i, j, l, m) large decorated storage vessel, (c, p) undecorated storage vessels.

83

Teresa Silva, Marianna Lymperaki, Areti Chondroyianni-Metoki & Dushka Urem-Kotsou 176. Several very large storage vessels are represented by fragments (Figure 6.6: f, j, m), but Pit 177 holds a particular storage vessel with a unique fabric. However, most of the vessels represented within these pits are medium-sized, with an average rim diameter of 26–32 cm.

as is shown by the size of the vessels involved. The pottery found in all of the pits does not radically diverge from the overall style of the site, which functions as a form of visible visual repetition throughout. This visual repetition forms a symbol, a consistent link between items and actions and the group identity. Thus, though the actual ritual actions may have varied, adherence to the conventions of TKK’s ceramic style formed a connection to the ideas and values of the group. Ritual could be related to death, as in the case of the cremation discussed above, but takes different forms, as seen in Pit 4, or could demonstrate closer ties to the storage aspect of domestic life, as in Pit 314. The ritualistic behaviours evidenced in the archaeological record span a variety of forms, from the formal placement of the vessels in the three contexts presented (cremation, Pit 4, and 314) to the ‘dump’ actions visible in Pits 175–77, but in all cases it necessitated a certain degree of complexity, in that decisions had to be made in the fragmentation of the material (or lack thereof in the case of Pit 4) and the area in which to dig the pit (as in the case of Pits 175–77), among other factors. Overall, what these examples most strongly demonstrate is that ritual at TKK is inextricable from the objects used in everyday life, as each example, no matter how formally ritualised the assemblage, contained vessels used and usable in daily life.

Cooking pots are very fragmentary in all of the three pits. Pit 175 holds slightly more fragments with residue traces on both their interior and exterior surfaces than the other two pits. These fragments show that their shapes were likely open spherical or hemispherical. Cooking pot bases were found in Pit 176, showing soot depositions consistent with use over fire. Pans are present in all the pits, but those from Pit 175 are the best preserved, showing the presence of both conical and hemispherical shapes with rolled lips. One pan from Pit 176 notably has clouds on its interior that could be related to the processing of food. All of the cooking pot sherds show signs of heavy use, as indicated by residues on the interior and exterior surfaces and heavily saturated walls. Overall, though there is variability between these linked pits, none is significantly divergent from the others. Thus, the ceramic assemblage of these pits represents a wide selection of the repertoire found at TKK, with typical rates of decoration, the usual motifs and ratios of storage and cooking pots. Alongside this ‘typical’ assemblage are some rarer or unique vessels, such as cups, but the size and fragmentation of the pieces means they may have been accidental depositions. As there was plenty of ‘open space’ where new, ‘virgin’ pits could have been dug, returning to these pits to deposit more of the same material does not seem accidental. There is an element of structure in the fact that this set of pits typifies the overall ceramic assemblage, but is overlaid with a repetitive behavioural structure. By returning to this space over and over, the inhabitants’ use of these linked pits forms evidence of the repetitive and standardised behaviour that distinguishes them from other pits with even more mundane uses.

Above all, ritual is a very complex issue. However, in studying an assemblage broken down to the details of its immediate contexts, various stories emerge. As it is an off-settlement area, there is no doubt that the activities linked to this place hold value in terms of symbolism, and a closer examination of the pottery offers more details for interpretation. The pits themselves offer a variety of contextual assemblages – some are more ‘overtly ritual’, while others seem to be more mundane in character. All of the pits presented in this chapter likely pull their individual stories from the overall, central stories that the people of the TKK settlement wished to reinforce and maintain, and these must have shaped, consciously or unconsciously, the group identity of their residents. It seems that the main parameters that create the different contexts are the details of the combination of material culture and the varied behaviours which have left visible marks on the assemblage. The pottery itself potentially offers clues to the ideas behind those actions. Most importantly, the ritualistic aspects – repetition, structure, and special items – are always found in conjunction and contemporaneously with the domestic items used in the storage, preparation and consumption of food. We have examined various aspects of the pottery within this chapter, including its appearance, its use and its depositional history, but in all aspects, ritual and domestic ideas are intricately intertwined, as the ritual aspects of the pottery are retained in the domestic sphere and the functionality of the domestic pottery is retained during the ritual.

Conclusions In this chapter we have attempted, through the in-depth study of four different contexts, to provide an insight into the variety of activities that took place in the area outside the residential place at TKK and to show how the systematic study of ceramic assemblages can help in understanding the formation of these contexts. These examples by no means represent the whole variety of contexts with ritual connotations, as the pits with clay house models, flutes and miniature vessels show. There is no doubt that remains of ritual and various ritualised behaviours are present at this place, each likely reinforcing one aspect or another of the overall community practices that formed the sense of this place for the residents. The repetition of the acts is visible in their returning over and over again to this off-settlement area to deposit material, which speaks of a standardised and repetitive use of the space, but also of behaviour that the community has retained over time. The ritualised actions were likely enacted by or on the behalf of groups,

Acknowledgements Several photos of pottery were done by Irene Tzemopoulou. Part of pottery presented here was studied 84

Identifying Ritual at Late Neolithic Toumba Kremastis Koiladas in the course of Thalis Project co-financed by the European Union (European Social Fund – ESF) and Greek national funds through the Operational Program “Education and Lifelong Learning” of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) - Research Funding Program: Thales. Investing in knowledge society through the European Social Fund.

‘Convert Volume to Weight: Grain Barley.’ n.d. Accessed April 11, 2019. https://www.aqua-calc.com/calculate/ volume-to-weight/substance/grain-blank-barley.

References cited

Gosselain, Olivier. 2011. ‘Fine If I Do, Fine If I Don’t. Dynamics of Technical Knowledge in Sub-Saharan Africa.’ In Investigating Archaeological Cultures: Material Culture, Variability, and Transmission, edited by Benjamin W. Roberts and Marc Vander Linden, 211–27. New York: Springer.

Dietler, Michael and Brian Hayden, eds. 2001. Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power. Washington, D.C: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Bacvarov, Krum and John Gorczyk. 2017. ‘The ritual package at the Neolithic pit field of Sarnevo, south central Bulgaria.’ In From Hunter-Gatherers to Farmers: Human adaptations at the end of the Pleistocene and the first part of the Holocene, edited by Monica Mărgărit and Adina Boroneanț, 439–51. Târgovişte: Editura Cetata de Scaun.

Hastorf, Christine. 2007. ‘Archaeological Andean Rituals.’ In The Archaeology of Ritual, edited by Evangelos Kyriakidis, 77–108. Cotsen Advanced Seminars 3. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Bacvarov, Krum and John Gorczyk. 2018. ‘Of Pits and Bones: A Ritual Pit at the Late Neolithic Site of Sarnevo in Bulgarian Thrace.’ In Social Dimensions of Food in the Prehistoric Balkans, edited by Maria Ivanova, Bogdan Athanassov, Vanya Petrova, Desislava Takorova, Philipp W. Stockhammer, 141–56. Oxford: Oxbow.

Hill, James. 1995. Ritual and Rubbish in the Iron Age of Wessex: A Study on the Formation of a Specific Archaeological Record. British Archaeological Reports British Series 242. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Bell, Catherine M. 1992. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hill, James. 1985. ‘Style: A Conceptual Evolutionary Framework.’ In Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, edited by B.A. Nelson, 362–85. Publications in Archaeology. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Bell, Catherine M. 1997. Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.

Hodder, Ian. 1982. Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture. New Studies in Archaeology. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bell, Catherine M. 2007. ‘Response: Defining the Need for a Definition.’ In The Archaeology of Ritual, edited by Evangelos Kyriakidis, 277–88. Cotsen Advanced Seminars 3. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Hodder, Ian. 1990. ‘Style as Historical Quality.’ In The Uses of Style in Archaeology, edited by Margaret W. Conkey and Christine Hastorf, 44–51. New Directions in Archaeology. Cambridge [England]; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bradley, Richard. 2005. Ritual and Domestic Life in Prehistoric Europe. London; New York: Routledge. Chapman, John. 1999. ‘Deliberate house-burning in the prehistory of central and eastern Europe.’ In Glyfer och arkeologiska rum: en vänbok till Jarl Nordbladh, edited by Anders Gustafsson and Håkan Karlsson, 113– 16. Gotarc Series A 3. Göteborg: Univ., Department of archaeology.

Hodder, Ian. 2012. Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Hull, Kathleen L. 2014. ‘Ritual as Performance in SmallScale Societies.’ World Archaeology 46(2): 164–77.

Chapman, John. Fragmentation in Archaeology: People, Places, and Broken Objects in the Prehistory of South Eastern Europe. London; New York: Routledge.

Humphrey, Caroline and James Laidlaw. 1994. The Archetypal Actions of Ritual: A Theory of Ritual Illustrated by the Jain Rite of Worship. Oxford Studies in Social and Cultural Anthropology. Oxford: New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press.

Chondroyianni-Metoki, Areti. 2009. ‘Mi oikistikes xriseis xorou stous neolithikous oikismous: to paradeigma tis Toumbas Kremastis Koiladas.’ PhD diss., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. (as ChondrogianniMetoki)

Humphrey, Caroline and James Laidlow. 2007. ‘Sacrifice and Ritualisation.’ In The Archaeology of Ritual, edited by Evangelos Kyriakidis, 255–76. Cotsen Advanced Seminars 3. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Chondroyianni-Metoki, Areti. 2010. ‘H kafsi ton nekron sto neolithko oikismos tis Toumbas Kremastis Koiladas stin Kitrini Limni N. Kozanis.’ In Iris: meletes stē mnēmē tēs kathēgētrias Angelikēs Pilalē-Papasteriou, edited by Nikos Merousis, Evangelia Stefani and Marianna Nikolaidou, 213–34. Thessaloniki: Kornelia Sfakianaki. (as Chondrogianni-Metoki)

Kuechler, Susanne. 1993. ‘Landscape as Memory: The Mapping of Process and Its Representation in a Melanesian Society.’ In Landscape: Politics and 85

Teresa Silva, Marianna Lymperaki, Areti Chondroyianni-Metoki & Dushka Urem-Kotsou Perspectives, edited by Barbara Bender. Explorations in Anthropology. Providence: Berg.

Neolithic Studies: A Review of Some Current Research, edited by Richard Bradley and Julie Gardiner, 189– 218. Reading Studies in Archaeology, no. 1. Oxford, England: B.A.R.

Kyriakidis, Evangelos. 2007. ‘In Search of Ritual.’ In The Archaeology of Ritual, edited by Evangelos Kyriakidis, 1–8. Cotsen Advanced Seminars 3. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Sackett, James R. 1982. ‘Approaches to Style in Lithic Archaeology.’ Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1(1): 59–112.

Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Clarendon Lectures in Management Studies. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Stevanović, Mirjana. 2002. ‘Burned Houses in the Neolithic of Southeast Europe.’ In Fire in Archaeology, edited by Dragoş Gheorghiu, 55–62. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1089. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Lymperaki, Marianna, Dushka Urem-Kotsou, Stavros Kotsos, Kostas Kotsakis. 2016. ‘Household Scales: What Cooking Pots Can Tell Us About Households in the Late Neolithic Stavroupoli (Northern Greece).’ Open Archaeology 2(1): 328–45.

Stroulia, Anna and Danai Chondrou. 2013. ‘Destroying the Means of Production: The Case of Ground Stone Tools from Kremasti-Kilada, Greece.’ In Destruction: archaeological, philological and historical perspectives, edited by Jan Driessen, 109–31. LouvainLa-Neuve: Presses Univ. de Louvain.

Marcus, James. 2007. ‘Rethinking Ritual.’ In The Archaeology of Ritual, edited by Evangelos Kyriakidis, 43–76. Cotsen Advanced Seminars 3. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Thalmann, J.P. 2006. Pot Utility. ARCANE. Turner, Victor W. 1986. The Anthropology of Performance. 1st ed. New York: PAJ Publications.

Miller, Daniel. 1985. Artefacts as Categories: A Study of Ceramic Variability in Central India. New Studies in Archaeology. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tzevelekidi, Vassiliki. 2012. Dressing for Dinner: Butchery and Bone Deposition at Late Neolithic Toumba Kremastis-Koiladas, Northern Greece. British Archaeological Reports International Series 2451. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Mills, Barbara. 2015. ‘Unpacking the House: Ritual Practice and Social Networks at Chaco.’ In Chaco Revisited: New Research on the Prehistory of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, edited by Carrie C. Heitman and Stephen Plog. Amerind Studies in Anthropology, 249– 71. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.

Urem-Kotsou, Dushka. 2006. Neolithiki keramiki tou Maktiyalou. Diatrofikes sunitheies kai oi koinonikes diastaseis tis keramikis. Phd diss., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Urem-Kotsou, Dushka. 2011. ‘Recent approaches in ceramic research. Vessel use and food residue analysis in late Neolithic pottery from northern Greece’ (in Croatian with extensive summary in English). In Panonski prapovijesni osviti – Zbornik radova posvećen Korneliji Minichreiter, edited by Marko Dizdar, 247–65. Zagreb: Institut za arheologiju.

Nikolov, Vassil. 2015. ‘Newly-unearthed types of plastic figurines from the Late Neolithic pit sanctuary at Kapetan Andreevo in southeast Bulgaria.’ In Äußerer Anstoß und innerer Wandel; Festschrift für Rudolf Echt zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by Ralf Gleser and Frauke Stein, Rahden/Westf, 21–26. Leidorf, (Internationale Archäologie: Studia honoraria; Bd. 37).

Valamoti, Soultana M., Aikaterini Moniaki, and Angeliki Karathanou. 2011. ‘An Investigation of Processing and Consumption of Pulses among Prehistoric Societies: Archaeobotanical, Experimental and Ethnographic Evidence from Greece.’ Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 20(5): 381–96.

Rappaport, Roy A. 2010. Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity. Repr., 10th printing. Cambridge Studies in Social and Cultural Anthropology 110. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Renfrew, Colin. 2007. ‘The Archaeology of Ritual, of Cult, and of Religion.’ In The Archaeology of Ritual, edited by Evangelos Kyriakidis, 109–22. Cotsen Advanced Seminars 3. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Wiessner, Polly. 1990. ‘Is There Unity to Style?’ In The Uses of Style in Archaeology, edited by Margaret Conkey and Christine Hastorf, 105–12. New Directions in Archaeology. Cambridge [England] ; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Renfrew, Colin, Penelope A. Mountjoy, and Callum Macfarlane. 1985. The Archaeology of Cult: The Sanctuary at Phylakopi. London: British School of Archaeology at Athens : Thames and Hudson [distributor].

Ζiota, Christina. 2001. ‘Kitrini Limni.’ Αrchaeologiko Deltio 51 (1996): Chron. Β’2, 536–40.

Richards, Colin and Julian Thomas. 1984. ‘Ritual Activity and Structured Deposition in Later Neolithic Wessex.’ In 86

7 Settling Neolithic Central Macedonia, Northern Greece Dushka Urem-Kotsou Democritus University of Thrace Stavros Kotsos Ephorate of Antiquities of Thessaloniki City Abstract: This chapter presents a brief review of the main features of the Neolithic settlements in the area of central Macedonia (northern Greece). It focuses on the environmental setting of the Neolithic sites, on the settlement types, the architecture and burials as another form of the cultural transformation of space. Food, as yet another important cultural aspect of the life of the Neolithic inhabitants, which has shaped the human–environment relationship and the organisation of domestic space, is also included. Evidence for this subject comes from the location of storage and thermal facilities, and interdisciplinary investigations (archaeobotany, zooarchaeology, chemical analysis of pottery and human bones, microbotanical analysis of charred food remains from cooking pots). Finally, the interaction between the settlements within the region of central Macedonia, as well as with other regions, both nearby and distant ones, is briefly discussed. Evidence for this comes from the analysis of lithics, pottery, strontium isotopes from human and animal bones, and of plant exudates found on pottery. Keywords: Transformation of space, Neolithic, settlements, houses, burials, food, interaction, northern Greece, central Macedonia Introduction

(hereafter Paliambela), Revenia Korinos (hereafter Revenia), Ritini-Agios Nikolaos (hereafter Ritini) and Makriyalos (Figure 7.1), (Tables 7.1–7.3).

The transition from foraging to farming in northern Greece is still insufficiently understood, merely due to the lack of evidence for the pre-Neolithic populations of the early Holocene and the scarcity of early settlements. This chapter aims to provide a review on the main characteristics of the Neolithic settlements in the region of central Macedonia (northern Greece), focusing on their environmental setting, on the settlements’ intra-site organisation, and on the architecture, burials, subsistence and interaction between the settlements on both the intraand the inter-regional level. Numerous settlements dating to the Neolithic period have been identified in this region, but not all of them have been excavated. Those that do not provide data either for the intra-site organisation and the architecture or bioarchaeological and other relevant materials that give information on the subjects discussed here are purposefully omitted.

Excavations and surveys carried out over the last three decades have brought to light a wealth of new evidence for the Neolithic inhabitants of northern Greece, and pushed back the beginning of farming in the region. Recent excavations at Paliambela (Maniatis et al. 2015), Revenia (Adaktylou 2017), and Mavropigi Filotsairi (KaramitrouMentesidi et al. 2015) document the existence of farmers in central and western Macedonia before the middle of the 7th millennium (Table 7.1). Another two settlements, Lefkopetra and Axos A, must have also been established approximately in the same period according to 14C dates (Maniatis 2014, 207) (Figure 7.1). The earliest radiocarbon dates, ranging between 6600 and 6400 calBC, place this part of northern Greece on the same chronological horizon as Thessaly and western Anatolia (Maniatis 2014, but see chapter 2 in this volume).

The discussion is based on the data produced by archaeological investigations, many recently undertaken, of the following settlements: Eidomeni Kilkis, ApsalosKomvos, Apsalos-Grammi, Sossandra, Nea Nikomedeia, Giannitsa B, Axos A, Lete I, Lete III, Koroneia, Mikri Volvi, Evangelismos, Pente Vrises, Zagliveri, Assiros E, Stavroupoli, Thermi B, Thessaloniki International Fair, Vasilika Kyparissi known also as Vasilika C (hereafter Vasilika), Mesimeriani Toumba, Paliambela Kolindros

The Neolithic period in northern Greece is divided into four main chronological phases: Early Neolithic (EN) 6700/6500–5800/5600 BC, Middle Neolithic (MN) 5800/5600–5400/5300 BC, Late Neolithic (LN) 5400/5300–4700/4500 BC, and Final Neolithic (FN) 4700/4500–3300/3100 BC (Andreou et al. 1996). However, according to the numerous recently obtained 14 C dates, and the application of Bayesian analysis, small 87

Dushka Urem-Kotsou & Stavros Kotsos

Figure 7.1. Map of central Macedonia (Greece) showing sites mentioned in the text.

is perhaps of some importance that the earliest neolithic settlements in central Macedonia, all dating roughly to the mid-7th millennium or slightly earlier, were situated in this former coastal zone (Figure 7.1, Table 7.1). Apart from Nea Nikomedeia, several other EN settlements located in the former north coastal zone (Giannitsa plain), which were abandoned by the end of the phase, were re-inhabited in the LN. However, many settlements in this area were founded for the first time in the LN (P. Chrysostomou 1997, 166–67).

changes have recently been suggested, especially as regards the boundary transition between the EN and MN, which has been placed somewhat earlier, around 6000 BC (Maniatis 2014, Reingruber et al. 2017). In relation to this particular period, it should be noted that significant changes in pottery and other forms of material culture that would allow a clear differentiation between the late EN and early MN are not observed. This poses difficulties in conventional dating of the sites of this period, especially for those for which radiocarbon dates are still not available. For these reasons, the sites broadly dated to this period (6000–5800 BC approximately), according to pottery and/or 14C dates, are here included in the Early Neolithic period (Table 7.1).

Geoarchaeological and archaeomalacological investigations performed in northern Pieria, which forms the southwestern edge of the Thermaic Gulf, provide further details of the complex geological history of this area (Krahtopoulou and Veropoulidou 2017 and references therein). A number of settlements located thus far show that the area of the Pieria district has been inhabited from a very early phase of the Neolithic, dating from the mid7th millennium (Table 7.1, Paliambela and Revania; Figure 7.1) until the final stages of the era.

Settlements and landscape The region of central Macedonia shows a certain diversity in the location of settlements, which appears to be related, at least partially, to the environmental history and the conditions that prevailed during the Neolithic. More specifically, the wider area of Thessaloniki to the west of the Axios River was covered by water during prehistory, due to the post Ice Age rise of the sea level, forming a large gulf that extended to the north, reaching in some periods the area of the modern city of Skidra (Ghilardi et al. 2008, 113). This explains the absence of Neolithic sites in the Thessaloniki plain. The only exception to this is the settlement of Nea Nikomedeia, which is located on the western margins of the plain (Figure 7.1). All the other known sites are located on the gentle slopes or on the tops of the low hills on the plain’s periphery, which at that time must have been the coastal zone of the Thermaic Gulf. It

A different picture arises in the Almopia plain to the north, where three Neolithic sites investigated thus far, ApsalosKomvos, Apsalos-Grammi and Sossandra, were established on the plain’s floor (Figure 7.1). All three sites have been dated to the earlier phases of the Neolithic (Tables 7.1, 7.2). Inhabitation during the LN has also been attested, but data for this period in the area is still very limited. To the south of Thessaloniki lies the small Anthemous River valley, where two Neolithic settlements, Vasilika and Thermi, have been excavated. Both settlements were 88

Settling Neolithic Central Macedonia, Northern Greece founded in the MN and were inhabited in the LN (Pappa et al. 2017, 50; Pappa 2020) (Tables 7.2, 7.3). Vasilika is set almost in the centre of the valley, in the area which, judging from its morphology and altitude, must not have been threatened by flooding, while the settlement of Thermi lies on the gentle slopes of Mt Kissos (Figure 7.1). Several other sites dating to the MN and LN have been located by survey investigations (Andreou et al. 2016). Interestingly, settlements dated to the EN have not been identified thus far in this particular area.

the case at Stavroupoli (Grammenos and Kotsos 2002a; 2004; Kotsos 2014), and Thermi (Grammenos et al. 1990; 1992; Pappa 2020). Others, like the Makriyalos I settlement, were more loosely inhabited, with the houses separated by large open spaces (Pappa and Besios 1999). Tells display a more uniform intra-site organisation and use of space, judging from the rare examples of this type of settlements in central Macedonia. At Paliambela (Halstead and Kotsakis 2006) and Nea Nikomedeia (Pyke and Yiouni 1996), two tell sites in this region that were more intensively excavated, the houses were built one above another and densely packed, as is the case at betterknown tell settlements in Thessaly (see also below).

To the east of Thessaloniki is the Langadas basin, known also as Mygdonia. Two lakes occupy a large part of the basin floor. The basin is surrounded on three sides by mountains cut by deep gullies, with numerous seasonal streams that flow into the lakes. The area appears to have a complex environmental history. Tectonic activity and the fluctuation of the lakes’ level caused changes in the environment through time, which must have affected the habitation of this area. According to the observations provided by the excavations and surveys, the Langadas basin must have been more densely inhabited during the Neolithic than it looks today, since many settlements must still remain covered by alluvial deposits (Andreou et al. 1996, 578; Grammenos et al. 1997). The earliest known settlements testify to the presence of early farmers in this area by the end of 7th millennium. The two of them, Koroneia and Lete III, dating to the late EN and the MN, stretch over the lower elevations in the plain, situated close to the lake shore. The other three, Lete I, Evaggelismos and Mikri Volvi, dated broadly to the same period, lie on the gentle slopes of the low hills located on the basin’s margins (Figure 7.1). Identified LN settlements are also situated on low hillocks or on the gentle slopes of the hills that surround the basin, apart from the two that were established on the tops of isolated steep hills in an area with soils of poor fertility (Kotsos and Urem-Kotsou 2016).

The settlements, both the tells and the extended ones, were often enclosed by ditches, as far back as the earlier phases of the Neolithic (Tables 7.1 and 7.2). It has been suggested that the frequent occurrence of enclosing ditches, whatever the reasons for which they were constructed, clearly show the desire of their inhabitants to delineate the residential place from the area that surrounded it (Kotsakis 1999, 68). During the LN, along with ditches, stone wall enclosures were also encountered (Table 7.3). The architecture Two different types of buildings, semi-subterranean (pithuts) and above-ground, coexist throughout the Neolithic, albeit with some chronological preferences. Pit-huts are characteristic especially of the EN and the MN (Tables 7.1 and 7.2). In contrast to other regions of northern Greece (and the Balkans), pit-houses in this area are also found in the LN (Table 7.3). In almost all settlements both types of buildings appear; pit-dwellings often form the initial and the early phase regardless of the period of the Neolithic, and give way to rectangular above-ground houses in the succeeding habitation phases (see below).

Settlement types

Pit-dwellings are simple constructions but show some diversity in form. Their lower part is comprised of a shallow pit of circular, oval or irregular shape; the upper part (the roof) may have been constructed with perishable materials like branches and reeds or straw, without the use of posts (Figure 7.2). This type of pit-house is known widely across the Balkans (Bailey 2000, 154). To judge from several cases where a posthole was found in the centre of the pit, it could be concluded that the upper part (the roof) may have also been supported by a central wooden post (Figure 7.3). Pit-dwellings with post-framed walls, lined with clay, on which the roof rested, have also been reported in several sites including EN Giannitsa B (P. Chrysostomou 1994, 112) and LN Makriyalos (Pappa and Besios 1999, 183). Pit-dwellings are found in various sizes, from 2–3 m to 5 m in diameter. Judging from the earthen floor, occasionally plastered with a thin layer of clay, on which a hearth or oven is often found, the pit must have been the lower part of the hut that served as a living space (Figure 7.4). Hearths and ovens are also found outside the houses (Tables 7.1–7.3). Alternatively, the pit may have been an

Two types of settlements, flat-extended and tells, have been distinguished in the region based on differences in their spatial organisation. It should be noted, however, that the criteria for the distinction between the two settlement types in published excavation reports is not always entirely clear. Flat-extended settlements, which appear to prevail in central Macedonia (Tables 7.1–7.3), are characterised by a dispersed and shifting habitation pattern. In tells, conversely, the houses were built one above another, on the same spot, and appear to be more densely inhabited. Investigations of extended sites, especially of the extensively excavated ones such as Makriyalos, where almost 6 ha of the settlement had been uncovered, provide significant evidence for variations in their intra-site organisation. In some cases, the residential area was more densely inhabited than at other extended settlements, with houses occasionally separated by stone-paved yards, as is 89

Dushka Urem-Kotsou & Stavros Kotsos

Figure 7.2. Saracen’s hut from central Macedonia (Greece), taken in 2015 (photos by Stavros Kotsos).

underground part of the house which served as a storage area, as suggested by the examples from Revenia (Besios and Adaktylou 2006, 360) and Makriyalos (Pappa and Besios 1999, 183). In those cases, the floor of the building was on the ground level, covering the pit. A more complex form of the subterranean part of the pit-houses was created by two or three joined pits, which are often interpreted as different spaces of the house (Figure 7.5). Given the evidence from the settlements excavated to a larger extent, like Makriyalos, Thermi, Lete I and Stavroupoli, pit-huts must have been arranged in clusters separated by open spaces that could sometimes be quite large.

replaced by rectangular above-ground structures in the next habitation horizons (P. Chrysostomou 1994). This is also observed at Paliambela, where EN pit-dwellings gave way to rectangular above-ground houses in the MN (Halstead and Kotsakis 2006; Kotsakis and Halstead 2007). In the settlements at Stavroupoli (Kotsos 2014) and Thermi (Pappa 2020), both founded in the MN, pit-houses comprised the early habitation phases and were replaced in the LN by rectangular above-ground structures. This type of building was usually single-room, though rectangular buildings with two spaces are also known (e.g. Nea Nikomedeia – see Pyke and Yiouni 1996; and Paliambela – see Siamidou et al. in press). There is no firm evidence of two-storey buildings in this region, as is the case in western Macedonia (Chondroyianni-Metoki 2014, 340–41) and Thessaly (Kotsakis 2004, 63), but also in the central Balkans (Crnobrnja 2010) and Bulgaria (Nikolov

At the settlements where both types of buildings were found, the above-ground buildings as a rule follow the phase of the pit-houses. For example, the earliest phase at EN Giannitsa B is characterised by pit-houses that were

Figure 7.3. Pit-dwelling with central posthole (Neolithic Stavroupoli).

90

Settling Neolithic Central Macedonia, Northern Greece et al. 2016, 7). A double-spaced MN house at Paliambela may have had a loft (Siamidou et al. in press), leaving open the possibility that some other houses may also have had such a construction. Above-ground buildings are usually constructed with posts and clay or wattle and daub, while stone was rarely used and, as a rule, only for the foundation of the walls of the buildings (Kloukinas 2017) and of settlements enclosures (e.g., Paliambela – see Kotsakis and Halstead 2007; Makriyalos – see Pappa and Besios 1999). Mud bricks were also occasionally used as a building material, as will be briefly presented below.

figurines, askoid vessels and other artefacts that led the excavator to interpret it as a shrine or a communal building (Rodden 1964, 114). A similar spatial organisation of the buildings is recorded at Paliambela, where rectangular, free-standing and densely packed buildings with consistent orientation, separated by narrow streets, appeared in the MN when the settlement took the form of a tell (Kotsakis and Halstead 2007; Siamidou et al. in press). The size of the above-ground buildings ranges between ca. 20 m2 and ca. 100 m2, with average between ca. 40 m2 and ca. 70 m2 in floor area, according to the available data from the EN Nea Nikomedeia (Pyke and Yiouni 1996, 44–47) and MN Paliambela (Siamidou et al. in press).

A good example of the rectangular above-ground type of house, which provides an insight into the arrangement and the activities that took place inside the house, comes from the EN Sossandra (Table 7.1). The building, constructed with wooden posts, planks and clay, was well preserved due to the fire that destroyed it, revealing the details of the building material and techniques used in its construction. Within the house, two ovens were found, along with two storage pits, numerous ground stone tools and ceramic vessels including large storage ones (Georgiadou 2015). Storage facilities contained a very low number of archaeobotanical remains, suggesting that they were empty when the house caught fire (Valamoti 2015). The almost total absence of other finds, including chipped stone tools, along with the absence of stored agricultural products, is interpreted as an indication that the house was abandoned before the fire destroyed it (Georgiadou 2015, 21).

Apart from Nea Nikomedeia, other excavated settlements in central Macedonia do not provide any evidence of the existence of buildings of special character that would stand out from the others by their size, central position within the settlement, or special use, as inferred from finds. At Stavroupoli, for example, the largest building, which must have been over 7 m long,27 was located close to the southern limit of the settlement (Grammenos and Kotsos 2004, 57–58). In addition to its size, the distinctiveness of this building is enhanced by the techniques used for its construction, which involved mud bricks. From the finds in the interior of the building, however, nothing points to its special character. On the contrary, the location of an oven in the centre of its interior and other finds point to an ordinary house (Grammenos and Kotsos 2004, 57–58). Mud bricks were also used for the construction of houses at other contemporary sites such as Vasilika (Pappa in press) (Table 7.3). It is apparent that building techniques characterised by the use of mud bricks were known in this area, although this building material did not become prevalent, in spite of its potential benefits (Tables 7.1–7.3).

Burnt houses that were emptied before being abandoned are also attested in roughly the same period at other sites in central Macedonia. Three rectangular above-ground houses destroyed by fire were found almost entirely empty at Mikri Volvi (Lioutas and Kotsos 2008; Kotsos and Urem-Kotsou 2016). A similar case has been reported from MN Paliambela (Siamidou et al. in press). It is not clear whether the houses were burnt by accident or whether this phenomenon may be related to the deliberate burning of houses proposed for some regions of the Balkans (e.g. Stevanović 1997; Chapman 2009). Perhaps of some relevance where this issue is concerned is the fact that their residents had enough time to rescue most of the portable household equipment.

Burials The significance of the settlement and the house for the Neolithic farmers is further underlined by the bodies of the deceased individuals buried within the settlements’ confines. They are found under the floors of the houses or in the courtyards, or in communal open spaces and ditches that enclose the settlements (Makriyalos, Paliambela, Koroneia). Given the usually small number of individuals found within the settlement confines (Tables 7.1–7.3), other residents must have been buried (or disposed of in some other fashion) outside the settlements or on their margins, as the cases of the LN Kleitos (Ziota 2014) and Toumba Kremastis Koiladas (Chondroyianni-Metoki 2009, chapter 5 in this volume) in western Macedonia indicate. Burial practices in this region show a certain diversity, as is the case in western Macedonia (Triantaphyllou 2008).

Above-ground buildings have been excavated in many settlements in the region and have provided significant evidence for both the materials and the techniques used in their construction, but very rarely for the spatial arrangement of the buildings within the settlement. The best example of a site that provides an insight into this issue is the tell settlement of Nea Nikomedeia (Pyke and Yiouni 1996). The buildings there were free-standing but quite densely packed, and separated by narrow streets. The orientation of the buildings was similar in all habitation phases, with only a few of them showing a small deviation from the rule. In addition to the buildings of fairly uniform size, a larger building was unearthed approximately in the centre of the excavated area (Pyke and Yiouni 1996, 44– 47). Unused stone tools were found inside, along with clay

In addition to inhumations, usually individual and occasionally in a group, with the body placed in contracted The building is not well preserved. Given the distribution of mud bricks that were used for the construction of the building’s external walls, its dimensions may have reached 15 m x 9 m (Grammenos and Kotsos 2004, 57–58).

27

91

Dushka Urem-Kotsou & Stavros Kotsos

Figure 7.4. Thermal structure on the floor of the pit of a pit-dwelling at Neolithic Stavroupoli.

Figure 7.5. Pit-dwelling at Neolithic Stavroupoli comprised of three joined pits.

Figure 7.6. Typical Neolithic burial with the skeleton in crouch position (Koroneia).

92

Settling Neolithic Central Macedonia, Northern Greece position (Figure 7.6), cremations have also been attested (e.g. Stavroupoli – see Grammenos and Kotsos 2004, 60–61; Triantaphyllou 2004, 613), although the latter are rare (Tables 7.1–7.3). Scattered human bones are also regularly encountered. As regards these, it does not seem that disarticulation of the skeletons was always a result of post-depositional disturbance. As Triantaphyllou (2008) suggests, this phenomenon may at least sometimes be the result of the selective removal of body parts (e.g. long bones at LN Makriyalos and skulls at MN Paliambela) as a part of a mortuary ritual related to rites of passage and the transition of the dead into the community of ancestors. This secondary manipulation of the deceased appears to be related to adult skeletons (Triantaphyllou 2008).

other interdisciplinary investigations gives an insight into the economy and diet of the neolithic farmers in this region, whereas the excavations provide evidence for the role of food-related activities in the organisation of domestic space. Neolithic residents of the region appear to have relied on cultivated crops and domesticates from the initial phase of the Neolithic (e.g., Valamoti 2004; 2009; 2015; Margariti 2002; 2004; Halstead 2012; Kotzamani and Livarda 2018). Several lines of evidence point to intensive but small-scale cultivation of crops and modest-scale animal husbandry, while non-intensive meat management points to subsistence dependence primarily on crops (Halstead 2012 and references therein). Among cultivated crops the following cereals and pulses were identified (as standard) at all sites where archaeobotanical investigations were carried out: einkorn (Triticum monococcum), emmer (Triticum dicoccum), barley (Hordeum vulgare), and lentil (Lens culinaris). In addition, oat (Avena sp.), pea (Pisum sativum), bitter vetch (Vicia ervilia), and grass pea (Lathyrus sativus) were also identified in archaeobotanical assemblages from several sites, as well as Linum sp. and flax (Linum usitatissimum), dwarf elder (Sambucus ebulus), elderberry (Sambucus nigra), grape (Vitis vinifera), fig (Ficus carica), Rubus sp., Pistacia sp. and other fruits and nuts.

Neolithic food and spatial organisation of the settlements Food in the land-based neolithic economy with an integrated mixed farming regime (Halstead 2006b) played an important multi-dimensional role in various aspects of the life of early settlers in central Macedonia, including the human–environment relationship (e.g. the exploitation of natural resources, the use of land for cultivation of crops and as a pasture for their domesticates) and the intra-site organisation of the settlements, and in shaping their social organisation and their identities. Neolithic settlements in central Macedonia were established in diverse environments, from coastal (marine and brackish) to freshwater locations (streams, springs and lakes) in fertile basins, river valleys and mountainous localities. In such diverse environments, farming practices must have been shaped by the interaction of local environmental and cultural factors. Support for this may be found in the considerable diversity in spatial organisation of the settlements (tells and flat-extended), in the form of the houses and in the settlements’ lifespans.

Storage of agricultural products must have determined the organisation and use of space in both the settlements and the houses to a significant degree. Since the available evidence indicates that ceramic containers were not used for storage during the EN, at least not for longterm storage of large quantities of food, it appears that agricultural products must have been stored in pits, which are often encountered in the settlements, and in containers of a perishable nature, to includ pithoi and large ceramic vessels from the MN on. An exception to this may be EN Nea Nikomedeia, where large pots with a volume of 36–85 litres, which may have been used for the storage of grain for sowing, were recorded (Pyke and Youni 1996, 192). Storage pits and vessels are found either inside the houses or outside but close to them, suggesting that storage of food was controlled by households from the very early stages of the period (Urem-Kotsou 2017 and references therein). Two settlements, both located in the Langadas basin, are exceptions as regards the location of storage pits. At Mikri Volvi, storage pits, 138 in total, were found concentrated on the margins of the residential area, while at Pente Vrises a cluster of six pits was found 280 m away from the boundaries of the settlement (Kotsos 2014, 318).

It has been suggested that tells formed by houses rebuilt on the same spot materialise an ideology of the emerging household and of its individual continuity, whereas extended settlements with dispersed and shifting habitation preserve an ancestral ideology of communality (Kotsakis 1999; 2006). This points to different social organisations, with tells placing an emphasis on the household (and the private) and flat-extended sites on the community. It has also been proposed that the different spatial organisations of the two types of site may have affected the organisation and the intensity of agricultural production (Andreou and Kotsakis 1994; Kotsakis 1999). For example, flat-extended settlements that were loosely inhabited, like Makriyalos I, would have had open spaces between buildings, large enough for cultivation and perhaps also to stall animals. However, more densely inhabited flat-extended sites may have followed a different spatial organisation of farming practices, perhaps similar to that suggested for tell sites, where cultivable land was located around the settlement (Kotsakis 1999; Halstead 2006b; Halstead 2019 for recent discussion and the relevant references). A growing body of data produced by archaeobotanical, zooarchaeological and

The organisation of animal husbandry must also have affected the organisation of space in the settlements; domesticates may have been kept within the residential area, especially at less densely inhabited flat-extended sites, or ‘penned overnight on nearby arable plots’ (Halstead 2006b, 49). Zooarchaeological remains document the presence of all four domesticates (i.e. goats, sheep, cattle and pigs) from the initial phases of the Neolithic. In earlier phases, sheep and goats predominate (Halstead 2012). During the LN, however, an increase in pigs and, to a lesser extent, 93

Dushka Urem-Kotsou & Stavros Kotsos cattle is observed. The contribution of wild animals to the diet appears to have been minimal, which underlines the importance of domesticates for the Neolithic inhabitants throughout the period (Halstead 2006b). Study of animal bones and the mortality patterns of domesticates suggests a meat-oriented husbandry (Tzevelekidi et al. 2014; Isaakidou et al. 2018), although some use of milk has also been suggested (Yiannouli 2002; 2004; Tzevelekidi et al. 2014).

ceramic vessels. Aquatic food was not identified in pottery (Whelton et al. 2018a), suggesting that this type of food, when cooked, may have been prepared in a different way. Combined starch grain and phytolith analysis of charred food crusts from 17 cooking pots from Stavroupoli provides a hint for plant food cooked in ceramic vessels. Results show that burnt food remains included domestic wheat(s), lentils, weedy Setaria sp. and other wild plants, indicating that some of the dishes prepared from cereals and pulses may have been a mixture of crops, weeds and wild plants (García-Granero et al. 2018).

Furthermore, faunal assemblages indicate some changes in meat consumption during the Neolithic. A tendency towards more thorough consumption of animals, including intensive extraction of marrow in the EN and perhaps the MN, is indicated by much heavier pre-depositional fragmentation of bones, while in the LN there is evidence of more formalised and less thorough consumption of dressed carcasses (Halstead and Isaakidou 2011; Tzevelekidi et al. 2014; Isaakidou et al. 2018). In addition to the terrestrial sources of food, the inhabitants of settlements located close to aquatic sources, such as Makriyalos (Pappa et al. 2013), Stavroupoli (Karali 2002; 2004), Revenia, Paliambela, Thermi, Vasilika, Nea Nikomedeia, Giannitsa B, Mesimeriani Toumba (Veropoulidou 2014 and references therein), and Axos A (P. Crysostomou 1997, 164) also consumed some aquatic food.

The location of the thermal structures (hearths and ovens) marks the area where food was processed, and where other daily activities were performed. Their spatial distribution in relation to the houses can provide an insight into the daily life of the residents and thus into the social organisation of Neolithic communities (Halstead 1999; 2006a; Kalogiropoulou 2014). According to the available data, it appears that thermal structures at EN settlements in central Macedonia were most often placed inside the houses, and rarely outside, regardless of the type of houses or settlements (Table 7.1). In the MN, thermal structures were placed either inside or outside the houses, while at two settlements they were located both inside and outside (Table 7.2). The majority of LN settlements have thermal structures located both inside and outside, and only at three of them were they found solely inside (Table 7.3). It appears from the above that the residents of the EN settlements in this region cooked their food more often in private than in public, while in the later phases of the Neolithic cooking was often practised inside as well as outside the houses. However, given the limited excavated extent of a number of sites, especially the early ones, future excavations may change this picture.

Complementary evidence for the exploitation of animals comes from the analysis of food residues in pottery, which confirms that dairying was practised at several settlements in the region, presumably not intensively, while some local differences are indicated. For example, some dairying was attested at Stavroupoli, but not at other LN sites where such analysis was carried out (Evershed et al. 2008; Debono Spiteri et al. 2016; Urem-Kotsou 2018; Whelton et al. 2018a). Similarly, certain differences appear to have existed among the settlements of the earlier Neolithic phases, as the analysis of organic residues carried out on pottery from the sites Ritini, Paliambela, Revenia, Apsalos-Grammi, Mikri Volvi, and Lete III suggests. The analysis confirms the use of pottery for the processing of milk at most of these settlements, but not to the same level of frequency, while at some of them it was not used at all, implying diversity in the production and/or consumption of dairy products. Notably, at EN Ritini, cooking pots were often used for the processing of milk, which is in sharp contrast to the nearby and contemporary Revenia, where dairy products were not identified in pottery (Whelton et al. 2018a). Similarly, at MN and LN Paliambela, situated in the same area, dairy products were identified in cooking pots, but not at the nearby LN Makriyalos (Whelton et al. 2018a). In addition to the faunal data and the evidence from food residues absorbed in the vessel walls, the absence of systematic consumption of milk and dairy products is also indicated by isotopic analysis of human bones (Triantaphyllou 2015).

Networking in central Macedonia The excavations of the settlements have unearthed a wealth of artefacts and other materials, including pottery, chipped and ground stone tools, bone implements, figurines, bioarchaeological material. The characteristics of the material culture show both similarities among contemporary settlements and local particularities, which indicate communication and social networking of various forms and on various scales. Evidence for exchange networks between the settlements within the region, as well as with other regions, either within short distances or more extensively, is provided by petrographic analysis of pottery (Saridaki et al. 2014; 2019) and chipped stone tools (Skourtopoulou 1990; 1992; 2002; 2004; Dogiama 2009), especially of obsidian (Milić 2014; 2016; Kilikoglou et al. 1996). The analysis of the lithics shows that exotic materials and finished products reached the region of central Macedonia from various geographical regions, including the Aegean islands, the western Greek mainland, Thessaly and the Balkan hinterland.

In addition to the evidence for dairy products, chemical analysis of lipids from food remains in cooking pots demonstrates that animal adipose fat of both ruminant and non-ruminant domesticates was part of the food cooked in

Pottery, generally the most abundant type of artefact found in the Neolithic settlements, provides another glimpse into 94

Settling Neolithic Central Macedonia, Northern Greece the interactions among the settlements on both the local level and with distant ones. To illustrate this, petrographic thin section analysis of pottery from Apsalos-Grammi and Stavroupoli points to a certain mobility of the pots (and people) between the region of Almopia and the area of Thessaloniki during the MN (Urem-Kotsou and Dimitriadis 2004; Saridaki et al. 2014). Similarly, the same analysis applied to pottery from the early settlements in Pieria shows a certain scale of interaction between the closely located settlements of Paliambela, Revenia and Ritini, but also with other settlements in a broader area yet to be identified, as well as with Thessaly (Saridaki et al. 2019). The morphological and stylistic attributes of vessels show Thessalian influence on the pottery of other settlements in the region, and further north as well (Urem-Kotsou et al. 2017). At the same time, elements of pottery traditions from the Balkan hinterland are also recognisable in pottery assemblages in the region (UremKotsou et al. 2014). Interaction on the local level has also been documented through petrographic analysis of pottery in the Langadas basin, where a few pots from the area of Lete I were identified at Mikri Volvi. In addition, pottery typology, lithics and the analysis of other objects points to the relations of this area with the regions to the east and northeast (perhaps southern Bulgaria) (Kotsos and UremKotsou 2016, 127).

this type, used widely for various purposes, was tar made of birch bark. The pollen and charcoal record indicates that the occurrence of birch was restricted to individual trees and small stands at high altitudes, implying that the procurement of raw material was taking place at some distance from the settlements located at low to middle altitude, and must therefore have involved the movement of people and raw material within the wider region. In addition, chemical analysis suggests that tar may have been produced by settlements that were close to the sources of raw material, such as Apsalos, and exchanged with communities distant from them through inter- and intra-regional networks (Urem-Kotsou et al. 2018 and references therein). Concluding remarks On the basis of the evidence at hand, the earliest Neolithic settlements in central Macedonia were established in the former coastal zone of the Thermaic Gulf, from its southernmost part (Revenia), along the western side (Paliambela, Nea Nikomedeia, and Lefkopetra further west) to the north (Axos A and Giannitsa B). Such early settlements have not been identified on the eastern side of the Gulf, where the earliest that have been located date to the MN. In two other areas of central Macedonia, the Almopia and Langadas basins, the earliest settlements date to the end of the 7th millennium. Local environmental history, the low archaeological visibility of the flat-extended sites that are prevalent in the region, and the varying degree and intensity of investigations may partly account for the present picture. It may also be the case, however, that the first farmers of central Macedonia arrived by sea, reaching the southwestern and northern former coast of the Thermaic Gulf at the same time that the first farmers settled in Thessaly and in western coastal zone of Turkey, as some scholars have proposed in the light of the radiocarbon dates (Maniatis 2014). Recent analysis of the ancient DNA of several Neolithic individuals from northern Greece and northwestern Turkey shows striking genetic similarity and direct genetic links between the early farmers of these two geographic areas (Hofmanová et al. 2016), thus favouring the theory of the quick spread of farmers in the regions of the Aegean in the middle of the 7th millennium.

Complementary evidence for the mobility and exchange network comes from strontium isotope analyses of humans (27 individuals) and animals (14 individuals) from five Neolithic settlements in central Macedonia (Nea Nikomedeia, Stavroupoli, Paliambela, Revenia and Makriyalos). The results indicate movement of humans and animals within the region, rather than between regions. More specifically, five individuals at Makriyalos appear to have come from the uplands to the west, where the closest possible area would be 2–3 km away (Whelton et al. 2018b, 773). Notably, petrographic analysis of pottery from Revenia and Paliambela, both located close to Makriyalos, indicates that a few pots were made from clay deriving from an area in the uplands to the west, 25 km away from the sites (Saridaki et al. 2019). Another example comes from the area to the west of the Thermaic Gulf, where a single cattle from Stavroupoli analysed for strontium isotopes appears to have come to the settlement from an area approximately 3 km to the east (the closest possible source for the particular strontium value), or was grazed on pastures in a similar area (Whelton et al. 2018b, 770). This implies movement of both animals and humans across the landscape, either for pasture or as part of an exchange network with other settlements in the area. It is worth noting that to the east of Stavroupoli lies the contemporary settlement of Thermi. The pottery of both sites shares certain stylistic characteristics during the LN I phase (5300–4900 BC), which points to some sort of contacts between them at least in that period.

Neolithic farmers in central Macedonia, including the earliest ones, established their settlements on the gentle slopes or on the tops of the low hills in the plains and basins, and followed different habitation patterns from their counterparts in Thessaly, who lived mainly on tells. In central Macedonia, the flat-extended type of settlement prevails. This region also differs in terms of the type of houses, since pit-dwellings and above-ground houses cooccur throughout the Neolithic, while in other regions of northern Greece pit-dwellings were usually quickly replaced by above-ground buildings. Although settlements in the region share some common characteristics in architecture and the organisation and use of space, they also display considerable diversity. More specifically, in addition to the prevailing flat-extended

Another source of evidence for mobility and interaction is provided by resinous and tarry material found on pottery. According to chemical analysis, the prevailing material of 95

Dushka Urem-Kotsou & Stavros Kotsos Andreou, Stelios and Kostas Kotsakis. 1994. ‘Prehistoric rural communities in perspective: the Langadas survey project.’ In Structures rurales et societes antiques, edited by Panagiotis N. Doukelis and Lina G. Mendoni, 17–25. Paris: Annales Litteraires de l’Université de Besançon.

type of sites, a few tells are also found. The former type of settlements is not homogenous in habitation pattern, since some flat-extended sites are loosely inhabited, while others are packed more densely. This also holds true for the type of houses and the building materials used in their construction. Nevertheless, the desire to separate the residential place from the area that surrounds it appears to be common to most of the settlements, as the enclosures either in the form of a ditch (single or double) or a wall indicate.

Andreou, Stelios, Mihalis Fotiadis, and Kostas Kotsakis. 1996. ‘Review of Aegean Prehistory V: The Neolithic and Bronze Age of Northern Greece.’ American Journal of Archaeology 100: 537–97.

The Neolithic residents of the region relied on cultivated crops and domesticates starting from the initial phase of the period. Storage facilities including pits were found within the houses, or outside but close to them, suggesting that storage of food was controlled by households already from the early stages of the period. The location of cooking facilities at the early settlements points to the indoor preparation of food, which further underlines the importance of the house for the social organisation of early communities. The spatial distribution of thermal structures in later phases of the Neolithic indicates that cooking may have taken place inside as well as outside the houses, thus including daily cooking activities in the public sphere more often, which may have contributed to the creation of more dynamic social space in later Neolithic communities. Multiproxy investigation of Neolithic food suggests diachronic changes in foodways, but also differences at a very local level. Given that the local population was in some kind of inter-site contact, either directly or through the network of exchange, as evidenced by various sources, they must have been aware of these differences between the settlements.

Andreou, Stelios, Janusz Czebreszuk, and Maria Pappa (eds.). 2016. The Anthemous Valley Archaeological Project. Apreliminary. Poznań Contributions to Aegean Archaeology Vol. 2. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM. Bailey, Douglass. 2000. Balkan Prehistory. Exclusion, incorporation and identity. London; New York: Routledge. Besios, Matthaios and Foteini Adaktylou. 2006. ‘Neolithikos oikismos sta Revenia Korinou.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 18 (2004): 357–66. Besios, Matthaios, Athina Athanasiadou, Konstantinos Noulas, Maria Christakou-Tolia. 2005. ‘Anaskafes ston agogo idrevsis voreias Pierias.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 17 (2003): 451–57. Chapman, John. 2009. ‘Deliberate house-burning in the prehistory of central and eastern Europe.’ Durham Research Online, Durham University.

In a more general sense, settlements represent ‘a place where human social relations permanently transform space in a repeated and archaeologically recognisable way, as a result of conscious human activity … inscribed in physical environment and concentrated in the settlement’ (Kotsakis 1999, 67). From this point of view, the obvious diversity in the intra-site organisation of the settlements, in architecture, in burial practices (encountered even within individual settlements), and in culinary practices between settlements located close to each other, which must have been in some sort of interaction, to judge from the mobility of various materials, humans and perhaps animals, along with local diversities and similarities in material culture (e.g. pottery), all paint an interesting picture for the cultural characteristics of the Neolithic farmers that settled in central Macedonia.

Chondroyianni-Metoki, Areti. 2009. Mi oikistikes hriseis horou stous neolithikous oikismous: to paradeigma tis Toumbas Kremastis Koiladas. PhD diss., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Chondroyianni-Metoki, Areti. 2014. ‘Architektonikes morfes tis proistorias stin koilada tou mesou rou tou Aliakmona.’ In A century of research in prehistoric Macedonia 1912–2012. International conference proceedings, edited by Evangelia Stefani, Nikos Merousis, and Anastasia Dimoula, 337–48. Thessaloniki: Archaeological Museum Thessaloniki. Chrysostomou, Anastasia, Anastasia Georgiadou, Christina Poloukidou, Anna Prokopidou. 2002. ‘Anaskafikes erevnes stin eparhiaki odo Apsalou-Aridaias kata to 2000.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 14 (2000): 491–504.

Acknowledgements

Chrysostomou, Aanstasia and Anastasia Georgiadou. 2003. ‘Eparhiaki odos Apsalou-Aridaias. I sostiki anaskafi ston komvo tis Apsalou.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 15 (2001): 525–35.

We warmly thank Dr Yannis Maniatis for providing the unpublished 14C data for the settlement of Lete III and for help in clarifying the radiocarbon dating of the settlement Polyplatanos Imathias.

Chrysostomou, Anastasia, Christina Poloukidou, and Anna Prokopidou. 2003. ‘Eparhiaki odos ApsalouAridaias. I anaskafi tou neolithikou oikismou sti thesi Grammi.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 15 (2001): 511–23.

References cited Adaktylou, Foteini. 2017. O Neolithikos Oikismos sta Revenia Korinou Pierias. MA diss., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. 96

Settling Neolithic Central Macedonia, Northern Greece Grammenos, Dimitrios, Maria Pappa, Dushka UremKotsou, Katerina Skourtopoulou, Eftyhia Yannouli, Bettina Tsigarida. 1990. ‘Anaskafi neolithikou oikismou Thermis. Anaskafiki periodos 1987.’ Makedonika ΚΖ΄: 223–88.

Chrysostomou, Panikos. 1994. ‘Oi neolithikes erevnes stin poli kai tin eparhia ton Giannitson kata to 1991.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 5 (1991): 111–25. Chrysostomou, Panikos. 1997. ‘I neolithiki katoikisi sti voreia paraktia zoni tou allote Thermaikou kolpou (Eparhia Giannitson).’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 10Α (1996): 159–72.

Grammenos, Dimitrios, Maria Pappa, Dushka UremKotsou, Katerina Skourtopoulou, Eftyxia Yannouli, Christina Maragkou, Soultana M. Valamoti, George Siridis, Efterpi Marki, Rosalia Christidou. 1992. ‘Anaskafi neolithikou oikismou Thermis B kai Vizantinis egkatastasis para ton proistoriko oikismo Thermi A. Anaskafiki periodos 1989.’ Makedonika ΚΗ΄: 381–501.

Crnobrnja, Adam. 2010. ‘Investigation of Late Vinca House 1/2010 at Crkvine in Stubline.’ Starinar LXII: 45–64. Debono Spiteri, Cynthianne, Rosalind E. Gillis, Mélanie Roffet-Salque, Laura Castells Navarro, Jean Guilaine, Claire Manen, Italo M.Muntoni, Maria Saña Segui, Dushka Urem-Kotsou, Helen L. Whelton, Oliver E. Craig, Jean-Denis Vigne, Richard P. Evershed. 2016. ‘Regional asynchronicity in dairy production and processing in early farming communities of the northern Mediterranean.’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(48): 13594–99.

Grammenos, Dimitrios, Matthaios Besios, and Stavros Kotsos 1997. Apo tous proistorikous oikismous tis kentrikis Makedonias. Dimosievmata tis Etairias Makedonikon Spoudon 88. Thessaloniki: Etairia Makedonikon Spoudon. Grammenos, Dimitrios and Stavros Kotsos. 2002a. Sostikes anaskafes sto neolithiko oikismo Stavroupolis Thessalonikis. Dimosievmata Arhaiologikou Institoutou Voreias Elladas No. 2. Thessaloniki: Arhaiologiko Instituto Voreias Elladas.

Dogiama, Triantaphylia Ei. 2009. Mikri Volvi: enas oikismos tis Arhaioteris Neolithikis mesa apo to prisma tis lithotehnias tou. MA diss., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

Grammenos, Dimitrios and Stavros Kotsos. 2002b. Anaskafes sto proistoriko oikismo tis Mesimerianis Toumbas Trilofou (anaskafiki periodos 1992, 1994– 1996, 2000). Dimosievmata Arhaiologikou Institoutou Voreias Elladas No. 1. Thessaloniki: Arhaiologiko Institouto Voreias Elladas.

Evershed, Richard P., Sebastian Payne, Andrew G. Sherratt, Mark S. Copley, Jennifer Coolidge, Dushka Urem-Kotsou, Kostas Kotsakis, Mehmet Özdoğan, Asly Özdoğan, Olivier Nieuwenhuyse, Peter M. M. G. Akkermans, Douglass Bailey, Radian-Romus Andeescu, Stuart Campbell, Shahina Farid, Ian Hodder, Nurcan Yalman, Mihriban Özbaraşan, Erhan Biçakci, Yossef Garfinkel, Thomas Levy, Margie M. Burton. 2008. ‘Earliest date for milk use in the Near East and southeastern Europe linked to cattle herding.’ Nature 455 (25.9.2008): 528–31.

Grammenos, Dimitrios and Stavros Kotsos. 2003. ‘Anaskafi sto neolithiko oikismo tou Zagliveriou Nomou Thessalonikis.’ Makedonika 33: 49–75. Grammenos, Dimitrios and Stavros Kotsos. 2004. Sostikes anaskafes sto neolithiko oikismo Stavroupolis Thessalonikis, Meros 2 (1998–2003). Dimosievmata Arhaiologikou Institoutou Voreias Elladas No. 6. Thessaloniki: Arhaiologiko Instituto Voreias Elladas.

García-Granero, Juan José, Dushka Urem-Kotsou, Amy Bogaard, Stavros Kotsos. 2018. ‘Cooking plant foods in the northern Aegean: Microbotanical evidence from Neolithic Stavroupoli (Thessaloniki, Greece).’ In The Neolithic of Northern Greece and the Balkans. The environmental context of cultural transformation, edited by Dushka Urem-Kotsou, Nenad Tasić, Marsel Burić, Christina Papageorgopoulou, 128–40. Quaternary International 496.

Halstead, Paul. 1999. ‘Neighbours from Hell? The Household in Neolithic Greece.’ In Neolithic Society in Greece, edited by Paul Halstead, 77–95. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press. Halstead, Paul. 2006a. ‘What is ours is mine? Village and household in early farming society in Greece.’ (Gerrit Heinrich Kroon Memorial Lecture 28). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.

Georgiadou, Anastasia. 2015. The neolithic house at Sossandra. Thessaloniki: University Studio Press.

Halstead, Paul. 2006b. ‘Sheep in the Garden: The Integration of Crop and Livestock Husbandry in Early Farming Regimes of Greece and Southern Europe.’ In Animals in the Neolithic of Britain and Europe, edited by Dale Serjeantson and David Field, 42–55. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Ghilardi, Matthieu, Eric Fouache, Francois Queyrel, George Syrides, Konstantinos Vouvalidis, Stephane Kunesch, Mihalis Styllas, Stathis Stiros. 2008. ‘Human occupation and geomorphological evolution of the Thessaloniki Plain (Greece) since mid Holocene.’ Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 111–25.

Halstead, Paul. 2012. ‘Feast, Food and Fodder in Neolithic–Bronze Age Greece. Commensality and the Construction of Value.’ In Between Feasts and Daily Meals: Toward and Archaeology of Commensal Spaces,

Grammenos, Dimitrios. 1991. Neolithikes erevnes stin Kentriki kai Anatoliki Makedonia. Athens: The Archaeological Society at Athens. 97

Dushka Urem-Kotsou & Stavros Kotsos edited by Susan Pollock, 21–51. Berlin Studies of the Ancient World 30. Berlin: e-Topoi.

Karali, Lilian. 2002. ‘Anaskafi Stavroupolis: malakologiko iliko.’ Appendix. In Sostikes anaskafes sto neolithiko oikismo Stavroupolis Thessalonikis, by Dimitrios Grammenos and Stavros Kotsos, 745–805. Dimosievmata Arhaiologikou Institoutou Voreias Elladas No. 2. Thessaloniki: Arhaiologiko Instituto Voreias Elladas.

Halstead, Paul. 2019. ‘This Soil is Mine and Ours: Domestic and Collective Use Rights in the Neolithic of Greece.’ In I Antipera Ohthi,. Koinonikos Horos kai Ideologia stis Proistorikes Koinotites: Meletes Afiermonenes sti Mnimi tou Kathigiti Georgio H. Hourmouziadi, edited by Kostas Kotsakis, 57–70. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

Karali, Lilian. 2004. ‘Anaskafi Stavroupolis: malakologiko iliko.’ Appendix. In Sostikes anaskafes sto neolithiko oikismo Stavroupolis Thessalonikis, Meros 2 (1998– 2003), by Dimitrios Grammenos and Stavros Kotsos, 527–605. Dimosievmata Arhaiologikou Institoutou Voreias Elladas No. 6. Thessaloniki: Arhaiologiko Instituto Voreias Elladas.

Halstead, Paul and Kostas Kotsakis. 2006. ‘Paliambela.’ In Archaeological Reports for 2005–2006, No 52, edited by James Whitley, Sophia Germanidou, Dushka UremKotsou, Anastasia Dimoula, Irene Nikolakopoulou, Artemis Karnava, Eleni Hatzaki, 91. Society of the Promotion of Hellenic Studies and British School at Athens.

Karamitrou-Mentessidi, Georgia, Nikos Efstratiou, Małgorzata Kaczanowska, Janusz K. Kozłowski. 2015. ‘Early Neolithic Settlement of Mavropigi in Western Greek Macedonia.’ Eurasian Prehistory 12(1–2): 47– 116.

Halstead, Paul and Valasia Isaakidou. 2011. ‘Political Cuisine: Rituals of Commensality in the Neolithic and Bronze Age Aegean.’ In Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner: Feasting Rituals in the Prehistoric Societies of Europe and the near East, edited by Gonzalo Aranda Jiménez, Sandra Montón-Subias and Margarita Sánchez Romero, 91–108. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Kilikoglou, Vassilis, Yannis Bassiakos, Apostolos P. Grimanis, Kleodimos Souvatzis. 1996. ‘Carpathian Obsidian in Macedonia, Greece.’ Journal of Archaeological Science 23: 343–49. Kloukinas, Dimitris. 2017. ‘Pictures of Home: Regional Perspectives into the Neolithic Building Technology of Northern Greece.’ In Communities, Landscapes and Interaction in Neolithic Greece, edited by Apostolos Sarris, Evita Kalogiropoulou, Tuna Kalayci, Lia Karimali, 167–86. International Monographs in Prehistory 20. Michigan: Ann Arbor.

Hofmanová, Zuzana, Susanne Kreutzer, Garrett Hellenthal, Christian Sell, Yoan Diekmann, David Diez-del-Molino, Lucy van Dorp, Saioa López, Athanasios Kousathanas, Vivian Link, Karola Kirsanov, Lara M.Cassidy, Rui Martiniano, Melanie Strobel, Amelie Sheu, Kostas Kotsakis, Paul Halstead, Sevi Triantaphyllou, Nina Kyparissi-Apostolika, Dushka Urem-Kotsou, Christina Ziota, Foteini Adaktylou, Shyamalika Gopalan, Dean M. Bobo, Laura Winkelbach, Jens Blöcher, Martina Unterländer, Christoph Leuenberger, Çiler Çilingiroğlu, Barbara Horejs, Fokke Gerritsen, Stephen Shennan, Daniel G. Bradley, Mathias Currat, Krishna R. Veeramah, Daniel Wegmann, Mark G. Thomas, Christina Papageorgopoulou, Joachim Burger. 2016. ‘Early farmers from across Europe directly descended from Neolithic Aegeans.’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(25): 6886–91.

Kotsakis, Kostas. 1999. ‘What Tells can Tell: Social Space and Settlement in the Greek Neolithic.’ In Neolithic Society in Greece, edited by Paul Halstead, 66–76. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Kotsakis, Kostas. 2004. ‘O neolithikos horos, horos paragogis kai ideologias.’ In I istoria tis ellinikis polis, edited by Aleksandros Lagopoulos, 55–68. Athens: Ermis. Kotsakis, Kostas. 2006. ‘Settlement of discord: Sesklo and the emerging household.’ In Homage to Milutin Garasanin, edited by Nikola Tasić and Cvetan Grozdanov, 207–20. Belgrade: SASA special editions.

Isaakidou, Valasia, Paul Halstead, and Foteini Adaktylou. 2018. ‘Animal carcass processing, cooking and consumption at Early Neolithic Revenia-Korinou, northern Greece.’ In The Neolithic of Northern Greece and the Balkans. The environmental context of cultural transformation, edited by Dushka Urem-Kotsou, Nenad Tasić, Marsel Burić, Christina Papageorgopoulou, 108– 26, Quaternary International 496.

Κotsakis, Kostas and Paul Halstead. 2007. ‘Paliambela, Kolindros.’ In Archaeological reports for 2006–2007, No 53, edited by James Whitley, Sophia Germanidou, Dushka Urem-Kotsou, Anastasia Dimoula, Irini Nikolakopoulou, Artemis Karnava, Don Evely, 65– 67. Society of the Promotion of Hellenic Studies and British School at Athens.

Kalogiropoulou, Evita. 2014. ‘Anazitontas koinonikes taftotites: I simvoli ton thermikon kataskevon stin organosi tou horou sti neolithiki Makedonia.’ In Century of research in prehistoric Macedonia 1912– 2012. International conference proceedings, edited by Evangelia Stefani, Nikos Merousis, and Anastasia Dimoula, 359–72. Thessaloniki: Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki.

Kotsos, Stavros. 2007a. ‘Anaskafi neolithikou oikismou stis Pente Vrises Lagkada.’ Arheologiko Deltio, Hronika (in press). Kotsos, Stavros. 2007b. ‘Anaskafi sto neolithiko oikismo tis Assirou E.’ Arheologiko Deltio, Hronika (in press). Kotsos, Stavros. 2014. ‘Settlement and housing during the 6th millennium BC in western Thessaloniki and the 98

Settling Neolithic Central Macedonia, Northern Greece adjacent Langadas province.’ In Century of research in prehistoric Macedonia 1912–2012. International conference proceedings, edited by Evangelia Stefani, Nikos Merousis, and Anastasia Dimoula, 315–22. Thessaloniki: Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki.

proseggisi.’ Appendix. In Sostikes anaskafes sto neolithiko oikismo Stavroupolis Thessalonikis, by Dimitrios Grammenos and Stavros Kotsos, 805–27. Dimosievmata Arhaiologikou Institoutou Voreias Elladas No. 2. Thessaloniki: Arhaiologiko Instituto Voreias Elladas.

Kotsos, Stavros and Dushka Urem-Kotsou. 2016. ‘Langadas basin and the settlement of Mikri Volvi.’ In Southeast Europe and Anatolia in prehistory. Essays in honour of Vassil Nikolov on his 65th anniversary, edited by Krum Bacvarov and Ralf Gleser, 117– 29. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 293. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt.

Margariti, Evi. 2004. ‘Georgikes praktikes sto stereoskopio: I analysi ton fitikon kataloipon apo to neolithiko oikismo tis Stavroupolis. I anaskafikes periodoi 1998–2003.’ Appendix. In Sostikes anaskafes sto neolithiko oikismo Stavroupolis Thessalonikis, Meros 2 (1998–2003), by Dimitrios Grammenos and Stavros Kotsos, 605–12. Dimosievmata Arhaiologikou Institoutou Voreias Elladas No. 6. Thessaloniki: Arhaiologiko Instituto Voreias Elladas.

Kotsos, Stavros, Eleni Tselepi, Dushka Urem-Kotsou, Yannis Maniatis, Eleftheria Almasidou, Christophoros Arampatsis. In press. ‘Anaskafi proistorikou oikismou kai egkatastasis ton istorikon hronon stin anatoliki ohthi tis limnis Koroneia sti lekani tou Langada.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki (2017).

Merousis, Nikos and Liana Stefani. 2002. ‘O neolithikos oikismos ston Polyplatano Imathias. I anaskafiki erevna kata to 2000.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 14 (2000): 555–62.

Kotsos, Stavros and Eleni Tselepi. In press-a. ‘Anaskafi proistorikou oikismou sti limni Koroneia.’ Arheologiko Deltio, Hronika (2014).

Merousis, Nikos and Liana Stefani. 2006. ‘O neolithikos oikismos ston Polyplatano Imathias. I anaskafiki erevna kai I meleti tou ylikou (2003–2004).’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 18 (2004): 455–64.

Kotsos, Stavros and Eleni Tselepi. In press-b. ‘Anaskafi proistorikou oikismou sti limni Koroneia.’ Arheologiko Deltio, Hronika (2015).

Milić, Marina. 2014. ‘PXRF characterisation of obsidian from central Anatolia, the Aegean and central Europe.’ Journal of Archaeological Science 41: 285–96.

Kotzamani, Georgia and Alexandra Livarda. 2018. ‘Plant and people entanglements at the dawn of agricultural practice in Greece. An analysis of the Mesolithic and early Neolithic archaeobotanical remains.’ In The Neolithic of Northern Greece and the Balkans. The environmental context of cultural transformation, edited by Dushka Urem-Kotsou, Nenad Tasić, Marsel Burić, Christina Papageorgopoulou, 80–101, Quaternary International 496.

Milić, Marina. 2016. ‘A questions of scale? Connecting Communities through Obsidian Exchange in the Neolithic Aegean, Anatolia and Balkans.’ In Of Odysseys and Oddities: Scales and modes of interaction between prehistoric Aegean societies and their neighbours, edited by Βarry P.C. Molloy, 97–122. Oxford: Oxbow. Nikolov, Vasil, Krum Bacvarov, Georgi Kacarov, Nedko Elenski, Galina Samickova, Nikolina Nikolova. 2016. ‘Neolitsko seliste v m. Deve boaz pri Mursalevo.’ In Balgarska Arheologia 2015. Katalog kam Izlozba, edited by Kamen Boadziev and Peta Andreeva, 7–8. Sofia: National archaeological Institute and Museums, Bulgarian Academy of Science.

Krahtopoulou, Athanasia and Rena Veropoulidou. 2017. ‘Late Pleistocene–Holocene shoreline reconstruction and human exploitation of molluscan resources in northern Pieria, Macedonia, Greece.’ Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 15: 423–36. Lioutas, Asterios and Stavros Kotsos. 2008. ‘Egnatia odos. Anaskafes stin periohi tis Mikris Volvis.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 20 (2006): 241–48.

Papadakou, Trisevgeni, Dushka Urem-Kotsou, and Kostas Kotsakis. 2015. ‘The Early Neolithic pottery from Paliambela Kolindros.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 25 (2011), 157–62.

Maniatis, Yannis. 2014. ‘Hronologisi me anthraka-14 ton megalon politismikon allagon stin proistoriki Makedonia: prosfates ekselikseis.’ In Century of research in prehistoric Macedonia 1912–2012. International conference proceedings, edited by Evangelia Stefani, Nikos Merousis, and Anastasia Dimoula, 205–22. Thessaloniki: Archaeological Museum Thessaloniki.

Pappa, Maria. 1997. ‘Neolithiki egkatastasi sto horo tis Diethnous Ekthesis Thessalonikis.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 7 (1993): 303–10. Pappa, Maria. 2020. Deth, Thermi, Makriyalos. Organosi tou horou kai oikistika stoiheia stous neolithikous oikismous tis Kentrikis Makedonias. Thessaloniki: Ziti.

Maniatis, Yannis, Kostas Kotsakis, and Paul Halstead. 2015. ‘Nees hronologies tis arhaioteris neolithikis sti Makedonia.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 25 (2011): 149–56.

Pappa, Maria. in press. ‘I anaskafi sto Kyparissi ton Vasilikon.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki (2015). Pappa, Maria and Matthaios Besios. 1999. ‘The Neolithic settlement at Makriyalos, Northern Greece: Preliminary

Margariti, Evi. 2002. ‘Arhaiovotanika dedomena apo to neolithiko oikismo tis Stavroupolis. Mia proti 99

Dushka Urem-Kotsou & Stavros Kotsos Report on the 1993–1995 Excavations.’ Journal of Field Archaeology 26(2): 177–95.

Skourtopoulou, Κaterina. 1990. ‘Lithotehnia.’ Makedonika ΚΖ: 255–62.

Pappa, Maria, Foteini Adaktylou, and Stratos Nanoglou. 2003. ‘Neolithikos oikismos Thermis 2000–2001.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 15 (2001): 271–78.

Skourtopoulou, Κaterina. 1992. ‘Lithotehnia.’ Makedonika KH: 407–13. Skourtopoulou, Κaterina. 2002. ‘Oi lithotehnies apolepismenou lithou apo ton oikismo tis Stavroupolis.’ Appendix. In Sostikes anaskafes sto neolithiko oikismo Stavroupolis Thessalonikis, by Dimitrios Grammenos and Stavros Kotsos, 537–61. Dimosievmata Arhaiologikou Institoutou Voreias Elladas No. 2. Thessaloniki: Arhaiologiko Instituto Voreias Elladas.

Pappa, Maria, Paul Halstead, Kostas Kotsakis, Amy Bogaard, Rebecca Fraser, Valasia Isaakidou, Ingrid Mainland, Dimitra Mylona, Katerina Skourtopoulou, Sevi Triantaphyllou, Christina Tsoraki, Dushka Urem-Kotsou, Soultana-Maria Valamoti, Rena Veropoulidou. 2013. ‘The Neolithic site of Makriyalos, northern Greece: reconstruction of social and economic structure of the settlement through comparative study of the finds.’ In Diet, economy and society in the ancient Greek world: Towards a Better Integration of Archaeology and Science, edited by Sophia Voutsaki and Soultana-Maria Valamoti, 77– 88. Leuven: Peeters.

Skourtopoulou, Κaterina. 2004. ‘I lithotehnia apolepismenou lithou ston oikismo tis Stavroupolis.’ Appendix. In Sostikes anaskafes sto neolithiko oikismo Stavroupolis Thessalonikis, Meros 2 (1998–2003), by Dimitrios Grammenos and Stavros Kotsos, 361–477. Dimosievmata Arhaiologikou Institoutou Voreias Elladas No. 6. Thessaloniki: Arhaiologiko Instituto Voreias Elladas.

Pappa, Maria, Stratos Nanoglou, and Melina Efthymiadou. 2017. ‘A Road to Variation: Diversity among Neolithic Settlements in Central Macedonia, Greece.’ In Communities, Landscapes and Interaction in Neolithic Greece, edited by Apostolos Sarris, Evita Kalogiropoulou, Tuna Kalayci, Lia Karimali, 49–59. International Monographs in Prehistory 20. Michigan: Ann Arbor.

Stevanović, Miriana. 1997. ‘The Age of Clay: The Social Dynamics of House Destruction.’ Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16: 334–95. Tzanavari, Katerina and Kostas Filis. 2004. ‘Lete I. Prosdiorismos tis pithanis thesis neolithikou oikismou.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 16 (2002): 197–210.

Pyke, Gillian and Paraskevi Yiouni. 1996. Nea Nikomedeia I: The Excavation of an Early Neolithic Village in Northern Greece 1961–1964, Supplementary volume 25. London: The British School at Athens.

Tzanavari, Katerina, Stavros Kotsos, and Evi Gkioura. 2004. ‘Lete III. Mia nea neolithiki thesi sti lekani tou Lagkada.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 16 (2002): 211–22.

Reingruber, Agathe, Giorgos Toufexis, Nina KyparissiApostolika, Mihalis Anetakis, Yannis Maniatis, Yorgos Facorellis. 2017. ‘Neolithic Thessaly: Radiocarbon dated periods and phases.’ Documenta Praehistorica 44: 34–53.

Tzevelekidi, Vasiliki, Valasia Isaakidou, and Paul Halstead. 2014. ‘Prosklisi se gevma: praktikes katanalosis kai apothesis oston zoon sto Makriyialo Pierias kai stin Toumba Kremastis-Koiladas Kozanis.’ In A century of research in prehistoric Macedonia 1912–2012. International conference proceedings, edited by Evangelia. Stefani, Nikos Merousis and Anastasia Dimoula, 425–36. Thessaloniki: Archaeological Museum Thessaloniki.

Rodden, Robert. J. 1964. ‘Macedonia: Nea Nikomedeia 1963.’ Arheologiko Deltio, Hronika 19: 368–69. Saridaki, Niki, Kostas Kotsakis, Dushka Urem-Kotsou, Anastasia Chrysostomou. 2014. ‘Apsalos-Grammi: ta prota apotelesmata tis analisis tis keramikis tis Mesis Neolithikis periodou.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 24 (2010): 81–86.

Triantaphyllou, Sevi. 2004. ‘Ta apotelesmata tis osteologikis eksetasis tou skeletikou ilikou tis neolithikis thesis Stavroupolis Thessalonikis kata tin anaskafiki hronia 2002–2003.’ Appendix. In Sostikes anaskafes sto neolithiko oikismo Stavroupolis Thessalonikis, Meros 2 (1998–2003), by Dimitrios Grammenos and Stavros Kotsos, 613–24. Dimosievmata Arhaiologikou Institoutou Voreias Elladas No. 6. Thessaloniki: Arhaiologiko Instituto Voreias Elladas.

Saridaki, Niki, Kotsakis Kostas, Dushka Urem-Kotsou, Trisevgeni Papadakou, Anna Papaioannou. 2019. ‘Pottery Production at Neolithic Pieria, Macedonia, Greece.’ In Tracing Pottery-Making Recipes in the Prehistoric Balkans 6th – 4th millennium BC, edited by Silvia Amicone, Patrick S. Quinn, Miroslav Marić, Neda Mirković-Marić, Miljana Radivojević, 129–43. Oxford: Archeopress.

Triantaphyllou, Sevi. 2008. ‘Living with the Dead: a Re-Consideration of Mortuary Practices in the Greek Neolithic.’ In Escaping the Labyrinth: The Cretan Neolithic in Context, edited by Valasia Isaakidou and Peter Tomkins, 139–57. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Siamidou, Ioanna, Kotsakis Kostas, Dushka UremKotsou, Slaviša Perić, Paul Halstead. in press. ‘Oikimata tis Mesis Neolithikis periodou apo ton oikismo Paliambelon Kolindrou.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki (2017).

Triantaphyllou, Sevi. 2015. ‘Stable isotope analysis of skeletal assemblages from prehistoric northern 100

Settling Neolithic Central Macedonia, Northern Greece Greece.’ In Archaeodiet in the Greek World: Dietary Reconstruction from Stable Isotope AnalysesI, edited by Anastasia Papathanasiou, Michael P. Richards and Sherry C. Fox, 57–76. Hesperia Supplements 49.

British Archaeological Reports International Series 1258. Oxford: BAR Publishing. Valamoti, Soultana M. 2009. I arhaiovotaniki erevna tis diatrofis stin proistoriki Ellada. Thessaloniki: University Press.

Urem-Kotsou, Dushka. 2017. ‘Storage of food in the Neolithic communities of northern Greece.’ In The Archaeology of food surplus, edited by Amy Bogaard, 73–89. World Archaeology 49(1).

Valamoti, Soultana M. 2015. ‘Archaeobotanical Remains from the Neolithic House at Sossandra.’ Appendix. In The Neolithic House at Sossandra, by Anastasia Georgiadou, 163–66. Thessaloniki: Studio University Press.

Urem-Kotsou, Dushka. 2018. ‘Breath of change: food and pottery in the course of the Neolithic in Northern Greece.’ In Social Dimensions of Food in the Prehistoric Balkans, edited by Maria Ivanova, Bogdan Athanassov, Vanya Petrova, Desislava Takorova, and Philipp W. Stockhammer, 47–65. Oxford: Oxbow.

Veropoulodiou, Rena. 2014. ‘Molluscan exploitation in the Neolithic and Bronze Age communities at the former Thermaic gulf, North Aegean.’ In Physis. L’environnement naturel et la relaton homme-milieu dans le monde Égéen protohistorique, edited by Gilles Touchais, Robert Laffineur and Françoise Rougemont, 415–24. AEGEUM 37. Leuven–Liege: Peeters.

Urem-Kotsou, Dushka and Sarantis Dimitriadis. 2004. ‘I tehnologia tis keramikis tou neolithikou oikismou tis Stavroupolis.’ Appendix. In Sostikes anaskafes sto neolithiko oikismo Stavroupolis Thessalonikis, Meros 2 (1998–2003), by Dimitrios Grammenos and Stavros Kotsos, 305–37. Dimosievmata Arhaiologikou Institoutou Voreias Elladas No. 6. Thessaloniki: Arhaiologiko Instituto Voreias Elladas.

Whelton, Helen L., Mélanie Roffet-Salque, Kostas Kotsakis, Dushka Urem-Kotsou, Richard P. Evershed. 2018a. ‘Strong bias towards carcass product processing at Neolithic settlements in northern Greece revealed through absorbed lipid residues of archaeological pottery.’ In The Neolithic of Northern Greece and the Balkans. The environmental context of cultural transformation, edited by Dushka Urem-Kotsou, Nenad Tasić, Marcel Burić, Christina Papageorgopoulou, 109–27. Quaternary International 496.

Urem-Kotsou, Dushka, Papaioannou Anna, Papadakou Trievgeni, Saridaki Niki, Intze Zoi. 2014. ‘Pottery and stylistic boundaries. Early and Middle Neolithic pottery in Macedonia.’ In Century of research in prehistoric Macedonia 1912–2012. International conference proceedings, edited by Evangelia Stefani, Nikos Merousis, and Anastasia Dimoula, 505–17. Thessaloniki: Archaeological Museum Thessaloniki.

Whelton, Helen L., Jamie Lewis, Paul Halstead, Valasia Isaakidou, Sevi Triantaphyllou, Vasiliki Tzevelekidi, Kostas Kotsakis, Richard P. Evershed. 2018b. ‘Strontium isotope evidence for human mobility in the Neolithic of northern Greece.’ Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 20: 768–74.

Urem-Kotsou, Dushka, Anastasia Dimoula, Gazmend Elezi, Trisevgeni Papadakou, Anna Papaioannou., Niki Saridaki, Ioanna Siamidou, Teresa Silva, Eirini Tzemopoulou, Kostas Kotsakis. 2017. ‘Patterns in contemporaneous ceramic traditions: inter-regional relations between Thessaly and Macedonia during the Early and Middle Neolithic.’ In Communities, Landscapes and Interaction in Neolithic Greece, edited by Apostolos Sarris, Evita Kalogiropoulou, Tuna Kalayci, Lia Karimali, 324–38. International Monographs in Prehistory 20. Michigan: Ann Arbor.

Yannouli, Εftyhia. 2002. ‘Imeri kai agria panida apo neolithiko oikismo sti Stavroupoli Thessalonikis.’ Appendix. In Sostikes anaskafes sto neolithiko oikismo Stavroupolis Thessalonikis, by Dimitrios Grammenos and Stavros Kotsos, 683–744. Dimosievmata Arhaiologikou Institoutou Voreias Elladas No. 2. Thessaloniki: Arhaiologiko Instituto Voreias Elladas. Yannouli, Εftyhia. 2004. ‘Stavroupoli Thessalonikis: neotera dedomena apo tin arhaiopanida tou neolithikou oikismou.’ Appendix. In Sostikes anaskafes sto neolithiko oikismo Stavroupolis Thessalonikis, Meros 2 (1998–2003), by Dimitrios Grammenos and Stavros Kotsos, 489–526. Dimosievmata Arhaiologikou Institoutou Voreias Elladas No. 6. Thessaloniki: Arhaiologiko Instituto Voreias Elladas.

Urem-Kotsou, Dushka, Sofia Mitkidou, Evangelia Dimitrakoudi, Nikolaos Kokkinos, Maria Ntinou. 2018. ‘Following their tears: Production and use of plant exudates in the Neolithic of North Aegean and the Balkans.’ In The Neolithic of Northern Greece and the Balkans. The environmental context of cultural transformation, edited by Dushka Urem-Kotsou, Nenad Tasić, Marsel Burić, Christina Papageorgopoulou, 68– 79. Quaternary International 496.

Ziota, Christina. 2014. ‘The settlement of Kleitos Kozanis in its wider natural and anthropogenic environment during the Late and Final Neolithic periods.’ In A century of research in prehistoric Macedonia 1912– 2012. International conference proceedings, edited by Evangelia. Stefani, Nikos Merousis, and Anastasia Dimoula, 323–36. Thessaloniki: Archaeological Museum Thessaloniki.

Valla, Magdalini and Euniki Miha. 2010. ‘Proistorikos oikismos Eidomenis Kilkis.’ Arhaiologiko Ergo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 21 (2007): 337–45. Valamoti, Soultana M. 2004. Plants and People in Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece.

101

14C DATES RANGE (cal BC)

SITE

RELATIVE SETTLEMENT CHRONOLOGY* TYPE

HOUSE TYPE

THERMAL FACILITIES LOCATION

BUILDING MATERIAL

ENCLOSURES

BURIALS

REFERENCES

-

Maniatis et al. 2015; Papadakou et al. 2015

7 inhumations

Besios and Adaktylou 2006; Adaktylou 2017; Isaakidou et al. 2018

ditch

-

Besios et al. 2005

posts, reeds and inside, outside daub

ditch (?)

35 inhumations, Pyke and Yiouni 1996 scattered bones

rectangular above-ground

post-framed, wattle and daub

-

1 inhumation (neonate placed in the pot)

P. Chrysostomou 1997; Maniatis 2014

tell (?)

pit-houses, rectangular above-ground

post-framed, inside (?) wattle and daub

-

-

P. Chrysostomou 1994; 1997

Early Neolithic

extended

pit-houses

-

-

-

-

A. Chrysostomou and Georgiadou 2003

6066-5840

late EN/early MN

extended

rectangular above-ground

wooden posts, daub

inside

-

-

Georgiadou 2015

Lete I

-

late EN/MN

extended

pit-houses

-

inside

ditch

-

Tzanavari and Filis 2004

Lete III

-

late EN/MN

extended

pit-houses

inside

Koroneia

5965-5724

late EN/MN

extended

pit-houses

inside & outside

Mikri Volvi

-

late EN / MN

extended

pit-houses, rectangular above-ground

Paliambela Kolindros

102

6600-6000

all phases of the EN

extended

pit-houses

-

-

Revenia Korinos** 6600-6000

all phases of the EN

extended

pit-houses

posts and daub

inside

Ritini - Agios Nikolaos

-

Early Neolithic

-

rectangular above-ground

posts and daub

-

Nea Nikomedeia

6400-6200

Early Neolithic

tell

rectangular above-ground

Axos A

6600/6500

Early Neolithic

tell (?)

Giannitsa B

6460-6250

Early Neolithic

Apsalos Komvos

-

Sossandra

wattle and daub inside

ditch

Tzanavari et al. 2004; Kotsos and Urem-Kotsou 2016 Kotsos et al. in press; Kotsos and Tselepi in press-a; in press-b

ditch

1 inhumation

Lioutas, Kotsos 2008; Kotsos and Urem-Kotsou 2016

* Relative chronology is based on pottery typology. ** Revenia Korinos must have been also inhabited in the Middle Neolithic as pottery from surface layer indicates. Scant evidence for post-framed above-ground structures, which follows the earlier pit-dwellings, perhaps belong to the MN habitation phase.

Dushka Urem-Kotsou & Stavros Kotsos

Table 7.1. Settlements dated to the Early Neolithic.

Table 7.2. Settlements dated to the Middle Neolithic.

SITE

14C DATES RELATIVE SETTLEMENT RANGE (cal BC) CHRONOLOGY TYPE

HOUSE TYPE

BUILDING MATERIAL

THERMAL FACILITIES LOCATION ENCLOSURES

BURIALS

REFERENCES

103

Kotsakis and Halstead 2007; Maniatis et al. 2015; Siamidou et al. in press

inside, outside -

-

Grammenos and Kotsos 2002a; 2004; Kotsos 2014

-

-

-

1 inhumation

Pappa 2008; Pappa 1997

-

outside

-

-

Pappa 2008

rectangular above ground (?)

inside and outside (?)

-

-

Pappa in press; Pappa et al. 2017; Andreou et al. 2016

Testified by the presence of pottery, but not stratified.

-

-

-

-

-

Grammenos and Kotsos 2002b

Remains of this phase are not found stratified.

-

-

-

-

-

Tzanavari et al. 2004

Giannitsa B** -

Middle Neolithic

tell (?)

-

-

-

-

-

P. Chrysostomou 1997

ApsalosGrammi

Middle Neolithic

extended

pit-houses

wattle and daub outside

ditch

-

A. Chrysostomou et al. 2002; 2003

5900-5500

all phases of the MN

tell

rectangular posts, wattle above ground and daub, pisé

inside

Stavroupoli Thessaloniki

5890-5531

Middle Neolithic

extended

pit-houses

-

Thessaloniki International Fair

-

Middle Neolithic

extended

pit-houses

Thermi B

-

Middle Neolithic

extended

pit-houses

Vasilika Kyparissi/ Vassilika C

-

Middle Neolithic

extended

Mesimeriani Toumba

-

Lete III

5645-5511*

6020 - 5564

ditch

* Sample number DEM – 2424, unpublished data from Laboratory of Archaeometry, NCSR “Democritos”, responsible Dr. Yannis Maniatis. ** Giannitsa B was inhabited in the MN according to pottery typology, but little is known for the settlement of this period.

Settling Neolithic Central Macedonia, Northern Greece

-

Paliambela Kolindros

SITE

14C DATES RELATIVE SETTLEMENT RANGE (cal BC) CHRONOLOGY TYPE

HOUSE TYPE

BUILDING MATERIAL

THERMAL FACILITIES LOCATION ENCLOSURES

BURIALS

REFERENCES

-

ditch and wall

2 inhumations, Kotsakis and Halstead 2007; scattered bones Maniatis et al. 2015

inside, outside

ditches and wall

20 inhumations, Pappa et al. 2017; Pappa and scattered bones Besios 1999

outside, inside (?)

ditch

-

Paliambela Kolindros

-

LN I, LN II, FN

tell

rectangular stone, clay above ground

Makriyalos

5670-4770

LN I and LN II

extended

pit-houses

Thermi B

5300-5000

LN I

extended

pit-dwellings, wooden posts, daub, rectangular stone foundation above ground (occasionally)

extended

mudbricks, rectangular stone foundation inside & above ground (occasionally), outside wooden posts and clay inside and outside

ditch and wall

6 inhumations, Grammenos and Kotsos 2002a; 1 cremation, 2004; Kotsos 2014 scattered bones

Vasilika Kyparissi/ Vassilika C

-

LN I, LN II, FN

wooden posts, wattle and daub, mudbricks

Pappa 2008; Pappa et al. 2003; Grammenos et al. 1990; 1992 Pappa in press; Pappa et al. 2017; Andreou et al. 2016; Grammenos 1991

104

Stavroupoli

-

LN I, LN II or FN

extended

wattle and daub, rectangular mudbricks, above ground stone foundation (occasionally)

Koroneia

-

LN and FN

extended

pit-houses

-

inside and outside

ditch

8 inhumations

Kotsos et al. in press

Pente Bryses

-

LN

extended

pit-houses

-

inside

-

-

Kotsos 2007a

Zagliveri

-

LN

extended

pit-houses

-

-

-

-

Grammenos and Kotsos 2003

Assiros E

-

LN

extended

pit-houses

-

-

-

-

Kotsos 2007b

Giannitsa B

-

LN I and LN II

extended

-

clay, stones (?)

-

double ditch

-

P. Crysostomou 1997

Polyplatanos Imathias

4600-4352

LN II and FN

tell

madbricks, stone above-ground foundation, wattle and inside buildings daub

-

-

Merousis and Stefani 2002; 2006; Maniatis 2014

Eidomeni Kilkis

-

LN

extended

pit-houses

clay

inside

-

-

Valla and Miha 2010

Nea Nikomedeia

-

LN

tell

-

mudbricks (?)

-

ditch

-

Pyke and Yiouni 1996

Dushka Urem-Kotsou & Stavros Kotsos

Table 7.3. Settlements dated to the Late and Final Neolithic.

8 Settlements and Landscape in the Neolithic of the Southern and Central Balkans Stavros Kotsos Ephorate of Antiquities of Thessaloniki City Abstract: This chapter focuses on the geographical area extending from the North Aegean to the Danube, which is drained by two of the major rivers of the southern and central Balkans, the Axios (Vardar) and Morava, and their tributaries. It discusses the geographical distribution of settlements, their environmental setting, intra-site organisation and architecture, and economy. To this end, evidence from 191 excavated neolithic settlements from this area were taken into account, which reveals both local similarities and differences in the establishment of early farming societies. Keywords: Neolithic, North Aegean, southern and central Balkans, settlements, landscape, environment, intra-site organisation and architecture, economy Introduction

farmers. The selection of routes may have been related to their accessibility and safety, and perhaps also to the information available to these groups about the natural barriers and friendly or hostile environments they would encounter. The absence of settlements in small areas, but most importantly from the areas along the routes, without excluding the possibility of their occasional use, could be considered as an indication of their systematic avoidance.

The characteristics of settlements and their intra-site organisation provide insights into the organisation of communities, the daily life of their residents and the relationships between them, but also into issues related to economy, to relations between settlements and the structure of the society to which they belong. This chapter focuses on the geographical area of the southern and central Balkans that includes two of the major rivers of the Balkans, the Axios (or Vardar) and the Morava (Figure 8.1), which many scholars believe were the main corridor of communication between the north Aegean and the Balkan hinterland.28 The chronological period considered spans from the beginning of farming in this area until the end of the Late Neolithic (6600–4500 BC).29 Based on the evidence from 191 excavated sites (Figures 8.2– 8.4), this chapter discusses the geographical distribution of settlements, their environmental setting, intra-site organisation and architecture, and economy.

The earliest settlements in the area discussed here are located in the southern part of the Axios basin, around the former coast of the Thermaic Gulf,30 where Paliambela Kolindros (Maniatis et al. 2015, 150–53) and Revenia Korinos (Besios and Adaktylou 2006; Isaakidou et al. 2018) date to the middle of the 7th millennium or slightly earlier. Roughly contemporary are Axos A and Lefkopetra in the same area (Maniatis 2014), and Mavropigi-Filotsairi in western Macedonia, Greece (Karamitrou-Mentessidi et al. 2015, 58) (Figure 8.2) (see chapter 7 in this volume). In the Balkan hinterland, settlements are not encountered before 6200 BC according to radiocarbon dates (Whittle et al. 2002, 113).

Geographical distribution of settlements in the Axios and Morava regions

From 6200 BC onwards, the number of neolithic settlements increases, and they are found in many regions of the Balkans. In the southern area of the Axios River, in and around the Thessaloniki-Giannitsa plain, settlements of this period include Paliambela, Revenia, Nea Nikomedeia (Pyke and Youni 1996) and Yannitsa B (P. Chrysostomou 2003) (Figure 8.2) (see chapter 7 in this volume). Further north, in the western part of the Republic of North Macedonia (hereafter RNM), is Pelagonia, with the River Crna, a tributary of the Axios that runs across the basin, where the first villages were established by the end

The distribution of neolithic settlements over this wider geographical area, at a time when the density of vegetation and morphology of the landscape would have impeded the movement of humans (and their domesticates), may indicates the routes followed by groups of early In some cases the data from the sites that are situated outside of the area discussed in this chapter were taken into account, as they are considered crucial for better understanding of the subjects discussed here. 29 According to M. Garašanin 1979, the Early (EN), Middle (MN) and Late (LN) periods of the Neolithic are known in the central Balkan hinterland as the following: Porodin-Velušina I (Pelagonia) and AnzabegovoVršnik I (Ovče Pole) for the EN, Porodin-Velušina II–III (Pelagonia) and Anzabegovo-Vršnik II–IV (Ovče Pole) for the MN, and Zelenikovo and Trn for the LN in the Republic of North Macedonia. In the central Balkans, Protostarčevo and Starčevo I represent the EN, Starčevo II–III the MN and Vinča the LN. 28

For the coastline during the Neolithic, see Bintliff 1976, 241–62; Bottema 1974, 146–47; Ghilardi et al. 2008, 113; Ghilardi et al. 2012, 50; Poulos et al. 2000, 47–76; Shackleton 1970, 943–44; Syrides et al. 2009, 71–82; Rodden 1964, 112.

30

105

Stavros Kotsos of 7th millennium, according to radiocarbon dates(Figure 8.3, Νο 45-56). This must also hold true in the eastern part of the RNM for the Ovče Pole basin (Figure 8.3, Νο 2631), traversed by the Bregalnica tributary of the Axios31 (Naumov et al. 2009). In Kosovo (Figure 8.4, Νο 57-64, the number of early settlements dating to this period is quite limited, but the sites of Gladnice and Rudnik testify that early farmers had reached this area by the end of the 7th millennium (Tasić N. N. 1998), while a significant number of settlements dating to the period between 6200 and 6000 BC is found in the Morava basins32 (Figure 8.4, Νο 70-112, 140, 144-164).

located close to the riverbed: one on a low terrace close to the modern city of Eidomeni (Figure 8.2, Νο 22) (Valla and Micha 2007) and the other on the gentle slope of the low hill close to the modern village of Akropotamos (Grammenos et al. 1997). This also holds true for the northern part of the Axios basin,36 where Neolithic settlements are strikingly absent throughout the river’s course, up to the Skopje basin, in sharp contrast to the basins connected with the Axios by its tributaries. Settlements in the Skopje basin are situated on the slopes of surrounding hills, but also on the basin’s floor, where they take the form of a low tell37 (Figure 8.3, No 3437). Similarly, in the small Polog basin, isolated by high mountains to the west of the Skopje basin, the admittedly small number of known settlements38 was established on both the surrounding hill slopes and the basin floor (Figure 8.3, No 38-39). Numerous Neolithic settlements have been found in the basins of two Axios tributaries, the Bregalnica (Ovče Pole) and Crna (Pelagonia). In Ovče Pole, all the settlements are situated on the gentle slopes of the hills, at a great distance from the banks of the Bregalnica (Figure 8.3, No 26-31),39 which often flooded in the recent past, creating swamps (Barker 1975, 92–93; Weide 1976, 427). Conversely, in Pelagonia, 93 of 120 known neolithic settlements are situated on the basin floor and have formed tells, while the remaining 27 are located on the slopes of the surrounding hills (Figure 8.3, No 45-56). Most of the tell settlements here are clustered in groups on the west side of the River Crna, in areas that may have been marshy land,40 as they were until recently (Naumov 2016, 331; Barker 1975, 90–92).

The number of settlements dating to the Middle Neolithic (6000–5400 BC) is greater throughout this vast area, from the Thermaic Gulf and Langadas basin, through Pelagonia (Porodin II–III phases) and the Skoplje and Ovče Pole (Anzabegovo II–IV phases) basins, to Kosovo and the basins of the West and Great Morava rivers (Starčevo II– III phases). A further increase in the number of settlements is observed in all regions during the Late Neolithic (5400– 4500 BC), with new foundations alongside continuity of habitation at many older sites. Settlement location and the wider landscape Most of the settlements discussed here are situated on the margins of the basins, either on terraces or on the gentle lower slopes of the surrounding hills, while those established on basin floors are much fewer. The former are found throughout the Axios and Morava basins,33 while the latter occur more patchily. In the southern part of the Axios basin, in the ThessalonikiGiannitsa plain, only Nea Nikomedeia is today located in the plain34 while all the other settlements were founded on the gentle slopes of the low surrounding hills. Similarly, in the Langadas basin, only two settlements,35 Lete III (Tzanavari et al. 2004) and Koroneia (Kotsos et al. in press-c), were established on the basin’s floor and close to the shore of Lake Koroneia (Figure 8.2, Νο 8, 10), whereas all others are located on the gentle slopes of the hills that surround the basin (Kotsos and Urem-Kotsou 2016).

To the north of the Skopje basin stretches the elongated basin of the South Morava River, with few located neolithic settlements, of which two are situated in its southern part close to the modern city of Vranje41 and six in the plain between modern Leskovac and Niš42 (Figure 8.4, No 8790, 94, 144-147 and 151). All of these are located on the The northern part of the Axios basin extends from the Axios Iron Gates (i.e. Demir Kapija) northwards to the basins of Skopje and Polog (in the north and northwest of the RNM). 37 Three settlements have been excavated; Zelenikovo (Garašanin and Bilbija 1988) is situated on the slope of a low hillock close to the Axios riverbed; Toumba Madjari (Sanev 1988; Stojanova-Kanzurova 2011) is located in the flat area of the modern city of Skopje, which was until recently marshy land; Govrlevo is situated on the gentle slope of a hill in the Skopje basin (Fidanoski 2012). 38 Only two sites have been investigated in the Polog basin: Pod Selo Tumba (Zdravkovski 2005) and Tumba Palcište (Saržoski and Zdravkovski 1991). 39 The nearest is Anzabegovo, which is more than 6.5 km away. Five settlements in the Ovče Pole basin have been excavated thus far: Anzabegovo (Sanev 2009, Gimbutas 1976), Vršnik (Garašanin M. and D. Garašanin 1960–61), Rug Bair (Sanev 1976), Krupište and Pista (Stojanova-Kanzurova 2011). 40 Hydrogeological research has not been undertaken in Pelagonia, but the landscape of this area is not likely to have changed significantly in the last 10,000 years, according to Naumov (2016, 329). 41 Pavlovac (Vuković et al. 2016, 167; Perić et al. 2016a) and Donje Vranje (Kapuran et al. 2016). 42 Gradac (Stalio 1972), Pločnik (Šljivar and Kuzmanović-Cvetković 1997), Bubanj, Čuka Grabovica, Mediana and Radajće Malče (Srejović 1988). 36

In the almost isolated Almopia basin, a northern extension of the Thessaloniki-Giannitsa plain, three settlements were established on the basin floor (Figure 8.2, Νο 6, 7, 13) (see chapter 7 in this volume). Neolithic settlements are strikingly absent along the Axios, with only two Two distinct cultural groups, Porodin-Velušina in Pelagonia and Anzabegovo-Vršnik in Ovče Pole, have been distinguished by their material culture. 32 They are included in the Early Neolithic phases of the Starčevo cultural group (Garašanin 1979). 33 The two large geographical features, the Axios and Morava basins, are each comprised of a series of small basins. 34 For geological investigations that also include the local environment of Nea Nikomedeia see Ghilardi et al. 2012, 57–58; Ghilardi et al. 2008, 111–25; Syrides et al. 2009, 71–82. 35 To these may be added another settlement dated to the LN, which is located on the basin floor between the two lakes, close to the modern village of Profitis (Kotsos and Urem-Kotsou 2016). 31

106

Settlements and Landscape in the Neolithic of the Southern and Central Balkans gentle slopes or on the tops of low hills at the margins of the basin, and none on its floor.

on flat plains. The former type of sites is encountered in all basins, while the latter is found only in some of them, and usually in small numbers, except in Pelagonia, where tells prevail. Settlements in the hilly landscape with less fertile soils are very scarce.44

To the west of the South Morava River extend the Kosovo highlands, which offer an alternative route to the north, avoiding the narrow passages of the South Morava. In Kosovo, 20 neolithic sites have been found thus far, the majority of them in an elongated basin on the eastern side of the highlands (Figure 8.4, No 57-64). All these settlements are situated on terraces or on hills on the margins of the basin (Barker 1975, 94–95) apart from Gladnice (N. N. Tasić 1998; Glišić 1959) and Predionica (N. Tasić 1998; Glišić 1962), on low hillocks in the plain.

Settlements and their local environmental setting Environmental characteristics must have been of crucial importance for early farmers in the selection of places for habitation. From the initial phase of the Neolithic, the usually small groups of inhabitants of early settlements subsisted primarily on farming, while hunting played only a supplementary role (Bogaard and Halstead 2015).

In the basin of the West Morava River, a significant number of neolithic sites are all situated on the surrounding low hills (Figure 8.4, No 81, 105-112, 140, 159, 160, 162), except Divlje Polje-Ratina (Srejović 1988, 55), on a low terrace in the plain (Figure 8.4, No 159).

The analysis of site locations in terms of local environmental data reveals three main characteristics common to most of them: habitation in spots protected from flooding (i.e. on sloping terrain or on hillocks within basin floors); proximity to water (from streams, springs and ponds to lakes and rivers); and easy access to fertile, cultivable soil and pasture. Soils suitable for crop cultivation are one of the most important pre-requisites for a farming economy. In the geographical area discussed here, five such soil types are routinely found around Neolithic settlements.45 These are brown soils, alluvium, chernozem, smonica and meadow soils, all of which are suitable for crops, although chernozem and smonica are more fertile and harder to cultivate than the others (Obradović and Bajčev 2016; Russell 1993, 24; Chapman 1990).

The huge basin of the Great Morava River, 150 km long and occupying central and eastern Serbia up to the Danube, contains the largest number of Neolithic settlements in the central Balkans (Figure 8.4, No 79-88, 91-101, 104, 148150,152, 156, 157). Here, settlements occupy two types of location: (a) terraces on the margins of the basin, and (b) the hilly areas in the west of the basin (usually along the natural passages connecting this basin with that of the West Morava). Only a few Neolithic settlements are located on the floor of the Great Morava basin (e.g. Perić 2016; Garašanin M. and D. Garašanin 1979).

Apart from these, a number of other factors related to the exploitation of natural sources must have also played some role, as the geographical location of the settlements suggests. For example, during the Late Neolithic, communities that developed some specialisation (e.g. metallurgical activities in the Great Morava region) would have settled in areas where raw materials were available. This is supported by the location of large and long-lived settlements such as Belovode (Radivojević et al. 2010; Borić 2009). Other natural resources of low archaeological visibility, such as salt, may have also played an important role (Tasić N.N. 2009; Perić 2012). Another important criterion for the social and economic development of the settlements must have been their role and position within

In the Danube area and Vojvodina, Neolithic settlements are situated on low hillocks close to the banks of the Danube and its tributaries (Figure 8.4, No 65-78, 102, 113-116, 136, 137, 165-171, 181-191). In the Mačva region (northwestern Serbia), a group of settlements, known as Obrovac-type sites, are situated on low hillocks in the flood-prone plain (Figure 8.4, No 138-143, 163, 172, 176, 178-180). Some of the mounds may have been formed artificially, presumably for protection from water, as suggested by some scholars (Trbuhović and Vasiljević, 1975; ibid. 1983), although recent geological investigations do not support such an interpretation (Tripković and Penezić 2017, see chapter 10 in this volume). The majority of the 191 excavated Neolithic settlements in the geographical area discussed in this chapter are of the flat-extended type and are situated on low hills or terraces on the periphery of the basins. The possibility cannot be excluded, however, that flat-extended type of sites also existed on flat plains, which are more likely to have been buried by later alluviation. A minority of settlements belong to the tell type,43 and almost all of these are located

Such settlements have been located only in some of the regions discussed in this chapter: Pente Vrises, situated in the hilly area in northern part of the Langadas basin (Kotsos in press-b), Kutline in Pelagonia (Temelkoski and Mitkoski 2008) and Rešava (Mitrevski 2003), and the settlements on the hills in the western part of the Great Morava River basin (settlements of the Rekovac type – see Vetnić 1974). 45 For the Morava River basin and Danube areas see Chapman 1981, 86–88, Chapman 1990 and Barker 1975; for Ovče Pole see Weide 1976, 435 and Barker 1975; for Voivodina see Tringham et al. 1992, 353 and Barker 1975; for the Middle Morava Valley see Obradović and Bajčev 2016. It should be noted, however, that systematic investigation of the fertility of the various types of soils that surround the settlements has yet to be done. Difficulties in detecting changes that have occurred due to the erosion or the formation of alluvial deposits from Neolithic times to the present, and in dating them, limits the research to the data obtained from the present situation. For this reason, the data on soil fertility in this study, for a significant proportion of the areas under consideration, is based on personal on-site observations and published data. 44

If the construction of the houses one above another on the same spot is crucial for distinguishing tell and flat-extended type settlements (Kotsakis 1999), then in the Morava River basin and Danube areas only the Vinča and perhaps Gomolava settlements could be characterized as tells. The only characteristic that all the other settlements have in common with tell type of sites is their multiple layers of habitation.

43

107

Stavros Kotsos exchange networks,46 while the existence of friendly or hostile neighbouring populations, although perhaps less archaeologically visible, may also have contributed to the selection of particular locations for settlement.47

soils and soils of the smonica type must not have been particularly preferred, as the former are present at low altitude, in areas that are flooded in the fall and spring and consequently do not allow their exploitation, whereas the latter require ploughing and irrigation (Chapman 1990). Brown soils, which cover large areas, though of moderate fertility, are easy to cultivate, and perhaps for this reason appear to have been highly favoured by early farmers. Investigations within a 1 km radius around the settlements in the Great Morava basin show that mostly brown soils surround them, and seldom other types of soils (Obradović and Bajčev 2016).

A closer look at the environmental data on the Neolithic settlements in the southern part of the Axios basin reveals that most of them are located on the slopes of low hills on the margins of the plains and basins, in areas protected from floods, where soils of moderate fertility prevail, mostly brown soils of loose structure, suitable for extensive cultivation. Intensely hilly terrain was not particularly preferred, perhaps because of the red soils that prevail there, which, in addition to their low fertility, are difficult to cultivate.

Intra-site organisation and architecture of Early and Middle Neolithic settlements Little information is available for the organisation of the Early (EN) and Middle Neolithic (MN) sites because of the small scale on which most of them have been excavated. The most complete picture of a settlement of this period is provided by Mavropigi-Filotsairi, which was entirely excavated (Karamitrou-Mentessidi et al. 2015).49 Excavations at EN Blagotin (Nikolić and Zečević 2001, 7; Greenfield and Jongsma 2008, 69–70; Greenfield 2000, 172, 196), MN Vinča,50 EN Nea Nikomedeia (Pyke and Youni 1996) and MN Madžari (Sanev 1988) also provide significant information on the organisation of EN and MN settlements. A common feature of the first three settlements is the existence of an open space with a central semi-subterranean building around which the others were constructed, while the other two both include a larger, central above-ground building, interpreted as a ‘shrine’ or communal building. The organisation of the settlement around a central building, whether this is interpreted in religious or secular terms, has been taken as an indication of social organisation with an emphasis on collectivity.

In the northern part of the Axios basin, two distinct preferences relating to the geomorphology and the local environment of the settlements may be observed. In Pelagonia, where most of the settlements are located on the flood-prone basin’s floor, which was in recent historical periods covered with swamps (Naumov 2016), fertile soils with potentially high yields exist at a distance of 2–3 km to the west of them, except in a few cases (Simoska and Sanev 1976). In the Skopje basin, a small number of the Neolithic settlements were also established in marshy land, but a greater number of settlements are there situated on the lower part of the hills’ slopes. In the Ovče Pole, on the contrary, the settlements are not located on the flat floor of the basin, but on the elevations and slopes of the hills that surround it, in areas with soils of moderate fertility suitable for extensive cultivation of cereals, which are today the main type of agricultural products. The fertile land along the Bregalnica River that runs across the Ovče Pole basin does not appear to have been cultivated, judging from the fairly large distance between the settlements and the riverbed zone, of more than 6 km.

In the southern part of the Axios basin, a growing body of data indicates that the semi-subterranean type of house was prevalent in the early EN. Above-ground houses appear later, after roughly 6300, at some settlements in this area, but pit-dwellings are the only type of building found at many others. Settlements enclosed by a ditch are often encountered in the MN (see chapter 7 in this volume). According to the available evidence,51 EN and MN settlements were small, with a limited number of houses.

In the Kosovo highlands, most of the arable land is of medium fertility and today is mainly cultivated with cereals. East of Kosovo, in the South Morava basin, the land in its flat part is characterised by fertile alluvial soils, whereas the rolling landscape that surrounds the plain – on which the Neolithic settlements are located – has brown soils suitable for the cultivation of cereals. In the broader area of the Great Morava River, three main types of soil are distinguished: a) alluvial soils, which occupy the wide zone along the banks of the Morava and its tributaries, b) brown forest soils, which stretch over the foothills mainly to the west and south at an altitude between 100 and 300 m, and c) smonica,48 which covers mainly the east side of the basin. Alluvial

Conversely, in the northern part of the Axios basin, only above-ground buildings appear to have been used The settlement of Filotsairi-Mavropigi (western Macedonia, Greece) (Figure 8.2, No 12), though outside the geographical boundaries of the study, is included here as it contributes significantly to the overall picture of an early Neolithic settlement. 50 The stratum of the initial phase of the Vinča settlement was excavated by Vasić (1932–36) and dates to the Middle Neolithic. 51 At Filotsairi-Mavropigi only the ‘central pit’ is dated in the initial settlement phase (Karamitrou-Mendessidi et al. 2015). At Revenia, it is difficult to specify the number of dwellings in the earliest phase of the settlement, but it appears that it was very restricted (Besios and Adaktylou 2006, Isaakidou et al. 2018). At Paliambela, the habitation phase dated to this period was investigated in a very limited area (Kotsakis and Halstead 2007; Maniatis et al. 2015). 49

46 For example, settlements in the Vojvodina plain are located along the course of the Tisa and Tamis rivers, which were the main route for trade of obsidian from Carpathia (Marić 2015; Tripković and Milić 2008). 47 For the evidence for hostile behaviour during the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods see Roksandić et al. 2006. 48 Smonica has the heaviest mechanical texture and contains up to 60–80 per cent clay (Obradović and Bajčev 2016, 64).

108

Settlements and Landscape in the Neolithic of the Southern and Central Balkans throughout the EN and MN, with pit-huts attested only at the settlement of Pešterica (Kitanoski et al. 1980). The existence of an enclosing ditch is confirmed by geomagnetic surveys at several settlements of this period in Pelagonia (see chapter 9 in this volume).

In the Morava basins and in the Danube region, the first phase of the LN (Vinča Tordoš I or Vinča A) is represented by semi-subterranean structures, continuing the architectural tradition of the EN and MN. The first above-ground buildings are encountered in the next LN phase (Vinča Tordoš II or Vinča B) and became the typical form of house thereafter. Only at Gomolava has the contemporary use of both above- and below-ground houses been confirmed (Brukner 1976, 49). Examples of rectangular aboveground buildings are many and come from almost all excavated sites, but more substantial data comes from the settlements at Banjica (Todorović and Cermanović 1961), Selevac (Tringham and Krstić 1990), Gomolava (Brukner 1988, 20) and the LN layers at Vinča (Tasić et al. 2015; chapter 11 in this volume), which have been explored on a greater scale. At these settlements the houses were aboveground and free-standing, arranged in rows and separated by narrow streets. In addition to excavation, significant further insight into intra-settlement organisation has been provided by geophysical survey at Divostin and Grivac (McPherron and Ralph 1970, 10–17; Mužijević and Ralph 1988, 389–413) and, more recently, at Drenovac, Slatina– Paraćin and Buličke Bare in the Morava Basin (Perić et al. 2016b; chapter 13 in this volume) and Crkvine-Stubline in the Sava River basin (Crnobrnja 2014). In three of these settlements, the houses, obviously destroyed by fire, were also above-ground, free-standing and arranged in parallel rows which in some areas are interrupted by large open spaces. At Buličke Bare, which does not exceed 6  ha in extent, the houses do not have any specific arrangement, although they have the same orientation (Perić et al. 2016b). Geomagnetic surveys54 coupled with extensive excavations confirm the existence of large LN settlements of up to 35 ha, with houses arranged in rows, while surface surveys suggest that some settlements, such as Pločnik, Belovode and Potporanj, may have reached 100  ha (Šljivar 2006; Chapman 1981). Smaller settlements are also attested, however, and in a few cases the arrangement of houses lacked any clear order (Perić et al. 2016b). The Neolithic settlements, both small and large, appear often to have been enclosed by a ditch.

Further north, in the central Balkans, semi-subterranean houses are usually the only type of house encountered during the EN and MN (Garašanin M. 1979; Minichreiter 2010), while firm evidence that settlements of these periods were enclosed has yet to be reported. Intra-site organisation and architecture of Late Neolithic settlements A larger body of evidence is available for the intra-site organisation of Late Neolithic (LN) settlements, but is not equally abundant for all the geographical sub-regions discussed here. Nonetheless, significant differences are apparent between north and south in relation to the perception of residential space and the organisation of LN communities. For the southern part of the Axios basin, the available information is quite restricted due to the limited extent of excavations, the nature of the architectural remains and their poor preservation. Apart from Makriyalos, settlements have been excavated on a relatively small scale. Semisubterranean houses are the only known architectural type at many LN settlements in this area,52 but the transition to above-ground buildings occurs at the beginning of the LN at some sites, like Stavroupoli (Grammenos and Kotsos 2002, 2004, Kotsos 2014) and Vasilika C (Pappa et al. 2017). LN semi-subterranean dwellings do not differ from those of the EN and MN. Their ground plan usually has an irregular, circular or oval shape, and in many cases results from the joining of several smaller pits. The residential area of many settlements was enclosed by a ditch (see chapter 7 in this volume). Open cobbled spaces, where everyday activities were carried out, have been uncovered at a few settlements in this area, such as Thermi, Stavroupoli and perhaps Paliambela Kolindros, and are unique for LN sites of the Balkans.

The accidental or intentional destruction of houses by fire (Stevanović 1997), which is often observable in the central Balkans and especially in the Vinča Pločnik II phase, when burnt houses are found across entire settlements, has contributed to the preservation of houses and much of the household equipment. Above-ground buildings may comprise one, two or three rooms and almost all investigated examples, whether single- or multi-spaced, contain at least one oven, and often one in each room (e.g. see chapters 12 and 13 in this volume). In the Morava Valley and the Danube regions, in a small number of excavated houses, bucrania were found that must have been hanging from one of the exterior or interior wall faces (Crnobrnja 2010, 58; Spasić 2012).

In the northern part of the Axios basin, rectangular aboveground buildings are the typical form of LN house, judging from the 15 settlements excavated thus far.53 Further evidence for the organisation of LN settlements is lacking as a result of the restriction of excavations to small trenches.

52 See Makriyalos (Pappa et al. 2017), Pente Vrises (Kotsos in press-a), Zagliveri (Grammenos and Kotsos 2003) and other settlements in the area (chapter 7 in this volume). Semi-subterranean dwellings at some settlements are organized in groups, giving the impression of sparsely arranged neighbourhoods (Pappa 2020, 112, 173). 53 These include Atici (Zdravkovski 1989), Mogila Senokos (Kitanoski 1971), Anzabegovo V (Gimbutas 1976), Mramor (Jovčevska 1993). At Mogila Senokos, pits that may belong to the lower part of semisubterranean houses were found in the deepest layer, but it is not clear whether they date to the LN (Simoska et al. 1979, 13, 21).

Geophysical investigations, which have been systematically carried out in recent years on the Neolithic settlements of Serbia, provide evidence for the last habitation phase of burnt houses at each site.

54

109

Stavros Kotsos Discussion

terraces surrounding the basins. The Neolithic inhabitants of the central Balkans preferred not only lowland areas and fertile river basins, however, but also semi-mountainous areas such as those between the Great and West Morava. Mačva in NW Serbia is another area where settlements are located on flood-prone land (Tripković and Penezić 2017; chapter 10 in this volume).

The evidence from 191 excavated Neolithic settlements in the region drained by two of the major rivers of the southern and central Balkans, the Axios and Morava (and their tributaries) reveals both local similarities and local differences in the establishment of early farming societies. The earliest farming settlements were founded in the mid7th millennium in the then coastal zone of the Thermaic Gulf,55 where the number of settlements increased in the period 6300–6100 BC.56 Some of these settlements were remarkably long-lived, like Paliambela and Giannitsa B, both inhabited throughout the Neolithic period. Other parts of the wider southern Axios sub-region, including the Langadas and Almopia basins, appear not to have been settled until the end of the 7th millennium (see chapter 7 in this volume). Similarly, the earliest known Neolithic settlements in the northern Axios basin and Pelagonia, which are geographically linked to the southern Axios, were not founded before 6200 BC (Naumov et al. 2009). This also holds true for the central Balkans (see chapter 2 in this volume). The number of settlements increased significantly between 6100 and 5900 BC, by which time Neolithic communities had settled almost the entire region from the north Aegean coast to the Danube, and this increase continued during the MN (5900/5800–5400/5300 BC). Although some earlier settlements were abandoned, many new ones were established in this period throughout the region discussed here. A further increase in the number of settlements is again observed in the LN throughout the region, with the exception of the Pelagonia, Skopje and Ovče Pole basins in the northern part of the Axios subregion, where evidence for this period is quite scarce.

The evidence for the organisation of space within EN and MN settlements is scarce throughout the region, but the very early settlements apparently comprised just a few houses and, while those of the MN may have sheltered more inhabitants, settlements remained small in size throughout the region until the LN. Rare examples of EN and/or MN settlements with houses organised around a central building are known in most parts of both the Axios and Morava drainages, pointing to social organisation with an emphasis on the community. This changes in the LN, at least in the central Balkans (Tripković 2013) and perhaps in the southern Axios basin, where social organisation appears to have been dominated by households (Halstead 1994; Kotsakis 2014). Although neolithic communities throughout this vast area shared common features in their material culture and other aspects of life throughout the Neolithic, they also show differences, as in the case of architecture. In the southern part of the Axios, including the Langadas and Almopia basins, settlements with semi-subterranean dwellings coexist with those with above-ground houses throughout the Neolithic. At some, semi-subterranean dwellings in initial habitation phases were later replaced by aboveground buildings,57 while at others, pit-huts remained the only type of house throughout the settlement’s lifespan. Conversely, in the northern part of the Axios basin and in Pelagonia, architecture is characterised by above-ground buildings throughout the Neolithic period, with few if any exceptions. Further north, however, from Kosovo to the Danube, including the basins of the South, West and Great Morava, semi-subterranean dwellings are the only type encountered from the EN until the second phase of the LN (Vinča B), for which only the above-ground type is found.

Throughout the Neolithic, the preferred locations for known settlements were the gentle slopes of the hills surrounding the riverine basins or rolling landscapes with low hills, where in both cases soils of moderate fertility are commonly encountered. According to the available evidence, settlements were rarely established on the basin floors except in the Skopje basin and especially in Pelagonia, both situated in the RNM. Pelagonia is perhaps a special case because of the very large number of known settlements (121), most of which were situated on low elevations protruding as islets from potentialy marshy ground (Naumov 2016). In sharp contrast to Pelagonia stands the Ovče Pole basin (in the eastern RNM), where early farmers systematically avoided the flat plain prone to flooding, preferring instead the gentle slopes of the hills with soils of moderate fertility located a considerable distance (exceeding 6 km) away from the Bregalnica riverbed. In the South, West and Great Morava drainages further north, settlements are situated on low hills and

The majority of settlements in the central Balkans, especially those of EN and MN date, are of the flatextended type. Many Starčevo settlements display thin anthropogenic deposits, which in some cases do not exceed 15 cm. The absence of substantial deposits has led to the suggestion that at least some of them were semi-permanent (Garašanin Μ. 1979, 138). Whether this interpretation is correct, or these were short-lived settlements inhabited on a year-round basis, remains to be confirmed by future investigations. Tells are rare in this area and co-occur with the extended type among LN settlements, which had much longer lifespans than their Starčevo counterparts.

These include Nea Nikomideia, Giannitsa B, Axos in ThessalonikiGiannitsa plain, and Paliambela and Revenia in the southern part of the Thermaic Gulf. Settlements of such early radiocarbon date are found also in the Kozani-Ptolemais basin (western Macedonia, Greece). 56 A similar increase in the number of settlements in this period is observed in the basins of western Macedonia, Greece (KaramitrouMendessidi 2014, 234). 55

57 Based on the radiocarbon dates, above-ground buildings must have appeared in this area from 6400 onwards at Nea Nikomedeia, Axos A and Giannitsa B and towards the end of the 7th millennium at Paliambela, Sossandra and perhaps Mikri Volvi (see chapter 7 in this volume).

110

Settlements and Landscape in the Neolithic of the Southern and Central Balkans The southern part of the Balkans, with the basins related to the Axios, display a more complex picture; the type of settlement is not always specified, but tells dominate in Pelagonia and in the flat part of the Skopje basin, whereas extended sites appear to be more common on the slopes of hills. Whatever the type of site, most were inhabited for much longer than their contemporary Starčevo counterparts, suggesting considerable diversity in the lifespan of Neolithic communities. In the southern part of the Axios basin, tell settlements are scarce and extended settlements prevail. Many of the latter are long-lived, spanning a period of many centuries, while others appear short-lived (see chapter 7 in this volume).

communities include ornaments such as stone or clay labrets and stone pendants. The archaeological record of the MN indicates the formation in some areas of distinct identities as expressed in material culture. For example, in the northern part of the Axios basin and in Pelagonia, two groups, Porodin and Anzabegovo, can be clearly distinguished on the basis of pottery styles and some other forms of material culture such as clay house models,59 although they also share some common features. The Anzabegovo group, occupying the Ovče Pole and Skopje basins, appears to have received significant influence from the contemporary Starčevo groups of the central Balkans further north, with a prevalence of black painted decoration on a reddish background. Conversely, the Porodin group, confined to the Pelagonia basin, is clearly distinguished from the Anzabegovo group by its pottery painted with white decoration on a reddish background. Many scholars have related the formation of two distinct groups to topography, with Pelagonia being naturally separated from the Skopje and Ovče Pole basins, while the latter two have easier access to one another and to the Morava basins where Starčevo groups settled.

The observed diversity in the type of settlements, their lifespan, the form of the houses and the environmental setting must have been related to the organisation of Neolithic communities, which throughout this vast area and from the earliest Neolithic onwards exhibit characteristics of an already developed Neolithic economy based on domesticated plants and animals. Hunting played a supplementary role throughout the regions, but game makes up only a small percentage of faunal assemblages in the Axios and related basins, whereas it makes a much larger contribution at settlements in the area of the Morava and its tributaries. Sub-regional differences are also observed in the percentages of domesticated species, with sheep and goats prevalent in the Axios basin and cattle in the Morava and Danube.58 This contrast may be related to the divergent environmental and climatic conditions, and their suitability for different species, in the south and north of the region studied. A preference for cattle and their special place in the economy and ideology of the communities of the central Balkans are also observable in their frequent occurrence in the form of clay figurines and of the bucrania that were displayed on house walls.

Starčevo groups in the central Balkans have long been regarded as more mobile than their counterparts further south, because of the small extent of their settlements, coupled with their thin occupation deposits and the continued use of semi-subterranean dwellings. These features were attributed to the frequent movement of groups of farmers within the geographical confines of the West and Great Morava basins and along the major rivers of the Vojvodina further north. Consistent with this interpretation, MN material culture in these areas appears uniform, with the same variety of ceramic types and decoration repeated at all sites, from the Ovče Pole basin to the Pannonian plain, including the Kosovo highlands. Even decorative motifs, such as the typical example of reddish pottery with dark painted motifs of curvilinear bands that often end with three or four ‘tails’, appear identical throughout this vast area (Petrović 2009). Coarse pottery dominated by barbotin and impresso decoration are also commonly found throughout the same area. This striking uniformity of pottery was one of the main reasons that these groups were treated as a single ‘Starčevo’ culture from the beginning of prehistoric research in this area.

Despite such sub-regional diversity, strong similarities throughout the Neolithic in some aspects of material culture, such as pottery, point to far-flung social relationships, albeit perhaps of differing modes and scales through time. During the EN, there must have been some mobility in all directions (and not only from south to north), as the Neolithic way of life spread across the geographical region discussed in this chapter. This is supported by some common features of early settlements throughout the region, including pottery with similar overall technological and decorative techniques (e.g. red monochrome vessels, frequent use of chaff temper, impresso and barbotin decoration, and white painted decoration on a red surface). Other, chronologically more restricted evidence for relationships between distant

During the LN significant changes are observed in many aspects of material culture, with black burnished pottery standing as a hallmark of the period in all regions of the southern and central Balkans (Urem-Kotsou 2016a and

58 For the area of the central Balkans see Blažić and Radmanović 2011; Blažić 1985; ibid. 2005; Bökönyi 1974, ibid. 1984; ibid.1988; Bulatović 2011; ibid. 2012; Clason 1979; ibid. 1980; Dimitrijević 2006; Greenfield and Jongsma 2014; Greenfield 1986; ibid. 1994; ibid. 2008; ibid. 2017; Jovanović et al. 2003; Legge 1990; Orton 2008; Russell 1993, 415; Schwartz 1992; Trbojević-Vukičević and Babić 2007, 188. For the area of the RNM see Ivkovska 2009, and for northern Greece see Halstead and Isaakidou 2013; Higgs 1976; Tzevelekidi et. al. 2014; Yannouli 1990; ibid. 1992; ibid. 2002; ibid. 2004.

The clay house models uncovered in the Pelagonia basin, although they generally have the same characteristics as those of the Madžari tell settlement and other sites in the Skopje basin, differ significantly in their individual characteristics. For example, in Pelagonia the base of the model clearly represents a house, while the anthropomorphic cylinders placed on the top of the roof do not have hands, whereas models from settlements in the Skopje plain exhibit bases that do not obviously reference a house, and the anthropomorphic cylinders placed on the roof are always represented with hands (Chausidis 2010).

59

111

Stavros Kotsos references therein). Even greater changes are apparent in the central Balkans, where not only the number and size of settlements increased, but, perhaps most importantly, the intra-site organisation and architecture of settlements changed radically, in contrast with the southern part of the Axios basin, where significant changes in intra-site organisation and architecture are not observed. In this latter area, the tradition of extended settlements continued and, although some of these are rather larger in extent than their precursors, semi-subterranean houses co-occur with above-ground buildings, as in previous periods.

In the northern part of the Axios basin, the use of exclusively above-ground buildings continues, but information on intra-site organisation and other aspects of LN settlement is still lacking. On the basis of contrasting ceramic traditions, three cultural groups have been distinguished here, confined spatially to the Ovče Pole, Skopje and Pelagonia basins, respectively (Gimbutas 1976; Sanev 2009; Simoska and Sanev 1977, 218–19). Concluding remarks In the region of the southern and central Balkans discussed in this chapter, the two major rivers, the Axios (Vardar) and Morava, and their tributaries, have long been considered the main corridor of communication from the north Aegean to the central Balkans and thence to the Danube. Radiocarbon dates indicate that the earliest farmers first settled in the former coastal zone of the Thermaic Gulf and in western Macedonia (Greece), while further north their earliest settlements are encountered some two or three centuries later. Similarities in the material culture of the earliest settlements and their distribution indicate that the spread of farming must have followed routes through the basins of the semi-mountainous areas of western Macedonia (Greece), Pelagonia, Kosovo and central Serbia, rather than the long assumed route through the Axios basin, where Neolithic settlements are absent. The first settlements along the Axios are found at its northernmost extreme in the Skopje basin, where they are dated to the end of the 7th millennium. In the southern part of the Axios, only two settlements are known thus far along the Axios riverbed, and these date to the LN.

In the Morava basin and Danube area, the architecture of early LN (Vinča A or Vinča Tordoš I) settlements continued the MN tradition with the construction of semi-subterranean houses. However, in the next (Vinča B) phase, semi-subterranean houses gave way to aboveground buildings. Houses were now free-standing and organised in parallel rows separated by narrow streets. At some of these settlements, investigated on a large scale, open spaces were found in different parts of the settlement, where some communal activities may have taken place. In addition to such settlements with an organised plan, smaller examples are also found in which the above-ground dwellings were arranged without any evident order. Many LN settlements are enclosed by one or two ditches. During the last two phases of the LN (Vinča C–D or Vinča Pločnik), the size of the settlements increased significantly, reaching 40–50 ha and in some cases 100 ha. It is likely that, rather than the whole residential area being inhabited at the same time, the large size of these settlements was related to the horizontal displacement of habitation through successive phases (Tripković 2013), as is the case at flatextended sites in the southern part of the Axios basin. Even if horizontal displacement has contributed to the large size of many of the later LN settlements in the central Balkans, however, they must surely still have had larger numbers of residents than the contemporaneous settlements of smaller size. It remains unclear why large numbers of inhabitants were concentrated in one settlement. Ever since Vasić (1932) excavated at Vinča, it has been assumed that this phenomenon should be related to the broadening of the economy to include activities such as early processing of copper and trade in copper objects. Evidence of copperworking has mainly been found in some settlements in the Morava basin, however, where the mineral sources are located (Radivojević and Kuzmanović-Cvetković 2014; Radivojević et al. 2010). At settlements in the Danube area, firm evidence for metal processing has been found, but not at all settlements (Radivojević and  Rehren 2016). It has been proposed that such settlements were centres for the exchange of objects made not only of copper but also of other materials, such as obsidian, and Spondylus and Glycimeris shell jewelry, which were found there in significant quantities (Tripković 2003–04; Dimitrijević and Tripković 2002). The intensification of cultivation through the application of tillage or irrigation could also have contributed to increased settlement size, but for this there is no firm evidence (Obradović and Bajčev 2016).

The shared material culture of the early farmers, with only slight differences between sub-regions, may have been related, at least in part, to the mobility of at least some of them, as many short-lived settlements suggest. From the last phase of the EN (6200–6000/5900 BC), clearer differences emerge, and continue throughout the MN, between the constituent parts of our study region. In the Axios drainage area (including the Thermaic Gulf, Pelagonia, and the Skopje and Ovče Pole basins) many settlements were long-lived, while in the Morava region many appear to have been short-lived. In the northern part of the Axios basin and in Pelagonia, early farmers resided exclusively in above-ground buildings, while in the southern part differences in architecture are observed between settlements throughout the Neolithic. In the Morava and Danube regions, above-ground buildings appear much later, bringing to an end a long tradition of pit-dwellings. In the Axios basin distinct cultural identities formed in the MN that were confined to small basins (e.g. Pelagonia and Ovče Pole), while in the central Balkans common cultural characteristics, including preferences in environmental setting, settlement type, architecture, and other forms of material culture, were shared much more widely. Differences between areas became more obvious during the LN, although they continued to share some 112

Settlements and Landscape in the Neolithic of the Southern and Central Balkans common characteristics in material culture (e.g. pottery). In the central Balkans, pit-huts gave way to above-ground buildings, which in the later phases of the LN were organised in rows, forming large settlements. A variety of materials, such as obsidian and Spondylus and Glycimeris objects, already exchanged in the earlier periods, travelled long distances throughout the Balkans in the LN, presumably through developed networks of exchange (Milić 2016; Urem-Kotsou 2016b and references therein). From 5000 BC onwards, it appears that a small number of copper and perhaps of gold objects were added to the traded materials. Perhaps the appearance of incised symbols in this period in the central Balkans (Starović 2004) should be considered in the context of these more complex forms of exchange. The emergence in the central Balkans of large settlements with remarkable intra-site organisation, which is entirely absent during the Neolithic period in the Axios basin, may perhaps be understood in the same context.

Blažić, Svetlana and Darko Radmanović. 2011. ‘Fauna kasnovinčanskih staništa Crkvine i Belež.’ In Kolubara 5, edited by Mirjana Blagojević, 239–49. Belgrade: Republic Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage. Bogaard, Amy and Paul Halstead. 2015. ‘Subsistence practices and social routine in Neolithic Southern Europe.’ In The Oxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe, edited by Chris Fowler, Jan Harding and Daniela Hofmann, 385–410. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bökönyi, Sandor. 1974. History of domestic mammals in Central and Eastern Europe. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Bökönyi, Sandor. 1984. ‘Die frühneolitische Wirbeltierfauna von Nosa.’ Acta Archaeologica Hungarica 36: 29–41. Βökönyi, Sandor. 1988. ‘The Neolithic Fauna of Divostin.’ In Divostin and the Neolithic of Central Serbia, edited by Alan McPherron and Dragoslav Srejović, 417–45. Ethnology Monographs 10. University of Pittsburgh.

Although investigations have progressed significantly in recent years, many of the issues raised since the beginning of prehistoric research remain unanswered. The limited number of systematically published excavations and analytical studies of materials, although providing important information, are not yet sufficient for a clear picture, especially on issues related to economy, exchange networks, relationships between different sub-regions, or the mobility that must have taken place throughout the region from the northern Aegean coast to the Danube at least in some periods of the Neolithic.

Borić, Dušan. 2009. ’Absolute dating of metallurgical innovations in the Vinča Culture of the Balkans.’ In Metals and Societies: Studies in honour of Barbara S. Ottaway, edited by Tobias L. Kienlin and Ben W. Roberts, 191–245. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie, vol. 169. Bonn: Habelt. Bottema, Sietse. 1974. Late Quaternary Vegetation History of Northern Greece. PhD diss., University of Groningen.

Acknowledgements

Brukner, Bogdan. 1976. ‘Novi prilozi proučavanju formiranja neolitskih i eneolitskih naselja u Jugoslovenskom Podunavlju.’ Materijali 14: 47–52.

The author is greatly indebted to Prof. Paul Halstead for valuable comments and suggestions. Ivana Pantović and Prof. Nenad Tasić are thanked for comments on an earlier draft of the chapter.

Brukner, Bogdan. 1988. ‘Die siedlung der Vinča grupe auf Gomolava.’ In Gomolava 1, Proceedings of the International Symposium held in Ruma 1986, edited by Borislav Jovanović and Marija Jovanović, 19–38. Novi Sad and Beograd: Vojvodjanski Muzej and Arheološki Institut.

References cited Barker, Graeme. 1975. ‘Early Neolithic Land Use in Yugoslavia.’ Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 41: 85–104.

Bulatović, Jelena. 2011. ‘Ostaci životinja iz kasnovinčanske jame na nalazištu Vitkovačko polje.’ Kruševački Zbornik 15: 237–71.

Besios, Matthaios and Foteini Adaktylou. 2006. ‘Neolithikos oikismos sta Revenia Korinou.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 18 (2004): 357–66.

Bulatović, Jelena. 2012. ‘Eksploatacija domaćih životinja u kasnom neolitu i eneolitu na području centralnog Balkana. Studije slučaja: Vitkovo i Bubanj.’ Glasnik Srpskog Arheološkog Društva 28: 279–300.

Bintliff, John. 1976. ‘The Plain of Western Macedonia and the Neolithic Site of Nea Nikomedeia.’ Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 42: 241–62.

Chapman, John. 1981. The Vinča Culture of South-East Europe. British Archaeological Reports International Series 117. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Blažić, Svetlana. 1985. ‘Ostaci faune sa arheološkog nalazišta kod Vizića.’ Rad Vojvođanskih Muzeja 29: 33–36.

Chapman, John. 1990. ‘The Neolithic in the Morava– Danube Confluence Area: a Regional Assessment of Settlement Pattern.’ In Selevac, a Neolithic Village in Yugoslavia, edited by Ruth Tringham and Dušan Krstić, 17–21. Los Angeles: University of California, Intitut of Archaeology.

Blažić, Svetlana. 2005. ‘The faunal assemblage.’ In Donja Branjevina: a Neolithic Settlement near Deronje in the Vojvodina (Serbia), edited by Sergej Karmanski, 74–77. Quaderno 10. Trieste: Museo Civico di Storia Naturale. 113

Stavros Kotsos Chausidis, Nikos. 2010. ‘Neolithic Ceramik Figurines in the Shape of Woman-House from the Republic of Macedonia.’ In Anthropomorphic and zoomorphic miniature Figurines in Eurasia, Africa and MesoAmerica: Morphology, Materiality, Technology, Function and Context, edited by Dragos Georghiu and Ann Syphers, 25–35. British Archaeological Reports International Series 2138. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

occupation and geomorphological evolution of the Thessaloniki Plain (Greece) since mid Holocene.’ Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 111–25. Ghilardi, Μatthieu, David Psomiadis, Stephane Cordier, Doriane Delanghe-Sabatier, Francois Demorya, Fatiha Hamidi, Theodoros Paraschou, Elissavet Dotsika, Eric Fouache. 2012. ‘The impact of rapid early- to midHolocene palaeoenvironmental changes on Neolithic settlement at Nea Nikomedeia, Thessaloniki Plain, Greece.’ Quaternary International 266: 47–61.

Chrysostomou, Panikos. 2003. ‘Nea stoiheia apo ti neolithiki erevna stin Eparhia Giannitson. Mia agnosti morfi proistorikis grafis.’ Arhaiologiko Ergo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 15 (2001): 489–500.

Gimbutas, Maria. 1976. Neolithic Macedonia as reflected by excavation at Anza, southeast Yugoslavia. Monumenta Archaeologica 1. Los Angeles: University of California.

Clason, Anneke T. 1979. ‘The farmers of Gomolava in the Vinča and La Tène period.’ Rad Vojvodjanskog Muzeja 25: 60–114.

Glišić, Jovan. 1959. ‘Iskopavanje na lokalitetu “Gladnice” kod Gračanice.’ Arheološki Pregled 1: 13–16.

Clason, Anneke T. 1980. ‘Padina and Starčevo: game, fish and cattle.’ Palaeohistoria 22: 142–73.

Glišić, Jovan. 1962. ‘Predionica, Priština. Neolitsko naselje.’ Arheološki Pregled 4: 13–18.

Crnobrnja, Adam. 2012. ‘Investigation of Late Vinca House 1/2010 at Crkvine in Stubline.’ Starinar 62: 45–64.

Grammenos, Dimitrios, Besios Matthaios and Stavros Kotsos. 1997. Apo tous proistorikous oikismous tis kentrikis Makedonias. Dimosievmata tis Etairias Makedonikon Spoudon 88. Thessaloniki: Eteria Makedonikon Spoudon.

Crnobrnja, Adam. 2014. ‘The (E)neolithic Settlement Crkvine at Stubline, Serbia.’ In The Neolithic and Eneolithic in Southeast Europe; New approaches to dating and cultural Dynamics in the 6th to 4th Millennium BC, edited by Wolfram Schier and Florin Draşovean, 173–86.   Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa, Bd. 28. Rahden/Westf.: Leidorf.

Grammenos, Dimitrios and Stavros Kotsos. 2002. Sostikes anaskafes sto neolithiko oikismo Stavroupolis Thessalonikis. Dimosievmata Arhaiologikou Institoutou Voreias Elladas No. 2. Thessaloniki: Arhaiologiko Instituto Voreias Elladas.

Dimitrijević, Vesna. 2006. ‘Vertebrate fauna of Vinča – Belo Brdo (excavation campaigns 1998–2003).’ Starinar 56: 245–69.

Grammenos, Dimitrios and Stavros Kotsos. 2003. ‘Anaskafi sto neolithiko oikismo tou Zagliveriou Nomou Thessalonikis.’ Makedonika 33: 49–75.

Dimitrijević, Vesna and Boban Tripković. 2002. ‘New spondylus findings at Vinča, Belo Brdo: 1998–2001 campaigns and regional approach to problem.’ Starinar 52: 47–62. Fidanoski, Ljubo. 2012. Cerije Govrlevo i Miloš Bilbija. Skopje: Museum of the City of Skopje.

Grammenos, Dimitrios and Stavros Kotsos. 2004. Sostikes anaskafes sto neolithiko oikismo Stavroupolis Thessalonikis, Meros 2 (1998–2003). Dimosievmata Arhaiologikou Institoutou Voreias Elladas No. 6. Thessaloniki: Arhaiologiko Instituto Voreias Elladas.

Garašanin, Milutin. 1979. ‘Centralnobalkanska zona.’ In Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja, vol. II Neolit, edited by Alojz Benac, 79–212. Sarajevo: Akademia Nauka i Umetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja.

Greenfield, Haskel J. 1986. The Paleoeconomy of the Central Balkans (Serbia). A Zooarchaeological Perspective on the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age (ca. 4.500–1.000 B.C.). British Archaeological Reports International Series 304 (i). Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Garašanin, Milutin and Miloš Bilbija. 1988. ‘Kukja vo Zelenikovo.’ Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 9: 31– 41.

Greenfield, Haskel J. 1994. ‘Faunal Remains from the Early Neolithic Starčevo Settlement at Bukovačka Češma.’ Starinar 43–44 (1992–93): 103–13.

Garašanin, Μilutin and Draga Garašanin. 1960–61. ‘Neolitska naselba Vršnik kaj selo Tarinci.’ Zbornik na Štipskiot Naroden Muzej 2: 7–33.

Greenfield, Haskel J. 2000. ‘Integrating Surface and Subsurface Reconnaissance Data in the Study of Stratigraphically Complex Site: Blagotin, Serbia.’ Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 15(2): 167– 201.

Garašanin, Milutin and Draga Garašanin. 1979. Supska ‘Stublina.’ Praistorijsko naselje vinčanske grupe. Beograd: Narodni Muzej Beograda.

Greenfield, Haskel J. 2008. ‘The vertebrate fauna from Hajdučka Vodenica in the Danubian Iron Gates: subsistence and taphonomy from the Early Neolithic and Mesolithic.’ In The Iron Gates in Prehistory: New perspectives, edited by Clive Bonsall, Vasile

Ghilardi, Matthieu, Eric Fouache, Francois Queyrel, George Syrides, Konstantinos Vouvalidis, Stephane Kunesch, Mihalis Styllas, Stathis Stiros. 2008. ‘Human 114

Settlements and Landscape in the Neolithic of the Southern and Central Balkans Boroneant and Ivana Radovanović, 205–26. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1893. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Jovčevska, Trajanka. 1993. ‘Kukjata od horizont I vo neolitska neselba “Mramor” kaj Čaška.’ Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 13: 31–41.

Greenfield, Haskel J. 2017. ‘Hunting and herding in the Middle Neolithic of Central Serbia: a zooarchaeological analysis of Stragari-Šlivnik, Serbia.’ In Economic zooarchaeology: studies in hunting herding and early agriculture, edited by Peter Rowley-Conwy, Dale Serjeantson and Paul Halstead, 183–94. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Kapuran, Aleksandar, Aleksandar Bulatović, and Dragan Milanović. 2016. ‘Donje Vranje – a settlement from the Neolithic and the Late Antiquity.’ In Arheološka istraživanja na autoputu E 75 (2011–2014, edited by Slaviša Perić and Aleksandar Bulatović, 115–234. Belgade: Institut of Archaeology. Karamitrou-Mentessidi, Georgia. 2014. ‘Peri proistorikon theseon sti Dytiki Makedonia: Nomoi Kozanis kai Grevenon.’ In A century of research in prehistoric Macedonia 1912–2012. International conference proceedings, edited by Evangelia Stefani, Nikos Merousis, and Anastasia Dimoula, 233–50. Thessaloniki: Archaeological Museum Thessaloniki.

Greenfield, Haskel J. and Tina Jongsma. 2008. ‘Sedentary pastoral gatherers in the early Neolithic: architectural, botanical, and zoological evidence for mobile economies from Foeni-Salaş, south-west Romania.’ In Living Well Together? Settlement and Materiality in the Neolithic of South-East and Central Europe, edited by Douglass W. Bailey, Alasdair Whittle and Daniela Hofmann, 108–30. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Karamitrou-Mentessidi, Georgia, Nikos Efstratiou, Małgorzata Kaczanowska, Janusz K. Kozłowski. 2015. ‘Early Neolithic Settlement of Mavropigi in Western Greek Macedonia.’ Eurasian Prehistory 12 (1–2): 47– 116.

Greenfield, Haskel J. and Tina Jongsma. 2014. ‘Subsistence and settlement in the Early Neolithic of temperate SE Europe: a view from Blagotin, Serbia.’ Archaeologia Bulgarica 18 (1): 1–33.

Kitanoski, Blagoe, Dragica Simoska, and Jovan Todorović. 1980. ‘Naselbata Pešterica i problemot na raniot neolit vo Pelagonija.’ Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 6: 9–20.

Halstead, Paul. 1994. ‘The north–south devide: regional paths to complexity in Prehistoric Greece.’ In Development and decline in the Mediterranean Bronze Age, edited by Clay Mathers and Simon Stoddart, 195– 219. Sheffield: J. R. Collis Publications.

Kotsakis, Kostas. 1999. ‘What Tells can Tell: Social Space and Settlement in the Greek Neolithic.’ In Neolithic Society in Greece, edited by Paul Halstead, 66–76. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Halstead, Paul and Valasia Isaakidou. 2013. ‘Early StockKeeping in Greece.’ In The origins and spread of domestic animals in southwest Asia and Europe, edited by Sue Colledge, James Conolly, Keith Dobney, Katie Manning and Stephen Shennan, 129–43. Walnut Crees, California: Left Coast Press.

Kotsakis, Kostas. 2014. ‘Domesticating the periphery. New research into the Neolithic of Greece.’ Pharos, 20(1): 41–73. Κotsakis, Kostas and Paul Halstead. 2007. ‘Paliambela, Kolindros.’ In Archaeological reports for 2006– 2007, edited by James Whitley, Sophia Germanidou, Dushka Urem-Kotsou, Anastasia Dimoula, Irini Nikolakopoulou, Artemis Karnava, Don Evely, 65– 67. Society of the Promotion of Hellenic Studies and British School at Athens.

Higgs, Eric S. 1962. ‘The Biological Data. Fauna.’ In Excavations at the early Neolithic Site at Nea Nikomedeia, Greek Macedonia (1961 season), edited by Robert J. Rodden, 267–88. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 28. Isaakidou, Valasia, Paul Halstead, and Fotieni Adaktylou. 2018. ‘Animal carcass processing, cooking and consumption at Early Neolithic Revenia-Korinou, northern Greece.’ In The Neolithic of Northern Greece and the Balkans. The environmental context of cultural transformation, edited by Dushka Urem-Kotsou, Nenad Tasić, Marsel Burić, Christina Papageorgopoulou, 108– 26, Quaternary International 496.

Kotsos, Stavros. In press-a. ‘Anaskafi neolithikou oikismou stis Pente Vrises Lagkada.’ Arheologiko Deltio, Hronika (2007). Kotsos, Stavros. In press-b. ‘Anaskafi sto neolithiko oikismo tis Assirou E.’ Arheologiko Deltio, Hronika (2007).

Ivkovska, Aneta. 2009. ‘Animal Husbandry and Hunting.’ In Neolithic communities in the Republic of Macedonia, edited by Goce Naumov, Ljubo Fidanoski, Igor Tolevski and Aneta Ivkovska, 53–63. Skopje: DANTE.

Kotsos, Stavros. 2014. ‘Settlement and housing during the 6th millennium BC in western Thessaloniki and the adjacent Langadas province.’ In Century of research in prehistoric Macedonia 1912–2012. International conference proceedings, edited by Evagelia Stefani, Nikos Merousis, and Anastasia Dimoula, 315–22. Thessaloniki: Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki.

Jovanović, Slobodan, Mila Savić, Ružica Trailović, Živorad Janković, Dušan Šljivar. 2003. ‘Evaluations of the domestication process in Serbia – paleozoological remnants at Neolithic settlement of Belovode.’ Acta Veterinaria 53 (5–6): 427–34.

Kotsos, Stavros, Eleni Tselepi, Dushka Urem-Kotsou, Yannis Maniatis, Eleftheria Almasidou, Christophoros 115

Stavros Kotsos Arampatsis. In press-c. ‘Anaskafi proistorikou oikismou kai egkatastasis ton istorikon hronon stin anatoliki ohthi tis limnis Koroneia sti lekani tou Langada.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki (2017).

Naumov, Goce. 2016. ‘Tell communities and wetlands in Neolithic Pelagonia, Republic of Macedonia.’ Documenta Praehistorica 43: 327–42. Naumov, Goce, Ljubo Fidanoski, Igor Tolevski, Aneta Ivkovska. 2009. (eds.) Neolithic Communities in the Republic of Macedonia. Skopje: DANTE.

Kotsos, Stavros and Dushka Urem-Kotsou. 2016. ‘Langadas basin and the settlement of Mikri Volvi.’ In Southeast Europe and Anatolia in prehistory. Essays in honour of Vassil Nikolov on his 65th anniversary, edited by Krum Bacvarov and Ralf Gleser, 117– 29. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 293. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt.

Nikolić, Dubravka and Jasna Zečević. 2001. Blagotin. Iskopavanja 1989–1999. Beograd: Filozofski Fakultet. Obradović, Djurdja and Olga Bajčev. 2016. ‘Neolithic Land use in Central Pomoravlje-Arable Potential of Soils and Agriculture.’ In Neolithic in the Middle Morava Valley Vol. 2, edited by Slaviša Perić, 61–78. Belgrade: Institut of Archaeology in Belgrade and Regional Museum Paraćin.

Legge, Anthony J. 1990. Animals, economy and Environment. In Selevac. A Neolithic Village in Yugoslavia, edited by Ruth Tringham and Dušan Krstić, 215–42. Monumenta Archaeologica 15. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Orton, David. 2008. Beyond Hunting and Herding: Humans, Animals, and the Political Economy of the Vinča Period. PhD diss., University of Cambridge.

Maniatis, Yannis. 2014. ‘Hronologisi me anthraka-14 ton megalon politismikon allagon stin proistoriki Makedonia: prosfates ekselikseis.’ In Century of research in prehistoric Macedonia 1912–2012. International conference proceedings, edited by Evagelia Stefani, Nikos Merousis, and Anastasia Dimoula, 205–22. Thessaloniki: Archaeological Museum Thessaloniki.

Pappa, Maria. 2020. Deth, Thermi, Makriyalos. Organosi tou horou kai oikistika stoiheia stous neolithikous oikismous tis Kentrikis Makedonia. Thessaloniki: Ziti. Pappa, Maria, Stratos Nanoglou, and Melina Efthymiadou. 2017. ‘A Road to Variation: Diversity among Neolithic Settlements in Central Macedonia, Greece.’ In Communities, Landscapes and Interaction in Neolithic Greece, edited by Apostolos Sarris, Evita Kalogiropoulou, Tuna Kalayici, Lia Karimali, 49–59. International Monographs in Prehistory 20. Michigan: Ann Arbor.

Maniatis, Yannis, Kostas Kotsakis, and Paul Halstead. 2015. ‘Nees hronologies tis arhaioteris neolithikis sti Makedonia.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 25 (2011): 149–56. Marić, Miroslav. 2015. ‘Modeling obsidian trade routes during late Neolithic in the south-east Banat.’ Starinar 65: 37–52.

Perić, Slaviša. 2012. ‘Die neolithischen Siedlungen in der mittleren Morava-Ebene und die Slatina-Toponymie.’ In Salt and Gold: The Role of Salt in Prehistoric Europe, edited by Vasil Nikolov and Krum Bacvarov, 219–24. Provadia, Veliko Tarnovo: Verlag Faber.

McPherron, Alan and Elizabeth Ralph. 1970. ‘Magnetometer Location of Neolithic Houses in Yugoslavia.’ Expedition (Winter 1970): 10–17.

Perić, Slaviša (ed.). 2016. The Neolithic in the Middle Morava Valley 2: new insights into settlements and economy. Belgrade: Institut of Archaeology in Belgrade and Regional Museum Paraćin.

Milić, Marina. 2016. ‘A questions of scale? Connecting Communities through Obsidian Exchange in the Neolithic Aegean, Anatolia and Balkans.’ In Of Odysseys and Oddities: Scales and modes of interaction between prehistoric Aegean societies and their neighbours, edited by Βarry P.C. Molloy, 97–122. Oxford: Oxbow.

Perić, Slaviša, Olga Bajčev, Djurdja Obradović, Ivana Stojanović. 2016a. ‘The Neolithic Site of PavlovacGumniste: Results of the Rescue Excavations in 2011.’ In Arheološka istraživanja na autoputu E75 (2011–2014), edited by Slaviša Perić and Αleksandar Bulatović, 221–74. Beograd: Institut of Archaeology.

Minichreiter, Kornelija. 2010. ‘Nadzemni objekti u naseljima starčevačke culture.’ Prilozi Instituta za Arheologiju u Zagrebu 27: 15–32. Mitrevski, Dragi. 2003. ‘Prehistory in the Republic of Macedonia – FYROM.’ In Recent Research in the Prehistory of the Balkans, Thessaloniki, edited by Dimitrios Grammenos, 11–72. Archaeological Institute of Thessaloniki Vol. 3. Thessaloniki: Eteria Makedonikon Spoudon.

Perić, Slaviša, Christoph Rummel, Georg Schafferer, Daniel Winger, Holger Wendling. 2016b. ‘Geomagnetic survey of Neolithic settlements in the middle Morava Valley – preliminary results.’ In The Neolithic in the Middle Morava Valley 2: new insights into settlements and economy, edited by Slaviša Perić, 9–26. Belgrade: Institut of Archaeology in Belgrade and Regional Museum Paraćin.

Mužijević, Ranko and Elizabeth Ralph. 1988. ‘Geomagnetic Surveys at Divostin.’ In Divostin and the Neolithic of central Serbia, edited by McPherron Alan and Dragoslav Srejović, 389–413. Ethnology Monographs 10, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.

Petrović, Jelka. 2009. ‘Slikana keramika u naselju starčevačke culture na Golokutu.’ Rad Muzeja Vojvodine 51: 7–16. 116

Settlements and Landscape in the Neolithic of the Southern and Central Balkans Simoska, Dragica and Voislav Sanev. 1976. Praistorija vo Centralna Pelagonija. Bitola: Naroden Muzej.

Poulos, Serafeim, George Chronis, Michael B. Collins, Vasilios Lykousis. 2000. ‘Thermaikos Gulf Coastal System, NW Aegean Sea: an overview of waterrsediment fluxes in relation to air–land–ocean interactions and human activities.’ Journal of Marine Systems 25: 47–76.

Simoska, Dragica and Voislav Sanev. 1977. ‘Neolitska neselba na Mala Tumba kaj selo Trn, Bitola.’ Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 3: 215–37. Simoska, Dragica, Kitanoski Blagoe and Jovan Todorović. 1979. ‘Neolitska naselba vo selo Mogila kaj Bitola.’ Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 5: 9–30.

Pyke, Gillian and Paraskevi Yiouni. 1996. Nea Nikomedeia I: The Excavation of an Early Neolithic Village in Northern Greece 1961–1964, Supplementary volume 25. London: The British School at Athens.

Spasić, Miloš. 2012. ‘Cattle to Settle – bull to rule: on bovine iconography among Late Neolithic Vinča Culture Communities.’ Documenta Praehistorica 39: 295–308.

Radivojević, Miljana and Julka Kuzmanović-Cvetković. 2014. ‘Copper minerals and archaeometallurgical materials from the Vinča culture sites of Belovode and Pločnik: overview of the evidence and new data.’ Starinar 64: 7–30.

Srejović, Dragoslav. 1988. The Neolithic of Serbia, Archaeological Research 1948–1988, Belgrade: University of Belgrade, Centre for Archaeological Research.

Radivojević, Miljana, Thilo Rehren, Ernst Pernicka, Dušan Šljivar, Michael Braums, Dušan Borić. 2010. ‘On the origins of extractive metallurgy: new evidence from Europe.’ Journal of Archaeological Science 37(11): 2775–87.

Stalio, Blaženka. 1972. Gradac, praistorijsko naselje. Beograd: Narodni Muzej. Starović, Andrej. 2004. Signs of civilization (exibition cataloque). Novi Sad.

Radivojević, Miljana and Thilo Rehren. 2016. ‘Paint It Black: The Rise of Metallurgy in the Balkans.’ Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 23(1): 200–37.

Stojanova-Kanzurova, Elena. 2011. Inventarot na neolitskata kukja vo Republika Makedonija. MA diss., University of Skopje.

Rodden, Robert J. 1964. ‘Recent discoveries from prehistoric Macedonia. An interim report.’ Balkan Studies 5: 109–24.

Stevanović, Mirjana. 1997. ‘The age of clay. The social dynamics of house construction.’ Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16: 334–95.

Roksandić, Mirjana, Marija Djurić, Zoran Rakočević, Kimberly Seguin. 2006. ‘Interpersonal Violence at Lepenski Vir Mesolithic/Neolithic Complex of the Iron Gates Gorge (Serbia–Romania).’ American Journal of Physical Anthropology 129: 339–48.

Syrides, George, Konstantinos Albanakis, Konstantinos Vouvalidis, Aikaterini Pilali-Papasteriou, Aikaterini Papaefthimiou-Papanthimou, Matthieu Ghilardi, Eric Fouache, Theodoros Parschou, David Psomiadis. 2009. ‘Holocene Palaeogeography of the Northern Margins of Giannitsa Plain in Relation to the Prehistoric Site of Archontiko (Macedonia Greece).’ Zeitschrift Geomorphologie 53/1: l 71–82.

Russell, Nerissa. 1993. Hunting, Herding and Feasting: human use of animals in Neolithic Southeast Europe. PhD diss., University of California Berkeley. Sanev, Voislav. 1976. ‘Neolitska naselba Rug Bair kaj selo Gorubinci.’ Zbornik na Štipskiot Naroden Muzej IV–V: 203–31.

Šljivar, Dušan. 2006. ‘The earliest copper metallurgy in the central Balkans.’ Journal of Metallurgy 12(2–3): 93–104

Sanev, Voislav. 1988. ‘Neolitsko svetilište od tumba vo Madjari Skopsko.’ Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 9: 9–30.

Šljivar, Dušan and Julka Kuzmanović-Cvetković. 1997. ‘Pločnik kod Prokuplja. Naselje vinčanske kulture.’ Glasnik Srpskog Arheološkog Društva 13: 103–13.

Sanev, Voislav. 2009. Anzabegovo. The early and middle Neolithic settlement in Macedonia. Štip: Institut for Prezerving Cultural Monuments and Museum of Štip.

Tasić, Nikola. 1998. Arheološko Blago Kosova i Metohije. Beograd: Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts and Museum of Pristina.

Saržoski, Saržo and Dragiša Zdravkovski. 1991. ‘Tumba vo selo Dolno Palčište Tetovo.’ Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 12: 131–44.

Tasić, Nenad. N. 1998. ‘Starčevačka kultura.’ In Arheološko Blago Kosova i Metohije, edited by Nikola Tasić, 31–55. Beograd: Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts and Museum of Pristina.

Schwartz, Charles. 1992. ‘Žarkovo Ledine: The vertebrate and molluscan remains 1948 season.’ Zbornik Narodnog Muzeja XIV: 123–33.

Tasić, Nenad. N. 2000. ‘Salt use in the Early and Middle Neolithic of the Balkan Peninsula.’ In Technology, Style and Society, edited by Lolita Nikolova, 35–41. British Archaeological Reports International Series 854. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Shackleton, Nicholas. 1970. ‘Stable Isotope Study of the Palaeoenvironment of the Neolithic Site of Nea Nikomedeia, Greece.’ Nature 227: 943–44.

117

Stavros Kotsos Tasić, Nenad N., Miroslav Marić, Kristina Penezić, Dragana Filipović, Ksenija Borojević, Nicola Russell, Paula Reimer, Alistair Barcley, Alex Bayliss, Dušan Borić, Bisserka Gaydarska, Alasdair Whittle. 2015. ‘The end of the affair: formal chronological modelling for the top of the Neolithic tell of Vinča-Belo Brdo.’ Antiquity 89(347): 1064–82.

Tzevelekidi, Vasiliki, Valasia Isaakidou, and Paul Halstead. 2014. ‘Prosklisi se gevma: praktikes katanalosis kai apothesis oston zoon sto Makriyialo Pierias kai stin Toumba Kremastis-Koiladas Kozanis.’ In A century of research in prehistoric Macedonia 1912–2012. International conference proceedings, edited by Evagelia Stefani, Nikos Merousis, and Anastasia Dimoula, 425–36. Thessaloniki: Archaeological Museum Thessaloniki.

Temelkoski, Duško and Aleksandar Mitkoski. 2008. ‘Docnoneolitska naselba na lokalitetot Kutline kaj selo Rakle.’ Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 18: 93–108.

Urem-Kotsou, Dushka. 2016a. Changing pottery technology in the later Neolithic in North Greece. In Human Mobility and Technological Transfer in the Prehistoric Mediterranean, edited by Evangelia Kiriatzi and Carl Knappett, 31–45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Todorović, Jovan and Aleksandrina Cermanović. 1961. Banjica, naselje vinčanske kulture. Beograd: Muzej Grada. Trbojević-Vukičević, Tajana and Krešimir Babić. 2007. ‘Prehrana stanovnika naselja.’ In Slavonski Brod Galovo: Deset Godina Arheoloških Istraživanja, edited by Kornelia Minichreiter, 188–89. Zagreb: Institute of Archaeology.

Urem-Kotsou, Dushka. 2016b. Salting the roads: connectivity in the Neolithic Balkans. In Of Odysseys and Oddities: Scales and modes of interaction between prehistoric Aegean societies and their neighbours, edited by Barry P.C. Molloy, 123–41. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Tringham, Ruth and Dušan Krstić (eds.). 1990. Selevac. A Neolithic Village in Yugoslavia. Monumenta Archaeologica 15. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Valla, Magda and Euniki Micha. 2010. ‘Proistorikos oikismos Eidomenis Kilkis.’ Arhaiologiko Ergo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 21 (2007): 337–45.

Tringham, Ruth, Bogdan Brukner, Timothy Kaiser, Ksenija Borojević, Ljubomir Bukvić, Petar Šteli, Nerissa Russell, Mirjana Stevanović, Barbara Voytek. 1992. ‘Excavations at Opovo, 1985–1987: Socioeconomic Change in the Balkan Neolithic.’ Journal of Field Archaeology 19(3): 351–86.

Vasić, Miloje. 1932. Praistorijska Vinča Ι. Beograd: Izdavanje Državne Stamparije. Vetnić, Savo. 1974. ‘Počeci rada na ispitivanju kulture prvih zemljoradnika u srednjem Pomoravlju.’ Materijali X: 125–68.

Tripković, Boban. 2013. Domaćinstvo i zajednica: kućne i naseobinske istorije u kasnom neolitu centralnog Balkana. Beograd; Univerzitet u Beogradu, Filozofski Fakultet.

Vuković, Jasna, Selena Vitezović, and Dragan Milanović. 2016. ‘Pavlovac-Kovačke Njive. Neolitski horizonti.’ In Arheološka istraživanja na autoputu E75 (2011– 2014), edited by Slaviš Perić and Αleksandar Bulatović, 167–204 Belgade: Institut of Archaeology.

Tripković, Boban. 2003–2004. ‘Obsidian Deposits in the Central Balkans? Tested Against Archaeological Evidence.’ Starinar 53–54: 163–79.

Zdravkovski, Dragiša. 2005. ‘Neolitska naselba Pod Selo Tumpa selo Stenče.’ Zbornik Arheologija 2: 25–31.

Tripković, Boban and Marina Milić. 2008. ‘The origin and exchange of obsidian from Vinča – Belo Brdo.’ Starinar 58: 71–86.

Zdravkovski, Dragiša. 1989. ‘Arheološki itražuvanja na lokalitetot Atici vo selo Crničani, Gevgelijsko’, Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 10: 79–87.

Tripković, Boban and Kristina Penezić. 2017. ‘On-site and off-site in western Serbia: A geoarchaeological perspective of Obrovac-type settlements.’ Quaternary International 30: 1–10.

Weide, David. 1976. ‘Appendix. Regional Setting and Geomorphic History.’ In Neolithic Macedonia as reflected by excavation at Anza, southeast Yugoslavia, edited by Maria Gimbutas, 418–41. Los Angeles: University of California.

Trbuhović, Vojislav and Milivoje Vasiljević. 1975. ‘“Obrovci” poseban tip neolitskih naselja uzapadnoj Srbiji.’ Starinar 24–25: 157–61.

Whittle, Alasdair, Bartosiewicz László, Borić Dušan, Pettitt, Paul, Richards, Michael. 2002. ‘In the beginning: new radiocarbon dates for the early Neolithic in northern Serbia and south-east Hungary.’ Antaeus 25: 63–117.

Trbuhović, Vojslav and Milivoje Vasiljević. 1983. Najstarije zemljoradničke kulture u Podrinju. Šabac: Narodni muzej. Tzanavari, Katerina, Stavros Kotsos, and Evi Gkioura. 2004. ‘Lete III. Mia nea neolithiki thesi sti lekani tou Lagkada.’ Arhaiologiko Εrgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 16 (2002): 211–22.

Yannouli, Εftyhia. 1990. ‘I proistoriki panida tis Thermis B.’ Makedonika KZ: 262–78. Yannouli, Εftyhia. 1992. ‘I neolithiki Thermis B: ta dedomena apo ta osta zoon.’ Makedonika KH: 413–26.

118

Settlements and Landscape in the Neolithic of the Southern and Central Balkans oikismou.’ Appendix. In Sostikes anaskafes sto neolithiko oikismo Stavroupolis Thessalonikis, Meros 2 (1998–2003), by Dimitris Grammenos and Stavros Kotsos, 489–526. Dimosievmata Arhaiologikou Institoutou Voreias Elladas No. 6. Thessaloniki: Arhaiologiko Institouto Voreias Elladas.

Yannouli, Εftyhia. 2002. ‘Imeri kai agria panida apo neolithiko oikismo sti Stavroupoli Thessalonikis.’ Appendix. In Sostikes anaskafes sto neolithiko oikismo Stavroupolis Thessalonikis, by Dimitris Grammenos and Stavros Kotsos, 683–744. Dimosievmata Arhaiologikou Institoutou Voreias Elladas No. 2. Thessaloniki: Arhaiologiko Institouto Voreias Elladas. Yannouli, Εftyhia. 2004. ‘Stavroupoli Thessalonikis: neotera dedomena apo tin arhaiopanida tou neolithikou

Figure 8.1. Map of the area discussed in the chapter, showing: A. central Macedonia (Greece), B. Republic of North Macedonia, C. central Balkans. (Base map after National Geophysical Data Center, USA, Europe Physical Map).

119

Stavros Kotsos

Figure 8.2. Map of central Macedonia (Greece) showing the Neolithic sites discussed: 1.Paliambela Kolindros; 2. Revenia Korinos; 3. Nea Nikomedeia; 4. Axos Α; 5. Giannitsa Β; 6. Apsalos Komvos; 7. Sossandra; 8. Lete ΙΙΙ; 9. Lete Ι; 10. Koroneia; 11. Mikri Volvi; 12. Mavropigi Filotsairi; 13. Apsalos Grammi; 14. Thermi B; 15. Thessaloniki International Fair; 16. Vasilika C; 17. Stavroupoli; 18. Mesimeriani; 19. Evagelismos; 20. Makriyalos,;21. Mandalo; 22. Eidomeni; 23. Pente Vrises; 24. Zagliveri; 25. Assiros E

Figure 8.3. Map of Republic of North Macedonia showing the Neolithic sites discussed: 26. Anzabegovo; 27. Vršnik; 28. Krupište Grnčanica; 29. Kanli Čair; 30. Rug Bair; 31. Pista Novo Selo; 32. Mramor; 33. Na Breg Mlado Nagoričane, 34. Čubuk Češma Nikuštak, 35. Govrlevo; 36. Zelenikovo; 37. Tumba Madžari, 38. Pod Selo Tumba Stenče; 39. Tumba Dolno Palciste; 40. Rešava; 41. Stranata Angelci; 42. Golema Trpeza Staro Konjarevo, 43. Suniver; 44. Atici; 45. Pešterica; 46. Porodin; 47.Veluška Tumba; 48. Mogila; 49. Karamani; 50.Vrbljanska Čuka; 51. Topolčani; 52. Radin Dol; 53. Mala Tumba Trn; 54. Ali Čair; 55. Mogila Senokos; 56. Kutline.

120

Settlements and Landscape in the Neolithic of the Southern and Central Balkans

Figure 8.4. Map of Serbia and Kosovo showing the Neolithic sites discussed: 57.Rudnik Srbice; 58.Gladnice; 59.Vlašnje; 60.Žitkovac; 61.Fafos; 62.Valač; 63.Reštane; 64.Predionica; 65.Lepenski Vir; 66.Vlasac; 67.Padina; 68.Hajdučka Vodenica; 69.Velesnica; 70.Ajmana; 71.Biljevina; 72.Donje Butorke; 73.Kula; 74.Kamenički Potok; 75.Knjepište; 76.Lepenska Potkapina; 77.Pesak Vajuga; 78.Velesnica; 79.Divostin; 80.Grivac; 81.Blagotin; 82.Banja Arandjelovac; 83.Bukovačka Česma; 84.Bunar; 85.Damjanov Kladenac; 86.Brdo Kusovac; 87.Crnokalačka Bara; 88.Čuka Grabovica; 89.Bubanj; 90.Medijana; 91.Drenovac; 92.Slatina Paraćin; 93.Tečići; 94.Vitoševac; 95.Supska; 96.Paljevine Grobnice; 97.Česta Dobrovodica; 98.Tranjina Bara; 99.Trnati Laz; 100.Deonica; 101.Majdan; 102.Dubočaj Grocka; 103.Kučajna Bor; 104. Lugovi; 105.Kruševac; 106.Ornice; 107.Ribnica; 108.Bakovača; 109.Stragari; 110.Trsine; 111.Kremenilo; 112.Šalitrena Pećina; 113.Grad Starčevo; 114.Jabuka; 115.Vatrogasni Dom; 116.Manastirište; 117.Dobanovci Selo; 118.Dobanovci Ciglana; 119.Zlatara; 120.Adžine Njive; 121.Šašinci; 122.Topole; 123.Golokut; 124.Magareći Mlin; 125.Zadubravlje; 126.Galovo; 127. Donja Branjevina; 128.Batka; 129. Bela Bara; 130. Matejski Brod; 131. Ribnjak Bečej; 132. Vinogradi; 133. Biserna Obala; 134. Čurga; 135. Kremenjak; 136.Aradac; 137.Beletići; 138.Stubline Novo Selo; 139.Šljunkara; 140.Anište; 141.Lug Zvečka; 142.Djurica Vinogradi; 143.Baštine; 144.Pavlovac; 145.Gradac; 146.Pločnik; 147.Radače; 148.Gradina Lodjika; 149.Kraljevo Polje; 150.Selevac; 151.Lukički Breg; 152.Rajac; 153.Vrbak Čair; 154.Buljičke Bare; 155.Medvednjak; 156.Orasije; 157. Belovode; 158.Rudna Glava; 159.Ratina; 160.Poljčine; 161.Naprelje; 162.Vitkovačko Polje; 163.Ilića Brdo; 164.Petnička Pećina; 165.Vinča, 166.Banjica; 167.Beljarica; 168.Boljevci; 169.Dobanovačka Petlja; 170.Kalemegdan; 171.Žarkovo; 172. Jasenje Brdo; 173.Crkvine Stubline; 174.Gomolava; 175.Jela; 176.Jakovo Kormadin; 177.Kremenite Njive; 178.Mala Strana; 179.Utrine Orid; 180.Mali Borak; 181.Opovo; 182.At; 183.Banatska Dubica; 184.Beletinci; 185.Kremenjak Sajam; 186. Kremenjak Potporanj; 187.Obrovac; 188.Nove Zemlje; 189.Trnovača; 190.Vranjin Salaš; 191.Zbradila.

121

9 Pelagonian Tells and Pile Dwellings of Lake Ohrid Goce Naumov Center for Prehistoric Research, Skopje Abstract: Commonly tells have been perceived as settlements established in drylands, and have consequently been studied as such, while only pile dwellings are regarded as a common building type in wetland archaeology. But recent research indicates that the highest density of Balkan tells was in the valleys that were wetlands in the Neolithic period, though they were dried in the 20th century as part of strategies of melioration in many countries. The recently modified environment brought about an altered perspective on tells, and focused research more on the settlements, rather than on their surroundings. Nevertheless, current geoarchaeological research specifies the wetland character of valleys inhabited by the first farming societies that had been establishing the tells since the Early Neolithic. In the process of Neolithisation, besides advantages such as agriculture, stockbreeding, daub dwellings, pottery, figurines and new tools, the Anatolian farmers that settled the Balkan Peninsula also introduced the tell lifestyle, particularly in tells located in the wetlands. Gradually these tell societies developed solid networks with communities inhabiting the lakeside pile dwellings that have previously been studied as isolated units, due to various environmental features. Therefore, this paper will focus on the Balkan Peninsula, and on the Pelagonia and Lake Ohrid regions in particular, in order to reconsider the tells and their wetland environment, as well as the networks that some of these societies had with pile dwellings in the Lake Ohrid region. Keywords: wetlands, Neolithic, Balkans, tells, pile dwellings, networks, Pelagonia, Lake Ohrid Introduction

has changed its position in this area (Commenge 2009). This settlement was established in the Middle Neolithic, although there are indications that it could even date to the end of the Early Neolithic (Sanev 1988). Regardless, Zelenikovo was established in the Middle Neolithic, but on a massive terrace of the River Vardar, and it was occupied until the Late Neolithic (Galović 1964; Garašanin and Spasovska 1976; Garašanin and Bilbija 1988). The proximity of this large river and its flooding created fertile fields and stable resources for settlement on what was a border point between the flat Skopje Valley and the course of the River Vardar towards the hilly environment in the central part of North Macedonia. For the moment it cannot be confirmed that these sites employed pile dwellings, but the marshy environment in the Neolithic, as well as the architecture of modern nearby villages, indicates the probability of wooden raised constructions built for living and storage (Coussot et al. 2007; Kuzman 2013a).

There was not much specific interest in wetland archeology in North Macedonia until a few years ago, when there began to be a greater focus on marshy landscapes and underwater archaeology. The tell settlements and pile dwellings had previously been regarded as ‘dryland’ archaeological sites, without consideration of the specific features relating them to wetlands. Some of them were comprehensively excavated, while the majority was documented only by reconnaissance and small trenches, which produced only limited and modest knowledge of their establishment, chronology, architecture, economy, rituals and social life. Still, the basic data indicated the use of marshes, riverbeds and lakesides as common locales for launching prehistoric settlements and for the provision of steady subsistence. The diverse geography of North Macedonia provided just such a variety of environments and potential for the consistent building of settlements throughout prehistory (Figure 9.1) (Fidanoski and Tolevski 2009; Tolevski 2013). Thus, three basic categories of wetland sites could be identified: first, those built next to rivers; second, those on the lakeshore; and third, those within marshes made from river floods, changes of lake occupation and melting snow.

Tells of Pelagonia When marshes in prehistory are concerned, Pelagonia is one of the most distinctive regions, although such landscapes are also common in the Skopje and Polog region, where several tells have been recorded and excavated (Sanev 1988; Zdravkovski 2006; Tolevski 2017). In the elongated valley of Pelagonia, more than 130 sites are documented (Figure 9.3), with the majority placed in the wetlands made by the River Crna and melting snow from the surrounding mountains (Naumov and Stojkoski 2015;

The prehistoric settlements on riverbeds are major archaeological wetland features, but the most outstanding are those in Skopje region (Figure 9.2), such as Madjari and Zelenikovo. The settlement of Madjari is a tell site located in the flat valley, close to the River Vardar, which 123

Goce Naumov had a different spatial organisation (Naumov et al. 2014; Naumov et al. 2016; Naumov et al. 2017; Naumov et al. 2018b). The enclosure of tells with ditches could be associated with frequent floods, animal control or attacks, but the latest research on Vrbjanska Čuka proposes arguments to support the defensive interpretation (Figure 9.5). Namely, in the middle of this settlement a massive monumental silo is recorded (Kitanoski 1989; Mitkoski 2005), as well as a number of platforms and grinding stones for cereal processing and a vast quantity of fine pottery, which is an unusual feature for other Neolithic sites. In relation to neighbouring settlements, Vrbjanska Čuka appears to be a sort of economic agricultural centre in the northern part of Pelagonia that needed to protect its resources. The concentration of smaller tells in the surrounding area, as well as the later enclosure of radial ditches at the neighbouring tell at Borotino support the significance of this region and its attractiveness to various communities (Naumov et al. 2016; Naumov et al. 2018a).

Naumov et al. 2014). The River Crna is the main water channel in Pelagonia, and covers almost the entire territory of the valley. It has three major tributaries (Šemnica, Dragor and Sakuleva reka) and many smaller ones that irrigate the fertile fields. The presence of such a network of smaller and larger rivers, which significantly contribute to the maintenance of agriculture, was most likely also a motive for the first farming communities to establish their settlements in this basin. The recorded or excavated settlements are in the vicinity of the rivers and marshes (or close to now dried watercourses), which provided fertile soil and comfortable access to aquatic resources. Most of the sites are tells, established in the Neolithic, with some occupied until the Bronze Age (Simoska and Sanev 1976; Naumov et al. 2014). The latest research indicates a high density of tells close to the riverbed of the Crna River and especially around marshy lakes that have been present since the Neolithic (Naumov 2016a). The wetland landscape was attractive for numerous communities, inducing them to establish their settlements despite the marshy ground and frequent river floods. The excavation of a tell in Mogila confirmed that wet geological layers covered the periphery of the site and thus encouraged the inhabitants to construct wooden piled structures (Naumov and Tomaž 2014). The recent discovery of such constructions, as well as numerous house models, in Pelagonia indicates the possibility of the frequent use of piled structures in response to the wetland environment (Figure 9.6c).

The impressive material culture also argues in favour of this interpretation, and not only for this site, but also for many others in Pelagonia. The first farming communities in this valley were not merely focused on agriculture, but also on the production of refined clay items such as pottery, house models, figurines, ‘altars’, stamps etc. The pottery, frequently made of fine fabric, was painted with white patterns that were common for this region, but there are also a number of vessels used for storing and cooking food (Fidanoski 2009). At the earliest stages of Pelagonian farming societies, these patterns indicated the local identities, but later they were present in the Lake Ohrid area as well (Naumov 2015; Naumov 2016b; Naumov 2018). The house models are one of the most distinct features for Pelagonia and they represent buildings, but also human figures (Figure 9.6). The anthropomorphic house models go far beyond miniature replicas of houses and embody a more complex notion of the relationship between the dwelling and the human body (Naumov 2009; Chausidis 2010; Naumov 2013). They were most likely used as commemorative lanterns in respect to ancestors or to significant community members, but their relationship with Neolithic religion has also been proposed. The concept of the models was later transposed to neighbouring regions, but significantly modified within the domain of house symbolism, as the lower part was simplified into a clay box with large openings.

The tells as an architectural phenomenon have recently been studied in more detail, and their origin and distribution from the Near East towards Central Europe is frequently discussed (Rosenstock 2009; Hofmann et al. 2012; Naumov 2018). The practice of establishing tells in Pelagonia appears to be a tradition which came from Anatolia via Thessaly, as evidenced by some pottery and stamp patterns, as well as by house models. The tells appear in the Early Neolithic of Pelagonia, but not as early as some other types of sites in neighbouring regions. This is due to the wetland environment, which was not as accessible as river terraces or hills and mountain slopes (Kitanoski et al. 1980; Naumov 2009). The radiocarbon dates provided indicate that the first tells in Pelagonia were established at the very beginning of 6th millennium BC, although some earlier dates may be expected (Naumov 2016a). They are not as large as those in Anatolia or in Thessaly, but the height of some, up to 6 m, confirms multilayered occupation, with houses built one on top of the other. Some are up to 4 m high, but consist of one architectural layer (Figure 9.4). The case of Vrbjanska Čuka indicates that some tells were established on the natural banks of sand made by Neogene lakes, and consists of a few levels of Neolithic houses at the very centre of the site, which was continuously used over a longer period (Naumov et al. 2016; Naumov et al. 2018a).

The importance of houses in Pelagonia was also emphasised by house models, produced quite frequently on tell sites, but not in any other region in North Macedonia (Figure 9.3). They represent two gabled buildings, most often on stilts, and a container where remains of burning are often recorded (Temelkoski and Mitkoski 2005; Chausidis 2008; Naumov 2011). It is still undetermined whether they depict actual dwellings or some other buildings, as there are many symbolic features associated with them. The majority have stilts, and therefore their relationship with pile dwellings should not be disregarded. In regard to the wetland environment, such buildings could have been

This site and a few others were enclosed by ditches, as confirmed by geomagnetic scanning, while many others 124

Pelagonian Tells and Pile Dwellings of Lake Ohrid established on the periphery of tells, as indicated above. The latest research in Amindeon (Chrysostomou et al. 2015), a region in Greece which is not far from Pelagonia, confirms the building of pile dwellings in a similar landscape setting with lakes, which were not dried as their marshy equivalents in Pelagonia in the early 1960s. Although these regions have a drier climate, which effects the decay of organic material, still the marshy ground evidently makes it possible to trace pile dwellings in areas not considered before by wetland archaeology.

on the alluvial valleys surrounding rivers (Crni Drim, Sateska and Koselska) and eight on hills northeast of the lake. Only five of them have been excavated (Kuzman et al. 1989; Kuzman 1990; Kuzman 2009; Kuzman 2013a). Sites dating to the Early Neolithic have been unearthed only at the settlements of Zlastrana and Dolno Trnovo, and these consist of pit houses or wattle-and-daub dwellings. The settlement at Dolno Trnovo bears apparent indications of social identity and a dynamic relationship with tell sites in Pelagonia, as evidenced by the white painted pottery, house models, often anthropomorphic, unearthed in these two regions (Naumov 2016a; Naumov 2016b). The other two excavated sites are pile dwellings (Ohridati and Ustie na Drim), dating to the Middle and Late Neolithic, and still maintain elements shared with synchronous sites in Pelagonia (Benac 1979; Naumov 2015). These two sites were occupied in the Chalcolithic as well, i.e. in a period when the inhabitation in this area was reduced to five sites for which evidence has so far been discovered in the Ohrid region.

The potential presence of pile dwellings in Pelagonia brings this region closer to Lake Ohrid, much better known for its palafittes, i.e. pfahlbauten. Nevertheless, not only pile dwellings, but also material culture binds these regions more closely together than any other areas in North Macedonia. Their resemblance has mainly been noted for the Late Neolithic period (Benac 1979; Sanev 1995), but apparently these diverse landscapes had much in common from the Early Neolithic until the Classical period (Naumov 2016b; Naumov 2018). As Pelagonia is more frequently explored and far better represented in archaeological publications, a larger emphasis will be given to the Neolithic of Lake Ohrid, which has been underestimated in research and published works. In the concluding part of this chapter, the networks between Pelagonia and Lake Ohrid will be highlighted, together with suggestions for their future consideration.

Wetland archaeology and underwater archaeology are rather new disciplines in North Macedonia, and therefore the research focusing on pile dwellings has been mainly in the last two decades. Although the first pile dwelling was discovered accidentally in 1956, focused interest in such settlements and constructions started in the middle of the 1990s, when a series of underwater excavations were initiated (Kuzman 2013a). These offered entirely new insights into prehistoric settlements, as well as more comprehensive consideration of wooden structures and platforms acting as the residences of various communities from the Neolithic to the Iron Age. There are eight settlements with pile dwellings on Lake Ohrid’s shores, and a few more on the Albanian part of the lake (Figure 9.7). The oldest one dates to the Middle Neolithic and the latest to the transitional period from the Iron Age to the Classical period, although some were probably used as fishermen’s huts in the Middle Ages and later. Most of them were continuously used or reused over long periods, and therefore the varied finds from some belong to several prehistoric periods. The unearthed material culture provides an initial understanding of the economy, social relationships, architecture and visual culture of the inhabitants residing at these sites. The dwellings, pottery, tools and figurines indicate the needs, skills, contacts and ideas of the people that established and developed these settlements, but also of those who reoccupied them at later stages.

Pile dwellings of Lake Ohrid Due to natural conditions, the pile dwellings are best preserved on the lakeshores. The three major lakes in North Macedonia (Ohrid, Prespa and Dojran) contain lakeside sites established in prehistory. Although far from a complete understanding of these sites, the current knowledge on pile dwellings in Lake Ohrid makes possible a detailed introduction to wetland archaeology in the southwestern part of North Macedonia (Figure 9.7). With its biodiversity and variety of landscapes, Lake Ohrid has been an attractive area for establishing villages and cities from prehistory until the present day (Trifunovski 1992; Albrecht and Wilke 2008; Hoffmann et al. 2010; Wagner et al. 2014). The earliest settlements date to the Neolithic, but others from the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic would be expected, due to the number of caves, rock shelters and valleys surrounding the lake. The modest surveys that have been carried out on Palaeoithic sites in the region did not confirm the presence of inhabited sites in this period, although the detailed reconnaissance or excavation of such sites has not yet been executed in the Lake Ohrid basin (Kuzman 1995; Šalamanov-Korobar 2006; ŠalamanovKorobar 2013). Cave Jaorec near the village of Velmej has been identified as a potential Palaeolithic site in the Quaternary layers, as has Cave Crna Peš and the rock shelters along the roads from Trpejca to Ljubaništa and from Velešta to Djepčište (Kuzman 1993).

There is no evidence of pile dwellings in the initial stages of the Neolithic in Lake Ohrid, or in the Balkans (Naumov in press). It is still to be determined why such settlements are absent in the Early Neolithic, but it is most likely due to the steady establishment of the first agricultural societies and the exploration of more solid ground for their villages. Most of these Early Neolithic societies were in flatlands surrounded by fertile fields, and were not relying on endangered resources for subsistence, while at later stages climatic or social changes encouraged the communities

The Neolithic in the Lake Ohrid basin is far better understood, as there are four lakeside settlements, 11 125

Goce Naumov to live closer to lakes. The Ohrid region is an indicative example for such a shift from life on an alluvial valley to areas closer to the present-day edge of the lake. Most of the documented Neolithic sites in the Ohrid area are placed in the alluvial valley, not close to the present-day lakeshore. With one exception, they have not been excavated, so it is hard to determine whether pile dwellings or ground-level buildings made of wattle and daub were preferred there. The earliest pile dwellings excavated so far date to the Middle Neolithic. They are found in lakeside settlements next to the shore, but most likely without bigger platforms erected above the lake.

A vast number of piles were unearthed during this very short excavation, but without any distinct outline which could specify a particular building or a pattern to their disposition. There is a mixture of smaller and bigger piles, which implies the construction of individual dwellings at earlier stages. The excavation records do not confirm any apparent stratigraphy that could determine whether some piles were younger than others, nor was dendrochronology applied for more precise dating. For that reason, we can only suggest that the difference in the size of the piles is associated with different structures, or that they were mutually used as reinforcement for some more solid dwellings.

The location of the Early Neolithic site of Dolno Trnovo is approximately 3 km away from the current lakeshore, and the site of Zlastrana is even further away, at more than 15 km from Lake Ohrid (Kuzman 1990). As indicated above, both sites consist of pit houses or rectangular ground dwellings made of wattle and daub. Evidence for piled structures has not been found in the excavations: neither fishing tools nor weights, which are frequent for Late Neolithic pile dwellings. It seems that the first farmers in the Ohrid region were preserving their settlements in wetlands, not so close to the lake, unless the lake perimeter was greater than it is today. More detailed reconnaissance and excavation of Early Neolithic sites in the area is necessary to determine their settlement patterns, as well as a geological survey of the lake movement in various stages of prehistory, such as the research done on the now dried Lake Maliq in Albania (Fouache et al. 2010). Consequently, new sites will indicate whether pile dwellings were entirely absent at the beginning of Neolithic or whether those settlements that have been investigated so far were much closer to the lake, but did not use the lake resources as the communities at the end of Neolithic had done.

The variety of finds argues in favour of a fishing economy, but also the presence of skilled potters who produced fine polished and decorated vessels, stamps and figurines. The large number of bone harpoons, spears, elongated ceramic dishes and weights suggests that fish and eels were the main resources for subsistence and trade of the communities inhabiting Ustie na Drim (Figure 9.9). Pottery is a significant marker of the cultural relationships of these communities with those in other regions, besides its elementary function in cooking, storage and rituals. Incised sherds from the middle levels of the trench manifest the inhabitants’ dynamic communication with the Late Neolithic societies in Pelagonia (the so-called Trn cultural group), but also with those in the Korça basin in Albania, represented by the Cakran cultural group (Benac 1989; Kuzman 2013a; Naumov 2016b). This is also apparent in the production of clay stamps whose spiral design is similar to that in Pelagonia (Naumov 2009). The other Neolithic pile dwelling on the shore of Lake Ohrid is the site of Ohridati, popularly referred to as Penelopa (Kuzman 2009). Like Ustie na Drim, this site is below the city of Ohrid itself (Figure 9.10), and it was found by chance during the construction of buildings in 2003 when it was discovered that it occupied a large area along the lakeshore (Kuzman 2013a). The smallscale excavation in 2006 and lumps of archaeological material thrown out of the building site provide significant information on the chronology, economy, cultural relationships and architectural character of this settlement. Although most of the architectural remains were damaged by the construction vehicles, still, the archaeological investigation recorded mainly smaller piles and a few with a larger diameter. This indicates that most probably individual pile dwellings were built, rather than a massive platform for a cluster of houses. Due to the damage made by construction machines, the pattern of the buildings through time cannot be determined, but the frequency of piles in a small area suggests that the dwellings were renewed.

The earliest pile dwellings found in lakeside settlements, dating to the Moddle Neolithic, were probably without larger platforms erected above the lake. This is evidenced by the smaller size of the piles, which are not massive like those used for placing a number of dwellings on one raised wooden area. One of the first pile dwellings excavated on Lake Ohrid is Ustie na Drim, a site at the very centre of the modern city of Struga (Figure 9.8). It was found due to the repositioning of the Drim riverbed and excavated in 1962, although it was previously known and documented (Koco 1951). The excavation results were not published in detail, although the site was described along with a selection of archaeological material in a few catalogues and reports (Garašanin et al.1971; Sanev et al. 1976). Recently there was an overview of the site, its research, architecture and finds, but there has also been a reconsideration of this pile-dwelling settlement in regard to unpublished data and material culture (Kuzman 2013a; Todoroska 2016).

This disposition and mixture of piles is similar to that of Ustie na Drim, so these can be added to the common features of Late Neolithic pile dwellings. The unearthed finds support the chronological determination of the establishment of the site and its occupation from the

Although excavated for only a week in the summer of 1962, this site provided exceptional data for understanding the pile dwellings settlements and the communities inhabiting them in the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic. 126

Pelagonian Tells and Pile Dwellings of Lake Ohrid Middle Neolithic until the end of the Bronze Age. With the exception of a few Middle Neolithic and Bronze Age sherds, the majority of the finds belong to the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic, and are characteristic of the material culture of Ustie na Drim. It can be proposed that these settlements were inhabited synchronously or at least within a close timeframe, and shared mutual economic pursuits, such as fishing and agriculture. This is supported by a great variety of bone harpoons, ceramic net weights and picks made of antler and horns (Figure 9.11). The pottery also indicates intensive communication between these settlements, but also a close relationship with the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic societies in Pelagonia and the Korҫa basin (Kuzman 2013a; Naumov 2016b).

Korҫa and Chalcidice (Kuzman 2013a). As in the case of the two aforementioned pile-dwelling settlements of Ohridati and Ustie na Drim,.the inappropriate excavation conditions on these sites resulted in a mixture of archaeological material in the trenches, but the abundance of pottery indicates the vibrant life of the communities inhabiting these settlements in the Chalcolithic. As for architecture, significant changes cannot be identified, as small excavation trenches and the absence of stratigraphy provided insufficiently thorough insight into building modifications (Kuzman 2009). Nevertheless, the number of pottery items, tools and figurines suggests that there were social changes within these settlements, but also that their inhabitants maintained an intensive relationship with Pelagonian sites (Naumov 2014; Naumov 2016b).

An exceptional feature is the presence of sherds of black polished pottery decorated with incrustation and red painted stripes. Traditionally this could easily be attributed to the Vinča culture, as its most southwestern manifestation, but the latest research indicates that such pottery, along with that found in Pelagonia, bears distinctive elements of the Late Neolithic pottery common in western Turkey (Özdoğan 1993; Nikolov 1998; Naumov 2016b). Considering the dynamic relationship with Pelagonian societies, the human representations and especially the massive cylinders with human faces from the anthropomorphic house models should be considered (Figure 9.12) (Naumov 2013).

Continuity and networks: In conclusion The pile dwellings at Lake Ohrid were used in the Bronze Age and Iron Age as well, although it cannot be determined whether there was a continuous use of the villages or whether the inhabitation was interrupted and they were reoccupied later (Kuzman 2013a; Naumov et al. 2018c). The preserved piles still do not provide any detailed evidence for architectural changes on these sites, although those built in the Bronze Age and Iron Age on the eastern shore of Lake Ohrid mainly consisted of massive piles. Besides the pottery transformation, this can be emphasised as the main change from the Late Neolithic–Chalcolithic traditions. The continuity of pile-dwelling settlements in Lake Ohrid is recorded until the Middle Ages (Todoroska 2009), but on a much smaller scale.

Where the Late Neolithic pile dwellings in the Ohrid basin are concerned, the site of Crkveni Livadi should be considered as well, although its contribution to this period is still questionable. Namely, in the survey and excavation reports this site is considered to be Neolithic, but the material published so far is typical of the Chalcolithic and the Bronze Age (Pašić 1957; Pašić and Lahtov 1958). Nevertheless, the insights of archeologists into the excavated material confirms the Late Neolithic features, with typology and decoration common for Pelagonian sites (Kuzman 2013a). Also, the fishing tools and dishes for serving fish are similar to those in Ohridati and Ustie na Drim, so they can be attributed to the Late Neolithic, although these objects were in use during the Chalcolithic as well. In regard to the architecture, it should be emphasised that the site consists of a mixture of pile dwellings and ground houses of wattle and daub. This is a unique characteristic among the sites excavated so far in the Ohrid basin, which could be due to its location. It is located approximately 4 km north of the present-day lakeshore and next to riverbed of Crni Drim, where the wetlands are reduced, so that the solid ground and the vicinity of the river made possible the building of ground houses as well as pile dwellings.

It seems that, despite the technological advances, the lake was still attractive, and not only for the local community. The intensive relationship between Pelagonian and Lake Ohrid societies remained in later prehistory and the Classical period as well, and it was based on solid networks established much earlier, in the Neolithic. Since the earliest stages of prehistoric interaction (as there is not yet any evidence for the Palaeolithic or Mesolithic in either region) these societies shared common ideological and aesthetical principles. The white painted pottery and anthropomorphic house models indicate essential links in regard to Early Neolithic identity (Figure 9.12), and they were produced and employed in various settlements founded in the wetlands of Pelagonia and Ohrid (Naumov 2016b). The similarities in design and features of corporeality are apparent and, as such, rarely present in any other region. Despite the geographical obstacles (Baba Mountain, 2600 m high, and many other mountains between the lake and the valley), these societies had particular motives to communicate, in spite of the presence of other areas that were easier to approach. Future research should specify whether there was also economic interaction on the level of resources, food, tools and ornaments, but the crucial notions of identity and embodiment were evidently ‘transported’ (Naumov 2018). It remains an open question

There is still no clear distinction between the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic levels at Crkveni Livadi, but the archaeological material seems to place the use of this settlement in the 5th millennium and later. The unearthed pottery bears distinct Chalcolithic features as well, common to the contemporaneous sites in the regions of Pelagonia, 127

Goce Naumov societies in the wetlands or from fishing communities inhabiting lakeside pile-dwelling settlements.

in which direction this interaction was initiated, i.e. from Pelagonia towards the lakes (including Lake Prespa in between) or vice versa. Until more thorough research has been carried out, especially on Neolithic settlements in the Ohrid and Prespa region, such questions cannot be comprehensively answered. But the intensive settling of the Pelagonian valley since the Early Neolithic in spite of modest levels of inhabitation on the shores of Lake Ohrid could be a further avenue for discussion. If the current radiocarbon dates for Ohrid and Pelagonia are considered (Naumov 2016b; Westphal et al. 2011; Naumov et al. 2018c), then it seems that the wetland societies spread their notions of identity and embodiment towards the lakes.

References cited Albrecht, Christian and Thomas Wilke. 2008. ‘Lake Ohrid: biodiversity and evolution.’ Hydrobiologia 615: 103–40. Benac, Alojz. 1979. ‘Prelazna zona.’ In Praistorija Jugoslavenskih Zemalja II, Neolitsko doba, edited by Alojz Benac, 363–472. Sarajevo: Akademija Nauke i Umetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Benac, Alojz. 1989. ‘Neki problem odnosa Makedonije i Zapadnog Balkana u neolitskom dobu.’ Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 10: 9–24.

The networks established in the Late Neolithic are still under discussion, as there is not much solid data for the determination of the direction of influence, except for a few categories of ceramic material (Figure 9.13). When the Late Neolithic sites in Pelagonia and Ohrid were initially unearthed, it was proposed that they were developed under the cultural impact of the Adriatic communities, due to similarities in the incised patterns on pottery (Benac 1979; Sanev 1995). But when these patterns were reconsidered and the links with the Adriatic were further tested, another perspective was promoted. The incised patterns with white incrustation and bands with pinned dots or coloured in red are familiar from the Vinča culture, which, it is proposed, had an impact from sites in Serbia, to the south (Garašanin 1979). Such designs are visible on Late Neolithic pottery in Pelagonia and the Ohrid region as well, and consequently it could be one of the southernmost areas of the Vinča culture (Naumov 2016b). Until extensive radiocarbon dating of Late Neolithic sites has been undertaken, it will remain unclear whether such pottery appears in these regions of North Macedonia as a result of northern or western influence.

Chausidis, Nikos. 2009. ‘Balkanske ”kućarice” i neolitski keramički žrtvenici u obliku kuće.’ In Etnokulturološki zbornik XIII, edited by Sreten Petrović, 53–72. Svrljig: Etno-kulturološka radionica - Svrljig. Chausidis, Nikos. 2010. ‘Neolithic Ceramic Figurines in the Shape of a Woman - House from the Republic of Macedonia.’ In Anthropomorphic and Zoomorphic miniature figures in Eurasia, Africa and Meso-America: morphology, materiality, technology, function and context, edited by Dragos Gheorghiu and Ann Cyphers, 25–35. British Archaeological Reports International Series 2138. Oxford: BAR Publishing. Chrysostomou, Panicos Jagoulis Tryfon, and Andreas Mäder. 2015. ‘The “Culture of Four Lakes”: Prehistoric lakeside settlements (6th–2nd millennium BC) in the Amindeon Basin, Western Macedonia, Greece.’ Archäeologie Scweiz 38(3): 24–32. Commenge, Catherine. 2009. ‘Neolithic Settlement Patterns in the Alluvial Plains of Macedonia: some insights from preliminary geoarchaeological examination of the basin of Skopje, Republic of Macedonia (FYROM).’ In Ol’Man River: Geo-Archaeological Aspects of Rivers and River Plains, edited by Morgan De Dapper, Frank Vermeulen, Sarah Deprez and Devi Taelman, 229–40. Ghen: Academia Press.

In this context, it should also be emphasised that the aforementioned pottery patterns were present in Central Anatolia much earlier than in the Balkans, and from the Late Neolithic in western Turkey they were gradually transmitted to sites in the Balkan Peninsula (Nikolov 1998; Özdoğan 1993; Özdoğan 2011). If this is taken into account, then an eastern route of interaction could be proposed, that also involves Pelagonia and the Ohrid region, and to a certain extent dismisses the northern and western influences from the central Balkans and the Adriatic. As such pottery is common for Turkish and Bulgarian Thrace, it could be proposed that these Late Neolithic Anatolian design features also reached Pelagonia and the Ohrid region in the 5th millennium BC (Naumov 2016b). For the moment, this interpretation is the most probable, but additional study of the material, thorough excavations and understanding of the stratigraphy in Trn, Senokos, Ohridati and Ustie na Drim will be necessary in order to determine the direction of influence in pottery production. This will also contribute to the understanding of Late Neolithic networks between Pelagonia and Ohrid, and determine whether they were initiated from tell

Coussot, Celine, Eric Fouache, Kosmas Pavlopoulos, Milorad Jovanović. 2007. ‘Early Holocene environment in a subsidic Balkan greben (Skopje, FYROM): The case of Tumba Madzhari (5800–5300 BC).’ Geodinamica Acta 20(4): 267–74. Fidanoski, Ljubo. 2009. ‘Pottery Production.’ In Neolithic Communities in the Republic of Macedonia, edited by Goce Naumov, Ljubo Fidanoski, Igor Tolevski and Aneta Ivkovska, 65–80. Skopje: Dante. Fidanoski, Ljubo and Igor Tolevski. 2009. ‘Natural and geographic characteristic of the relief.’ In Neolithic Communities in the Republic of Macedonia, edited by Goce Naumov, Ljubo Fidanoski, Igor Tolevski and Aneta Ivkovska, 8–10. Skopje: Dante.

128

Pelagonian Tells and Pile Dwellings of Lake Ohrid Kolištrkoska – Nasteva, Irene. 2005. Praistoriskite dami od Makedonija. Skopje: Muzej na Makedonija.

Fouache, Eric, Stèphane Desruelles, Michel Magny, Amandine Bordon, Cècile Oberweiler, Celine Coussot, Gilles Touchais, Petrika Lera, Anne-Arie Lezine, Lionel Fanin, Rébecca Roger. 2010. ‘Paleogeographical reconstruction of Lake Maliq (Korca basin, Albania) between 14000 BP and 2000 BP.’ Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 525–35.

Kuzman, Pasko. 1990. ‘Zlastrana – neolitska naselba vo Ohridsko.’ Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 11: 35–50. Kuzman, Pasko 1993. ‘Paleolit vo Makedonija.’ Macedonia Acta Archaeologica 13: 13–18.

Galović, Radoslav. 1964. ‘ Neue Funde der StarcevoKultur in Mittelserbien und Makedonien.’ Bericht der Romisch-Germanischen Kommision 43–44 (1962– 1963). Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co.

Kuzman, Pasko 1995. ‘Podatoci za paleolitskite kulturi vo Makedonija.’ In Civilizacii na počvata na Makedonija 2, edited by Georgi Stardelov, Cvetan Grozdanov and Mateja Mitevski, 11–20. Skopje: Makedonska akademija na naukite i umetnostite.

Garašanin, Milutin. 1979 ‘Centralnobalkanska zona.’ In Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja, edited by Alojz Benac, 79–212. Sarajevo: Akademija Nauke i Umetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine.

Kuzman, Pasko 2008. ‘Zaliv na koskite.’ In Makedonsko kulturno nasledstvo: arheološki lokaliteti, edited by Pasko Kuzman, 60-61. Skopje: Uprava za zaštita na kulturno nasledstvo.

Garašanin, Milutin and Miloš Bilbija. 1988. ‘Kuća 1 vo Zelenikovo.’ Macedonia ActaArchaeologica 9: 31–41.

Kuzman, Pasko. 2009. ‘Penelope: Prehistoric Settlement.’ In Ohrid World Heritage Site, edited by Pasko Kuzman, Julija Tričkovska and Zoran Pavlov, 22–25. Skopje: Cultural Heritage Protection Office.

Garašanin, Milutin and Gordana Spasovska. 1976. ‘Novi iskopuvanja vo Zelenikovo kaj Skopje.’ Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 2: 85–115.

Kuzman, Pasko. 2013. ‘Praistoriski palafitni naselbi vo Makedonija.’ In Makedonija: mileniumski kulturnoistoriski fakti, edited by Pasko Kuzman, Elizabeta Dimitrova and Jovan Donev, 297–430. Skopje: Media Print and Univerzitet Evro-Balkan.

Garašanin, Milutin, Voislav Sanev, Dragica Simoska, Blagoja Kitanoski. 1971. Predistoriskite kulturi vo Makedonija. Štip: Naroden Muzej Štip. Hauffe, Torsten, Christian Albrecht, Kirstin Schreiber, Klaus Birkhofer, Sasho Trajanovski and Thomas Wilke. 2011. ‘Spatially explicit analysis of gastropod biodiversity in ancient Lake Ohrid.’ Biogeosciences 8: 175–88.

Kuzman, Pasko, Dragica Simoska, and Blagoja Kitanoski. 1989. ‘Dolno Trnovo.’ Arheološki pregled 1987: 38–39. Kuzman, Pasko, Tričkovska Julija and Zoran Pavlov. 2009. Ohrid World Heritage Site, Skopje: Cultural Heritage Protection Office.

Hoffmann, Nadine, Klaus Reicherter, Tomás FernándezSteeger, Christoph Grützner. 2010. ‘Evolution of ancient Lake Ohrid: a tectonic perspective.’ Biogeosciences 7: 3377–86.

Mitkoski, Aleksandar. 2005. ‘Vrbjanska Čuka kaj seloto Slavej, Prilepsko.’ Zbornik na Muzejot na Makedonija 2: 33–46.

Hofmann, Robert, Kemal F. Moetz, and Johannes Müller. 2012. Tells: Social and Environmental Space. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt GMBH.

Naumov, Goce. 2009. Patterns and Corporeality: Neolithic Visual Culture from the Republic of Macedonia. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1910. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Kitanoski, Blagoja, Dragica Simoska, and Jovan Todorović. 1980. ‘Naselbata Pešterica i problemot na raniot neolit vo Pelagonija.’ Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 6: 9–20.

Naumov, Goce. 2011. ‘Visual and conceptual dynamism of the Neolithic altars in the Republic of Macedonia.’ In Interdisziplinäre Forschungen zum Kulturerbe auf der Balkan halbinsel, edited by Vasil Nikolov, Krum Bacvarov and Hristo Popov, 89–129. Sofia: Nice.

Kitanoski, Blagoja, Dragica Simoska, and Borislav Jovanović. 1990. ‘Der kultplatz auf der fundstatte Vrbjanska Cuka bei Prilep.’ In Vinča and its World. International Symposium “The Danubian Region from 6000–3000 BC”, edited by Dragoslav Srejović and Nikola Tasić, 107–12. Beograd: Serbian Academy of Science and Arts, Centre for Archaeological Research, Faculty of Philosophy.

Naumov, Goce. 2013. ‘Embodied houses: social and symbolic agency of Neolithic architecture in the Republic of Macedonia.’ In Tracking the Neolithic house in Europe – sedentism, architecture and practice, edited by Daniela Hoffman and Jessica Smyth, 65–94. New York: Springer.

Koco, Dimče 1951. ‘Nakolnite žilišta vo Ohridskoto Ezero kraj Struga.’ Godišen zbornik na Filozofskiot fakultet 3: 3–9.

Naumov, Goce. 2014. ‘Privileges: the selection within burials and corporeality in the Balkans.’ European Journal of Archaeology 17(2): 184–207.

Koco, Dimče and Cvetan Grozdanov. 1996. Arheološka karta na Republika Makedonija 2. Skopje: Makedonska akademija na naukite i umetnostite.

Naumov, Goce. 2015. ‘Early Neolithic Communities in the Republic of Macedonia.’ Archeologické Rozhledy LXVII (2015/3): 331–55. 129

Goce Naumov Naumov, Goce. 2016a. ‘Tell communities and wetlands in the Neolithic Pelagonia, Republic of Macedonia.’ Documenta Praehistorica 43: 327–42.

by Ljubo Fidanoski and Goce Naumov, 35–55. Skopje: Center for Prehistoric Research. Naumov, Goce, Albert Hafner, Bojan Taneski, Jochannes Reich, Marco Hostettler, Valentina Todoroska, Lea Emmenegger, Corinne Stäheli, Sönke Szidat, Stella Papadopoulou, John Francuz, Mathias Bolliger. 2018c. ‘Research in 2018 at Ploča-Mićov Grad site on the Lake Ohrid.’ Patrimonium 16: 9-36

Naumov, Goce. 2016b. ‘Among Wetlands and Lakes: the network of Neolithic communities in Pelagonia and Lake Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia.’ In Southeast Europe and Anatolia in prehistory: essays in honor of Vassil Nikolov on his 65th anniversary, edited by Krum Bacvarov and Ralf Gleser, 175–87. Bonn: Verlag Rudolf Habelt.

Nikolov, Vasil. 1998. ‘The Circumpontic cultural zone during 6th millennium BC.’ Documenta Praehistorica 25: 81–89.

Naumov, Goce. 2018. ‘The Formation of Wetland Identities in the Neolithic Balkans.’ In Prehistoric Networks in Southern and Eastern Europe (Vita Antiqua 10), edited by Pavel Shydlovskyi, 48-60. Kiev: Taras Shevchenko National University.

Özdoğan, Mehmet. 1993. ‘Vinča and Anatolia: a new look at a very old problem (or redefining Vinča Culture from the perspective of Near Eastern tradition).’ Anatolica 19: 173–93.

Naumov, Goce. in press. ‘Neolithic wetland and lakeside settlements in the Balkans.’ In Settling watery landscapes in Europe: archaeology of pile-settlements of Neolithic–Bronze Age I, edited by Ekaterina Dolbunova, Andrey Mazurkievich and Albert Hafner. Leeds: Maney Publishing.

Özdoğan, Mehmet. 2011. ‘Archaeological evidence on westward expansion of farming communities from Eastern Anatolia to the Aegean and the Balkans.’ Current Anthropology 52(4): 415–30. Pašić, Radmila. 1957. ‘Neolitski naogjališta vo Ohridsko.’ Lihnid I-Godišen zbornik na Narodniot muzej vo Ohrid: 115–22.

Naumov, Goce and Slobodan Stojkoski. 2015. ‘Novi predistoriski tumbi vo Pelagonija.’ Zbornik na NU Zavod I muzej – Bitola 16: 169–85.

Pašić, Radmila and Vasil Lahtov. 1958. ‘Zaštitno iskopavanje na lokalitetu Crkveni Livadi u Vraništu kod Ohrida.’ Starinar VII–VIII: 233–34.

Naumov, Goce and Alenka Tomaž. 2015. ‘The Excavation of “Školska Tumba” in Mogila.’ Patrimonium 13: 67– 96.

Rosenstock, Eva. 2009. Tells in Südwestasien und Süosteuropa: Verbreitung, Entstehung und Definition eines Siedlungsphänomens. Urgeschichtliche Studien II. Grunbach: Greiner.

Naumov, Goce, Maciej Trzeciecki, Malgorzata Chwiej, Marcin Przybyła, Ursula Bugaj, Piotr Szczepanik, Mihal Podsiadło. 2014. ‘Arheološko, topografsko i geofizičko istražuvanje na neolitski tumbi vo Pelagonija.’ Patrimonium 12: 345–72.

Sanev, Voislav. 1988. ‘Neolitskoto svetilište od “Tumba” vo Madjari.’ Мacedoniae Аcta Аrchaeologica 9: 9–30.

Naumov, Goce, Aleksandar Mitkoski, Aleksandar Murgoski, Jaromir Beneš, Marcin Przybila, Gjore Milevski, Veronika Komarkova, Mihaela Vychronova, Ivica Stoimanovski. 2016. ‘Istražuvanje na Vrbjanska Čuka kaj Slavej – 2016.’ Patrimonium 14: 13–42.

Sanev, Voislav. 1995. ‘Neolitot i neolitskite kulturi vo Makedonija.’ In Civilizacii na poćvata na Makedonija 2, edited by Georgi Stardelov, 21–46. Skopje: MASA. Sanev, Voislav, Dragica Simoska, Blagoja Kitanoski, Saržo Saržoski. 1976. Praistorija vo Makedonija. Skopje: Arheološko društvo na SR Makedonija.

Naumov, Goce, John Jan, and Ondrej Chvojka. 2017. ‘Geophysical scanning of prehistoric tells in Central Pelagonia.’ In Neolithic in Macedonia II: step forward in the study of the first farming societies, edited by Ljubo Fidanoski and Goce Naumov, 161–80. Skopje: Center for Prehistoric Research.

Simoska, Dragica and Voislav Sanev. 1976. Praistorija vo Centralna Pelagonija. Bitola: Naroden Muzej. Simoska, Dragica and Voislav Sanev. 1977. ‘Neolitska naselba na Mala Tumba kaj selo Trn, Bitola.’ Macedonia Acta Archaeologica 3: 215–37.

Naumov, Goce, Aleksandar Mitkoski, Hristijan Talevski, Aleksandar Murgoski, Jaromir Beneš, Ivana Živaljević, Jugoslav Pendić, Darko Stojanovski, Juan F. Gibaja, Nicollo Mazzucco, Albert Hafner, Sönke Szidat, Vesna Dimitrijević, Sofija Stefanović, Krystina Budilova, Mihaela Vychronova, Tereza Majerovičova, Jiri Bumerl. 2018a. ‘Research on the Vrbjanska Čuka site in 2017.’ Balcanoslavica, 47(1): 253–285.

Šalamanov-Korobar, Ljiljana. 2006. ‘Rekognosciranje na paleolitsko-mezolitski lokacii vo Makedonija – 2001.’ Macedonia Acta Archaeologica 17: 9–20. Šalamanov-Korobar, Ljiljana. 2013. ‘Paleolit i Mezolit.’ In Makedonija: mileniumski kulturno-istoriski fakti, edited by Pasko Kuzman, Elizabeta Dimitrova and Jovan Donev, 45–82. Skopje: Media Print and Univerzitet Evro-Balkan.

Naumov, Goce, Aleksandar Mitkoski, and Hristijan Talevski. 2018b. ‘Excavation Season in 2018 at Vrbjanska Čuka tell in Pelagonia.’ In Neolithic in Macedonia: Challenges for New Discoveries, edited

Šemrov, Andrej and Peter Turk. 2009. Neolithic Art in the Republic of Macedonia. Ljubljana: Narodni muzej Slovenije. 130

Pelagonian Tells and Pile Dwellings of Lake Ohrid Temelkoski, Duško and Aleksandar Mitkoski. 2005. ‘Tipovi neolitski žrtvenici vo praistoriskata zbirka na Zavodot i Muzej – Prilep.’ Zbornik na Muzejot na Makedonija 2: 47–56. Temelkoski, Duško and Aleksandar Mitkoski. 2006. ‘Praistoriska naselba Mogila Senokos.’ Macedonia Acta Archaeologica 17: 55 – 88. Todoroska, Valentina. 2009. ‘Lokalitet Vrbnik – palafitna naselba vo Ohridskoto Ezero.’ In Jurišićev zbornik: Zbornik radova u znak sječanja na Marija Jurišića, edited by Luka Bekić, 390–97. Zagreb: Hrvatski resauratorski zavod. Todoroska, Valentina. 2016. ‘Neolitska naselba “Ustie na Drim” .’ In Neolithic in Macedonia: recent knowledge and perspectives, edited by Ljubo Fidanoski and Goce Naumov, 41–54. Skopje: Center for Prehistoric Research. Tolevski, Igor. 2013. ‘Geografija na Republika Makedonija.’ In Makedonija: mileniumski kulturnoistoriski fakti, edited by Pasko Kuzman, Elizabeta Dimitrova and Jovan Donev, 1–42. Skopje: Media Print and Univerzitet Evro-Balkan. Tolevski, Igor and Ivan Stančevski. 2017. ‘Katlanovsko ezero-Blato i negovata okolina: kulturni impulsi od neolitskiot period.’ In Neolithic in Macedonia II: step forward in the research of first farming communities, edited by Ljubo Fidanoski and Goce Naumov, 43–56. Skopje: Center for Prehistoric Research. Trifunovski, Jovan. 1992. Ohridsko-struška oblast: antropogeografska proučavanja. Beograd: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti. Vasileva, Marija. 2005. Kade e našeto minato? Voved kon praistorijata na Pelagonija. Bitola: Visoi. Wagner, Bernd, Tomas Wilke, Sebastian Krastel, Giovanni Zanchetta, Roberto Sulpizio, Klaus Reicherter, Melanie J. Leng, Andon Graz, Sasho Trajanovski, Alexander Francke, Katja Lindghorst, Zlatko Levkov, Aleksandra Cvetkoska, Jane M. Reed, Xiosen Zhang, Jack H. Lacey, Thomas Wonik, Henrike Baumgarten, Hendrik Vogel. 2014. ‘The SCOPSCO drilling project recovers more than 1.2 million years of history from Lake Ohrid.’ Scientific Drilling 17: 19–29. Westphal, Thorsten, Willy Tegel, Karl-Uwe Heußner, Petrika Lera, Karl-Friedrich Rittershofer. 2011. ‘Erste dendrochronologische Datierungen historicher Hölzer in Albanien.’ Archeologische Anzeiger 2: 75–95. Zdravkovski, Dragiša. 2006. ‘New Aspects of the Anzabegovo-Vršnik Cultural Group.’ In Homage to Milutin Garašanin, edited by Nikola Tasić and Cvetan Grozdanov, 99–110. Belgrade, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts.

131

Goce Naumov

Figure 9.1. Map of North Macedonia showing regions indicated and sites mentioned in the text: A. Skopje Valley (1. Madjari, 2. Zelenikovo); B. Pelagonia (3. Vrbjanska Čuka, 4. Porodin, 5. Veluška Tumba); C. Ohrid region (6. Dolno Trnovo, 7. Ohridati, 8. Ustie na Drim, 9. Crkveni Livadi, 10. Ploča-Mićov Grad).

Figure 9.2. Map showing the location of Neolithic sites in the Skopje Valley (after Tolevski and Stančevski 2017, Fig. 4).

132

Pelagonian Tells and Pile Dwellings of Lake Ohrid

Figure 9.3. Map showing the location of tell sites around wetlands in central part of Pelagonia (after Simoska and Sanev 1976, Map 1).

133

Goce Naumov

Figure 9.4. Photo and location of Veluška Tumba at Porodin (after Naumov et al. 2017, Fig. 4).

134

Pelagonian Tells and Pile Dwellings of Lake Ohrid

Figure 9.5. Map showing the results of geomagnetic scanning of Vrbjanska Čuka (after Naumov et al. 2016, Fig. 19).

Figure 9.6. Neolithic house models from the tell sites ‘Veluška Tumba’ (after Vasileva 2005, 40) and ‘Tumba’ (after Kolištrkoska Nasteva 2005, fig. 43; Vasileva 2005, 40) at Porodin: (a) no scale, (b) height 25 cm, (c) no scale.

135

Goce Naumov

Figure 9.7. Geological and hydrological map of Lake Ohrid, with pile-dwelling sites indicated with black points (after Hauffe et al. 2011).

136

Pelagonian Tells and Pile Dwellings of Lake Ohrid

Figure 9.8. Excavation of pile-dwelling settlement at Ustie na Drim (after Kuzman 2013, Fig. 8).

Figure 9.9. Bone and antler tools from Ustie na Drim (after Benac 1979, Pl. 71).

137

Goce Naumov

Figure 9.10. Area location of the pile-dwelling settlement at Ohridati within the city of Ohrid (after Kuzman 2013, Fig. 19).

138

Pelagonian Tells and Pile Dwellings of Lake Ohrid

Figure 9.11. Bone and antler tools from Ohridati (after Kuzman 2013, Pl. 6).

Figure 9.12. Neolithic anthropomorphic cylinders from house models: 1. Ohridati (after Kuzman 2013, T. IV/7), 2. Gurgur Tumba (after Simoska and Sanev 1976, 42, fig. 144).

139

Goce Naumov

Figure 9.13. Late Neolithic pottery from two tell sites in Pelagonia: 1.–4. from Trn (after Simoska and Sanev 1977, T. I-II), 5. from Senokos (after Temelkoski and Mitkoski 2006, T. II, V), 6.–10. from the pile-dwelling settlement Ustie na Drim at Lake Ohrid (after Benac 1979, T. LXXI).

140

10 The Neolithic and Post-Neolithic Settlement Mounds of Western Serbia Boban Tripković University of Belgrade, Faculty of Philosophy Abstract: In this paper we reconsider a particular type of Late Neolithic/Early Neolithic sites discovered some 50 years ago in northwestern and western Serbia. The sites are relatively small mounds resembling tells in their physical appearance, but otherwise different from them. These sites have not been systematically explored, and so have remained largely unknown to the wider archaeological community. The aim of this chapter is, therefore, twofold: to present the research history of the small prehistoric mounds, including ‘why and how’ questions; and to present some results of a new project established with the aim of solving dilemmas surrounding these tell-like sites. Keywords: wetlands, settlement pattern, post-Neolithic mounds, Vinča culture, Early Eneolithic

The Mačva district of Western Serbia: An overview of geography and prehistory

(2010 and 2014); the last one was the worst since rainfall measurements began 120 years ago.

The region of Mačva in the northwestern part of Serbia is delineated to the north, west and east by the Sava and Drina rivers, and to the south by Cer Mountain (Figure 10.1). The area is dissected by the meanders of dried-up river-courses and streams, indicating the dynamic hydrological history of the region. This whole area represents a complex system of permanent or temporary wetlands, oxbow lakes, ponds, old river channels and meanders (Milojević 1962). It also illustrates how the regional landscape may have looked in the past. To further support this, the name Mačva comes from the name of a medieval town (the location of which is unknown) – Močva, derived from ‘močvara’, which is the Serbian term for marshes and wetlands.

Extensive archaeological prospection of northwestern Serbia was carried out from the late 1960s to the mid 70s. The outcome was a number of published reports showing almost 300 Neolithic sites in the region (Trbuhović and Vasiljević 1972; Vasiljević 1973; 1980; Trbuhović and Vasiljević 1983). The data from the prospection, recollected and re-examined in Stojić and Cerović (2011), show that the majority of prehistoric sites date to the Neolithic – 31 are associated with the Early Neolithic Starčevo culture, and as many as 245 with the Late Neolithic Vinča culture. Some 30 sites are attributed to the Copper Age, including the Bubanj (or Bubanj-Salkuta), Baden, Kostolac and Vučedol cultures. The material from another 23 sites shows characteristics of the Bronze Age Vinkovci, Vatin and Belegiš cultures. The site list is completed with another 103 sites ranging in date from the early Iron Age to the end of prehistory (Stojić and Cerović 2011).

At present, Mačva is an important agricultural region of Serbia, with fertile soils that often produce high crop yields. However, intensive agricultural use of the Mačva lowland has its challenges, due to an uncooperative water regime (Milojević 1962; Stefanović et al. 2014) that includes: frequent seasonal flooding of the Sava and the Drina rivers; smaller watercourses flowing down Cer Mountain that after heavy rainfall and snowmelt develop into large, fast-flowing rivers; a high level of groundwater, particularly in rainy seasons, that worsens the flooding effect; and the clayey and watertight structure of the local soil (which is parapodzol or pseudogley), which prevents drainage of water from precipitation and flooding. Although flood protection and drainage systems have been constructed in the area over the last couple of decades, the land-owners and residents do not feel entirely safe from floodwaters destroying their property and crop fields. Indeed, some of the worst recorded floods in Serbia happened in this area, including two of them in last decade

Out of the total of 445 recorded prehistoric sites in the region, only one was excavated on a large scale, and only small test-trenches were dug at several other sites (Trbuhović and Vasiljević 1983; Stojić and Cerović 2011). Our knowledge of the social and economic developments in the prehistory of this region is, therefore, extremely limited. The number of recorded sites, if observed by period, offers important clues. For example, there are up to 50 times more sites belonging to the Late Neolithic than to any other prehistoric period in the several millennia after the Neolithic. These are strong indications of changes in demography and settlement pattern, that are also related to the transformations of Neolithic society (cf. Borić 2015; Orton 2012; Tripković 2013). The small sites under 141

Boban Tripković

Figure 10.1. The region of Mačva in western Serbia, marked by a square (adapted from Google).

discussion here are also part of the same context of social change.

Cultural remains, including potsherds, knapped stone artefacts and building material, were collected from the surface of many Obrovac-type sites, dating the mounds to the Late Neolithic Vinča or Early Eneolithic postVinča periods (Trbuhović and Vasiljević 1975; for data evaluation see Tripković 2013). The small test trenches opened on three mounds revealed a relatively simple stratigraphic sequence and poor material culture. These sites are Šančina at Desić (Vasiljević 1967), Obrovčine in Ratkovača-Lug (Trbuhović and Vasiljević 1983) and Šanac in Obrovčine at Dublje (Trbuhović and Vasiljević 1973: 133). While the material culture confirmed a Late Neolithic/Early Eneolithic dating for all of them, a siteplan and profile sections are today available only for Šanac in Obrovčine at Dublje (Figure 10.2). As described by the researchers, there is ‘greasy, beaten, dark brown soil’ in the base of the mound. This layer is partly overlaid by a layer containing pottery and red, perhaps burnt, soil; they also mention the remains of a house and a hearth in this layer. Then, the mound is capped by yellowish, loess-

The small settlement mounds of Western Serbia: Previous research Following their archaeological prospection in the 1970s, Trbuhović and Vasiljević (1975; 1983) classified 43 sites into a small settlement mound, an assertion that is indisputably based on their visual distinctions. The radius of the mounds is up to 50 m and, again based on field observations, they are all surrounded by ditches which were clearly visible at the time of prospection. The local name for some of the sites was ‘obrovac’ or ‘obrovčine’ which literally means a ‘place surrounded by a ditch’; some of these mounds were also called ‘šanac’ or ‘šančine’ – words originating from the German word for a fortification that usually includes a ditch – ‘Schanze.’ Due to this, the small settlement mounds were called ‘Obrovactype sites’ (Trbuhović and Vasiljević 1975). 142

The Neolithic and Post-Neolithic Settlement Mounds of Western Serbia

Figure 10.2. Profile-section of Šanac at Obrovčine in Dublje (after Vasiljević 1973).

The current project

like soil (Trbuhović and Vasiljević 1973: 133). In their report, the excavators do not provide any more details on stratigraphy.

The previous discussions on the small settlement mounds of northwestern Serbia raised a number of very important and also varied questions about their chronology and function. All of these inspired the project ‘Life in a wetland: micro-regional adaptations in northwestern Serbia (5000–2500 BC).’ The project was initiated at the Department of Archaeology in Belgrade with the aim of fully exploring the small mounds phenomenon. It is organised into three successive phases. The first objective was to obtain the precise location of as many sites as possible by using GPS, to examine the physical state of the sites, and to assess their suitability and potential for archaeological excavations. This stage of the project has now been completed. The next phase encompasses sediment coring at selected sites, and the opening up of excavation trenches at a minimum of twenty per cent of the sites. This work is ongoing. Finally, systematic excavations will be conducted at one or two sites which have been selected as suitable and as promising in the archaeological sense.

Several hypotheses have been put forward about the origin and purpose of the Obrovac-type sites. Trbuhović and Vasiljević (1975) suggest that the beaten darkbrown layer at the base of the mounds is made up of soil removed from the ditch and accumulated to create a raised and, importantly, flood-safe area suitable for settling. According to these authors, the small size of the sites indicates that their occupants were small kin-groups of, for instance, 1–2 households each. They believe that the significant labour required for the construction of the ditch and the houses would not have been invested if the location was meant to be used only from time to time. Therefore, they conclude that these locations were probably permanently occupied and that they were well protected in order to secure the (agricultural) products kept within the settlements. In his monograph on the Vinča culture, published in 1981, John Chapman argues that the Obrovac-type sites represent adaptations to the specific hydrological conditions of the area, and that they were ‘surrounded by natural wetlands or ditches filled with water.’ He observed the weak agricultural potential of the area (such as the low availability of arable land near the sites, flooding episodes and water regimes in general, and a lack of resources), as well as the large number of corresponding Late Neolithic sites in the region, and suggested two contrasting hypotheses: a) that these places were the permanent settlements of groups specifically adapted to living in the wetlands; or b) that these were the seasonal habitats of transhumant pastoralists.

Since the available information on the location of these sites is ambiguous, the first aim of the project was to visit these ‘forgotten’ places and record their location using GPS. Incidentally, when we first went out into the field, in the autumn of 2010, we encountered large-scale flooding; this was an immediate opportunity for the team to experience the realities of life in a wetland environment. In the course of our search, we observed and documented most of the sites, which were not always in a good state of preservation (Tripković et al. 2013). Some of them were not mounds any more, having been completely destroyed by modern agricultural activities, and so practically indistinguishable from the surrounding flat area. One such site is Lizalovica in Dublje. It is located 60 m from a small stream bed now used as a drainage canal. The site is a small mound, noticeably damaged by ploughing, but still visible in the space. Surface ceramic sherds and knapped stones suggested the presence of a Late Neolithic settlement. Around the site there was a shallow depression pointing to a ditch that encompassed the site. Our observations from the field perfectly match the satellite image as well as a magnetometer survey showing a circular feature bounded by something that looks like a ditch (Figure 10.3). It is worth noting that the magnetometer survey also detected

Finally, the most recent and quite different explanation is offered by Stojić and Cerović (2011). Their reexamination of the sites’ cultural stratigraphy confirmed the general dating of the settlement mounds, but also suggested later periods of prehistory for some of them. In conclusion, they do not recognise these sites as a separate settlement type. They argue, in reference to the material that they re-examined, that: a) the sites were probably in use over different periods in prehistory; b) the sites were not surrounded by ditches; instead, they are bounded by dried-up river meanders. 143

Boban Tripković

Figure 10.3. Google Earth view of a mound of Lizalovica in Dublje (date, 04.05.2012), surrounded by a ditch. The site is on three sides encompassed by a meander of the river Jerez.

an anomaly in the centre of the mound, perhaps implying the presence of a burnt structure.

Other newly excavated sites, such as Šanac-Izba at Lipolist, offered similar evidence. This site is surrounded by a ditch that encompasses an area of approximately 1000 m². Two small test trenches positioned on the top of the mound revealed four pits and the remains of a burnt structure (Tripković et al. 2017). These features were associated with Early Eneolithic material culture that included diagnostic pottery, knapped tools and a piece of obsidian. Based on the technological structure of the chipped stone collection, the artefacts used at the site were probably made somewhere else (Šošić-Klindžić and Tripković 2018).

Previously, only 30 per cent of the Obrovac-type sites were categorised as slightly damaged or undamaged by human impact (Tripković et al. 2013). The site at Šančine near Desić, not visited during our previous survey, is also included here. It is a small hillfort on the slope of Cer Mountain, previously described by the prospector and excavator as a part of an Early Eneolithic fortification system (Vasiljević 1967; Vasiljević 1996). Our visit in 2016 testified to a small but rather impressive site that consists of a small mound (23 m in diameter) surrounded by a deep and wide ditch; in addition to this, at least one massive semicircular embankment has been built on its southern side (Figure 10.4; see also Vasiljević 1967; Vasiljević and Trbuhović 1979).

In order to test the hypotheses about their origin, six locations were selected for geoarchaeological coring (Tripković and Penezić 2017). The selected sites are located in the area of the highest concentration of prehistoric mounds, and all of them were still distinctive places in the landscape. The research objectives were not only to test the cultural stratigraphy of the sites, but also to compare the pedological history at on-site and off-site locations, with special attention to the depressed area that separated them (Figure 10.5). The cultural section of the drilled mounds confirmed a simple stratigraphy of up to 100 cm in depth, with cultural remains lying exclusively on paleosol. While paleosol could be detected at the base of all the drilled Obrovac-type sites, only three sites (or 50 per cent) showed it in off-site areas. This means that the pedological history of the occupied space was noticeably different in comparison to its unsettled surroundings. That difference probably originates in the dry/wet environmental history of the specific coring areas. On the other hand, the soil sequence in the ditches/depressions encircling the mounds is, as expected, dominated by water-saturated sediments and sands, indicating that they were filled with water. In a few cases, however, there is a strong indication of prehistoric remains off the mound: an observation that is consistent

Another interesting site is in the village of Dublje (Obrovac 1 and 2 at Obrovčine in Ratkovača-Lug); it consists of two adjacent mounds separated by a clearly visible, ancient riverbed today used as a drainage canal. One of the mounds is covered by open woodland and is well-preserved; it is surrounded by what appears to be the remains of a man-made ditch, approximately 4 m wide. The other mound is located on a nearby crop field and has been significantly destroyed by agricultural activity. Still, it is not entirely levelled and can be easily distinguished by its configuration. The mound was excavated in 1971 and, based on the re-examination of potsherd provided then, is attributed to very late phase of the Vinča culture (Stojić and Cerović 2011). At the time of our visit, ploughing revealed a few areas of daub concentration and a recently undertaken magnetometer survey also revealed magnetic anomalies, specifically in two discrete locations, which may signal the presence of burnt structures. This has been confirmed by an excavation trench. 144

The Neolithic and Post-Neolithic Settlement Mounds of Western Serbia

Figure 10.4. View of Šančine at Desić: an embankment (left), a ditch, and a mound (right) (photo by B. Tripković).

Figure 10.5. 3D model of terrain at the Obrovčine 2 site at Lug-Ratkovača. Marks indicate the coring positions that were used to create a geo-profile (not shown here, but see Tripković and Penezić 2017).

with previous remarks (Trbuhović and Vasiljević 1975) but needs to be repeated here and explained in the future. For now, it brings into question the relative chronology of some ditches and of their temporal relationship to the mounds (see Tripković and Penezić 2017).

adaptation to the marshlands of the Mačva region. Previous hypotheses about their origin and function were strongly oriented towards region-specific interpretation, because of the distinctive local geography. While further work is needed in order to explore and establish whether the Obrovac-type sites do indeed represent a regionspecific phenomenon, here we suggest some preliminary conclusions on the origin of the mounds, sedimentation processes, and the sites’ structure and function. Contrary to one of the previous explanations, it seems that Obrovac-

Conclusions Small settlement mounds in northwestern Serbia were supposed to be evidence of Late Neolithic/Early Eneolithic 145

Boban Tripković of archaeological culture.’ In Neolithic and Copper Age Between the Carpathians and the Aegean Sea: Chronologies and Technologies from the 6th to 4th Millennia BCE, edited by Svend Hansen, Pal Raczky, Alexandra Anders, Agathe Reingruber, 157–217. Archaologie In Eurasien, Vol. 31, Bonn: Habelt Verlag.

type site users had not accumulated soil removed from the ditches to create high, dry ground and protect their spaces from flooding. The data presented here suggests that in our case, and probably in other similar cases, the layer of ‘beaten, dark brown soil’ underlying the mounds was mistakenly attributed to human activities; instead, it is paleosol, as revealed by the extensive sediment coring on and off the sites (Tripković and Penezić 2017).

Chapman, John. 1981. The Vinča culture of South-East Europe. Studies in chronology, economy and society. British Archaeological Reports International Series 117. Oxford: BAR Publishing House.

Field surveys and magnetometer prospection imply the presence of ditches encircling the sites, which is not supportive of the previous suggestion by Stojić and Cerović (2011) that Obrovac-type sites were exclusively surrounded by dried river meanders. Actually, the ditches are the distinctive feature of these sites, though their precise chronology still needs to be defined. However, if they are contemporary with the prehistoric mounds, flood safety concerns may not have been the only reason for enclosing the space; in fact, some of these sites are located on hill slopes, at some distance from the floodprone lowlands. They have been founded next to water courses, most probably to manage them, and to surround their territory with a ditch filled with water. If these were settled spaces, they would have provided secure areas for people and livestock in flood seasons, but also in other parts of the year.

Milojević, D. Miroslav. 1962. Mačva, Šabačka Posavina i Pocerina. Beograd: Geografski Institut ‘Jovan Cvijić.’ Orton, David. 2012. ‘Herding, Settlement, and Chronology in the Balkan Neolithic.’ European Journal of Archaeology 15 (1): 5–40. Šošić-Klindžić, Rajna and Boban Tripković. 2018. ‘Okresani kameni artefakti sa ranoeneolitskog lokaliteta Šanac-Izba (Lipolist, zapadna Srbija).’ Arhaika 6: 1-26. Stefanović, Milutin, Zoran Gavrilović, and Ratko Bajčetić. 2014. Lokalna zajednica i problematika bujičnih poplava. Beograd: Organizacija za evropsku bezbednost i saradnju, Misija u Srbiji. Stojić, Milorad and Momir Cerović. 2011. Šabac: Cultural Stratigraphy of Prehistoric Sites in the Drina Valley, Belgrade and Šabac: Archaeological Institute and National Museum.

Based on the available data, previous assumptions about separate households living on the sites has found some confirmation. The data also corresponds very well with the social transformation at the very end of the Late Neolithic in the region. On the other hand, it is still too early for any definite conclusions on the function of Obrovac-type sites. Some of them may also have served as places for seasonal or special activities. For instance, it is worth noting that, even today, one finds small, peculiar buildings scattered over the landscape of the Mačva region; these so-called huts (the local Serbian name is ‘kolebe’) are used as temporary habitations in high agricultural seasons, and located 2–3 km away from the main, permanent settlements. Previous researchers have also taken into account this kind of local cultural behaviour of the modern Mačva population to explain the function of small prehistoric mounds, but more extensive research is needed to evaluate whether the present-day cultural model is of relevance to the prehistoric behavioural pattern.

Trbuhović, Vojislav and Milivoj Vasiljević. 1972. ‘Rekognosciranje u Podrinju i sondažna istraživanja.’ Arheološki pregled 14: 164–90. Trbuhović, Vojislav and Milivoj Vasiljević. 1973. ‘Rekognosciranja u Podrinju. Šanac u Dublju, SO Bogatić-neolitsko naselje.’ Arheološki pregled 15: 133. Trbuhović, Vojislav and Milivoj Vasiljević. 1975. ‘Obrovci, poseban tip neolitskih naselja u zapadnoj Srbiji.’ Starinar 24–25: 157–62. Trbuhović, Vojislav and Milivoj Vasiljević. 1979. ‘Praistorija.’ Šabac u prošlosti 1. Šabac: Istorijski arhiv, 37–62. Trbuhović, Vojislav and Milivoj Vasiljević. 1983. Najstarije zemljoradničke kulture u Podrinju. Šabac: Narodni muzej.

Acknowledgements

Tripković, Boban. 2013. Household and Community. House and Settlement Histories in the Late Neolithic of the Central Balkans. Faculty of Philosophy, Belgrade (in Serbian).

The author is thankful to the editors for their kind invitation to participate in the volume. This research was conducted within the project Bioarchaeology of ancient Europe: people, animals and plants in the Prehistory of Serbia (47001), sponsored by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, Republic of Serbia.

Tripković, Boban, Momir Cerović, and Dejan Bulić. 2013. ‘Kulturno nasleđe severozapadne Srbije: lokaliteti tipa “Obrovac”, četrdeset godina kasnije.’ In Rezultati novih arheoloških istraživanja u severozapadnoj Srbiji i susednim teritorijama, edited by Vojislav Filipović, Radivoje Arsić and Dragana Antonović, 45–56. Beograd, Valjevo: Srpsko arheološko društvo i Zavod za zaštitu spomenika kulture.

References cited Borić, Dušan. 2015. ‘The end of Vinča world: Modelling the Neolithic to Copper Age transition and the notion 146

The Neolithic and Post-Neolithic Settlement Mounds of Western Serbia Tripković, Boban and Kristina Penezić. 2017. ‘On-site and off-site in western Serbia.’ Quaternary International 429: 35–44. Tripković, Boban, Momir Cerović, Dragana Filipović, Ana Tripković, Ivana Živaljević. 2017. ‘Šanac-Izba kod Lipolista, lokalitet tipa “Obrovac”: stratigrafija i relativna hronologija.’ Glasnik Srpskog arheološkog društva 33: 47–72. Vasiljević, Milivoj. 1967. ‘Desić-Parlozi, Šabac – utvrđeno naselje s kraja neolita i početka bronzanog doba.’ Arheološki pregled 9: 21–22. Vasiljević, Milivoj. 1972. ‘Ratkovača u Lugu, Dublje, SO Bogatić – praistorijsko naselje.’ Arheološki pregled 14: 166. Vasiljević, Milivoj, 1973. ‘Rekognosciranje Podrinja.’ Arheološki pregled 15: 134–60. Vasiljević, Milivoj. 1980. ‘Arheološka rekognosciranja u Podrinju.’ Arheološki pregled 21: 205–27. Vasiljević Milivoj. 1996. Mačva, istorija, stanovništvo. Bogatić.

147

11 Vinča-Belo Brdo Settlement Size Kristina Penezić BioSense Institute, University of Novi Sad Abstract: The Middle to Late Neolithic settlement site of Vinča-Belo brdo is the type site for the Late Neolithic Vinča cultural sphere. It is located on the right bank of the Danube river in Serbia. The Danube eroded the settlement over the long period from the Early to Mid-Holocene. Hence, the natural environment of the site in prehistoric times, as well as its maximum size during the Neolithic period, has remained unknown. This study focuses on the more precise estimation of the size of the still intact part of the site. Using geoarchaeological augering, we have now been able to obtain more accurate data about the size and thickness of in situ archaeological remains, as well as better define the boundaries of the Neolithic settlement and its adjacent catchment. Keywords: Vinča culture, Late Neolithic, settlement size, type site, Vinča-Belo brdo Introduction

publications (Tasić et al. 2015a; 2015b; 2016). Notably, all of the research was focused on the very limited excavated area. The question of the size of the settlement has not been appropriately addressed until now.

The tell of Vinča-Belo brdo is currently located directly beside the Danube, on its right bank, downstream of Belgrade, Serbia. Today, the embankment built in the 1980s protects the site from the Danube’s high waters. Up to then, an unknown part of the site had been eroded by the river, undermining the underlying sediment. Despite this misfortune, the long-lasting erosion left us with an exposed section of the site. Researchers are making the most of this situation, and have been able to approach and document all the phases of the site, as well as investigate the palaeosol. There remain ca. 8 m of Late Neolithic deposits spanning the later 6th to the mid-5th millennium calBC, under which the Starčevo culture occupation layer is situated – representing the first occupation at this location, dated to the earlier 6th millennium calBC (Tasić et al. 2015a; 2015b; 2016). Because of its size, long lifespan and wealth of findings, Belo brdo has given its name to the Vinča interaction sphere, which encompasses most of the central Balkan area. The site of Vinča, located near the centre of this distribution and active through the whole period of the Late Neolithic, is the largest known tell (in terms of the scale of archaeological deposits) of this cultural complex.

Investigations of the Vinča-Belo brdo settlement size were part of a much broader Vinča project that is being led by N. N. Tasić, of the Faculty of Philosophy in Belgrade. Although the site is situated amidst heavy industrialised infrastructure and covered by modern-day settlement, the results obtained are of great value, which under these conditions has been a prime challenge for researchers. Up to now, the notion of the size of the settlement has been present in literature (e.g. Chapman 1981), but this was not based on fieldwork studies. This is the first attempt to try to set more precisely the borders of the settlement, its imminent surroundings and its size. We have successfully applied augering as our method of choice here. It enabled us to localise the investigations, providing us with precise data for specific positions. Also, we were able to avoid large infrastructures, but we were mobile enough and could approach difficult to reach places, because of the minimal space needed for the drilling and for extracting cores. Our research goals were to identify the archaeological remains and determine the thickness of the anthropological layers. Three distinct stratigraphic units (archaeological layers, palaeosol, underlying sediments) could be seen in the exposed section of the site, visible towards the Danube. The assumption was that we could follow these units inland.

Excavations of the site have been conducted for over 100 years, starting in 1908 (Vassits 1910). With minor or major breaks, the fieldwork continued in the 20s and 30s (e.g. Vasić 1932; 1936a; 1936b; 1936c), 70s and 80s (Group of authors 1984) and since 1998 has been ongoing (e.g. Nikolić 2008; Tasić 2008).

A total of 53 drilling positions have been explored. Our intention was to position drilling locations in such a way as to enable us to acquire cross sections of the site orientated in different directions. Here is presented a section through the site, showing the distribution of the archaeological remains, as well as the configuration of the terrain before the settlement’s foundation. In certain cases, cores aimed

Every excavation campaign has been focused in the area that is now either fully excavated (excavations up to 1934) or eroded by the Danube, or in the adjacent area. The importance and significance of this tell site and its longevity have been addressed in several recent major 149

Kristina Penezić to provide data for the maximal extent of the site or the areas adjacent to the settlement.

the remaining settlement layers, as drilling positions located between this cluster and the more southern limits of the settlement did not show any archaeological remains or features (either in situ or indicating the presence of archaeological material and remains). This separate occupational cluster was limited to an area of 80 m by at least 20 m explored by augering. The modern topography of the micro-area has been heavily influenced by modern agricultural activities, since this is where the present-day orchard is located, and the area has been formed into terracetype slopes, in 1-metre high terraces. It is impossible to determine the date or duration of this part of the Neolithic settlement without additional analysis such as absolute dating, nor the function or nature of this cluster (permanent settlement, occasional occupation, economic area etc).

Vinča-Belo brdo settlement size Previous assumptions concerning the size of the VinčaBelo brdo site estimated that the settlement covered 3.5 ha (Vassits 1910) or 6 ha (Chapman 1981, 45). This study has demonstrated that the currently intact portion of the settlement is approximately 11 ha in extent. However, it should be noted that these are only the preliminary results, with the highest probability of in situ archaeological remains. This size for the site excludes the previously excavated portion of the settlement (in the period from 1908 to 1934), an area consisting of 0.7 ha. It should be noted that due to its proximity to the Danube, parts of the site were eroded even in between archaeological excavations. The area of approximately 0.7 ha represents a partially excavated and partially eroded portion of the site. Since 1986 and the building of the embankment at the site, the Danube has no longer been endangering the archaeological site with its high waters.

But the existence of prehistoric buildings in this area and their simultaneous existence with the ‘main’ settlement is certainly confirmed. The relative proximity of this cluster, at only ca. 80 m from the ‘core’ settlement, could be an indication of the function of these buildings, but would not allow us to describe this as a separate satellite (part of) the Vinča-Belo brdo settlement. This additional occupational cluster present on the Zukino brdo represents an area of min. ca. 0.3 ha. In total, ca. 12 ha of the site has been known since the discovery and the first excavations of the site in the early 20th century.

Drilling conducted on the northern side of the settlement, located uphill in the ‘Zukino brdo’ area (marked in red on Figure 11.1) showed the presence of surface material (mostly prehistoric, undateable Vinča-culture pottery). The area covered with surface material did show intact in situ burnt features in the extracted cores. Burnt in situ features were also confirmed in a geomagnetic survey (Naumov 2014). The occupational cluster was not connected with

The occurrence of such a cluster strengthens the hypothesis of the presence of further, still undetected occupational clusters in the immediate vicinity of the settlement.

Figure 11.1. Positions of drilling cores. Black dots indicate the presence of archaeological remains; pale yellow dots mark the absence of archaeological remains. The red area marks a cluster of archaeological remains separated from the rest of the remains, located uphill, at the Zukino brdo location; the black line represents a cross section trough the site (Penezić, in prep.).

150

Vinča-Belo Brdo Settlement Size The thickness of identified archaeological remains is greater in the presumed central part of the site, where the current ‘peak of the tell’ is even higher than recorded in the cores. According to new excavations (2004–14), this area yields material of all phases of the Vinča culture (Tasić et al. 2016). Having fresh insight into Vinča culture horizons (via new excavations and dating) we can now confirm that the features of Vinča-Belo brdo are indicative of a telltype settlement. Previous methods of determining the settlement size and volume (horizontal and vertical) were not as precise and conclusive as the coring programme (e.g. Tasić and Marić 2010). They were located over a much smaller portion of the site and were based on the electric resistivity interpolation technique. On the other hand, the coring programme was performed over a much larger area, with results which physically confirm the presence of archaeological features. Drilling cores have shown the distribution and thickness of the archaeological remains. Results show that the presumed central area, represented by the thickest layers of archaeological remains, would have been located in the present-day riverbed of the Danube.

However, even if we discount the possibility of the existence of such occupational clusters surrounding the settlement, the area of primary catchment is certainly much broader than the area characterised by the presence of in situ archaeological remains. Access roads, communication lines, communal spaces, access to water, crop fields, grazing and pasturing zones, and possibly areas for cattle herding all represent inseparable parts of the community living at this location in Neolithic times. Unfortunately, the modern-day village, and most significantly the Danube erosion, prevent determinations of the maximum extent of the prehistoric settlement and the larger area of prehistoric activity Another part of the site was also important for our research. The reconstruction of the landscape and the walking surface before the formation of the first settlement at this position, as well as addressing the question of the location and size of the cultivated area, was important for our investigation. Cores taken through the southern parts of the archaeological layers resulted in the creation of a profile, which indicated that the thickness of archaeological debris increases towards the Danube, with over 5 m of deposits (Figure 11.2). The presence of the palaeosoil and the depth at which it was located provided insight into the landscape before permanent human activities began to take place. It was showed that a mild slope towards the Danube could be detected, with a decrease of 1 m every 100 m.

A similar conclusion had been reached after initial excavations in Vinča, 100 years ago, but on an even smaller portion of the cultural deposit at Belo brdo that was excavated on the bank of the River Danube (Vassits 1910).

Figure 11.2. Cross section through the settlement (indicated with a black line in Figure 11.1) (Penezić, in prep.)

151

Kristina Penezić size, as only trenches of limited size were excavated and fully dated using precise absolute dating. Thus, the spatial details of the site in relation to the chronology can be discussed in more detail only in the already excavated portions. Not without good reason, previous researchers have picked those parts of the site with the thickest and densest concentration of archaeological material. Without any additional information from other parts of the settlement, the settlement size during the different phases of occupation could not be estimated, nor could it be determined whether the entire area of the site was used over the entire span of the site’s occupation. Unfortunately, without further systematic exploration and excavation, it is difficult to create a valid relative chronology and size estimate for the settlement over the course of different occupational stages.

Further supporting the presumption that the central part of the settlement is (and was) in the area close to the modernday position of the Danube is the layout of buildings excavated in the 1978–86 and 1998–2009 periods (Figure 11.3). Between 1978 and 1986 several burnt houses were excavated. During the renewed excavations in the same area (1998–2009), some of the foundations of the previously excavated houses were detected and labelled according to the contemporary field methodology. Hence, some of the (stratigraphic parts of) buildings have different numerations. For example, House 2 was excavated in the 1980s, but its foundation trenches were later excavated as House 02/05. The foundational trenches of House 6 were excavated later as House 01/09, the trenches of House 5 as House 01/02. Densely packed buildings, with fewer than 2 m of distance between them, organised in rows, indicate that there were no elaborate, multi-building households, gardens surrounding houses etc.

When it comes to the vertical stratigraphy of the site, it is important to note that the first occupation at this location is a Starčevo-period settlement, with several dwellings dug into the previously excavated ‘virgin soil.’

There is still no conclusive data which would explain the relation between the building chronology and settlement

Figure 11.3. Layout of the latest Neolithic phase at Vinča-Belo brdo, excavated 1978–86 and 1998–2009. Light grey lines mark communications lines; dark grey indicates the presumed building area (after Vinča Project documentation, Tasić 2008: Fig. 5; Tasić et al. 2015a: Fig. 5)

152

Vinča-Belo Brdo Settlement Size These structures were excavated between 1908 and 1934, when as many as to 16 dwellings were distinguished (Stalio 1984). However, some of the dwellings have not been fully excavated, due to the limitations of M. M. Vasić’s excavation trenches. This is by no means a small number of stratigraphic features. Absolute dates for these structures show that there is a gap in the continuity of the settlement of 120–200 years between the Early Neolithic Starčevo settlement, and the Middle to Late Neolithic Vinča settlement (a gap of 45–220 years with 95 per cent probability; more specifically of 120–200 years, with 68 per cent probability; Tasić et al. 2016).

discussed in several overview publications. Chapman (1981) has presented an overview of the size of many settlements from the Vinča period. Since there are no clear references, these estimations have been taken as arbitrary. Vinča-Belo brdo, by his estimation (or based on information from an uncited source) consisted of an area of 6 ha, a size later showed to be an underestimation. A selection of settlement sizes from the same Vinča cultural complex is listed in Table 11.1. It should also be noted that recent research at several Late Neolithic tell type sites in the region (modern-day Hungary and Romania) showed the presence of tells surrounded by ‘flat’ settlements. This was observed at the Late Neolithic site Polgár-Csőszhalom (Hungary), with a settlement size of 28 ha, where the tell developed in the western section (Raczky and Anders 2006). A similar phenomenon may be observed at Szeghalom-Kovacshalom (Hungary), where a small tell plus a large surrounding area (over 10 ha) was intensively occupied (Parkinson and Gyucha 2012). At the Late Neolithic and Copper Age settlement site of Măgura Gorana (Pietrele, Romania), only the 9 m tell was considered to represent the site, until recent research indicated that it was part of a distinctly larger open settlement. The newly discovered parts belong to the Late Neolithic and Copper Age (Hansen and Toderaş 2012).

Although we performed numerous drillings and have noted the presence and absence of palaeosoil precisely, we have not been in a position to determine the size of this Early Neolithic Starčevo-culture settlement. The determination of possible pits and dwellings that removed the palaeosol was possible in another study done in Western Serbia (Tripković and Penezić 2017). This does not imply that the Early Neolithic Starčevo dwellings are only present in the already excavated area (or the area eroded by the Danube), but if so, the question as to the size of this Early Neolithic settlement remains. It should be noted, however, that only two of the several excavated Starčevo features at the base of the Vinča tell were dated. Therefore, it is certainly possible that the Starčevo-culture occupation started earlier or continued at the site in later periods for which the dates were not obtained (Tasić et al. 2015b).

With this in mind, in the context of Vinča-Belo brdo, and the newly confirmed occupational cluster at Zukino brdo, there are many reasons to pursue further research on the immediate surroundings of the settlement. Augering at the site provided valuable information relating to

As far as other settlements of the Vinča culture are concerned, their size varies across the board, an issue

Table 11.1. Overview of Vinča settlement sizes. Name of the site

Crkvine, Stubline

Size (ha) after review publications Ristić-Opačić 2005

Chapman 1981 Link 2006

Arsić 2011

60

6

10

Čučuge Divostin

Size (ha) after site-specific publications

60

0.6 15

16.5 (Crnobrnja et al. 2009)

2

30 (50)

*

15

Kremenite Njive, Potporanj Several tenths ha 100 Opovo

200x 250 m

Pločnik Predionica

20 700x200m

100 (Šljivar and Kuzmanović-Cvetković 1998)

1.4

**

Pavlovac, Kovačke Njive

7 (Vuković et al. 2016)

Selevac, Staro Selo

53

Slatina, Drenovac, Paraćin

10

Vinča - Belo brdo Zbegovište, Selište, Oreškovica

80

>80

53 (Tringham and Krstić 1990)*** >50 (Perić et al. 2013) >35 (Perić et al. 2016)

(>)6*

12, this study

250x150m

3.15 (Borić et al. 2018)

*Different sizes quoted in the publication. **Possibly a mistake in typing, since other sources cite a surface of 14 ha. ***This confusion is justified, since the primary source is unclear: “The prehistoric village of Selevac - Staro Selo covers a roughly rectangular area of 533,600 m2 (53 ha) whose maximum dimensions on a side are 780 x 1080 m...” (Tringham and Krstić 1990: 3).

153

Kristina Penezić the presence of in situ archaeological remains. Dense building activities in the presumed central, excavated part of Vinča suggest that the ‘free space’ between adjacent buildings was sparse, and that the communication lines where very structured. This also brings into question the presence of large animals within the settlement (at least in the final phases, attested by the excavated horizons of the settlement). If an open type settlement surrounding the tell was featured here, it is to be presumed that the building activities were not as intensive, and that the settlement layout and buildings were not as densely positioned as is the case in the presumed centre of the settlement, on the tell. This interpretation allows for the possibility that the cores ‘missed’ archaeological material, resulting in areas being falsely interpreted as ‘free’ of in situ settlement debris. Even if this is the case, the cores do still indicate the maximum extent of the tell part of the settlement. Presuming that only the tell part existed, without an open settlement surrounding it, it would be reasonable to assume the presence of traces of anthropogenic activities in the area surrounding the tell. The density of buildings and presumed absence of large animals within the settlement indicate the existence of specialised areas outside of the tell that were likely utilised for cattle breeding purposes.

size during different phases of the occupation, we could not estimate the population that inhabited the Vinča site at one point in time. What we are left with as a tool are attempts to extrapolate the known high-resolution data that corresponds only to the final phases of the settlement to the possible estimated settlement size. These questions, for now, remain open. Acknowledgements This work was undertaken as part of a KP thesis supported by the DAAD and as part of project no. 177012 funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia. The author wishes to thank Professor Nenad Tasić for his support and all the hard-working students for their immense help in the field. References cited Arsić, Radivoje. 2011. ‘Naselja vinčanske kulture u slivu reke Kolubare.’ Kolubara 5: 27–38. Borić, Dušan, Bryan Hanks, Duško Šljivar, Miroslav Kočić, Jelena Bulatović, Seren Griffiths, Roger Doonan, Dragan Jacanović. 2018. ‘Enclosing the Neolithic World: A Vinča Culture Enclosed and Fortified Settlement in the Balkans.’ Current Anthropology 59: 336-46.

In place of a conclusion

Chapman, John. 1981. The Vinča culture of south east Europe. Studies in chronology, economy and society, 2 vols. British Archaeological Reports International Series 117. Oxford: BAR Publishing House.

New research conducted at the site of Vinča-Belo brdo is providing us with a better understanding of the site as a whole and providing us with new insight about its inhabitants. This new knowledge is not what will tell us more than we already knew about population size at Belo brdo. Calculations of the number of inhabitants show that the number of people living at Vinča-Belo brdo was over 1000 (Porčić 2018). According to previous research on other Neolithic sites such as Divostin, Pločnik and Belovode as well as Vinča-Belo brdo, these settlements would have had over 1000 people, but it is unlikely that any settlement population size exceeded 2000 people (Porčić 2011; 2012; Porčić and Nikolić forthcoming). The main parameters for these calculations are the size of the settlement, the average household size and the use-life of a house. Recent research has provided high-resolution data for these categories for Vinča. The use-life of houses at the site of Vinča-Belo brdo was radiocarbon dated for all the available site phases. These vary between 1–10 years or 1–15 years for shorter periods, 1–25 years, 5–30 years, 1–30 years, 10–35 years for medium and 25–70 years and 20–80 years for longer periods. These values are calculated with an HPD interval of 68 per cent probability (Tasić et al. 2016), where some horizons have the same house use-life timespan. Even with data as refined and precise as this, the total size of the Neolithic settlement in Vinča remains unknown. Current estimations of at least 12 ha refer to the part of the site that is still intact. The Danube erosion damaged the site, so we are now using estimations of the total surface that was covered by the settlement. Without more precise information about settlement size during its lifespan, as well as settlement

Crnobrnja, Adam, Zoran Simić, and Marko Janković. 2009. ‘Late Vinča culture settlement at Crkvine in Stubline (household organization and urbanization in the Late Vinča culture period).’ Starinar LIX: 9–25. Hansen, Svend and Meda Toderaş. 2012. ‘The Copper Age Settlement Pietrele on the Lower Danube River (Romania).’ In Tells: Social and Environmental Space, edited by Robert Hofmann, Fevzi-Kemal Moetz and Johannes Müller, 127–38. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie, Band 207. Bonn: Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH Link, Thomas. 2006. Das Ende der neolithischen Tellsiedlungen: ein kulturgeschichtliches Phänomen des 5. Jahrtausends v. Chr. im Karpatenbecken, Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie, Volume 134. Bonn: Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH Naumov, Dejan. 2014. Geofizička istraživanja na lokalitetu Belo brdo – Vinča. Unpublished MA diss., University of Belgrade. Nikolić, Dubravka, (ed.). 2008. Vinča – praistorijska metropola, Istraživanja 1908–2008. Exhibition catalogue. Beograd: Filozofski fakultet u Beogradu, Narodni muzej u Beogradu, Muzej grada Beograda, Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti, Katalog Galerije SANU 114. 154

Vinča-Belo Brdo Settlement Size Srejović, Dragoslav, (ed.) 1984. Vinča u praistoriji i srednjem veku, Katalog Galerije SANU 50.

Parkinson, William A., and Atilla Gyucha. 2012. ‘Tells in Perspective: Long-Term Patterns of Settlement Nucleation and Dispersal in Central and Southeast Europe.’ In Tells: Social and Environmental Space, edited by Robert Hofmann, Fevzi-Kemal Moetz and Johannes Müller, 105–16. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie, Band 207. Bonn: Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH

Tasić, Nenad N. 2008. ‘Vinča – metropola kasnog neolita.’ In Vinča – Praistorijska metropola, Istraživanja 1908– 2008, edited by Dubravka Nikolić, 15–37. Exhibition catalogue. Beograd: Filozofski fakultet u Beogradu, Narodni muzej u Beogradu, Muzej grada Beograda, Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti, Katalog Galerije SANU 114.

Penezić, Kristina. in preparation. Towards the reconstruction of the paleoenvironment of the Neolithic tell site Vinča - Belo brdo, Serbia. PhD diss, University of Heidelberg.

Tasić, Nenad N. and Miroslav Marić. 2010. ‘Primena rasterske interpolacije u interpretaciji rezultata merenja specificne električne otpornosti na arheološkom lokalitetu Vinča Belo Brdo.’ Glasnik Srpskog Arheološkog Društva 26: 129–43.

Perić, Slaviša, Đurđa Obradović, and Olga Perić. 2013. ‘Reviziona arheološka istraživanja na neolitskom lokalitetu Slatina – Turska česma u Drenovcu kod Paraćina.’ Etno-kulturološki zbornik XVII: 83–86.

Tasić, Nenad, Miroslav Marić, Kristina Penezić, Dragana Filipović, Ksenija Borojević, Nicola Russell, Paula Reimer, Alistair Barclay, Alex Bayliss, Dušan Borić, Bisserka Gaydarska, Alasdair Whittle. 2015a. ‘The end of the affair: formal chronological modelling for the top of the Neolithic tell of Vinča-Belo Brdo.’ Antiquity 89: 1064–82.

Perić, Slavša, Christoph Rummel, Georg Schafferer, Daniel Winger, Holger Wendling. 2016. ‘Geomagnetic survey of Neolithic settlements in the middle Morava Valley – preliminary results.’ In The Neolithic in the Middle Morava Valley 2: new insights into settlements and economy, edited by Slaviša Perić, 9–26. Beograd: Arheološki Institut and Regionalni Muzej Paraćin.

Tasić, Nenad, Miroslav Marić, Bronk C. Ramsey, Bernd Kromer, Alistair Barclay, Alex Bayliss, Nancy Beavan, Bisserka Gaydarska, Alasdair Whittle. 2015b. ‘VinčaBelo Brdo, Serbia: The times of a tell.’ Germania 93: 1–75.

Porčić, Marko. 2011. ‘An exercise in archaeological demography: estimating the population size of Late Neolithic settlements in the Central Balkans.’ Documenta Praehistorica 38: 323–32.

Tasić, Nenad, Miroslav Marić, Dragana Filipović, Kristina Penezić, Elaine Dunbar, Paula Reimer, Alistair Barclay, Alex Bayliss, Bisserka Gaydarska, Alasdair Whittle. 2016. ‘Interwoven Strands for refining the Chronology of the Neolithic tell of Vinča-Belo Brdo, Serbia.’ Radiocarbon 58(4): 795–831.

Porčić, Marko. 2012. ‘Social complexity and inequality in the Late Neolithic of the Central Balkans: reviewing the evidence.’ Documenta Praehistorica 39: 167–83. Porčić, Marko. 2019. ‘Evaluating social complexity and inequality in the Balkans between 6500 and 4200 BC.’ Journal of Archaeological Research 27: 335–390.

Tripković, Boban and Kristina Penezić. 2017. ‘On-site and off-site in western Serbia: A geoarchaeological perspective of Obrovac-type settlements.’ Quaternary International 429: 35–44.

Porčić, Marko and Mladen Nikolić. (forthcoming). ‘Population size and dynamics at Belovode and Pločnik.’ In The Rise of Metallurgy in Eurasia: The Archaeology of Early Metallurgy and Society in the Central Balkans, edited by Miljana Radivojević, Benjamin W. Roberts, Julka Kuzmanović-Cvetković, Miroslav Marić, Duško Šljivar, Thilo Rehren.

Vassits, Miloje M. 1910. ‘Die Hauptergebnisse der prähistorischen Ausgrabung in Vinča im Jahre 1908’, Prähistorische Zeitschrift II/1: 23–39. Vasić, Miloje M. 1932., Preistoriska Vinča 1. Beograd: Državna štamparija Kraljevine Jugoslavije.

Racky, Pál and Alexandra Anders. 2006. ‘Social Dimensions of the Late Neolithic Settlement of PolgárCsőszhalom (Eastern Hungary).’ Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 57: 17–33.

Vasić, Miloje M. 1936a. Preistoriska Vinča 2. Beograd: Državna štamparija Kraljevine Jugoslavije. Vasić, Miloje M. 1936b. Preistoriska Vinča 3. Beograd: Državna štamparija Kraljevine Jugoslavije.

Ristić-Opačić, Jelena. 2005. ‘Topografsko-hronološke karakteristike naselja vinčanske kulture na teritoriji Srbije.’ Glasnik Srpskog Arheološkog Društva 21: 71– 112.

Vasić, Miloje M. 1936c., Preistoriska Vinča 4. Beograd: Državna štamparija Kraljevine Jugoslavije.

Stalio, Blaženka. 1984. ‘Naselje i stan.’ In Vinča u praistoriji i srednjem veku’, edited by Dragoslav Srejović, 34–41. Katalog Galerije SANU 50.

Vuković, Jasna, Selena Vitezović, and Dragan Milanović. 2016. ‘Pavlovac – Kovačke Njive – neolitski horizont.’ In Arheološka istraživanja na autoputu E75 (2011–2014), edited by Slaviša Perić and Aleksandar Bulatović, 167–204. Beograd: Arheološki Institut.

Šljivar, Duško and Julka Kuzmanović-Cvetković. 1998. ‘Najstarija metalurgija bakra na Pločniku kod Prokuplja, naselju vinčanske kulture.’ Arheometalurgija 6: 1-18. 155

12 Use of Space in a Late Neolithic/Early Eneolithic Building at the Site of Vinča-Belo Brdo in the Central Balkans Ksenija Borojević* (corresponding author) Fiske Center for Archaeological Research, University of Massachusetts, Boston, USA Dragana Antonović Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade, Serbia Jasna Vuković Department of Archaeology, University of Belgrade, Serbia Vesna Dimitrijević Department of Archaeology, University of Belgrade, Serbia Dragana Filipović Institute for Pre- and Protohistory, Kiel University, Germany Miroslav Marić Institute for Balkan Studies, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Serbia Kristina Penezić BioSense Institute, University of Novi Sad, Serbia Boban Tripković Department of Archaeology, University of Belgrade, Serbia Vera Bogosavljević Petrović Department of Archaeology, National Museum in Belgrade, Serbia Nenad Tasić Department of Archaeology, University of Belgrade, Serbia Abstract: The Late Neolithic/Early Eneolithic Building 01/06 at the site of Vinča-Belo Brdo on the Danube burned suddenly. The daub sealed the interior of the three-room structure and preserved its contents as they stood in the 46th century BC. The building was preserved so well that the details of its interior can be reconstructed. On the floor, under thick layers of destruction, ovens, querns, and deposits of artefacts and ecofacts were discovered, capturing a moment in time. The systematic retrieval of remarkably well-preserved plant macro-remains and other materials, and subsequent analyses, offer new information about practices such as food processing and storage and the use of space towards the end of the occupation of the site. In this article, we present a detailed examination of the interior architecture, and of finds of ceramics, stone, plant and animal remains within each of the three rooms of Building 01/06. Our detailed contextual analysis of the building’s internal configuration and of its contents, coupled with the precise dating of organic material, provides new data for the interpretation of a Vinča-style building and its use. Keywords: Late Neolithic, Early Eneolithic, Vinča-Belo brdo settlement, Northern Balkans, burnt buildings, contextual analysis 157

Borojević, Antonović, Vuković, Dimitrijević, Filipović, Marić, Penezić, Tripković, Petrović & Tasić Introduction

paid to the exceptionally well-preserved botanical material and its association with querns and ceramic vessels. The precise recording of the location of each artefact and of plant and faunal remains within the structure provided us with a rare opportunity to explore the use of domestic space and the activities performed. Initially, Building 01/06 was considered an ordinary residential structure; the examination of its preserved inventory, however, points to a different purpose for this space, namely, its use for a set of specialised (daily) activities.

The tell-site of Vinča-Belo brdo, located on the right bank of the Danube River in the modern-day Belgrade suburb of Vinča (Figure 12.1), contains material evidence of occupation over prehistoric and historic periods spanning more than 7000 years, from the Neolithic until the present day. The large, nucleated Neolithic settlement is the type site for the Vinča culture (5300–4400 BC), a distinct phenomenon known for the development of the first substantial settlements in the central Balkans (Chapman 1981; Bailey 2000). The history of the longterm investigations of the Vinča site (1908–1934, 1978– 1986, 1998–2015) provides insight into the progress of archaeology in the central Balkans, reflecting changes in the research goals and applied methodologies (Vasić 1906; 1930; 1932; 1936; Stalio 1984; Jovanović 1984; Tasić 2005; 2011). Although much general information about the Vinča culture is well known, the genesis and the demise of the culture have remained disputed (e.g. Garašanin 1984; Benac 1990; Özdoğan 1993; 1997; Borić 2015; Tasić et al. 2015; 2016). One of the main goals of the renewed excavations of the site, carried out between 1998 and 2015, was to shed more light on the circumstances in which the occupation of the Neolithic settlement terminated. The investigations included systematic retrieval and precise contextual recording of the artefacts and floral and faunal remains discovered within structures, in order to document the exact context of the finds within the late Neolithic houses. During earlier excavations and in the previous publications of the structures, termed houses, artefacts were often presented without their precise find location being stated, and were described according to the type of material from which they were made (e.g. pottery, stone). Plant and animal remains in most cases were not discussed, because they were not systematically retrieved or were not recovered at all. During the most recent investigations, new methodologies were applied, including flotation and screening for the recovery of plant and animal remains. All the measurements in the field were taken using an EDM total station, allowing for the precise recording of the finds in situ (see Figure 12.4 with EDM points of finds presented in squares).

We here synthesise the results of the analyses of architecture, ceramics, stone, plant and animal remains found in each of the three rooms of Building 01/06 and use them to identify specific actions and practices that took place within the structure. We compare our results with the findings from other contemporaneous buildings of the Vinča culture and discuss various interpretations of the use of similar buildings. Our study provides significant new information, crucial for better understanding of household activities in the final stages of the Neolithic in the central Balkans. Late Neolithic buildings at Vinča-Belo brdo Vinča-style buildings, known from the hundreds of Vinčaculture settlements so far discovered, were built in the wattle-and-daub technique, and many were burnt in the past, preserving large quantities of daub. Superimposed layers of collapsed buildings at the Belo brdo site, for example, constitute the major portion of the over 9 m-high mound of cultural remains. These buildings were traditionally designated as houses, implying their habitation function. They often consist of one to several rooms and contain one or more kilns, as well as built-in features such as bins/basins and benches (Vasić 1932; Bogdanović 1988; Petrović 1992; Marić 2010; Crnobrnja 2012; Tripković 2013; Spasić and Živanović 2015). The long-term excavations at Vinča uncovered a number of built structures/houses and building horizons (Figure 12.2). A number of houses were burnt in large conflagrations in the past (e.g. all of the buildings registered in the 1978–1986 excavations were burnt – Ćelić 1984; Tasić et al. 2015, Figure 4) or damaged by later building activity. Nevertheless, they offer abundant information on the layout of the settlement, spacing of the houses, and spatial relationship of features (and artefacts). Based on the dimensions of the reconstructed houses, they can be classified into at least two groups: small houses – covering an area of up to 30 m2, (including very small ones of only 10–13 m2 in size), and larger houses – covering an area of ca. 60–70 m2. Some of the houses had foundation trenches, with closely spaced postholes, while other houses were built with more space between the posts and by placing massive posts at the corners.

In this article, we present integrated results of the multidisciplinary investigations of an individual building at Vinča (labelled House 01/06 in previous reports) which was discovered and excavated during the renewed excavations. Building 01/06 burned suddenly, and the daub sealed the interior of the building and its contents. A series of radiocarbon (AMS) dates provided direct evidence for its final destruction in a fire that occurred 4560–4510 calBC (Tasić et al. 2015). After the fire, the building was abandoned and partially levelled without major subsequent interventions, except for the destruction of its southeast part. On the floor, under a thick layer of destruction, ovens, querns and groups of artefacts and ecofacts were discovered, capturing a moment in time. This late Neolithic structure preserved elements of the interior, allowing their reconstruction. In this process, particular attention was

Within the course of the new investigations (1998–2015), remains of buildings discovered during the 1978–1986 seasons were re-excavated, mostly their foundation 158

Use of Space in a Late Neolithic/Early Eneolithic Building at the Site of Vinča-Belo Brdo in the Central Balkans trenches and the few kilns that were left unexcavated after 1986 (Figure 12.2). Further, seven additional buildings were uncovered. Some of the newly excavated structures, including Building 01/06, were burnt in the past, some were not (e.g., ‘House 01/02’). The structures were of varied size; some were unusually small – for instance, Building 03/03 occupied less than 10 m2. The buildings overlap in orientation (northeast–southwest) and are arranged in rows that define communication routes in the settlement (Tasić et al. 2015, Figure 5). Some of the houses were divided into spaces/rooms (e.g. Building 01/06), while smaller structures were comprised of a single room (e.g. Building 03/03). There are no clear traces of doors or windows in the excavated building remains at the site, and these do not represent commonly preserved parts of the structures at Vinča-culture sites.

The layer is likely associated with an earlier structure or open area directly underlying these buildings, or perhaps represents the debris from a previously burnt structure, accumulated here to serve as support for the floors of the new building(s). The building activity in this location may have involved considerable engineering work.

Data from the extensive geophysical surveying performed in 2015 indicate that the settlement extends over ca. 10 ha (Tasić 2017), with geoarchaeological coring confirming the presence of archaeological materials in an area of over 12 ha (see chapter 11 this volume). However, because part of the site was eroded by the Danube some time before the first excavations, the full extent of the settlement remains unclear.

The burnt daub from Building 01/06 bears impressions of large wooden posts, as well as of smaller branches and reeds used in the construction. The walls were plastered from the inside and outside with clay tempered with large quantities of chaff of glume wheats. Preservation of the walls varies in different parts of the building. The average width of the preserved walls is 10–15 cm; the parts in the corners are more substantial and the diameter of the postholes is ca. 15 cm. The absence of the central posts perhaps excludes the possibility that the building had an upper storey. The dividing walls between the rooms may have been thinner than the outside walls. It is unclear where the openings, e.g. doors, windows, or chimneys of the building once stood. The entrance may have been located in the wall of the largest, central room opposite the domed oven. It also remains unknown how the north room (Room 1) was connected with the central room (Figure 12.3).

Building 01/06

Contents of Room 1 (north room)

The building was discovered in 2006 and was excavated during the subsequent three seasons (Figure 12.3). After removing the bulk of the destruction layer, in some parts over ca. 50  cm thick, the floor was reached at about 83 m asl. No traces of roof were detected. Although it was initially described as a habitation area (a house), our comprehensive analyses of the contents of this building allow for a different interpretation and point to a more specialised function.

The north room is the narrowest of the three rooms (Figure 12.4). Its interior area is 6.23 m2 (Table 12.1). Parts of the outer west wall were destroyed by later constructions, whereas the floor is entirely preserved. A thin layer of ash covered parts of the collapsed daub immediately above the floor, perhaps resulting from the burning of vegetal building material (reeds, straw). The thickness of the ashy layer varies between 2–3 cm in the east and ca. 10 cm in the west part of the room. The analysis of a thin section of loose soil from the central-west part of the room, which included the ashy layer, revealed the presence of red burnt fragments of clay/daub and aggregates of different types of phytoliths of mostly grasses and silica of woody species. Associated with these remains were mineralised parts of chaff of glume wheat and several mineralised grains of emmer. The clay appeared phosphatic, probably due to the decay of deposits rich in organic matter.

Similar to other Vinča houses, Building 01/06 is rectangular in shape and built in wattle-and-daub technique. Its outer dimensions were 8.30 x 5.10 m (Figure 12.3 and 12.4); the interior space occupied 34.5 m2. The building was divided into three separate spaces (Table 12.1). Micromorphological study of block samples taken from one of the rooms of Building 01/06 (Room 1) and from the deposit between this and the adjacent Building 03/03 suggested the existence of a heavily burnt layer underneath these two structures, containing burnt artefacts (Sherwood and Borojević 2014). It is possible that the two structures were erected simultaneously, as is also indicated by the AMS dating of the associated material (Tasić et al. 2016).

In the east corner, in the destruction layer above the floor, an accumulation of parts of the dislocated floors of two ovens was encountered. At the very top of it, two large fragments of domed ovens were deposited (Figure 12.4 [1]). Within this deposit (Figure 12.4 [2]), twenty-six perforated clay weights and one imperforated clay ball were found, mixed together with daub (Plate 12.1, 1). The weights are round and oval in shape, ca. 5.7 cm in diameter, and weighing 156–278 g. All weights were perforated, and the holes show traces of use wear from being threaded. Three additional perforated weights, probably part of the same set as the twenty-six, were discovered in the central part of the room. Based on their find positions, the perforated weights most probably represented elements of a vertical loom

Table 12.1. Building 01/06: dimensions and interior area of the rooms. Dimensions (m) Interior surface (sq. m) Room 1 (north)

4.81 x 1.54

6.23

Room 2 (central)

2.50 x 4.50

11

Room 3 (south)

3.30 x 4.45

16

159

Borojević, Antonović, Vuković, Dimitrijević, Filipović, Marić, Penezić, Tripković, Petrović & Tasić frame (50–60 cm wide) that was leaning against the outer wall of the room. The clay ball was part of the weaving assemblage and likely used as a reference measuring tool for determining the number of threads (Ninčić 2016). Near the cluster of clay weights, a fragment of the base of a pot was encountered, showing the impression of fabric/a mat on the outer surface. The pattern indicates that twill plaiting was the weaving method employed. The material used for the mat was plant stems cut lengthwise and twisted (Plate 12.1, 2). Possibly in association with this assemblage, two miniature clay vessels were found on the floor in this part of Room 1.

Mixed in with the daub debris, a concentration of pottery fragments from different large pots and two clay cones was discovered in the west part of the room. The fragments of the body of pots derive from different vessels which could not be reconstructed. Additionally, an entirely preserved shallow pot with spout was found here, as well as an almost complete biconical bowl. The two small clay cones, found in two different deposits within the same room (Figure 12.4 [7, 8]), had their surfaces covered with horizontal cord impressions (Plate 12.1, 7). In terms of types and shapes, the whole ceramic assemblage is quite heterogeneous. It is possible that the assemblage was deposited after the building had collapsed. The fact that it is heavily burnt indicates that it belongs to the inventory of the room (perhaps as ‘provisional discard’, i.e. material stored for further re-use). Close to the northern wall (Figure 12.4 [11]), a small clay figurine was found, anthropomorphic in shape and partially burnt (Plate 12.1, 8).

Three ground stone objects were found in the portion of the destruction layer between the north and the central room (Figure 12.4 [2–4]). They included a complete pounder and a fragment of a large static grindstone, both damaged by exposure to fire; they could have been parts of the same tool (cf. Antonović 2008). A large fragment of a quern found nearby (Figure 12.4 [3]) did not show evidence of exposure to high temperatures (Plate 12.1, 4).

Twelve flotation samples (97 litres of soil) taken from Room 1 were analysed. They yielded few charred whole (12) and fragmented grains of emmer (Triticum dicoccum), two seeds of flax/linseed (Linum usitatissimum), and several wild/weedy seeds. The remains likely derive from the central room (Room 2) from which they were displaced in the fire.

In the central and west part of the room, points made from animal bone were discovered. Two bone points were found close to the central part of the north wall (Figure 12.4 [5]). Both were calcined and deformed due to exposure to high temperatures (Plate 12.1, 3). One was made from the longitudinally split diaphysis of the metatarsus of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus). The handle was broken and there was no evidence of use on its working end. The other bone point was complete, but calcined beyond recognition of the part of the bone from which it was made. Another calcined and deformed bone point, made from the longitudinally split rib of a medium-sized mammal, was found in the adjacent unit (Figure 12.4 [6]). Its working end was completely preserved, but without traces of use, while its handle was broken.

Contents of Room 2 (central room) The central room is larger than the north room (Figure 12.4) and its interior area is 11 m2 (Table 12.1). The west wall of the room was damaged by subsequent activities in this location. Other walls and contents of the room were well preserved. In the east part of the room, 20 cm away from the east wall, a domed oven was discovered (Figure 12.4 [Oven 2]). Its southwest portion was damaged by later intrusion. The oven was oval in shape, 1.5 m long and 1.2 m wide. Although the dome of the oven caved in, the original height could be estimated to ca. 0.5 m (Plate 12.2a, 1). The oven had an opening facing west and was a typical ‘Vinča oven’ commonly encountered at Vinčaculture settlements.

In the west part of the room, bellow the daub of the collapsed north wall (Figure 12.4 [10]), a set of seven flat bone points was found together with the likely raw material from which they were made (Plate 12.1, 5). They were all calcined. One of the points is larger than the remaining six (15 cm long) and was made from the whole rib of a large mammal, whereas all the others were made from split or whole ribs of large mammal(s). Two of the smaller points have working ends modified into pointed tips (Plate 12.1, 5b, g), while in the remaining four, modification of the working end was started, but was not completed (Plate 12.1, 5 c, d, e, f). The handle is preserved only in case of the large point; in the case of two of the smaller points, it is broken. For the remaining four points it is clear that the handle was never modelled.

Three small bin-like compartments with walls made of clay lined the oven area (see Figure 12.3). A thin wall stretched between the oven and the north wall of the room. It was preserved up to a height of 30 cm. Within one of the compartments, two large pithoi were found in situ (Figure 12.4 [12, 13]). The pithoi broke under the weight of the building debris (Plate 12.2a, 2). Two large pieces of wood were found on the floor of the adjacent compartment. One of the pieces was identified as ash (Fraxinus sp.) and another as elm (Ulmus sp.). The logs were ca. 30 cm long and preserved visible curvatures indicating that they were parts of the trunks of young trees.

A perforated osseous artefact was found close to the bone points (Figure 12.4 [9]). It was badly burnt and calcined, so it was impossible to discern if it was made of a tooth or a bone. The perforation and the overall shape of the object suggest that it may have served as an ornament, e.g. a pendant (Plate 12.1, 6).

Of the two pithoi, Pithos 1 (Plate 12.2a, 3) was a large vessel (ca. 50 cm tall) with thin walls made with the coiling technique; the clay was tempered with sand. Lumps of clay were added to the pot shoulder one on top of another 160

Use of Space in a Late Neolithic/Early Eneolithic Building at the Site of Vinča-Belo Brdo in the Central Balkans and the impression of a potter’s fingers was detected. The shoulder of the pot was decorated with broad channels that formed a circle. Based on its size and the fact that the opening was wide enough for a hand or a small pot to go through, the impression is that the pithos served for the storing of solid foodstuffs rather than liquid. Due to its narrow base and wide shoulder it would not be stable in an upright position; thus, it must have been supported in some way (Vuković 2011). Perhaps the two logs of wood, found charred within one of the compartments, were used to support the pithoi, allowing them to sit upright. Pithos 2 was also large – approximately the same size as Pithos 1 (ca. 55 cm tall).

The naturally globular shape of the articular head served as the wall of the bowl, while the spongy tissue inside the unfused articular head was carved out to create the receptacle, and a perfectly circular rim was worked. There were no visible traces on the inside that would give a hint as to what the bowl might have contained. One possibility is that it served as a container for spices. Calcified fragments of a horn (Figure 12.4 [16]) with parts of cranial bone of cattle were recovered from the same deposit, including the calcified tip of cattle horn that likely belonged to the same horn. The horn probably broke when the wall between the two rooms collapsed in fire; it may have been part of a bucranium, which were often mounted on the walls of Vinča-style buildings.

The pithoi were found filled with loose sediment which was partly floated, yielding some wood charcoal and charred emmer grains, whereas a significant amount of emmer grains encountered inside the vessels was collected by hand. The pithoi served for grain storage (Filipović et al. 2018); the presence of emmer glume bases and weedy seeds in the deposit suggests that the grain was not fully processed, i.e. not ready to be turned into a meal. A large number of emmer grains that spilled from the containers were found in the surrounding rubble (Figure 12.4 [14]), mixed with charcoal pieces, a few fragments of water chestnut (Trapa natans) and several pear fruit (Pyrus sp.).

Two concentrations of charred emmer grains were recovered from the north-central part of Room 2, of which many were fragmented (Figure 12.4 [18]). Some of the grain fragments had a pronounced bulging surface at the breakage, demonstrating that the grains were broken prior to charring, perhaps by grinding (Plate 12.3a, 4, 8). The grain concentrations also contained seeds of some common arable weeds, for instance knotgrass (Polygonum sp.). An almost complete charred pear fruit was found in the same deposit (see Plate 12.3a, 9). Close to the west wall of the room, above the floor, an extraordinary assemblage of artefacts and ecofacts was discovered. An oval clay object in the form of a pedestal was found (Figure 12.4 [19]); its upper surface was flat but partially damaged (Plate 12.2a, 5). The clay pedestal was not fixed to the floor and it likely represented a base for the quern found some 20 cm to the north of the pedestal (Figure 12.4 [20]). The quern was heavily damaged by fire and largely fragmented (Plate 12.2b, 7). It was possible to reconstruct that it was relatively large and rectangular in shape, and made of peridotitic breccia – the type of stone regularly used for making querns in the final occupation phases at Vinča-Belo brdo. A broken, severely burnt blade, without visible traces of use, was found together with waste among the quern fragments (Bogosavljević Petrović 2015, 313–406).

An exceptional find of a stone platter (Figure 12.4 [15]) made from fine-grained sandstone came from the destruction layer overlying the layer with spilled emmer grain, in the zone between the oven and the north wall. The platter (Plate 12.2a, 4) was completely destroyed by fire and broken into numerous pieces. It could have been used for baking. It represents a unique find at the Vinča site and in the Vinča culture. A few emmer grains were found in the narrow walled space (third compartment) abutting the oven from the east and south (see Plate 12.2a, 1), along with several seeds of a plant of the nightshade family (Solanaceae) and of elderberry (Sambucus sp.). The seeds represent secondary deposition of the material originating from the pithoi and perhaps also the oven. The space was filled with small pieces of daub and oven floor fragments, namely rubble.

Around the quern and the pedestal, two concentrations of pottery sherds were detected (Figure 12.4 [21, 22]). In one of the pottery groups, five ceramic vessels were identified and reconstructed – two amphorae, two bowls and a jar (Figure 12.4 [21]). Each amphora had a large mouth and a pair of handles. On the inner surface of Amphora 1 (Plate 12.2b, 9), wear in the form of pitting was visible below the rim (16–20 cm). Pitting inside ceramic pots is usually a result of the fermentation of the contents. It is possible that this amphora was used for making a fermented beverage, either from cereals, which were found nearby, including cracked emmer wheat grains, or some kind of fermented dairy product (e.g. yoghurt). Amphora 2 was heavily burnt and did not show evidence of pitting. The two bowls were of biconical shape, typical for late Neolithic phases at the site of Vinča. One of them (Bowl 1) had two holes on the

In the north-central part of Room 2, the lower portion of the destruction layer comprised large daub fragments with impressions of wooden posts, some of which were 8–9 cm in diameter. On top of the chunks of daub, there was a concentration of mineralised chaff, while an ashy layer extended underneath the daub. Some of the prominent finds from the central part of the room included a miniature bowl made of bone, parts of cattle horns, and another clay cone, slightly larger than the two in Room 1, but also with the surface covered in horizontal cord impressions. The small bone bowl was perfectly manufactured from the unfused articular head of the thigh bone (caput femoris) of a large mammal (Figure 12.4 [17]; Plate 12.2a, 6). 161

Borojević, Antonović, Vuković, Dimitrijević, Filipović, Marić, Penezić, Tripković, Petrović & Tasić lower cone (Plate 12.2b, 11), made after the manufacture of the vessel, perhaps during secondary use, and potentially changing its primary function (Vuković 2014; 2015). The holes and the distance between them make the bowl more suitable for handling and it is possible that it served as a lid, a ladle or a measuring bowl. The other bowl (Bowl 2) was decorated with channels. Sherds of the same type of bowls were found in the central part of Room 2 and in Room 3 (see below).

temperatures and thus the raw material from which it was made could not be precisely determined. In the same deposit, a small quantity of emmer (composed of whole grains and bulgur-type fragments) was retrieved, along with seventy-seven mineralised seeds of elderberry (Sambucus cf. ebulus) and one mineralised seed of viper’s bugloss (Echium sp.), possibly resulting from insect activity or some other later intrusion. From the adjoining unit to the east, some more emmer grains and bulgur-type fragments were recovered, as well as several wild/weed seeds and pieces of Cornelian cherry fruit stone (Cornus mas). Only a few plant remains were detected in the deposit underlying the collapse and covering the floor, and also surrounding the pottery concentration recorded near the quern. These include a couple of emmer grains, a flax seed and about a dozen seeds of knotweed (Polygonum cf. aviculare) that likely accompanied the emmer grains.

The other pottery group, found south of the pedestal (Figure 12.4 [22]), included at least three amphorae and a bowl. Amphora 3 (Plate 12.2b, 10) was broken into many pieces during the fire that destroyed the building. It had a narrow neck and four vertical loop handles on the shoulder. The clay was tempered with crushed shell which, due to the exposure to high temperatures, caused spalling and cracking of the surface. The narrow neck suggests that the amphora was most likely used for storing liquids. Amphora 4 (Plate 12.2b, 12) had a wide opening and two pinched handles, and was almost identical to Amphora 1, but somewhat smaller and without pitting on the inside. Amphora 5 was also large and likely had a narrow neck (which is mostly missing); like Amphora 3, it may have served for storing liquids. The bowl (Bowl 3) had an inverted rim, was decorated with parallel lines extending vertically and was burnished from the inside and outside. The fabric was tempered with fine sand. On the outer surface of the base, an ‘X’ sign was incised after the bowl had been fired (Plate 12.2b, 13). This pottery form frequently occurs at Vinča-culture sites; it may have been used for serving food.

The pottery concentration (Figure 12.4 [26]) found adjacent to the quern consisted mainly of fragments (ca. 90 of them) of the body of large pots, such as amphorae and pithoi, made of coarse fabric tempered with sand. Additionally, fragments of two flat bases and a loop handle were found in the same assemblage. Given the diversity of shapes and sizes of pots represented in the concentration, it is possible that the sherds were intended to be re-used in some way. One possibility is that they were awaiting being ground into grog, which could have been later added to clay as a temper for coarse pottery and/or ovens. The remains of pottery tempered with grog have indeed been found at the Vinča site. Contents of Room 3 (south room)

North of the pedestal, a lid made of coarse clay was encountered on the floor [Figure 12.4 [23]). Directly under and around the lid, around twenty charred pear fruits (Plate 12.2b, 14) were found lying directly on the floor and some also among the adjacent cluster of pottery fragments (Figure 12.4 [24]). The dried pears may have been kept in a perishable receptacle such as a basket, or in a leather or textile bag, perhaps hanging on the wall or suspended from the ceiling. They could also have originally been placed in a pot (Filipović et al. 2018). The deposit surrounding the pedestal also yielded an abundance of other charred plant remains. On the floor, a concentration of emmer grains was found (ca. 500) mixed with the sediment. Many of the grains were of whitish-grey colour and appeared mineralised, whilst a large number of them were fragmented. Some of the fragments looked similar to bulgur, indicating that the grains were broken (perhaps in processing) before charring. In general, the plant assemblage from around the quern consisted mostly of emmer grains (whole and fragmented), with very few wild/weed seeds.

The south room was the largest of the three rooms (Figure 12.4) and measured about 16 m2 (Table 12.1). A thin wall separated Rooms 2 and 3 and its central part was not preserved, but perhaps this was where the door opening was located, which would explain the gap in the wall. The southeast part of the room was destroyed by later building activities. The greatest damage was caused by the digging of a rectangular ditch, which partly demolished the feature that had been installed in the centre of Room 3 (see Figure 12.3). The feature was oval in shape and ca. 1 x 1 m in size and of a similar appearance to the oven in Room 2. However, micro-morphological examination, including Fourier-Transform Infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) of the samples from this feature suggest that it represented a platform/raised surface built from silty clay and probably not used as a fire installation (S. Sherwood and F. Berna, pers. comm. 2018). The oven discovered in the southeast corner of Room 3 (Figure 12.4 [Oven F 73]) was similarly badly damaged by later activities and it was impossible to determine if it originally belonged to the room.

To the east of the area of the pedestal, a massive, thick, completely preserved quern was discovered sitting on the floor and covered with house rubble (Figure 12.4 [25]). The quern (Plate 12.2b, 8) suffered badly from the high

An exceptional find of a quern fitted into a clay receptacle (Plate 12.3a, 1, 2) was discovered in Room 3 (Figure 12.4 [28]). Similarly to the pedestal in Room 2, the ‘grinding installation’ was not fixed to the floor. It consisted of four 162

Use of Space in a Late Neolithic/Early Eneolithic Building at the Site of Vinča-Belo Brdo in the Central Balkans elements: a) an abrasive grinding stone (quern) made of a piece of peridotitic breccia shaped into a rectangle with rounded edges that fractured during the fire (the quern’s preserved dimensions are 13.5 x 9 cm); b) a base for the grinding stone made of clay and of similar shape to the grinding stone, but with one end tapered; c) a high rim made of clay and forming an oval basin with a spout at one end; d) an everted vertical extension of the rim in the area opposite the spout, up to 25 cm in height (Tasić et al. 2007). Similar grinding installations (i.e. with a ceramic bin-like receptacle) have been discovered at the sites of Crkvine (in House 01/2008 – Crnobrnja et al. 2009) and Divostin (in House 13 – Bogdanović 1988) in Serbia; in Poduen in Bulgaria (Todorova 1990); and in Stavroupoli and Paliambela in Greece (Kotsos 2014; Papadakou et al. 2015).

grains, bitter vetch seed and several spikelet forks. The presence of a variety of crops and other edible plants in these deposits shows that different plant foodstuffs were kept here, and were likely stored separately, but got mixed as the building collapsed (Borojević 2010, 2013). Within the layer of rubble in the northeast part of the room, in the zone between the wall south of the domed oven in Room 2 and the grinding installation in Room 3, an accumulation of ashy, silicified, ‘light’ cereal chaff (lemma and palea) and straw was found (Plate 12.3a, 10), similar to the concentration of silicified chaff found in Room 2. This is a very rare mode of preservation of the light chaff, because it is delicate and burns away quickly. Based on the presence of glume wheat grains and chaff in this room (predominantly emmer), particularly in association with the quern (see above), it appears that dehusking of wheat took place here. After dehusking, winnowing could have been employed in order to remove light chaff, followed by fine-sieving, which would have removed ‘heavy chaff’ (spikelet forks/glume bases) and small weed seeds (Hillman 1981). Thus, the two elements enclosing the grain of a glume wheat would have been separated in processing. In the conflagration, they may have been exposed to different temperatures of burning and hence been preserved via different routes (mineralisation vs. charring). Also, the open fire (i.e. high-oxygen conditions) was almost certainly not favourable for the charring/ preservation of glume bases, which are known to have less potential for survival in the same charring conditions compared to cereal grains (Boardman and Jones 1990). This may be the reason that they are less represented in the grain-rich samples. Light chaff is rich in silica content (lemma in particular) and can thus be preserved in silicified form even if exposed to high temperatures. The silicified chaff clearly visible in the fragments of burnt daub constituting the destruction layer is another example of this kind of preservation.

Adjacent to the grinding installation, a fragment of daub with adhered charred remains of emmer ear was discovered, suggesting that cereal ears were dehusked and likely ground using this tool. The sediment around the grinding installation consisted mainly of charred plant remains and dark soil, as well as soot and ashes (Figure 12.4 [29]). Three samples from the plant assemblage associated with the grinding installation (emmer grains, bitter vetch seeds and plum fruit fragments) were submitted for radiocarbon dating (Tasić et al. 2015, Table 1). Several samples from this context were floated and some were very rich in plant material (Plate 12.3a, 3–8). Two samples were largely dominated by bitter vetch (Vicia ervilia) seeds (ca. 950 and ca. 430 seeds respectively). One of them also contained a high number of whole emmer grains (285) and a significant quantity of emmer grain fragments (14.02 g); it further yielded numerous flax/linseed seeds (275), as well as a small number of possibly einkorn grains, a few barley grains (Hordeum vulgare) and a couple of lentil seeds (Lens culinaris); spikelet forks (wheat chaff) were also present (68), some potentially deriving from ‘new type’ glume wheat (Plate 12.3a, 7); three whole plum fruits, i.e. sloe berries (Prunus spinosa), and fragments of this fruit were also recovered (Plate 12.3a, 6); the sample also produced some weed seeds (e.g. Bromus sp.) and fragments of wood charcoal. The sample from below the grinding installation contained similar material – abundant bitter vetch seeds, several dozen flax/linseed seeds and spikelet forks, a few lentil seeds, fragments of sloe berries; interestingly, there were no emmer grains. The deposit immediately around the grinding installation yielded a similar set of plant remains, and in similar relative proportions. Immediately to the east of it, the deposit was rich in bitter vetch and it also contained cereal grains and flax/linseed seeds. In the sample taken from the area to the north of the grinding installation, emmer grains (whole and broken) were prevalent; flax/linseed was also present, as well as few seeds of blackberry (Rubus sp.) and elderberry, the two latter possibly representing intrusions. The section of the destruction layer to the east of the grinding installation, close to the wall, was sampled and yielded a certain quantity of flax/linseed seeds (80), a couple dozen emmer

In the vicinity of the grinding installation, a whole adze was found (Figure 12.4 [30]), considerably affected by the fire. The tool was manufactured to a high level of quality and almost completely polished; it could have been used in woodworking. A semi-finished adze made of fine-grained green schist was found lying partially under the grinding installation and may have been used as a retoucher in the production of chipped stone. In the deposit above the one covering the grinding bin, a broken blade with cortex visible on one side was discovered (Figure 12.4 [31]); its proximal end showed traces of use. The blade was made of perlit, which is a type of solid volcanic rock suitable for cutting hard materials (Bogosavljević Petrović 2015). The same deposit yielded perforated phalange of a pig (Figure 12.4 [27]). The perforation measures 6 mm in diameter and was made through the centre of the bone (Plate 12.3a, 11). The phalange was partly burnt and partly calcified; the clay that plugged the hole was also burnt, suggesting that the hole was infilled prior to the exposure of the phalange to fire. 163

Borojević, Antonović, Vuković, Dimitrijević, Filipović, Marić, Penezić, Tripković, Petrović & Tasić To the northeast of the grinding installation, a cluster of pots was encountered comprising four bowls, two amphorae and a clay lid (Figure 12.4 [32]). The bowls were biconical and had an ‘X’ sign engraved on the outer surface of the base; in this regard, they were similar to Bowl 3 found in Room 2. One of the bowls (Bowl 4, Plate 12.3b, 14) had an inverted rim and the lower part of its body was decorated with burnished ornament. The ‘X’ sign was visible on the outer surface of the base; it was created after the primary firing of the pot, just as in the case of Bowl 3 from Room 2. Bowl 4 had another symbol, engraved on the part of the body immediately above the base, but not preserved well enough to be identified. Two other bowls from this group were virtually identical (Bowl 5, Plate 12.3b, 12; and Bowl 6, Plate 12.3b, 17). They were decorated with oblique channels on the outside, and with burnished ornaments on the outside and inside. Both bowls carried the incised ‘X’ sign on the outer surface of the base. There was one more bowl of the same type as the latter two (Bowl 7, Plate 12.3b, 13], but slightly larger and without decoration. This one had two signs resembling the infinity symbol engraved after firing on either side of the lower part of the body.

complete emmer ears found under a broken ceramic pot (Plate 12.3b, 19). In addition, a few spikelet forks, a bitter vetch seed and a dozen wild/weed seeds were also found. About a metre away from this deposit, a cluster of a dozen charred pear fruits (Pyrus sp.) was encountered (Figure 12.4 [36]). The pears were very well preserved (the fruits did not ‘explode’) and their outer surface appeared ‘wrinkled’, indicating that they were dried prior to charring (Plate 12.3b, 20). Several other small concentrations of pear fruit were discovered in places along the west wall of the room, on the inside and the outside of it. Within the cluster of pottery fragments detected in the same area (Figure 12.4 [37]), a retouched blade was discovered made of light brown amorphous chert, the most commonly used type of chert during the late phase of the settlement. The blade had some visible (desecrate) gloss along the right edge; the left edge was denticulated (Plate 12.3b, 16). The tool appeared to have been hafted at the proximal end. It likely had multiple functions (e.g. miscellaneous cutting/sawing); it was broken across the middle, perhaps during its use. Another blade of the same type of chert was found in the destruction layer above this one, in the zone west of the grinding installation described above. Only the medial part of the tool was preserved; the proximal part was intentionally removed, whereas the distal part was broken during use. Cortex was left in place along the right side, likely to help in holding the tool. Along the left edge, gloss was visible in traces, which is characteristic of tools used for cutting (Bogosavljević Petrović 2016; 2018: 112).

Of the two amphorae, one was relatively small (Amphora 6) and its rim and neck were broken off. It was decorated with spiral channels on the shoulder (Plate 12.3b, 15) and was modelled in the same manner as the large amphorae in Room 2. Fragments of this amphora were burnt to varied degrees, perhaps indicating that the pot did not burn as part of this particular ceramic assemblage. The other amphora (Amphora 7) had a narrow neck onto which two vertical loop handles were attached; the base of the pot was missing. Typologically and functionally, this vessel is very similar to Amphora 3 found in Room 2. A clay lid (Plate 12.3b, 18) with a concave knob handle was found lying on top of the potsherds. The lid was similar in shape and form to the one found within the ceramic assemblage in Room 2.

Absolute dating of Building 01/06 Building 01/06 was not re-occupied after the fire in which it was destroyed. Coupled with the abundance of organic material within this structure, this made it extremely suitable for absolute dating. Nine radiocarbon dates were obtained for the botanical material recovered from Rooms 2 and 3 of Building 01/06 (Tasić et al. 2015, Table 1). This work was part of a large radiocarbon dating programme conducted for the site, which provided robust and precise date ranges for the duration of the houses through the entire Neolithic sequence at Vinča (Tasić et al. 2015, 2016).

To the south of the zone with the grinding installation there was a rectangular ditch with postholes dug through Room 3 of Building 01/06 (see Figure 12.3). The ditch represents part of a later building. The deposits from the ditch yielded plant remains that probably originated from the seed-rich area around the grinding installation and were re-deposited here during the digging of the ditch. There were a few emmer grains, cracked wheat grain resembling bulgur (see Plate 12.3a, 8), flax/linseed seeds and some wild/weed seeds (e.g. Teucrium sp. and Fumaria sp.). Wood charcoal was also present and probably derived from the later wood posts.

The AMS dates place the use of Building 01/06 in the period between 4560 and 4510 calBC, which corresponds to the late phase of the Vinča culture (Vinča D according to Garašanin, 1984). Based on the formal chronological modelling, the dated houses were short-lived. The Bayesian modelling of radiocarbon chronology points to two major burning events that occurred within a period of up to 50 years in the late Vinča phase; this helped determine the duration of houses from this phase (Tasić et al. 2015). The first fire occurred 4560–4510 calBC and destroyed Building 01/06 (together with Buildings 03/03 and 02/06). The second fire occurred in 4545–4480 calBC and destroyed ‘House 8’; this marks the end of the Vinčaculture occupation of the site. Thus, the interval between the destruction by fire of the houses attributed to two different occupation horizons would have been 25 years

In the west part of Room 3, another concentration of charred plant remains was found close to the work surface (detected in the centre of the room, see above), and close to the wall of Room 2 (Figure 12.4 [35]). From a single litre sample, almost 300 emmer grains and numerous grain fragments including two dozen bulgur-type ones were recovered. Some of the emmer grains came from the 164

Use of Space in a Late Neolithic/Early Eneolithic Building at the Site of Vinča-Belo Brdo in the Central Balkans maximum. The heavily burnt remains of a female skeleton found just outside the west wall of Building 01/06 were likely a result of the first fire (that caused the collapse of this building).

manufactured on the spot. The tools were made of mammal ribs, which are easy to split; they were sharpened at one end and expediently made into the points. They do not look suitable for long-term use and for working with hard materials. The large static grinding stone found in the room could have been used for the manufacturing and sharpening of the bone points. The points could have been used as tools in textile production and might have been associated with the perforated loom weights found here, which likely served as parts of a vertical weaving frame. The loom weights were mixed with the remains of a broken oven and house rubble, and it is difficult to establish whether they (or the whole weaving frame) were kept in this room. If they were, then weaving could have been another activity performed in this space.

The renewed excavations at the Vinča site produced more evidence of extensive house burning, but they also revealed that not all the structures of the same horizon were burnt down. We cannot ascertain whether Building 01/06 was intentionally or accidentally burnt. The houses at Vinča culture sites were built very close to one another and fire could spread easily, be it accidental or deliberate burning. Stevanović and Tringham, who studied architectural remains of the Vinča culture in much detail (especially from the Opovo site), have argued that the houses were intentionally burnt by separate conflagrations for nonutilitarian reasons at the end of the house life cycle (Stevanović 1997; 2002; Tringham and Stevanović 1990; Tringham et al. 1992). Similarly, Chapman believes that a house at the late Vinča site of Banjica in Belgrade was intentionally burnt and that a group of pottery found on the floor did not belong to/was not used by the household, but that it represents pottery collected and placed within the house as part of the act of destruction, and that this practice demonstrates communal deposition (Chapman 2000, 229; 2006, 300; see also Porčić 2012). At another Vinča site, Uivar (Romania), it could not be determined whether the houses were intentionally or accidentally burnt, including a well-preserved house with three rooms (Trench I, Feature 373) dated to ca. 4900 BC (Schier 2006; 2008). In this article, we assume that the materials found in the destruction layer and on the floor of Building 01/06 reflect daily activities of the people who used this space, and we understand these objects as their possessions.

There are other examples of Vinča culture sites and houses where (loom) weights were discovered in close proximity to ovens (Jovanović 2011; Ninčić 2011; 2016). However, in the case of Room 1 in Building 01/06 at Vinča, fragments of the oven were re-deposited here, that is, they do not represent the in situ remains of an oven and they were not fixed to the underlying surface, i.e. the floor. The remains of the oven may have been brought from elsewhere, perhaps to be used as building material, or simply to be disposed of here. It is possible that Room 1 had some kind of upper level (e.g. a gallery), where the oven was placed and then collapsed in the fire along with the rest of the building. On the other hand, the find position of the perforated weights – on top of, and interspersed among, burnt wall daub – suggests that the loom frame may have been leaning against the outer wall of the room. The absence of an oven on the (ground) floor of Room 1 means that this space was not heated and that no food storing took place here. Corroborating this impression is the very low quantity of plant remains (in contrast to the grain/seed concentrations encountered in the other rooms) and the absence of animal bones. The pottery fragments discovered in this room do come from some large pots perhaps used for food/drink storage, but these were not necessarily kept in the room; on the other hand, pottery sherds could have been re-used as building material (Vuković 2015). The completely preserved biconical bowl could have been used for measuring, but also for serving food. The shallow bowl with a spout likely had a role in handling liquid food or drinks, or other liquid materials.

The use of space in Building 01/06 Detailed analysis of the configuration of space and features in Building 01/06 and the assessment of artefacts and ecofacts found in each of the rooms provide a basis for the examination of the use of space and the activities performed in it, and for reconstructing possible functions of the rooms and of the building as a whole. Room 1

It looks as if Room 1 had a role in the production of bone points and perhaps textiles. The impression of a woven fabric/mat was observed on the bottom of a ceramic sherd found in Room 1. One should not exclude a possibility that this room was also used for the storage of foodstuffs, perhaps those that do not leave visible traces, such as dairy.

The small size of Room 1 and the lack of an apparent doorway connecting it with the central room may indicate that this room was not intended for everyday activities. It is, however, possible that this room had an opening that led outside, where some activities could have taken place, such as tool-making.

Room 2

One of the activities related to Room 1 seems to have been bone tool-making. Here, the presence of unfinished bone points found together with the likely raw material from which they were made indicates that they were

Based on the materials it contained, Room 2 was used for the storage, preparation and perhaps also the consumption/ serving of food/drink. In the large pithoi and/or in the 165

Borojević, Antonović, Vuković, Dimitrijević, Filipović, Marić, Penezić, Tripković, Petrović & Tasić bin-like compartments abutting the oven, threshed and probably semi-cleaned emmer grains were stored (given the presence, though small, of spikelet forks and weed seeds). Some coarsely ground grains were recorded in association with the quern discovered in the central part the room. From ground grains of emmer, porridge could have been made. A type of pita bread could have been baked directly in or on the oven and/or perhaps using the stone platter. Dried pears found in the west part of the room were perhaps stored in a pot with a lid (the ceramic disc found near the concentration of the fruit) or in perishable containers. Some of the bowls could have been used as containers for food preparation, and the amphorae for storing liquids and honey, or brewing beverages (Roffet-Salque et al. 2015).

Thorough analysis of blades encountered in Room 3 suggests that they could have been used for all sorts of cutting, and the one with a gloss surface certainly for cutting plant material (Bogosavljević Petrović 2016; Bogosavljević Petrović et al. 2017). They may have played a role in food preparation and/or in the cutting of plant stems used for weaving mats. The two adzes, of which one represents a semi-finished product, may have hung on the walls inside or outside Room 3. Rooms 2 and 3 Rooms 2 and 3 yielded similar inventories and likely served similar purposes in the time before the fire. In both rooms, there are querns; both pottery assemblages consist of several amphorae and bowls; in each room, there are remains of cereals and fruits. It appears that similar, if not identical, activities were performed in both rooms. The only major difference is the absence of an oven in Room 3, which, instead, had a clay-built raised feature, in the form of a bench or a platform, perhaps used as a work surface. It is plausible that the oven in Room 2 served both for heating and (some) cooking (e.g. bread-baking).

Room 3 According to the finds recorded in Room 3, this space could also have served for the storage and preparation of plant-based meals. In the east part of the room, bitter vetch, emmer and flax seem to have been stored. Although their remains were found mixed together, different samples show the prevalence of different crops, indicating that the crops were likely stored separately, perhaps in perishable containers. The quantities of crops may have been intended for daily and/or weekly consumption by a household. West of the oven, additional whole emmer spikelets were stored, waiting to be dehusked; judging by the finds of intact grains arranged in rows, emmer ears were also kept in this room. The grinding installation could have served for the dehusking of emmer. The relatively frequent finds of bulgur-type emmer grains may have derived from dehusking, or they may represent coarsely ground grains meant to be prepared for food (e.g. a bulgur-based meal).

Combined, the evidence suggests that Rooms 2 and 3 were used for the storage and preparation of plant food, at least in the last days of the use of the building. The principal crop stored in the building was emmer. The emmer stores contained small quantities of einkorn and ‘new type’ glume wheat, likely as part of the same harvest. Emmer was stored in the pithoi placed next to the oven in Room 2. The pithoi had large openings, allowing easy access to the grain. One was made of coarse, daub-like material and was perhaps not fired; it was thus not suitable for storing liquids, and would not have been portable. Emmer was also stored in Room 3, in some instances still in ears and waiting to be dehusked. Assuming that the seeds and fruits were not intentionally deposited in the building, to burn in the conflagration, they likely represented stores of plant food kept indoors for daily and/or weekly consumption. They do not seem to have served as long-term provisions or seed stock.

In order to remove their unpleasant taste, and make them palatable for human use, bitter vetch seeds need to be processed (e.g. van Zeist and Roller 1995). The toxins which cause the bitterness are concentrated in the skin (testa) of the seeds and they can be removed by soaking the seeds in water and by prolonged boiling. Perhaps some of the ceramic vessels found in this room were also used for soaking bitter vetch, in addition to their other likely uses in food/drink preparation. The seeds discovered had their testa preserved and were not split, indicating that they had not been ground, cooked, or processed in any other way, and were perhaps awaiting preparation. Given that they were found together with emmer grain and flax seeds, they were most likely intended as human food. There was no evidence of intentionally crushed flax seeds here that would point to the process of oil extraction. The fact that flax seeds here accompanied other grains and fruits suggests that they were also awaiting to be prepared (in some sort of porridge and/or mixed with cereals) rather than to be planted the following year. Fruits (sloe berries and pears) were picked during late summer/autumn. They were apparently kept indoors, stored on some sort of shelves or ledges, or in baskets, and were perhaps dried before the building burned.

For dehusking and grinding, stone querns were used. The four querns discovered were portable and could have been moved between the rooms, and even the buildings. Some of the ceramic vessels found around the querns could have been used as recipients for collecting ground grain. One of the amphorae from Room 2 shows pitting, usually associated with brewing. Ground wheat grains could have been soaked overnight and perhaps left to ferment for an alcoholic beverage, although the pitting could also be the result of fermenting some sort of yoghurt. The large amphora with the restricted opening served for storing liquids, whereas in the other large amphora different foodstuffs could have been kept. The ceramic assemblage does not show traces of use that would point at thermal food processing. There were no casserole-type pots (baking pans) in the rooms. Perhaps cooking in pots took place outside the building. 166

Use of Space in a Late Neolithic/Early Eneolithic Building at the Site of Vinča-Belo Brdo in the Central Balkans Of the finds of whole vessels in the rooms, five had signs incised on the surface. Various signs incised on Vinča culture pottery, figurines and stamp seals are sometimes interpreted either as property marks or the potter’s signature (Nikolić 2008). Given that the signs on the bowls from Building 01/06 were incised after firing of the pots, they were most likely not made by the potter(s). One possible functional explanation for the signs, in the context of different types of foodstuffs stored, is that they indicated the specific purpose of the bowls. The mark would have been visible when empty bowls had been turned upside down.

plans (i.e. of three rooms) comparable to that of Building 01/06 (Crnobrnja et al. 2009; Spasić and Živanović 2015; Perić 2017). Three Vinča-culture sites located within a radius of ca. 100  km from Vinča-Belo brdo yielded well-preserved buildings (houses) of similar internal configuration: House 2/79 at Banjica (Todorović 1981; Tripković 2007), House 373 at Uivar (Schier 2006), and House 01/2008 at Crkvine (Crnobrnja et al. 2009). All three houses had a central room and small lateral room(s), and ovens in at least two of the rooms. Grinding stones were found in the area close to the ovens. There were storage bins in the houses at Banjica and Uivar. The latter also had an upper floor or a gallery above at least one part of the ground level of the house. Based on its inventory, House 2/79 at Banjica was interpreted as a work space (Todorović 1981), probably used by two households (Tripković 2007; 2013). Other houses that have a similar tripartite layout are House 2 at Jakovo (Jovanović and Glišić 1961), House 4/75 at Gomolava (Petrović 1992) and a house at Beletinci (Brukner 1962); all these sites are located north of the Sava river. Some of the houses had a bucranium placed in the central room, often near the oven, which corresponds well with the situation in Building 01/06 at Vinča. Considering the buildings at these and other sites of the Vinča culture that have similar layouts and inventories, it is perhaps conceivable that there was some type of architectural standardisation of buildings in the northern regions of the Vinča culture (Tripković 2013).

The absence of large animal bones and flaked stone tools in the building indicates that animals were butchered elsewhere and that smaller pieces of meat may have been brought to the rooms to be further prepared or consumed, or perhaps stored. The analysis of faunal remains from the site identified mammals as the dominant group, among which domestic animals outnumber wild game (Dimitrijević 2006; Bulatović 2018). Skeletal remains of pig and cattle, especially the large cranial parts, were found in concentrations in several places in the area under renewed excavation (outside Building 01/06), reflecting occasions (such as feasting events) of simultaneous butchery and treatment of large numbers of animals. Herbivore dung was not identified in the micromorphological samples collected from the small trench encompassing a section of Room 1 (north room), a section through the narrow passage between Building 01/06 and Building 03/03, and a portion of Building 03/03 (Borojević and Sherwood 2018). This suggests that these structures and the space between them were not used as penning areas. In another section of the excavated area, north of Building 01/06, open-air chipped stone workplaces were discovered, dating to the final occupation phase of the site. Chipped stone tools are rare finds within the buildings (houses) of late Neolithic sites (Bogosavljević Petrović 2015: 363–80).

Without a thorough analysis of the inventory, such as the one presented here, the impression could be that Building 01/06, with its tripartite division and its contents, was a typical house and that it was used for habitation. Our investigations, however, suggest that Building 01/06 did not represent residential space sensu stricto, but was instead an area where on the ground level some specialised activities were performed (such as the storage and preparation of plant foods). Further, this building may have been one of several buildings in a compound which, in addition to Building 01/06, included at least the two neighbouring buildings of similar date (buildings 03/03 and 02/06; Tasić et al. 2015). The three buildings yielded similar spectrum of plant remains, and another emmer grain store was discovered in Building 02/06 (Filipović et al. 2018). Although possible, it seems unlikely that the compound would have been occupied by a small, singlefamily household. Following the inferences made based on the building size, structure and inventory at some other Vinča-culture sites in the central Balkans (Tripković 2013), it is more plausible that the potential compound would have been inhabited by an extended, e.g. multifamily household.

In Building 01/06, no significantly large quantities of stored food were found and there is no evidence of conspicuous consumption, at least not from the time immediately before the burning of the house. There were no luxury pots (e.g. elaborate ceramic vessels) for serving food, and no preponderance of ritual objects (such as figurines, prosopomorphic lids, altars) that would indicate a ‘special’ (e.g. ceremonial, ritual) function for the building. The only objects usually interpreted as having potentially symbolic/ritual meaning are the cattle horn found in the central room (Room 2) – possible part of a bucranium – and the small anthropomorphic figurine in Room 1. The combined evidence points to quotidian meal preparation and associated household activities. Houses of the late Vinča culture

Relying on the dimensions of the buildings (houses) discovered at Vinča-culture sites, it has been argued that the family was the basic social unit of the Vinča culture (cf. Chapman 1981). In order to reconstruct the size of the social unit occupying a house, some scholars have compared the size of prehistoric buildings, that is, the

A rectangular structure is the most common architectural feature at Vinča-culture settlements, and is interpreted as a house, for habitation. There are a number of buildings at other Vinča-culture settlements in the region with floor 167

Borojević, Antonović, Vuković, Dimitrijević, Filipović, Marić, Penezić, Tripković, Petrović & Tasić several buildings in a household compound. Our in-depth assessment of the contents and the use of space in Building 01/06, and comparison with other Vinča structures, lays aside the initial impression that this structure was intended for the living and sleeping of a nuclear family. We offer a new, refined interpretation, which is in line with previous observations that some of the buildings at Vinča-culture sites were used for specialised activities – for instance, daily food preparation and storage – and were occupied perhaps by more than one family, or by an extended household. Our investigations shed new light on the use of space in the Vinča-culture buildings and the basic social units within the likely complex societal organisation of this Late Neolithic/Early Eneolithic settlement on the Danube.

size of their internal space, to ethnographic and historical examples (e.g. Brown 1987; Blanton 1994; Cutting 2006). Based on this, an area up to 50 m2 was suggested as typical for a house inhabited by a nuclear family. The nuclear family would be a standard social unit in the early phase of the Vinča culture, whilst in the late phase, the extended family would be the dominant social unit (Chapman 1981). In Building 01/06 at Vinča, the similar inventories in Rooms 2 and 3 indicate some overlapping activities taking place in both rooms (such as food processing and preparation). This may suggest simultaneous but separate use of the two rooms by two families, or by two segments of an extended family or a similar kinship system, which is the social organisation also inferred for other Vinčaculture sites (Tripković 2013). However, the existence of only one oven points to a single indoor ‘cooking station’, at least for meals whose preparation required the use of an oven. This may indicate shared use of this particular space, possibly by distinct segments of a household, or even distinct households.

Acknowledgments There are several institutions and numerous individuals who participated in the renewed excavations of the VinčaBelo brdo site, including the investigations of Building 01/06 at the site. Without their contributions this chapter would not have been possible. We would like to thank the City Museum of Belgrade and their current and former curators, who were in charge of the Vinča site, for their collaboration and long term curation of the archaeological material. Several generations of archaeology students from the University of Belgrade participated in the excavations of the site, and contributed to the recovery, processing, and recording of the artifices and ecofacts. Plant analyses and several of the C-14 dates from Building 01/06 were partly supported by a National Science Foundation Grant #1324092 “Multiscalar Approach to the Study of Vegetation and Plant Use during the Neolithic Period in the Central Balkans: A Case Study from the Vinča Settlement”, awarded to Ksenija Borojević (PI), at Boston University and later at the University of Massachusetts Boston. The first author (K.B.) would like to thank the former Boston University students Rebecca Mountain and Janet Key, and Alexandra Crowder from the University of Massachusetts Boston, for their help with plant analyses and data entry. Sarah Sherwood (University of the South Sewanee) provided information about the micromorphology. Their help and assistance is greatly appreciated.

Conclusion Building 01/06 had characteristics frequently registered in Vinča-style houses: wattle-and-daub construction, internal division (into three rooms), the presence of ovens, bin-like features, querns, storage jars, stone and bone tools. The building dates to the late phase of the Vinča culture and was burnt in a large conflagration in 4560±20 calBC. Careful excavations and systematic retrieval of plant remains revealed the processing of emmer and the storing of emmer, bitter vetch, flax, wild plums and pears in the central (Room 2) and the south room (Room 3) of the building. These two rooms also include very similar inventories of features and artefacts. In each of the two rooms, querns, bowls, amphorae, emmer grains, and pears were found. The almost identical ceramic assemblages, similar grinding stones, and comparable plant assemblages between the two rooms signal their corresponding functions and indicate the similar activities – plant storage and processing – carried out here, perhaps simultaneously in the two spaces. The purpose of the narrow room in the north of the building (Room 1) remains unclear. Among a number of possible functions, it appears to have been used in relation to bone point production and perhaps also weaving. The apparent lack of communication (at the ground level) between this and the central room implies that access to Room 1 may have been from the outside, and that the space served as an annex.

References cited Antonović, Dragana. 2008. ‘Abrazivno oruđe u neolitu Srbije.’ Glasnik Srpskog arheološkog društva 24: 339–50. Bailey, Douglass.W. 2000. Balkan Prehistory, Exclusion, Incorporation and Identity. London: Routledge.

Detailed analyses of different assemblages found in Room 2 and Room 3 indicate that these parts of Building 01/06 represented specialised food processing areas. It follows that a different area must have been used for sleeping and other indoor activities. The findings presented here are the first to clearly signal that what was initially perceived as a typical Vinča-culture house in fact represents space dedicated to specific, mostly food-related activities. Further, it can be argued that the building was used by an extended family and may have represented one of

Benac, Alojz. 1990. ‘Neki problemi odnosa Makedonije i Zapadnog Balkana u neolitskom dobu.’ Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 10: 9–24. Blanton, Richard E. 1994. Houses and Households, A Comparative Study. New York: Plenum Press. Boardman, Sheila and Glynis Jones. 1990. ‘Experiments on the effects of charring on cereal plant components.’ Journal of Archaeological Science 17: 1–11. 168

Use of Space in a Late Neolithic/Early Eneolithic Building at the Site of Vinča-Belo Brdo in the Central Balkans Chapman, John. 1981. The Vinča culture of south east Europe. Studies in chronology, economy and society. British Archaeological Reports International Series 117. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Bogdanović, Milenko. 1988. ‘Architecture and Structural Features at Divostin.’ In Divostin and the Neolithic of Central Serbia, edited by Alan McPherron and Dragoslav Srejović, 35–142. Pittsburgh: Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh.

Chapman, John. 2006. ‘Why was the Vinča – Belo Brdo tell occupied for so long?.’ In Current problems of the transition period from the Starčevo to the Vinča culture, edited by Božidar Vorgić and Bogdan Brukner, 213–36. Zrenjanin: National Museum Zrenjanin.

Bogosavljević Petrović, Vera. 2015. Razvoj industrije okresanog kamena u vinčanskoj kulturi na teritoriji Srbije. PhD diss., University of Belgrade. Bogosavljević Petrović, Vera. 2016. ‘An archaeological experiment and new knowledge about the chipped stone industry from the Vinča culture.’ Journal of Lithic Studies 3(2). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2218/jls. v3i2.1437

Chapman John. 2000. Fragmentation in Archaeology: People, places and broken objects in the prehistory of Southeastern Europe. London: Routledge. Crnobrnja, Adam, Zoran Simić, and Marko Janković. 2009. ‘Late Vinča culture settlement at Crkvine in Stubline (household organization and urbanization in the Late Vinča culture period).’ Starinar 59: 9–25.

Bogosavljević Petrović, Vera, Ksenija Borojević, Vidan Dimić, Jelena Marković. 2017. ‘Proces sečenja kultivisanih žitarica u poznom neolitu Srbije – eksperimentalna istraživanja.’ Arhaika 5: 27–64.

Crnobrnja, Adam. 2012. ‘Investigations of Late Vinča House 1/2010 at Crkvine in Stubline.’ Starinar 62: 45–64.

Bogosavljević Petrović, Vera. 2018. ‘Standardization of Chipped Stone Artefacts and Patterning of Lithic Raw Material Procurement Strategies in the Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic in Serbia: Tradition, Strategy, or Request?’ In Artisans Rule: Product Standardization and Craft Specialization in Prehistoric Society, edited by Ina Miloglav and Jasna Vuković, 89–119. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Cutting, Marion. 2006. ‘More than One Way to Study a Building: Approaches to Prehistoric Household and Settlement Space.’ Oxford Journal of Archaeology 25: 225–46. Ćelić, Stojan, (ed.). 1984. Vinča u praistoriji i srednjem veku. Beograd: Galerija Srpske akademije nauka i umetnosti.

Borić, Dušan. 2015. ‘The End of the Vinča World: Modelling the Neolithic to Copper Age Transition and the Notion of Archaeological Culture.’ In Neolithic and Copper Age between the Carpathians and the Aegean Sea. Chronologies and Technologies from the 6th to 4th Millennium BC. International Workshop Budapest 2012, edited by Sven, Hansen, Pál Raczky, Alexandra Anders and Agathe Reingruber, 157–217. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt.

Dimitrijević, Vesna. 2006. ‘Vertebrate fauna of Vinča-Belo Brdo (excavation campaigns 1998–2003).’ Starinar 56: 245–69. Filipović, Dragana, Ðurđa Obradović, and Boban Tripković. 2018. ‘Plant storage in Neolithic southeast Europe: synthesis of the archaeological and archaeobotanical evidence from Serbia.’ Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 27: 31–44.

Borojević, Ksenija. 2010. ‘Plant remains from a late Neolithic building at the Vinca site.’ Paper presented at the 15th International Work Group Symposium of Palaeoethnobotany, Wilhelmshaven, Germany.

Garašanin, Milutin. 1984. ‘Uvod.’ In Vinča u praistoriji i srednjem veku, edited by Stojan Ćelić, 5–10. Beograd: Galerija Srpske akademije nauka i umetnosti.

Borojević, Ksenija. 2013. ‘Food from a house at the Vinca site.’ Paper presented at the 36th Annual Meeting of the Serbian Society of Archaeology (SAD) in Novi Sad.

Hillman, Gordon. C. 1981. ‘Reconstructing crop husbandry practices from the charred remains of crops.’ In Farming Practice in British Prehistory, edited by Robert J. Mercer, 123–62. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Borojević, Ksenija and Sarah Sherwood. 2018. ‘Microstratigraphic investigations at Vinča-Belo Brdo.’ Paper presented at the Serbian Archaeological Society, XLI Annual Meeting. Pančevo.

Jovanović, Borislav. 1984. ‘Naselje vinčanske kulture: Stratigrafija.’ In Vinča u praistoriji i srednjem veku, edited by Stojan Ćelić, 23–30. Beograd: Galerija Srpske akademije nauka i umetnosti.

Brown, Barton McCaul. 1987. ‘Population Estimation from Floor Area: a Restudy of ‘Naroll’s Constant’.’ Cross-Cultural Research 21/1: 1–49.

Jovanović, Borislav and Jovan Glišić. 1961. ‘Eneolitsko naselje na Kormadinu kod Jakova.’ Starinar 11: 113–39.

Brukner, Bogdan. 1962. ‘Praistorijsko naselje na potezu Beletinci kod Obreža.’ Rad vojvođanskih muzeja 11: 8–122.

Jovanović, Marija. 2011. ‘Master of Clay and Wheat.’ Novi Sad: Muzej Vojvodine.

Bulatović, Jelena. 2018. Arheozoološki aspekti društvenih i kulturnih promena na centralnom Balkanu u V milenijumu pre nove ere. PhD diss., University of Belgrade.

Kotsos, Stavros. 2014. ‘Settlement and housing during the 6th millennium BC in western Thessaloniki and the adjacent Langadas province.’ In Century of research 169

Borojević, Antonović, Vuković, Dimitrijević, Filipović, Marić, Penezić, Tripković, Petrović & Tasić in prehistoric Macedonia 1912–2012. International conference proceedings, edited by Evagelia Stefani, Nikos Merousis and Anastasia Dimoula, 315–22. Thessaloniki: Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki.

Claire Manen, Arkadiusz Marciniak, Brigitte MauriceChabard, Martin A. Mc Gonigle, Simone Mulazzani, Mehmet Özdoğan, Olga S. Perić, Slaviša R. Perić, Jörg Petrasch, Anne-Marie Pétrequin, Pierre Pétrequin, Ulrike Poensgen, C. Joshua Pollard, François Poplin, Giovanna Radi, Peter Stadler, Harald Stäuble, Nenad Tasić, Dushka Urem-Kotsou, Jasna B. Vuković, Fintan Walsh, Alasdair Whittle, Sabine Wolfram, Lydia Zapata-Peña, Jamel Zoughlami. 2015. ‘Widespread exploitation of the honeybee by early Neolithic farmers.’ Nature 527: 226–30.

Lymperaki, Marianna, Dushka Urem-Kotsou, Stavros Kotsos, Kostas Kotsakis. 2016. ‘Household Scales: What Cooking Pots Can Tell Us About Households in the Late Neolithic Stavroupoli (Northern Greece).’Open Archaeology 2: 328-45. Marić, Miroslav. 2010. ‘Arhitektura i idealna rekonstrukcija objekata od lepa.’ Kolubara 5: 69–83.

Schier, Wolfram. 2006. ‘Neolithic House Building and Ritual in the Late Vinča Tell Site of Uivar, Romania.’ In Homage to Milutin Garašanin, edited by Nikola Tasić and Cvetan Grozdanov, 325–39. Belgrade: Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts.

Nikolić, Dubravka, (ed.). 2008. Vinča – praistorijska metropola; katalog izložbe. Beograd: Filozofski fakultet, Narodni muzej, Muzej grada, Galerija Srpske akademije nauka i umetnosti.

Schier, Wolfram. 2008. ‘Uivar. A late Neolithic–early Eneolithic fortified tell site in western Romania.’ In Living Well Together? Settlement and Materiality in the Neolithic of South-East and Central Europe, edited by Douglass W. Bailey, Alasdair Whittle and Daniela Hofmann, 54–67. Oxford: Oxbow.

Ninčić, Olivera. 2011. ‘Tekstil na lokalitetu Crkvine.’ Kolubara 5: 181–93. Ninčić, Olivera. 2016. Tekstil u praistoriji na tlu Srbije. PhD diss., University of Belgrade. Özdoğan, Mehmet. 1993. ‘Vinča and Anatolia: A New look at a very old problem (or Redefining Vinča Culture From the perspective of Near Eastern tradition).’ Anatolica 19: 173–93.

Sherwood, Sarah and Ksenija Borojević. 2014. ‘Examining late Neolithic Structures on the Danube: A Microstratigraphic Approach.’ Poster presented at the SAA 79th Annual Meeting, Texas.

Özdoğan, Mehmet. 1997. ‘The beginning of Neolithic economies in southeastern Europe: an Anatolian perspective.’ Journal of European Archaeology 5: 1–33.

Spasić, Miloš and Saša Živanović. 2015. ‘Foodways architecture: storing, processing and dining structures at the Late Neolithic Vinča culture site at Stubline.’ Documenta Praehistorica 42: 219–30.

Papadakou, Trisevgeni, Dushka Urem-Kotsou, and Kostas Kotsakis. 2015. ‘The Early Neolithic pottery from Paliambela Kolindros.’ Archaeologiko Ergo sti Makedonia kai Thraki (2011): 157–62.

Stalio, Blaženka. 1984. ‘Naselje i stan.’ In Vinča u praistoriji i srednjem veku, edited by Stojan Ćelić, 34–41. Beograd: Galerija Srpske akademije nauka i umetnosti.

Perić, Slaviša. 2017. ‘Drenovac: a Neolithic settlement in the Middle Morava Valley, Serbia.’ Antiquity 91, e4: 1–7.

Stevanović, Mirjana. 1997. ‘The Age of Clay. The Social Dynamics of House Destruction.’ Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16: 334–95.

Petrović, Jelka. 1992. ‘Arhitektura kuće 4 na Gomolavi. Naselje mlađe vinčanske kulture.’ Rad Vojvodjanskih Muzeja 34: 19–29.

Stevanović, Mirjana. 2002. ‘Burned houses in the Neolithic of southeast Europe.’ In Fire in Archaeology, edited by Dragos Gheorghiu, 55–62. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1089, Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Porčić, Marko. 2012. ‘Social complexity and inequality in the Late Neolithic of the Central Balkans: reviewing the evidence.’ Documenta Praehistorica 39: 167–83.

Tasić, N. Nenad. 2005. ‘Vinča – the third glance (excavations 1998–2002).’ In Prehistoric Archaeology and Anthropological Theory and Education, edited by Lolita Nikolova, John Fritz and Jude Higgins, 1–8. Salt Lake City: International Institute of Anthropology.

Roffet-Salque, Mélanie, Martine Regert, Richard P. Evershed, Alan K. Outram, Lucy J. E. Cramp, Orestes Decavallas, Julie Dunne, Pascale Gerbault, Simona Mileto, Sigrid Mirabaud, Mirva Pääkkönen, Jessica Smyth, Lucija Šoberl, Helen L. Whelton, Alfonso Alday-Ruiz, Henrik Asplund, Marta Bartkowiak, Eva Bayer-Niemeier, Lotfi Belhouchet, Federico Bernardini, Mihael Budja, Gabrie Cooney, Miriam Cubas, Ed M. Danaher, Mariana Diniz, Lásló Domboróczki, Cristina Fabbri, Jesus E. GonzálezUrquijo, Jean Guilaine, Slimane Hachi, Barrie N. Hartwell, Daniela Hofmann, Isabel Hohle, Juan J. Ibáñez, Necmi Karul, Farid Kherbouche, Jacinta Kiely, Kostas Kotsakis, Friedrich Lueth, James P. Mallory,

Tasić, N. Nenad. 2011. ‘Interdisciplinary approach in archaeology: case study Vinča.’ In Interdisziplinäre Forschungen zum Kulturerbe auf der Balkan Halbinsel, edited by Vassil Nikolov, Krum Bacvarov and Hristo Popov, 53–72. Sofia: Humboldt Union in Bulgaria. Tasić, N. Nenad. 2017. ‘New questions for the old setting.’ Quaternary International 429: 3–12.

170

Use of Space in a Late Neolithic/Early Eneolithic Building at the Site of Vinča-Belo Brdo in the Central Balkans Tasić, N. Nenad, Stevan Đuričić, and Branislava Lazarević. 2007. ‘Analiza konstrukcije žrvnja iz objekta 01/06 u Vinči.’ Glasnik Srpskog arheološkog društva 23: 211– 18.

edited by Selena Vitezović and Dragana Antonović, 177–98. Beograd: Srpsko arheološko društvo. van Zeist, Willem and Gerrit Jan de Roller. 1995. ‘Plant remains from Asikli Höyük, a pre-pottery Neolithic site in central Anatolia.’ Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 4(3): 179–85.

Tasić, N. Nenad, Miroslav Marić, Kristina Penezić, Dragana Filipović, Ksenija Borojević, Nicola Russell, Paula Reimer, Alistair Barcley, Alex Bayliss, Dušan Borić, Bisserka Gaydarska, Alasdair Whittle. 2015. ‘The end of the affair: formal chronological modelling for the top of the Neolithic tell of Vinča-Belo Brdo.’ Antiquity 89(347): 1064–82.

Vasić, Miloje. 1906. ‘Nekoliki preistorijski nalasci iz Vinče.’ Starinar n.r. I: 89–127. Vasić, Miloje. 1930. ‘Excavation on the Neolithic Site at Vinča.’ Man XXX: 197–200. Vasić, Miloje M. 1932. Preistoriska Vinča 1. Beograd: Izdanje i štampa Državne štamparije Kraljevine Jugoslavije.

Tasić, Nenad, Miroslav Marić, Dragana Filipović, Kristina Penezić, Elaine Dunbar, Paula Reimer, Alistair Barclay, Alex Bayliss, Bisserka Gaydarska, Alasdair Whittle. 2016. ‘Interwoven Strands for refining the Chronology of the Neolithic tell of Vinča-Belo Brdo, Serbia.’ Radiocarbon 58(4): 795–831.

Vasić, Miloje M. 1936a. Preistoriska Vinča 2. Beograd: Izdanje i štampa Državne štamparije Kraljevine Jugoslavije.

Todorova, Henrieta. 1990. ‘Ein mittelaneolithisches Haus aus Poduene (Sofia) aus der Vinča D2 Zeit.’ In Vinča and its world, edited by Dragoslav Srejović and Nikola Tasić, 155–65. Belgrade: Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Centre for Archaeological Research, Faculty of Philosophy.

Vasić, Miloje M. 1936b. Preistoriska Vinča 3. Beograd: Izdanje i štampa Državne štamparije Kraljevine Jugoslavije. Vasić, Miloje M. 1936c. Preistoriska Vinča 4. Beograd: Izdanje i štampa Državne štamparije Kraljevine Jugoslavije.

Todorović, Jovan. 1981. ‘A recently discovered House in the Neolithic Settlement of Banjica in Belgrade.’ Archaeologia Iugoslavica 18: 13–16. Tripković, Boban. 2007. Domaćinstvo i prostor u kasnom neolitu – vinčansko naselje na Banjici. Beograd: Srpsko arheološko društvo. Tripković, Boban. 2013. ‘Domaćinstvo i zajednica: kućne i naseobinske istorije u kasnom neolitu centralnog Balkana.’ Beograd: Filozofski fakultet, Univerzitet u Beogradu. Tringham, Ruth and Mirjana Stevanović. 1990. ‘Field research.’ In Selevac: a Neolithic village in Yugoslavia, edited by Ruth Tringham and Dušan Krstić, 57–214. Monumenta Archaeologica 15. Los Angeles: UCLA Institute of Archaeology Press. Tringham, Ruth, Bogdan Brukner, Timothy Kaiser, Ksenija Borojević, Ljubomir Bukvić, Petar Šteli, Nerissa Russell, Mirjana Stevanović, Barbara Voytek. 1992. ‘Excavations at Opovo, 1985–1987: Socioeconomic Change in the Balkan Neolithic.’ Journal of Field Archaeology 19(3): 351–86. Vuković, Jasna. 2011. ‘Late Neolithic Pottery Standardization: Application of Statistical Analyses.’ Starinar 61: 81–100. Vuković, Jasna. 2015. ‘Secondary Use, Reuse and Recycling of Ceramic Vessels: Evidence from Late Neolithic Vinča.’ Arhaika 3: 111–26. Vuković, Jasna. 2014. ‘Archaeological Evidence of Pottery Forming Sequence: Traces of Manufacture in Late Neolithic Vinča Assemblage.’ In Archaeotechnology: studying technology from prehistory to the Middle Ages, 171

Borojević, Antonović, Vuković, Dimitrijević, Filipović, Marić, Penezić, Tripković, Petrović & Tasić

Figure 12.1. Map of South-east Europe showing the sites mentioned in the text: 1. Vinča-Belo brdo, 2. Uivar, 3. Opovo, 4. Gomolava, 5. Beletinci, 6. Jakovo, 7. Crkvine-Stubline, 8. Banjica, 9. Divostin, 10. Provadia, 11. Poduen, 12. Stavroupoli, 13. Paliambela.

172

Use of Space in a Late Neolithic/Early Eneolithic Building at the Site of Vinča-Belo Brdo in the Central Balkans

Figure 12.2. Vinča-Belo brdo site: plan of several buildings excavated at sector II, showing the location of House (Building) 01/06, which belongs to the lower burnt structural level (yellow); buildings in the unburnt horizon (mauve); upper burnt structural horizon (dark green). Houses outlined without numbers may constitute the uppermost, unburnt final horizon (light green); G-Bodrogkeresztur graves (after Tasić et al. 2015: Figure 5).

173

Borojević, Antonović, Vuković, Dimitrijević, Filipović, Marić, Penezić, Tripković, Petrović & Tasić

Figure 12.3. View of successive stages of the excavation of Building 01/06: 1. top of the rubble of the destruction layer, 2. floor level (destruction layers removed), 3. visible remains of walls separating the three rooms.

174

Use of Space in a Late Neolithic/Early Eneolithic Building at the Site of Vinča-Belo Brdo in the Central Balkans   1. Perforated clay weights (26) scattered within dislocated oven floors [Pl. 1/1]   2. Pounder (complete)   3. Quern (large fragment) [Pl. 1/4]   4. Static grindstone fragment   5. Bone points (2) [Pl. 1/3]   6. Bone point   7. Clay cone [Pl. 1/7]   8. Clay cone   9. Perforated osseous arched artifact [Pl. 1/6] 10. Bone points (set of 7) [Pl. 1/5] 11. Clay anthropomorphic figurine [Pl. 1/8] 12. Large pot: Pithos 1 (thin walls) [Pl. 2a/3] 13. Large pot: Pithos 2 (unfired clay) [Pl. 2a/2] 14. Emmer grains and spikelets 15. Stone plater fragments [Pl. 2a/4] 16. Horn (cattle) fragments 17. Miniature bone bowl [Pl. 2a/6] 18. Emmer grains 19. Oval clay object ‘pedestal’ [Pl. 2a/5] 20. Quern (rectangular) fragments [Pl. 2b/7] 21. Pottery sherds - amphorae (2), bowls (2), jar (1) [Pl. 2b/9, 11] 22. Pottery sherds - amphorae (3), bowl (1) [Pl. 2b/10, 12, 13] 23. Clay lid [Pl. 2b/14] 24. Pear fruits 25. Quern (massive) [Pl. 2b/8] 26. Pottery sherds - bodies of large pots 27. Pierced pig phalange [Pl. 3a/11] 28. Quern with clay recipient [Pl. 3a/1,2] 29. Emmer grains, spikelets, bitter vetch, flax seeds, sloe berries [Pl. 3a/3-8] 30. Adze (semi-finished) 31. Blade with a cortex (broken) 32. Pottery cluster - amphorae (2), bowls (4), lid (1) [Pl. 3b/12-18] 33. Pottery sherds 34. Pottery sherds 35. Emmer grains [Pl. 3b/19] 36. Pear fruits [Pl. 3b/20] 37. Blade (retouched) [Pl. 3b/16]

Figure 12.4. Plan of Building 01/06 showing distribution of finds and features mentioned in the text; numbers (1-37) indicate the location of finds within Rooms 1-3; the list (1-37) provides short descriptions of finds, followed by illustration numbers, e.g. [Pl.1/1] is Plate 12.1, illustration 1.

175

Borojević, Antonović, Vuković, Dimitrijević, Filipović, Marić, Penezić, Tripković, Petrović & Tasić

Plate 12.1. Photos of finds from Room 1: 1. perforated clay weights scattered on the top of dislocated oven floors, in situ; 2. base of a ceramic pot with impression of a woven fabric; 3. two bone points and a perforated clay weight, in situ; 4. fragment of large static grindstone; 5. seven bone points; 6. perforated osseous artefact (possibly a pendant); 7. clay cone with horizontal impressions of cord; 8. clay anthropomorphic figurine.

176

Use of Space in a Late Neolithic/Early Eneolithic Building at the Site of Vinča-Belo Brdo in the Central Balkans

Plate 12.2a. Photos of finds from Room 2: 1. excavating the remains of a domed oven (02) in the western part of Room 2 (pictured, Nino Rossi); 2. two large pots (Pithoi 1 and 2), in situ; 3. Pithos 1 with thin walls, restored; 4. stone plater (finegrained sandstone), restored; 5. oval clay object ‘pedestal’, in situ; 6. miniature bone vessel (caput femoris).

177

Borojević, Antonović, Vuković, Dimitrijević, Filipović, Marić, Penezić, Tripković, Petrović & Tasić

Plate 12.2b. Photos of finds from Room 2 (cont.): 7. quern (peridotitic breccia), restored; 8. quern (massive) in situ; 9. Amphora 1 with pitting inside, restored; 10. Amphora 3 with loop handles, restored; 11. Bowl 1 (biconical) with two secondary holes, restored; 12. Amphora 4 with pinched handles, restored; 13. Bowl 3 (biconical) with incised ‘X’ sign on outer surface; 14. clay lid and charred pear fruits, in situ.

178

Use of Space in a Late Neolithic/Early Eneolithic Building at the Site of Vinča-Belo Brdo in the Central Balkans

Plate 12.3a. Photos of finds from Room 3: 1. quern (peridotitic breccia) fitted into clay recipient, in situ; 2. quern with clay recipient, restored; 3. emmer grains (charred); 4. bitter vetch seeds (charred); 5. flax seeds (charred); 6. sloe berries (charred); 7. wheat chaff - spikelet forks of glumed wheats (charred); 8. cracked emmer grain, ‘bulgur type’ (charred); 9. pear fruit cross section (charred); 10. cereal light chaff and straw (silicified); 11. pierced pig phalange.

179

Borojević, Antonović, Vuković, Dimitrijević, Filipović, Marić, Penezić, Tripković, Petrović & Tasić

Plate 12.3b. Photos of finds from Room 3 (cont.): 12. Bowl 5 with vertical upper part, decorated shoulder, and incised ‘X’ sign on outer bottom; 13. Bowl 7 with the incised ‘infinity’ signs on outer surface; 14. Bowl 4 with inverted rim and incised ‘X’ on outer surface; 15. Amphora 6 (small), without preserved neck and shoulder; 16. blade (chert) with retouching and gloss (dorsal and ventral side); 17. Bowl 6 (same as Bowl 5); 18. clay lid with a concave knob handle; 19. complete emmer ears under broken pot; 20. a dozen dried pear fruits (charred).

180

13 The Neolithic Settlement at Drenovac, Serbia: Settlement History and Spatial Organisation Slaviša Perić Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade Olga Bajčev Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade Ivana Stojanović Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade Đurđa Obradović Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade Abstract: The Neolithic settlement at Drenovac, in the region of the Middle Morava Valley in central Serbia, is notable for its size and long-term occupation. It is a deeply stratified site, with cultural deposits of up to 6.50 m in depth, and spans two main periods of occupation, separated by a hiatus of ca. 700 years: the Early Neolithic Starčevo culture (6100–5900 BC) and the Late Neolithic Vinča culture (5300/5200–4700/4500 BC). In this paper we will discuss the complex stratigraphy and dynamics of the formation processes, settlement history and the use of living space in Drenovac. These first insights are based on recent excavations, geomagnetic survey and reconnaissance. Extensive research into the latest building horizon at Drenovac, dating to the Late Neolithic (Vinča-Pločnik phase), provided the most valuable data on settlement size and spatial organisation. Keywords: Serbia, Neolithic, Drenovac, settlement history, settlement organisation Introduction

been excavated only to a small extent, without providing evidence about their layout and organisation. New archaeological research on the settlement at Drenovac, which is notable for its size and long-term occupation, offers a new insight into the life of Neolithic communities in this region. In this paper, the first insights obtained by excavations, geomagnetic survey and reconnaissance are presented, and will be used to discuss the complex stratigraphy and dynamics of formation processes, settlement history and the use of living space in Drenovac. Geomagnetic survey and systematic excavations produced the most valuable data, primarily for the latest building horizon at Drenovac, dated to the Late Neolithic (VinčaPločnik phase). The focus of this paper will therefore be on this phase of the settlement.

Excavations, analysis and interpretation of the Neolithic settlements in the central Balkans present a great challenge for archaeologists. Large settlements, inhabited for more than a thousand years, were transformed and developed according to their specific geographical, cultural, economic and social background. Complex relations between people and objects within the settlement – building, usage, destruction, abandonment, discarding – along with natural processes, often resulted in very complicated stratigraphy. In order to understand these issues, we need extensive multidisciplinary research which will consider the formation and temporality of the objects and layers as well as their interrelationships. Wider contexts as well as individual smaller units should be considered.

The site

The region of the Middle Morava Valley, with more than 80 registered Neolithic sites (Figure 13.1), represents one of the most densely occupied areas in the central Balkans (Vetnić 1974; Perić 2004; Perić et al. 2015). In spite of this, knowledge on the life of Neolithic communities in the region remains very limited, because the settlements have

The site of Slatina-Turska česma, known as Drenovac, is situated approximately 9 km south of Paraćin and ca. 5 km east of the Velika Morava River (Figure 13.1). It is a multilayered site, with a long occupation during the Neolithic, with deposits reaching a depth of 6.70 m in the central 181

Slaviša Perić, Olga Bajčev, Ivana Stojanović & Đurđa Obradović

Figure 13.1. Distribution of the Neolithic sites in the Middle Morava Valley region, Serbia.

is dated to 6100–5900 BC,60 while the earliest layers of the Late Neolithic in the settlement date to 5300–5200 BC. The time of the abandonment of the Late Neolithic settlement remains unknown, since the last phase of the Neolithic occupation has not been absolutely dated. According to radiocarbon dates, the settlement was inhabited until 4800–4700 BC, but at least one more building horizon has

part of the site. The thickness of the cultural layer is not uniform throughout the site, but varies from 1.50 m in Trench XVII to 6.40 m in Trench XV (Perić 2009). Two main periods of occupation have been distinguished: Early Neolithic (Starčevo culture) and Late Neolithic (Vinča culture). Although previous research had suggested a continuity of occupation from the Early to the Late Neolithic (Vetnić 1974), renewed excavations demonstrate a hiatus between the Early and the Late Neolithic which must have lasted approximately 600–700 years (Perić 2004; Perić 2009). The Early Neolithic habitation horizon

Dating was performed in the following laboratories: SUERC Radiocarbon Laboratory, Glasgow, Beta Analytic, Miami and Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit. A detailed publication on these dates will follow.

60

182

The Neolithic Settlement at Drenovac, Serbia been uncovered above the dated one, suggesting that life in the settlement continued after 4700 BC.

directions for reconstruction of the original form of the terrain, settlement dynamics and the present form of the terrain. The terrain on which the houses were built during the Late Neolithic was not flat. Considering the substantial thickness of the cultural layer in the central part of the site (trenches XV, III, V–IX) (Vetnić 1974; Perić 2009), the elevation at this part of the site is most likely the result of long-term occupation and/or accumulation of intensive building activities. It seems that later erosion processes and accumulation of colluvium mitigated tell formation in the central part of the site.

All the above-mentioned facts suggest that in Drenovac, within the Neolithic cultural layer, two settlements existed: one early – dated to the Starčevo culture, and one late – dated to the Vinča culture. Form of the site and formation processes The multilayered site at Drenovac is located in the contact zone of the river valley and the hilly hinterland. The largest part of the site is situated on the eastern periphery of the Morava Valley, while the smaller part (northeastern and southeastern periphery) lies on the slopes of hills along the left and right banks of the Drenovac stream (Figure 13.2). The site is artificially divided by the Belgrade–Niš highway, in a north–south direction, which obscures its overall appearance. The diverse micro-relief of the site, with the narrow valley of the Drenovac stream and the spacious plain of the Morava River, and especially the large area that the site covers (ca. 60 ha) gives an impression that Drenovac can be classified as a flat Neolithic site. However, when we observe its western half and the highway route, it is noticeable that in the central part of the site there is a slight elevation that is especially clear in the north–south direction. Geodetic survey of the site showed that the highest point of the central part of the site, which is located along the western border of the highway route, is at an altitude of 153.64 m. The difference in altitude between this point and the northern (300 m away), the southern (450 m away) and the western (350 m away) periphery is almost identical – ca. 8 m.

Site size The first estimation of the site size at around 30  ha was based on the density of the surface finds (Chapman 1981, 43, figure 71). On Chapman’s plan, there are two separate zones which differ in the density of the surface material. The area with high density was interpreted as the most probable core of the Neolithic site, and the wider zone with a low density of finds as an area of less dense occupation or dispersal of core material outwards through ploughing (Chapman 1981, 43). Interestingly, the estimated size of the site based on distribution of surface finds roughly coincides with the size of the site indicated by geomagnetic survey (Perić et al. 2016; Perić 2017) (Figure 13.3). The western border of the settlement is almost identical on both maps. The greatest difference is visible in the eastern part of the site, where the geomagnetics showed clear signals in this area (suggesting the existence of structures). With these new data, the original border of the site has been moved 250 m to the east.

At the same time, there is a question as to whether this form of the landscape is a result of anthropogenic or natural activity. Based on the data obtained from the excavations, it is most likely that both factors influenced the final form of the site.

The additional field survey (2010–13) showed that surface finds appear further to the west and northeast, outside the site limits that are visible on the geomagnetic map (unpublished field report). As no excavations have been conducted in these zones, the presence of surface finds is the only indicator of the possible borders of the site.

Namely, in trenches XIX–XXII, located in the central part of the site (Figure 13.2), under the humus layer we registered a thick sterile layer which was covering Late Neolithic houses. In the southeastern corner of trench XIX, that layer is 1.50 m thick, and from that point it gradually decreases from east to west and from south to north, disappearing in the south and west profile of trench XXI. Preliminary observations by geologists suggested that this is a colluvial deposit made by erosion from the surrounding hill slopes. The erosion and the formation of the coating layer in the lower parts of the site could be responsible for creating the elevated surface in the central part of the site. But, the ground surface under the colluvial deposit points to one more possibility, which seems to be crucial. This is confirmed by the stratigraphy of the central part of the site, as well as the situation underneath the colluvial deposit. Underneath that deposit, at the level of excavated Late Neolithic houses, the terrain also has the form of a slight rise, which explains the uneven thickness of the colluvial layer and also points to possible

When discussing size, we should differentiate the site size from the settlement size. The question of the relation between the two in the case of Drenovac poses a particular problem, if we keep in mind the thickness of the cultural layer, the chronological span and the area with traces of Neolithic occupation. Below, the issue of the settlement size will be considered separately for the Early and Late Neolithic. Early Neolithic settlement According to 14C dates, the site was inhabited for the first time in the last century of the 7th millennium BC. The most indicative data on the Early Neolithic settlement (Starčevo culture) comes from the excavations, which suggest that it is a single-layered settlement (Perić 2004; Perić 2009). Settlement remains are confirmed on the line between trenches XV and XVI, which is approximately 250 m in 183

Slaviša Perić, Olga Bajčev, Ivana Stojanović & Đurđa Obradović XIX–XXII the excavations ceased at the latest occupational level (Vinča-Pločnik phase), so the deeper stratigraphy at this location is as yet unknown.

length in a northeast–southwest direction (Figure 13.2). The northeast limit of the settlement is perhaps in the area between trial trenches 4 and 6, while the southwest limit remains unknown because the excavations were not conducted south of trench XV. Based on the results gained so far, we cannot assess the size of the Early Neolithic settlement on the north–south line, but it is evident that it spreads on both the left and right banks of the Drenovac stream, at least in the area east of the highway. One semisubterranean dwelling (trench XV), a refuse area and the remains of a storage area (trench XVI) are the only features uncovered so far (Perić 2009; Stojanović and Obradović 2016; Filipović et al. 2018). At this stage of research, we cannot discuss the layout and the organisation of the Early Neolithic settlement, but we can assume that it was significantly smaller and less densely occupied than the Late Neolithic settlement.

Early Vinča phase An Early Vinča cultural layer was recorded in trenches XV and XVI, trial trenches 2–5 and in the area investigated from 1968 to 1971 (trenches I–IX) (Vetnić 1990). One or two superimposed houses were partly excavated in trench XV. They present above-ground rectangular structures, but because of the limited excavated area, it was impossible to determine their dimensions or interior organisation. In trench XVI, a part of the ditch was investigated, which was filled with Early Vinča material, dating to 5300–5200 BC. This ditch is slightly bent towards the left bank of the Drenovac stream, and it was excavated to a length of 7 m. The space surrounding trench XVI was not included in the geomagnetic survey, so we do not know the exact length or further direction of the ditch, and the question of its function remains open.

Late Neolithic settlement When discussing the Late Neolithic settlement, some issues come to the fore: the location, layout and size of the earliest settlement; whether and how the settlement changed during the (at least) seven centuries of its existence; construction dynamics and their connection to demographic changes; population dynamics – whether the number of inhabitants increased or decreased during its existence; when and why the settlement was abandoned.

The present data are not sufficient to allow us to discuss the layout and the size of the Late Neolithic settlement in its so-called founding phase. The area where we recorded Early Vinča layers and structures is related to the central part of the site, and we can assume that the settlement covered a surface of at least 250 x 200 m. All locations where we recorded Early Vinča layers bear evidence of Late Vinča occupation.

As already mentioned, the absolute dates, stratigraphy and findings indicate that after the abandonment of the Early Neolithic settlement, the site was uninhabited for approximately 600–700 years. Ideally, we would like to understand the development of the Late Neolithic settlement as a whole, but considering the small excavated surface, for now, we can discuss only the number of Vinča architectural structures in a vertical section at certain locations. At present we can state that the intensity of the building activities was not the same at all locations within the settlement.

Late Vinča phase Settlement size and layout The results of the geophysics most likely reflect the layout of the Late Neolithic settlement during the late phase of the Vinča culture (Vinča-Pločnik phase). According to the geomagnetic plan, the size of the settlement is around 40 ha. It extends to a length of 800 m both in the north–south and the east–west direction. The settlement has a specific outline – the eastern part is narrow, and the western part of the settlement is wider, extending in a fan-shaped layout. In the east, the narrowing of the stream valley could represent some kind of natural barrier to settlement expansion. In the western part of the site, there are no topographical restrictions and the settlement expands across the spacious plain of the Morava Valley.

The most complex stratigraphy of the Late Neolithic settlement was recorded in trench XV, where at least four levels of houses were recorded within the 4.5 m thick Late Neolithic layer. Two houses date to the Vinča-Tordoš and two to the Vinča-Pločnik phase.61 It is interesting that the superimposed structures did not have the same orientation. For example, the orientation of one structure – House 1/ XV – was diverted by about 90° from the house in the previous level. In trench XVI, two levels of Vinča houses were recorded, dating to the Vinča-Pločnik period. The oldest Vinča layers date to the Vinča-Tordoš period, in which no houses were detected.

The size and the expansion dynamics of the settlement should be considered in relation to artificial barriers. The geomagnetic survey revealed a few anomalies that may represent parts of the ditches (Figure 13.4). The western ditch, the most prominent one, follows the distribution of houses in the settlement, representing the limit of the settlement extent – the settlement perimeter. We can assume that this ditch surrounded the settlement when most of the structures visible on the geomagnetic plan were in use. Outside the enclosed area we registered only

So far, only in trench XVII was just one level of houses recorded, dating to the Vinča-Pločnik phase. In trenches 61 The relative chronological system was used, following Garašanin (1979).

184

The Neolithic Settlement at Drenovac, Serbia one feature, and a few on the anomaly itself. This situation is most likely similar to the one in trench XVI, where a ditch was filled, and above it, after some time, a Neolithic house was built. It is interesting that there is a perimeter ditch only at the western, open side of the settlement and not on the eastern side, which might be related to the relief and the function of the ditch.

shape and size, and scattered. This might be the result of structures being poorly preserved and therefore difficult to detect, of a different use or chronology for these parts of the settlement, or of adjustment to terrain morphology. We also identified a few zones that we assume were open spaces. Some of them are without anomalies, and others have anomalies with very faint signals, which could represent the reflection of deeper structures. Without targeted excavation of these areas in the settlement we can only suspect that they were parts of the settlement used for communal activities of some kind.

Inside the settlement, there is an anomaly which most likely represents part of another semicircular ditch, parallel to the outer western ditch, but with a considerably smaller diameter. These features are not excavated, and we cannot tell whether they are contemporary, separating different parts of the settlement, or whether they represent different phases of the settlement perimeter.

The majority of the structures are oriented southwest– northeast (Figure 13.4), and only a few examples show certain deviations, conditioned by micro-location and terrain configuration. The most common dimensions for the houses are 10–12 x 5 m, but there are both smaller and larger examples. At least three structures with dimensions of 16 x 5.5 m are visible on the geomagnetic map. They have the same orientation as the houses nearby; they are not grouped, but are located in different parts of the settlement. None of these large structures were excavated, so the question of their use remains open.

In the northeastern part of the settlement there is another curvilinear anomaly enclosing a small part of the settlement. Excavations in 2016 confirmed the existence of a ditch sunken underneath the humus layer. The maximum width of the ditch was 6 m and the maximum depth 1.50 m. The ditch was filled with a compact layer of dark soil containing a few Late Vinča pottery fragments, which indicates the time of the filling. The characteristics and chronology of the part of the settlement enclosed by this ditch is about to be investigated and should be included in future research.

Late Vinča houses Recent targeted systematic excavations (from 2013 onwards), based on the geomagnetic survey, made it possible to investigate Vinča houses completely, as well as the space between them (Perić and Perić 2014; Perić et al. 2017a; 2017b) (Figure 13.5). The internal organisation of the houses will be discussed based on completely excavated structures, located in the central part of the settlement (trenches XIX–XXII). Within this area, in the regular layout of the settlement, five rectangular and one circular structure were investigated. All the structures were burnt and, according to the stratigraphy and preliminary analyses of the material, are roughly contemporary.

Internal organisation of the settlement The internal organisation of the settlement will be discussed based on the results from geomagnetic survey and systematic excavations. The results show very intense building activities, implying that the settlement was very densely populated. More than 300 anomalies of regular rectangular shape were registered in the surveyed area, as well as almost the same number of irregular, often smaller anomalies. Regular anomalies most likely represent houses. For the irregular ones we cannot be certain whether they are the remains of the houses, but we cannot exclude that possibility. The irregular shape may be the result of walls collapsing inward and outward from the buildings. Also, they may present the remains of houses which were not intensively burnt, so that their geomagnetic signal is not strong or even visible, as is the case for the structure in trench XXI (Perić et al. 2016; Perić et al. 2017a).

Five of them represented residential structures – houses. Four houses are of roughly the same dimensions (10 x 5 m or 12 x 5 m), with the same orientation (southwest– northeast) and an equal distance between them (2–3 m). One rectangular structure was not detected on the geomagnetic plan, as it was poorly preserved, with smaller dimensions (8 x 2.5 m), but of the same shape and orientation as the adjacent houses. The houses were built in the wattle-and-daub technique, with the floor made of compact clay. They had one, two or three rooms. Four houses had an upper floor in the form of a gallery stretching across two thirds of the floorplan, with access via the western room. Inside the houses, three types of immobile finds were recorded: ovens, clay containers and grindstones with a clay receptacle. They had one or two ovens on the lower level, and a few two–storey houses had another oven on the upper floor. The location of the ovens was always next to the northern wall, suggesting patterns in internal space organisation. Preliminary analysis of

There is no uniform pattern in the distribution, size, shape or orientation of the anomalies seen on the geomagnetic map. In some areas of the site, the distribution of anomalies is regular, while in others, it is rather less so. In the regular zones, the houses are of similar size, densely distributed and organised in parallel rows. The distance between the houses is 2–4 m, and the space between the rows is organised into streets, 5–10 m wide, which allowed undisturbed interactions and possibly some other activities. In a few peripheral zones of the settlement, the structures did not show regular distribution; they are of irregular 185

Slaviša Perić, Olga Bajčev, Ivana Stojanović & Đurđa Obradović finds and fixtures reveals that certain activities (such as cooking/food preparation, weaving) were repeated in separate rooms of the house.

Geophysical survey contributed to a better understanding of the size and layout of the Late Neolithic settlement. It is characterised by intensive building activities, demographic growth, planned organisation of the settlement, and a certain degree of hierarchy in making decisions of common interest.

In the immediate proximity of one of the houses (trench XX), one circular structure was investigated. Considering its size (diameter, 2.7  m) and finds – grindstones and pottery vessels of different shapes and sizes – it was probably used as an ancillary, not a residential structure.

Although we have suggested that the layout and size of the settlement visible on the geomagnetic map can be dated to the latest phase of occupation, the question remains whether all the structures were contemporary. In zones with regular organisation, the layout and density of residential structures with regular spaces between houses and house rows, and the lack of homesteads, suggests possible social organisation of the whole community, but also of the household. Judging from the limited open space inside the settlement, land cultivation must have been done outside the settlement. This poses the question of land ownership and the organisation of land cultivation – of whether it was private or communal. The excavation inside the settlement did not reveal large storage areas that could indicate communal food storage. So far, large pottery vessels inside the houses are the only indicators of food storage. There is also the question of space or dwellings used for animal keeping. The livestock could have been kept inside the small pens near the houses, but that assumption has not been confirmed by excavations in Drenovac. There is also the question of the storage of firewood, which must have been used in large quantities considering the number of ovens in the houses and the need for the constant maintenance of fire.

In the space between the houses we did not discover any features such as hearths, ovens or pits. In this area only a few concentrations of material – mostly pottery fragments, fragmented vessels, pebbles and animal bones – were recorded in certain zones. Although the analysis of spatial distribution has yet to be done, their density indicates intensive activity and discard in the area outside the houses. Finds around the houses were not burnt, which poses a question about the controlled burning of the houses. Conclusion Comparing different lines of evidence, we have attempted to indicate the complex history of the Neolithic settlement and its internal dynamics. The formation and type of the site was discussed in terms of terrain morphology, stratigraphy and the character of deposits (anthropogenic or geological). As we have seen, Drenovac cannot be defined as a flat site; the clear difference in altitudes between the centre and periphery of the settlement is the result of long occupation, as well as of the influence of natural processes. On the other hand, Drenovac is not a typical tell site (Kotsakis 1999; Chapman 1981), if one bears in mind its size and the possibility of the undisturbed spreading of the settlement towards the west. Regardless of the open space for expansion, there were two types of building practices: there are examples of superimposed houses and examples of new ones built outside the area of the older ones. The reasons for this choice may lie in norms of social behaviour that are still not well understood.

When discussing the social organisation of communities, the inevitable question is population size. In Drenovac, a large number of houses was recorded and the excavations confirmed the existence of two-storey houses. In the houses, some rooms on the ground floor and even on the upper floor have similar interiors and might be independent units, which opens the possibility that more than one nuclear family lived in one house. Bearing that in mind, the calculations on household and population size and dynamics are very complex.

In discussing the question of the past and present terrain morphology, we have concluded that the terrain in the Late Neolithic was not flat, and that it has been considerably disguised by post–Neolithic accumulation of natural deposits.

It is evident that Drenovac is a large site with complex stratigraphy, which has great potential for investigation of the dynamics and transformations of Neolithic society. Here we have presented the results of ongoing research, with many questions still to be investigated and further elaborated.

Based on the data from new excavations, we can say that two settlements existed in Drenovac – one Early Neolithic (Starčevo) and one Late Neolithic (Vinča). So far, we have not confirmed either cultural or chronological continuity between them, but we should not exclude the possibility of continuous inhabitation in other parts of the site.

Acknowledgements We are grateful to Dushka Urem-Kotsou, Nenad Tasić and Marcel Burić for inviting us to participate in the conference. We especially thank Dushka Urem-Kotsou for her valuable comments on the draft version of this paper. This paper is based on research undertaken as part of the project ‘Permanent archaeological workshop – Middle Morava Valley in neolithisation of Southeast Europe’,

The data on the Early Neolithic settlement are scarce, but they still gave us a partial insight into its size (at least 5000 m²), and various aspects of life there – dwellings, ways of food preparation, discard and storage. 186

The Neolithic Settlement at Drenovac, Serbia which has been continuously conducted since 2004 under the auspices of the Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade and the Regional Museum, Paraćin, and funded by the Ministry of Culture and Information of the Republic of Serbia. The paper represents the outcome of the project ‘Archaeology of Serbia: Cultural identity, factors of integration, technological processes and the role of the central Balkans in the development of European prehistory’ (ref. OI177020), funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia.

Perić, Slaviša, Christoph Rummel, Georg Schafferer, Daniel Winger, Holger Wendling. 2016. ‘Geomagnetic survey of Neolithic settlements in the middle Morava Valley – preliminary results.’ In The Neolithic in the Middle Morava Valley: new insights into settlements and economy, edited by Slaviša Perić, 9–27. Beograd: Institute of archaeology Belgrade and Regional Museum Paraćin. Perić, Slaviša, Olga Bajčev, Ivana Stojanović, Đurđa Obradović. 2017a. ‘Istraživanje kasnoneolitskih kuća na nalazištu Slatina – Turska česma u Drenovcu: preliminarni rezultati iskopavanja u 2014. godini.’ In Arheologija u Srbiji: projekti Arheološkog instituta u 2014. godini, edited by Ivan Bugarski, Nadežda Gavrilović Vitas and Vojislav Filipović, 15–22. Beograd: Arheološki Institut.

References cited Chapman, John. 1981. The Vinča Culture of South-East Europe: studies in chronology, economy and society. British Archaeological Reports International Series 117, Oxford: BAR Publishing. Filipović, Dragana, Đurđa Obradović, and Boban Tripković. 2018. ‘Plant storage in Neolithic southeast Europe: synthesis of the archaeological and archaeobotanical evidence from Serbia.’ Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 27: 31–44.

Perić, Slaviša, Olga Bajčev, Ivana Stojanović, Đurđa Obradović. 2017b. ‘Preliminarni rezultati istraživanja na nalazištu Slatina – Turska česma u Drenovcu 2015. godine.’ In Arheologija u Srbiji: projekti Arheološkog instituta u 2015. godini, edited by Ivan Bugarski, Nadežda Gavrilović Vitas and Vojislav Filipović, 15– 19. Beograd: Arheološki Institut.

Garašanin, Milutin. 1979. ‘Centralnobalkanska zona.’ In Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja, edited by Alojz Benac, 79–212. Sarajevo: Svjetlost, OOUR izdavačka djelatnost i Akademija Nauka i Umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine.

Stojanović, Ivana and Đurđa Obradović. 2016. ‘Integrating archaeozoological and archaeobotanical data: different perspectives on past food practices. Case study: The Early Neolithic context from Drenovac, central Serbia.’ In The Neolithic in the Middle Morava Valley: new insights into settlements and economy, edited by Slaviša Perić, 79–102. Beograd: Institute of Archaeology Belgrade and Regional Museum Paraćin.

Kotsakis, Kostas. 1999. ‘What Tells Can Tell: Social Space and Settlement in the Greek Neolithic.’ In Neolithic Society in Greece, edited by Paul Halstead, 66–76. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Perić, Slaviša. 2004. ‘Problem of Neolithization in Central Pomoravlje.’ In The Neolithic in the Middle Morava Valley 1, edited by Slaviša Perić, 11–34. Belgrade: Institute of Archaeology Belgrade, Regional museum Jagodina and Regional museum Paraćin.

Vetnić, Savo. 1974. ‘Počeci rada na istraživanju kulture prvih zemljoradnika u srednjem Pomoravlju.’ In Počeci ranih zemljoradničkih kultura u Vojvodini i srpskom Podunavlju, Materijali X: Simpozijum praistorijske sekcije SADJ, Subotica 1972, 123–68. Beograd: Srpsko Arheološko Društvo; Subotica: Gradski Muzej.

Perić, Slaviša. 2009. ‘The Oldest Cultural Horizon of Trench XV at Drenovac.’ Starinar LVIII/2008: 29–50.

Vetnić, Savo. 1990. ‘The Earliest Settlements of the Vinča Culture (Proto-Vinča in the Morava Valley).’ In Vinča and its World, edited by Dragoslav Srejović and Nikola Tasić, 91–97. Belgrade: Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts.

Perić, Slaviša. 2017. ‘Drenovac: a Neolithic settlement in the Middle Morava Valley, Serbia.’ Antiquity 91(357), e4: 1–7. Perić, Olga, Đurđa Obradović, and Ivana Stojanović. 2015. ‘A new perspective on Neolithic settlement and economic patterns in the Middle Morava Valley emerging from revised archaeological research.’ In Kontaktzone Balkan: Beiträge des Internationalen Kolloquiums ‘Die Donau-Balkan-Region als Kontaktzone zwischen Ost-West und Nord-Süd’ vom 16–18. Mai 2012 in Frankfurt a. M.; Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, 33–44. RGK des DAI Frankfurt a.M. Perić, Slaviša and Olga Perić. 2014. ‘Slatina–Turska Česma, Drenovac: arheološka istraživanja u 2013. godini.’ In Arheologija u Srbiji: projekti Arheološkog instituta u 2013. godini, edited by Dragana Antonović, 12–16. Beograd: Arheološki Institut. 187

Slaviša Perić, Olga Bajčev, Ivana Stojanović & Đurđa Obradović

Figure 13.2. Map of Drenovac, showing borders of the site (dashed line), surface with Early Neolithic findings (dotted line), position of trenches (T.) and trial trenches (t.), altitude (marked with ▼).

Figure 13.3. Map of Drenovac, showing borders of the site (dashed line) and Chapman’s plan of the distribution of surface finds (Chapman 1981, Fig. 71) (coloured surface).

188

The Neolithic Settlement at Drenovac, Serbia

Figure 13.4. Geophysical map of the settlement of Drenovac, showing orientation of the houses (arrowed) and the position of (possible) ditches (yellow line).

Figure 13.5. Four Late Neolithic houses (Trenches XIX, XXI, XXII), view from the south.

189

14 Neolithic Settlements in the Central Balkans between 6200 and 5300 calBC: Issues of Duration and Continuity of Occupation Sofija Stefanović Biosense Institute, University of Novi Sad Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade Marko Porčić Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade Biosense Institute, University of Novi Sad Tamara Blagojević Biosense Institute, University of Novi Sad Jelena Jovanović Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade Biosense Institute, University of Novi Sad Abstract: Issues relating to the dynamics and structure of the Early Neolithic (6200–5300 calBC) Starčevo settlements in the central Balkans region are not well known. Starčevo-culture settlements are usually single-phase sites dominated by pit features, which leads most researchers to believe that they represented short-lived hamlets occupied for only a few years or a few decades at most. In this paper, we explore funerary and radiocarbon evidence relevant to the issues of occupation continuity and duration. The results show that Starčevo settlements were used/reused for long periods of time (centuries), although it is not possible to say at present whether this occupation was continuous. Keywords: Neolithic, central Balkans, funerary practices, radiocarbon dates, continuity, duration Introduction

recognisable Neolithic settlement form consisting of aboveground architecture (but see Karamitrou-Mentessidi et al. 2015), rectangular houses, made in the wattle-and-daub or mud-brick technique, which were continuously built in one place, resulting in the formation of the Neolithic tell sites – ‘magoulas’ (Theocharis 1973; Perlès 2001; Souvatzi 2008). A similar pattern of settlement is also present in the first half of the 6th millennium in Thrace and in the territory of the Republic of North Macedonia (RNM) (Todorova and Vajsov 1993; Todorova 1995; 2003; Naumov et al. 2009). The early 6th millennium settlements in Thrace, such as Karanovo, consisted of rectangular houses built from wattle and daub, with one settlement built on top of another, forming a tell (Hiller and Nikolov 1989; 1988). The tell settlement in Amzabegovo (RNM) had a similar structure (Gimbutas 1976).

The first Neolithic in the central Balkans area begins around 6200 calBC (Whittle et al. 2002). It is represented by the Starčevo culture in the traditional culture-historical terms (for the southern section of the Starčevo-KörosCriş complex, see Figure 14.1), an Early Neolithic culture which spanned almost an entire millennium, before being replaced around 5300 calBC by the Late Neolithic Vinča culture (Dimitrijević 1979; Garašanin 1979; 1982). In contrast to other regions in a similar time period, such as Thessaly, Macedonia and Thrace, as well as to the later Vinča culture, which occupied the same region as the Starčevo Neolithic, we have very little information about the architecture, settlement structure, duration and settlement dynamics (patterns of use and demography) of the Early Neolithic settlements of the Starčevo culture (Greenfield and Jongsma 2006).

There is no doubt that settlements like Nea Nikomedea, Achilleion, Karanovo, Anza or Sesklo were landmarks in the Neolithic sociocultural landscape, characterised by continuous occupation. They were places in the full

From the beginning of the Neolithic in Thessaly and southern Macedonia ~6500 calBC onwards, we see a 191

Sofija Stefanović, Marko Porčić, Tamara Blagojević & Jelena Jovanović

Figure 14.1. The distribution of the Early Neolithic Starčevo culture (Körös and Criş not shown).

meaning of the word. But going further to the north, to the core of the Starčevo culture in the central Balkans, the settlement pattern changes – there are no tell sites, almost no above-ground architecture and the very nature of the settlement dynamics is not clearly understood, as in most cases there is no clear vertical stratigraphy (but see Karmanski 2005). Starčevo settlements belong to a type of extended settlements, with pit-houses and rubbish pits being the most common features. Traces of above-ground architecture were uncovered at a small number of sites, such as Divostin (McPherron and Srejović 1988), but even here, these are most probably the remains of very light dwellings, judging by the dimensions of the postholes and estimated house floor areas (Bogdanović 1988).

structures were abandoned relatively frequently. However, the inferred settlement pattern is based on circumstantial evidence rather than direct empirical evidence such as radiocarbon dating. Moreover, the slash-and-burn model of Early Neolithic agriculture was demonstrated to be incorrect (Bogaard 2004); therefore, the existence of relatively high residential mobility (occupation of a settlement for only a few years) is also dubious. The main questions about Starčevo settlements are still open. What was the average duration of the Starčevoculture settlements? Did people inhabit such settlements for years, decades or centuries? Were the settlements occupied continuously, or were they reoccupied intermittently, as envisioned by the conventional interpretations?

Most authors would agree that the Early Neolithic people of the central Balkans usually lived in pit-houses (Greenfield and Jongsma 2006), but there are contrary opinions. For example, Chapman argued based on archaeological, ethnographic and experimental evidence that large irregular pits found on Early Neolithic sites were not pit-houses, but more probably working areas (Chapman 2000, 86–87). In accord with the prevailing view of the shifting agricultural economy associated with the earliest Neolithic in Europe (Childe 1958, 85–86; Isaakidou 2011), it was hypothesised that Starčevo settlements were relatively short-lived hamlets (Garašanin 1979, 138), occupied for only a few years, as the population constantly moved throughout the landscape in search of new soil, a conclusion reached in the more recent studies as well (e.g. Petrović and Starović 2016; Greenfield and Jongsma 2006). Ethnographic data show that the average use-life of pit-houses was in the order of magnitude of only a few years (Cameron 1990), suggesting that these

In this paper we look at the empirical evidence related to the issues of settlement dynamics. We first present two well-documented funerary case studies from the sites of Jaričište (Western Serbia) and Topole-Bač (Vojvodina) which are relevant for understanding how the Early Neolithic people used space in their settlements and what the time scale of this process was. In the next step, we try to get a more general picture of the settlement dynamics by looking at the sets of radiocarbon dates for individual sites in order to reconstruct occupation history. Jaričiste The site of Jaričište is located in Western Serbia. An area of approximately 0.8 ha was excavated during the rescue excavations, uncovering a large part of an Early Neolithic settlement (Marić 2013). The settlement remains consist of a large number of pits (some of which were probably 192

Neolithic Settlements in the Central Balkans between 6200 and 5300 calBC in dates. Individuals from the double grave have not been analysed for stable isotopes (nitrogen and carbon), so we do not know for certain whether one of them was affected by the reservoir effect (Stefanović and Porčić 2015). However, this is very unlikely given the terrestrial context of the settlement and the general tendency towards a terrestrial diet associated with Starčevo-culture people, as evidenced by the stable isotope studies from other Starčevo sites (Whittle et al. 2002).

used as dwellings), which are distributed in clusters over the site ( Marić 2013). The radiocarbon evidence suggests that the site was occupied around 5600 calBC and it is dated to the Late Starčevo phase on the basis of the stylistic characteristics of the pottery (Marić 2013). Of particular interest for this study is Feature 1.74. This feature represents the remains of a pit-house in which four skeletal burials were uncovered (three children and one adult female, with the female and one child being in a double burial; see Stefanović and Porčić 2015). The excavator suggested that the burials occurred as a final activity before the pit houses were abandoned (Marić 2013). However, the radiocarbon dating of the double burial (Grave 2) consisting of an adult (~40-year-old) female and the 7- to 8-year-old child buried above her (Figure 14.2) suggests that the woman and the child did not die at the same time, as the date associated with the female skeleton (95 per cent CI 5715–5566 calBC, mean 5647) was ~100 years older than the date associated with the child (95 per cent CI 5616–5484, mean 5548). Moreover, it seems that the two skeletons were separated by a thin layer of sediment (thickness, 10–15 cm), as visible on some of the photographs (Stefanović and Porčić: Image 66). An attempt to determine whether the two individuals from the double grave were close relatives failed due to the highly degraded state of the DNA from the bones (Stefanović and Porčić 2015).

If the chronological difference between the two individuals is reliable, which is most probably the case, this would mean that the burials were not the result of a single episode related to the abandonment of the dwellings. The former pit-house was used as a burial ground for a longer period of time: for at least 100 years. The fact that the burial of a child did not disturb the earlier burial of an adult woman, even though they were buried in the same place, might suggest that this act was related to the long-term association of people with a particular place, and most probably with earlier generations who used the same place for living and burial. Topole-Bač The site of Topole-Bač is located on the left bank of the Mostonga River, in the Bačka district of Vojvodina, Serbia. Archaeological excavations were undertaken by the City Museum in Sombor, under the supervision of Č. Trajković in 1977. Of seven excavated test trenches, only three contained architectural features and archaeological material which confirmed the existence of the Early Neolithic Starčevo culture settlement. Occupational layers consisted of pits, the remains of rectangular houses, traces

Of course, it is theoretically possible that the differing dates are due to an unknown measurement error or contamination, but there are no grounds for such a suspicion. The differences in nutrition associated with the reservoir effect could also have caused a divergence

Figure 14.2. Double burial (Burial 2) from Jaričište.

193

Sofija Stefanović, Marko Porčić, Tamara Blagojević & Jelena Jovanović of house mortar, ash, and numerous portable archaeological finds, such as ceramic vessels, clay statuettes, stone tools etc. (Trajković 1988; Whittle et al. 2002; Trajković 1978).

1988, 99; Whittle et al. 2002, 71). The floor was made from hard burnt clay and filled with the cultural deposit, which was not different from the rest of the structure. Both individuals found in Burial 1 (female, 20–25 years old) and 2 (male, 40–50 years old) were in flexed position, placed symmetrically back to back, with heads facing in opposite directions (Figure 14.3). They were 50 cm apart. In the close vicinity of the flooring, the third burial, which belongs to a woman, aged 25–35 years, was also

The most interesting findings were discovered in Trench 1, where three burials were unearthed. Two of them (Burials 1 and 2) were uncovered beneath the floor of an irregularly rectangular structure, whereas the third one (Burial 3) was found in the close vicinity of the flooring (Trajković

Figure 14.3. Burials at Topole-Bač: (a) base of the structure with graves 1, 2 and 3, (b) reconstruction of the trench cross section.

194

Neolithic Settlements in the Central Balkans between 6200 and 5300 calBC Table 14.1. Results of the modelling of radiocarbon dates from selected Starčevo-culture sites. Site

N of dates 95 percent CI interval Mean calBC value A model A overall

Reference

Divostin I

11

0-316

119

93.5

92.9

McPherron et al. 1988

Donja Branjevina

8

202-478

340

105

101.2

Tasić 1993; Whittle et al. 2002; Pinhasi et al. 2005

Golokut

5

0-100

32

172.9

167.8

Whittle et al. 2002

Ludoš-Budžak

3

0-229

95

92.4

93.6

Whittle et al. 2002

Magareći mlin

4

0-295

158

90.7

92.1

Tasić 1993; Pinhasi et al. 2005

Perlez-Batka

5

0-250

107

79.7

76.9

Whittle et al. 2002

Starčevo-Grad

17

222-428

316

97.4

95.3

Whittle et al. 2002

Galovo

24

338-849

592

67.6

60.3

Botić 2016

Zadubravlje

8

563-1406

978

85.6

84.8

Botić 2016

found. The woman was buried in semi-flexed position, on her right side. Next to the all burials, fragments of Early Neolithic pottery were found. In addition to this, close to Burial 2 there were fragments of flints, while beneath Burial 3 there were remains of shells and snails (Trajković 1978; Trajković 1988, 99). In the layer between Burials 2 and 3, a fragment of a figurine head was found, which belongs to the Vinča culture. Burial 3 was covered with the Starčevo-culture deposit, which dates this grave earlier than Burial 1 and 2.

the BIRTH project. Calibrated values for Burial 164 are 6065–5985 calBC, and the values for Burial 265 are 6066– 5986 calBC. These results confirm that the two individuals were buried at the same time, during the Early Neolithic. The third grave was dated to the later period – calibrated values span from 2873 to 2628 calBC66. Even though it was previously assumed, based on the position of the skeleton, that this inhumation could be older than graves 1 and 2 (Jovanović et al. 2017), the new results indicate the opposite. Based on them, it could be argued that this area was continuously used for living and burial practices.

Two individuals buried beneath the floor were AMS dated (Whittle et al. 2002, 114). Calibrated values for Burial 162 are 6207–5923 calBC, whereas the values for Burial 263 are 7294–6824 calBC. The first date corresponds to the estimated time for the beginning of the Starčevo culture, but the second date is rather problematic, since it is about 1000 years older than the first one. If the date were accurate, it would indicate Mesolithic–Neolithic continuity at the site, but this is highly unlikely, since no traces of Mesolithic occupation have been detected, either at the site, or in the wider region (Gurova and Bonsall 2014). The possibility of the reservoir effect can also be excluded, since stable isotope analyses indicate a highly terrestrial diet for both individuals (Whittle et al. 2002). Furthermore, a predominantly terrestrial diet is common for the Neolithic period in this region (Whittle et al. 2002; Jovanović 2017), which also points to the conclusion that both burials probably belong to the Starčevo culture. The context itself – the positions of the skeletons in the grave, and the distribution of grave goods, allow no room for doubt that the burial of both individuals happened as a single event. Most likely, the unusually early date indicates a measurement error, which may be due to the fact that samples for dating were taken after the skeletons were chemically treated so that they could be safely transferred from the site to the museum. In order to shed more light on this situation, new and uncontaminated samples (from inner parts of the bones) were taken for all three individuals, and the dating was repeated as part of 62 63

Dynamics of the Early Neolithic settlements in the central Balkans For several Starčevo sites67 there are multiple radiocarbon dates which enable us to look at the settlement dynamics, although on a very general level and at a coarse resolution. We first look at the individually calibrated dates to visually assess the duration of the site and the degree of overlap or clustering of dates. Then we use OxCal Bayesian modelling (Bronk Ramsey 2009) to estimate the timespan of the sites more formally. We treat all dates from a single site as a phase, and use the OxCal Span function to estimate the timespan of the dates within a phase. Finally, we sum the calibrated probability distributions for sites with five or more dates, in order to see if there are any apparent gaps or modality in the clustering of dates. Summed calibrated radiocarbon distributions are usually used as a relative population size proxy (Williams 2012). In this paper, however, we use them simply to look at the chronological clustering of activity. With such small sample sizes, it is not possible to make a robust distinction between continuous and discontinuous occupation, but we can at least get some clues for further research. For example, if the resulting summed probability distribution is unimodal (has one New UncalBP date for the Burial 1 (BRAMS-2412): 7144±28. New UncalBP date for Burial 2 (BRAMS-2411): 7147±28. 66 UncalBP date for Burial 3 (BRAMS-2410): 4143±26 67 We do not consider sites with Starčevo pottery from the Danube Gorges, as the cultural situation there was unique – there was continuity of life from the Mesolithic period, therefore the local Neolithic of the Gorges is not representative of the Early Neolithic outside this region. 64 65

UncalBP date for the Burial 1 (OxA-8693): 7170±50. UncalBP date for Burial 2 (OxA-8504): 8085±55.

195

Sofija Stefanović, Marko Porčić, Tamara Blagojević & Jelena Jovanović occupation gaps is not a trivial matter, and requires rather sophisticated statistics, and larger samples than those available in this case.

peak), then we have no reason to assume discontinuity, but if there are several peaks separated by pronounced troughs, this could indicate discontinuous occupation, although we emphasise that with such low sample sizes it is not possible to demonstrate conclusively that such a pattern is more than a sampling effect.

Conclusions The Early Neolithic settlements were places embedded in social memory, used for several generations and over centuries for both settlement and funerary purposes, as the evidence presented in this paper suggests. At this point, it is not possible to say with certainty whether these settlements were continuously or intermittently occupied, so this question remains open. The lack of vertical stratigraphy on most sites (but see Donja Branjevina) has led many authors to assume the latter, but horizontal stratigraphy – shifting activity areas within the same settlement – was also possible. The issue of settlement continuity can only be resolved by taking a large number of new radiocarbon samples (Tasić et al. 2015; Marić et al. 2016; cf. Tasić et al. 2016) from well-investigated settlements.

Figure 14.4 shows individually calibrated dates for several Starčevo sites. Visual inspection of the graphs clearly shows that for all sites, except perhaps for Golokut, the dates span several centuries, suggesting that sites were used for a longer period of time, whether continuously or discontinuously. Formal modelling of the 14C dates shows that the timespan was either ~100 or ~300 years, Golokut again being an exception, with the most probable estimated timespan being only one human generation (~30 years), and Galovo and Zadubravlje another, spanning more than 500 years (Table 14.1). However, this cannot tell us whether occupation was continuous or discontinuous. Summing calibrated radiocarbon probability distributions for individual sites does not show evidence of extreme clustering of dates or large gaps between peaks, except perhaps in the case of Galovo, where there seems to be a break between the Early and the Late Neolithic occupation (Figure 14.5). We stress once again that demonstrating

Acknowledgements This paper is a result of the project ‘BIRTH: Births, mothers and babies: prehistoric fertility in the Balkans between 10 000–5000 BC’, funded by the European

Figure 14.4. Individually calibrated dates from selected Starčevo sites.

196

Neolithic Settlements in the Central Balkans between 6200 and 5300 calBC

Figure 14.5. Sums of calibrated radiocarbon probability for selected Starčevo sites.

Cameron, Catherine M. 1990. ‘The effect of varying estimates of pit structure use-life on prehistoric population estimates in the American Southwest.’ Kiva 55, 2: 155–66.

Research Council (ERC) as part of the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant Agreement No. 640557). The authors would like to thank Kristina Penezić for technical support, and Jugoslav Pendić for making the map in Figure 14.1.

Chapman, John. 2000. ‘Pit-digging and structured deposition in the Neolithic and Copper Age of Central and Eastern Europe.’ Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61: 61–87.

References cited Bogaard, Amy. 2004. ‘The nature of early farming in Central and South-Eastern Europe.’ Documenta Praehistorica 31: 49–58.

Childe, Gordon Vere. 1958. The Dawn of European Civilization. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Bogdanović, Milenko. 1988. ‘Architecture and Structural Features at Divostin.’ In Divostin and the Neolithic of Central Serbia, edited by Alan McPherron and Dragoslav Srejović, 35–141. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.

Dimitrijević, Stojan. 1979. ‘Sjeverna zona: neolit u centralnom i zapadnom delu sjeverne Jugoslavije.’ In Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja 2: neolit, edited by Alojz Benac, 229–360. Sarajevo: Svjetlost. Garašanin, Milutin. 1979. ‘Centralnobalkanska zona.’ In Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja 2: neolit, edited by A. Benac, 79–212. Sarajevo: Svjetlost.

Botić, Katarina. 2016. ‘Neolithisation of Sava-DravaDanube interfluve at the end of the 6600–6000 BC period of Rapid Climate Change: a new solution to an old problem.’ Documenta Praehistorica XLIII: 183– 207.

Garašanin, Milutin. 1982. ‘The Stone Age in the Central Balkan Area.’ In Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 3, Part 1, 75–135. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bronk Ramsey, Christopher. 2009. ‘Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates.’ Radiocarbon 51: 337–60. 197

Sofija Stefanović, Marko Porčić, Tamara Blagojević & Jelena Jovanović Gimbutas, Marija, (ed.) 1976. Neolithic Macedonia: As reflected by excavation at Anza, Southeast Yugoslavia. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of California.

McPherron, Alan, Václav Bucha, and Martin Jim Aitken. 1988. ‘Absolute dating of Divostin, Grivac-Barice and Banja.’ In Divostin and the Neolithic of Central Serbia, edited by Alan McPherron and Dragoslav Srejović, 379–87. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.

Greenfield, Haskel and Tina Jongsma. 2006. ‘The spatial organization of Early Neolithic settlements in temperate southeastern Europe: a view from Blagotin, Serbia.’ In Space and Spatial Analysis in Archaeology, edited by Elizabeth C. Robertson, Jeffrey D. Siebert, Deepika C. Fernandez and Marc U. Zender, 69–79. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.

Naumov, Goce, Ljubo Fidanoski, Igor Tolevski, Aneta Ivkovska. 2009. Neolithic communities in the Republic of Macedonia. Skopje: Dante. Perlès, Catherine. 2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece: The First farming Communities in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gurova, Maria and Clive Bonsall. 2014. ‘Pre-Neolithic” in Southeast Europe: a Bulgarian perspective.’ Documenta Praehistorica 41: 95–109.

Petrović-Bogosavljević, Vera and Andrej Starović. 2016.‘The context of the Early Neolithic in Serbia: Hidden reflections of Mesolithic continuity?’ Glasnik Srpskog arheološkog društva 32: 6–50.

Hiller, Stefan and Vassil Nikolov. 1988. Tell Karanovo Salzburg: Institut für Alte Geschichte und Altertumsforschung der Universät Salzburg.

Pinhasi, Ron, Joaquim Fort, and Albert J. Ammerman. 2005. ‘Tracing the origin and spread of agriculture in Europe.’ PLoS Biol 3, no. 12: e410. 

Hiller, Stefan and Vassil Nikolov. 1989. Tell Karanovo 1989. Salzburg: Institut für Klassische Archäologie der Universät Salzburg.

Souvatzi, Stella G. 2008. A Social Archaeology of Households in Neolithic Greece: An Anthropological Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Isaakidou, Valasia. 2011. ‘Farming regimes in the Neolithic Europe: gardening with cows and other models.’ In The Dynamics of Neolithisation in Europe: Studies in hounour of Andrew Sherratt, edited by Angelos Hadjikoumis, Erick Robinson and Sarah Viner, 90–112. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Stefanović, Sofija and Marko Porčić. 2015. ‘Starčevački grobovi na Jaričištu – antropološka analiza.’ Arhaika 3: 67–88. Tasić, Nenad. 1993. ‘Nekoliko novih radiokarbonskih datuma.’ Glasnik SAD 9: 99–102.

Jovanović, Jelena. 2017. The Diet And Health Status Of The Early Neolithic Communities Of The Central Balkans (6200–5200 BC). PhD diss., University of Belgrade.

Tasić, Nenad, Miroslav Marić, Dragana Filipović, Kristina Penezić, Elaine Dunbar, Paula Reimer, Alistair Barclay, Alex Bayliss, Biserka Gaydarska, Alasdair Whittle. 2016. ‘Interwoven strands for refining the chronology of the Neolithic tell of Vinca-Belo Brdo, Serbia.’ Radiocarbon 58: 795–831.

Jovanović, Jelena, Tamara Blagojević, Saša Živanović, Anđelka Putica, Sofija Stefanović. 2017. ‘Contextual and anthropological analysis of human skeletal remains from the site Topole-Bač’ (Kontekstualna i antropološka analiza ljudskih skeletnih ostataka sa lokaliteta TopoleBač). Glasnik SAD 33: 255–81.

Tasić, Nenad, Miroslav Marić, Kristina Penezić, Dragana Filipović, Ksenija Borojević, Nicola Russell, Paula Reimer, Alistair Barclay, Alex Bayliss, and Dušan Borić. 2015. ‘The end of the affair: formal chronological modelling for the top of the Neolithic tell of Vinča-Belo Brdo.’ Antiquity 89(347): 1064–82.

Karamitrou-Mentessidi, Georgia, Nikos Efstratiou, Małgorzata Kaczanowska, Janusz K. Kozłowski. 2015. ‘Early neolithic settlement of mavropigi in western greek Macedonia.’ Eurasian Prehistory 12(1–2): 47– 116.

Tasić, Nenad, Miroslav Marić, Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Bernd Kromer, Alistair Barclay, Alex Bayliss, Nancy Beavan, Biserka Gaydarska, and Alsadair Whittle. 2016. ‘Vinča-Belo Brdo, Serbia: The times of a tell.’ Germania 93: 1–75.

Karmanski, Sergej. 2005. Donja Branjevina: A neolithic settlement near Deronje in the Vojvodina (Serbia). Trieste: Museo Civico di Storia Naturale.

Theocharis, Dimitris. R. 1973. Neolithic Greece. Athens: National Bank of Greece.

Marić, Miroslav. 2013. ‘Rescue excavations on the Jaričište 1 site.’ (‘Zaštitna arheološka istraživanja na lokalitetu Jaričište 1.’). In Rezultati novih arheoloških istraživanja u severozapadnoj Srbiji i susednim teritorijama, edited by Vojislav Filipović, Radivoje Arsić and Dragana Antonović, 17–31. Beograd: Srpsko arheološko društvo.

Todorova, Henrieta and Ivan Vajsov. 1993. Neolithic period in the Bulgaria (Ново-каменната епоха в България). Sofia. Todorova, Henrieta. 1995. ‘Prehistory of Bulgaria.’ In Recent Research in the Prehistory of the Balkans, edited by Dimitris V. Grammenos, 257–328. Thessaloniki: Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece.

McPherron, Alan and Dragoslav Srejović, (eds.). 1988. Divostin and the Neolithic of Central Serbia. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh. 198

Neolithic Settlements in the Central Balkans between 6200 and 5300 calBC Todorova, Henrieta. 2007. ‘The Neolithic, Eneolithic and Transitional Period in Bulgarian Prehistory.’ In Prehistoric Bulgaria, edited by Douglass W. Bailey and Ivan Panayotov, 79–98. Madison Wisconsin: Prehistory Press. Trajković, Čedomir. 1978. ‘Šećerana, Topole, Bač – praistorijsko naselje i grobovi.’ Arheološki pregled 19: 23–24. Trajković, Čedomir. 1988. ‘Topole-Bač.’ In The Neolithic of Serbia. Archaeological Research 1968–1988, edited by Dragoslav Srejović, 99–100. Belgrade: Center for Archaeological Research, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Philosophy. Whittle, Alasdair, László Bartosiewicz, Dušan Borić, Paul Pettitt, Michael Richards. 2002. ‘In the beginning: new radiocarbon dates for the Early Neolithic in northern Serbia and south-east Hungary.’ Antaeus 25: 63–117. Williams, Alan N. 2012. ‘The use of summed radiocarbon probability distributions in archaeology: a review of methods.’ Journal of Archaeological Science 39, 3: 578–89.

199

15 Off-settlement Ritual Practices in the Neolithic: Pit-Digging and Structured Deposition at Sarnevo in Bulgarian Thrace Krum Bacvarov National Institute of Archaeology and Museum, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences John Gorczyk Department of Anthropology, Cornell University Abstract: The late Neolithic site of Sarnevo (late 6th millennium calBC) in south-central Bulgaria is a pit field characterised by numerous cuts of varying shapes, sizes, and manner of construction. During a relatively brief period, a nearby Neolithic community used these pits to deposit a range of material culture including ceramics, animal remains, artefacts of exotic origin, and burnt structural debris. The patterns of deposition at Sarnevo allow us to identify a ‘ritual package’ that includes systematised knowledge of depositional practices as well as the physical and symbolic links that accompanied them. Keywords: pits, structured deposition, ritual, late Neolithic, Bulgarian Thrace Introduction

from his discussion. In the aftermath of the dig at Dana bunar 2, several prehistoric (late 6th and 5th millennium BC) pit sites were correctly identified and excavated, the largest being at Sarnevo (Bacvarov et al. 2017), Hadzhidimitrovo (Petrova 2010), Voden (Bacvarov et al. 2013), and Kapitan Andreevo (Nikolov et al. 2014).

Research on pit features has a long and complex history in archaeology, recently summarised by Julian Thomas (2012) for the Neolithic of Britain and Ireland. Far less attention has been paid to pits and pit complexes in the Neolithic of Southeast Europe, despite their common occurrence throughout the research area. John Chapman’s (2000b) discussion of pits was influential in establishing that pit-digging and deposition were closely linked to social practices of identity construction, ancestor veneration, and place-making during the Balkan Neolithic and Copper Age. For Chapman, the most important elements of pit use were intentional fragmentation (see also Chapman 2000a) and structured deposition (Richards and Thomas 1984). Both elements operate beyond the dichotomy of domestic/ ritual and link aspects of the prehistoric society including identity, commensality, fertility and rebirth, and ancestor veneration. Following Johanna Brück (1999), Chapman emphasised that studying prehistoric pit use allows us to see how ritual behaviour is interwoven into local/regional practices aimed at producing social meaning or belief.

The identification of pit sites, along with the observation that they are commonly located within walking distance or right next to a known settlement, opens the possibility of exploring the relationship between pit-digging and occupation in a larger framework of human–landscape interaction. Pit sites cover large areas (no pit field has been completely excavated, so the average size is yet unknown, but the largest pit field so far excavated, the one at Kapitan Andreevo, has an estimated diameter of ca. 600 m: Nikolov et al. 2014, 68); they clearly represent a substantial investment of time and labour and were one of several ways in which the Late Neolithic inhabitants of Thrace created and maintained places of sociocultural importance within the landscape. In this paper, we will outline the types of features discovered at Sarnevo (south-central Bulgaria), and will then discuss what Bacvarov (2017) has called the ‘ritual package’ that was identified at the site.

Chapman’s discussion was necessarily limited to settlement sites, since pit fields were not identified as a unique site type until the beginning of the twenty-first century. They were first identified in Bulgaria in conjunction with the proliferation of large development-based projects throughout the country (salvage archaeology). The first prehistoric site in Bulgaria interpreted as a pit field was Dana bunar 2 at Lyubimets (Nikolov et al. 2007). Vassil Nikolov (2011) was the first to provide a general interpretation of this site type, calling it a ‘pit sanctuary’, although the exact definition of ‘sanctuary’ was not clear

The archaeological site of Sarnevo in Upper Thrace The site of Sarnevo was partially excavated over three seasons from 2008–2010, within the framework of a development-based project for the Trakia highway (Bacvarov et al. 2017). It is situated on the primary terrace of the right bank of the Azmaka Creek, approximately 12 km 201

Krum Bacvarov & John Gorczyk south of the foothills of the Sarnena Sredna Gora, part of the Balkan range (Figure 15.1). An area of approximately 6750 m2 has been excavated. Remains of four periods of human activity have been registered, including the Late Neolithic, Early and Late Iron Age, and Roman periods. In the late Neolithic Karanovo III–IV period (5400–5200 cal. BC), people from a nearby settlement, Tell Kaleto, located ca. 900 m north/northwest of the excavated part of the pit field, used this place to deposit large amounts of material culture into cut features over a period spanning 75 years at most (see below). Currently we cannot rule out simultaneous use of the pit field by more than one community, but Tell Kaleto is the only settlement in the immediate vicinity in the microregion along the Azmaka Creek that was occupied in the Late Neolithic. Although the possibility of another contemporaneous settlement remains, after intensive surface and geomagnetic surveys of the region (Bacvarov and Leshtakov 2011; Bacvarov et al. 2016), it seems that Kaleto was the most probable origin of the community that used the pit field at Sarnevo. The inhabitants of the site therefore invested much time and effort relocating large amounts of heavy materials a relatively long distance, demonstrating the importance of ritual activity related to structured deposition for this Late Neolithic community. In the first millennium BC, the same place was used in a similar fashion by local Thracian communities. Finally, a Roman-period ditch was dug into the north-central part of the excavated area that contained, between other deposits, the articulated remains of both horse and dog sacrifices.

(Figure 15.3); 3) relatively small pits (mouth length less than 2.20 m) with a single inner pit (Figure 15.4). Almost all features were ‘sealed’ with heaps of burnt structural debris relocated from a settlement site (Tell Kaleto?). Two pits featuring a thermal installation each represent a version of type 2. A fourth type includes the only positive features, 111 and 112: two heaps of burnt daub on the ancient ground level that were most probably left from piling over some of the pits.

Relative and absolute chronology

Type 2 chain pits consist of several separate features similar to the ones of type 1 that either overlap partially or are cut immediately next to each other. They are clustered in the west part of the excavated area and are obviously the result of more intensive activities covering longer periods of time and suggesting multiple events concentrated – probably deliberately and premeditatedly – within a limited area, while type 1 and 3 pits are the results of single events or ones of relatively short duration. Both features with thermal installations were used on at least a couple of occasions, as is evidenced by the renovation of the hearths and the larger number of inner pits. The hearths themselves were built in the periphery of the outer pits and were obviously used in relation to the activities performed within the features.

The distinction between pits of type 1 and 2 is somewhat arbitrary, as some of them, although situated separately, could have been parts of a chain. Moreover, some type 3 features could have been included in complexes without being situated in a common outer pit. The Sarnevo features show certain characteristics suggesting that they were used as pits only, and that human activities that resulted in the archaeological contexts were focused on their cutting, use, intentional filling and sealing. Type 1 pits have an irregular, mostly elongated mouth, an uneven bottom and either a ramp or steps providing access to one or several deeper inner pits of relatively small size; pit walls opposite the ramp/steps are usually steeper. Some features with deeper inner pits have sloping walls, while the walls of the inner pit are steeper and the ramp/step is cut within in order to provide access to its bottom. In one case, the step of the inner pit was built by hard-packed clay after the cutting of the feature, the firing of its bottom and its plastering.

The late Neolithic pit field at Sarnevo, or at least its excavated part, was used for a relatively short period of time, as indicated by relative and absolute chronology. The material culture is typical of the Karanovo III–IV period in Thrace. Radiocarbon dates support the conventional chronology (Cook et al. 2017). Animal bones were selected from eight pits across the excavated area, to obtain a maximum representative sample. The 22 14C dates were subjected to Bayesian chronological modelling, the results of which suggest that activity at Sarnevo relates to a very short phase (1–75 years) that began in 5375–5320 calBC and ended in 5335–5290 calBC. On the other hand, the short period of use of the pit field and the features’ horizontal distribution prevent the construction of a relative chronology of the pits. Even the cases of deposition of fragments from the same artefact in different pits are not evidence of simultaneity or consecutiveness of use.

No evidence was found of roofing structures, including postholes. The pits at Sarnevo do not satisfy any of the criteria for pit houses that have been established in the literature (e.g. Greenfield and Jongsma 2008, 115). Pit walls are not eroded, and the fills do not reveal the thin- and multi-layered stratigraphy that is typical of natural erosion processes. On the other hand, the fill often contains larger or smaller sterile clay components, which suggests that the pits were partially filled with the soil left from their cutting and hence relatively shortly after it. Other possible evidence of the short period of time during which pits stayed open is the almost complete absence of gnawing marks on animal bones in the deposits.

Feature types On the basis of shape, size and spatial distribution, the excavated features at Sarnevo were tentatively grouped for analysis into three major categories: 1) large pits (diameter over 3.00 m) with ramp/steps and a single or several inner pits on the bottom (Figure 15.2); 2) chains of large pits 202

Off-settlement Ritual Practices in the Neolithic Type 3 pits have a roughly hemispherical, cylindrical or barrel-like shape and their depth is less than 1 m, which also suggests that the intention was to provide an easy access to the bottom.

some artefact types that usually are found quite often at Neolithic settlements sites, e.g. sherd polishers. Deliberate fragmentation, selectivity and diversity in the combination of items

The bottoms and walls at least of the inner pits of almost all features are clay plastered. Moreover, the bottoms of some type 3 features are covered with a ‘mosaic’ of small ceramic sherds or their walls are ‘panelled’ with large burnt daub pieces or fragments from clay storage bins.

The items in the deposits are almost always fragmented and the mode of deposition often suggests that breakage was deliberate. Moreover, the archaeological contexts show evidence of selectivity and the specific combination of various materials. Deposition of fragments from the same artefacts has been identified in different pits that are situated at a relatively long distance from each other. Such is the case with four fragments from an upper grinding stone, two of which were deposited together in feature 28B, and the other two, in features 89 and 104; the three features are located ca. 15 m from each other. This practice is related to deliberate fragmentation and was probably much more common, especially for ceramic vessels and grinding stones, but cross fitting between features is obviously difficult for such large assemblages.

Deposits The find assemblages of most features show recurring elements in terms both of the type and the state of the finds, which suggests that there were specific conditions for and modes of deposition. Composition of deposits The materials deposited in the pits almost always include: 1) sherds, and in one case a nearly complete ceramic vessel; 2) small grinding-stone fragments; 3) faunal remains. Besides being present in almost every deposit, these three groups are usually found in much larger numbers than any other finds. The deposits also include a limited number – usually one or several – of large burnt daub pieces (other than the ones used to seal the deposit) and cattle horn cores or fallow deer antlers (besides the other faunal remains), which were placed at either the top or bottom of the pit deposits, or both. The relation between the recurring elements of the deposit is obvious, e.g. in feature 63, in one of whose inner pits a complete fallow deer antler was placed on a large piece of burnt daub featuring wattle and post imprints, with a small grinding stone fragment lying on the palmate portion of the antler (Figure 15.5).

The fragmentary state of grinding stones, which are one of the recurring elements in deposits, is direct evidence of the fragmentation’s deliberate nature. Breaking down these artefacts into numerous small pieces cannot possibly be done accidentally or without additional thermal agency, which has not been attested. The same probably goes for the ceramic vessels, although the deliberateness of their fragmentation is more difficult to demonstrate. Another example of obviously deliberate fragmentation aiming at a specific mode of deposition are three items from feature 9 that were found together: a large seated female ceramic figurine with the upper part of the cylindrical head and the lower right leg missing, an upper part of a cylindrical head and a fragment from the right leg of a seated figurine. The latter two finds belong to typologically and stylistically similar but different figurines. Similar contexts were identified in three more features.

All archaeobotanical samples from the pits contain very limited amounts of plant remains and their analysis does not show relevant connections. It is quite possible that all of them were relocated to the pits together with the burnt house debris. On the other hand, their small number notwithstanding, they also demonstrate a certain diversity that could have been deliberate.

Moreover, the analyses of the assemblages of ceramic vessels and stone tools suggest that some of the artefacts may not have been used in everyday life and were possibly made especially for pit deposition. A similar observation applies to some of the spindle whorls.

An obvious example of a recurring combination of deliberate fragmentation and selectivity of deposition is a context with human skeletal remains on the bottom of the inner pit of feature 40, where skull fragments from two children and a fragment from an adult male’s femur, broken – in order to be deposited? – when still fresh, were placed over two cattle horns, several animal bones, burnt daub pieces, ceramic sherds, and grinding-stone fragments. The presence of human bone fragments in the deposits of two features suggests that there was one more element – admittedly, not a recurring one – in the whole complex of activities and processes that resulted in the formation of archaeological features: the selection and relocation of skeletal remains, which was obviously preceded by meddling in burial contexts situated elsewhere.

Neither the pit features nor the areas around them have yielded evidence of farming or production activities. It seems noteworthy that there is a very small number of

One of the most telling cases of deliberate fragmentation aiming at a specific mode of deposition was established in feature 99: three fragments from an elaborately decorated

The other finds vary in type, but often include items made from an exotic/rare raw material (e.g. chrysotile) and/or have other distinctive qualities (e.g. a distinctive fragmentation pattern). Two pits yielded disarticulated human skeletal remains.

203

Krum Bacvarov & John Gorczyk bone pin were stuck to the clay plaster at three different places under the ‘panelling’ of burnt daub pieces and fragments from clay storage bins. The pin was broken into six parts, maybe immediately before deposition, and the three biggest pieces were deposited in the pit, while two very small inner fragments and the point are missing. It is possible that this splitting of 3 x 3 alternating parts was accidental, but the find’s context rather suggests deliberate actions of certain symbolic meaning, as is probably also the case with two unfitting fragments from the same bone pin in feature 44A. Similar fragmentation and ‘concealment’ under panelling/plastering, also of a bone artefact, is attested in feature 108B: a long spatula on a cattle rib was plastered approximately in the middle of the bottom; it was broken in such a way that a very small inner fragment was missing.

smouldered after part of or the whole deposit was already there. Sealing with burnt house debris With a single exception, after their filling, the pits of all types were covered with burnt house debris that is lacking the structural characteristics typical for such remains when in a primary position (in situ). This material was relocated from elsewhere (Tell Kaleto?) and heaped over the pits; part of it eventually sunk down and the upper part comprised a relatively flat layer, which often covers a larger area than the pit’s diameter. The remains on the surface are eroded, which suggests that they were not additionally covered with soil but stayed open for a long period of time, while the burnt daub pieces that sunk down the fill have preserved their sharp edges and wattle and post imprints, which means that relocation and heaping was done shortly after the destruction of the house(s) by fire, and that the debris did not stay long in its primary position.

Still more ‘confusing’ is the situation with faunal remains, which comprise a very large proportion of the pit deposits. They show a diversity of domestic and wild taxa, including seashells brought from a long distance, small mammals, and not least, birds. The analysis of the fragmentation and body parts profile suggests a variety of activities. A large percentage of the bones represents consumption waste and was probably relocated to the pits together with the burnt house debris. Others, including articulated skeletal elements, could have been the remains of feasting events. One way or another, in addition to the significant fragmentation, which could have resulted from a variety of causes and may have partially been unconnected to the very act of deposition, the faunal assemblage demonstrates a certain selectivity that is difficult to explain but is definitely intentional, especially where the very large number of mostly caprine mandibles is concerned.

The inner pits in the chain features most probably were sealed separately; the single heaps eventually subsided and formed a single layer covering the whole feature. Besides their sealing function, the bright red-orange heaps stayed as markers on the surface for a long time and were clearly discernible and visible from afar. The use of such large amounts of burnt debris is also intrinsically related to the problem of deliberate house burning in the later prehistory of Southeast Europe. Structured deposition at Sarnevo

Compared to the substantial amount of faunal remains in the deposits, it is somewhat surprising to note the absence of animal figurines, given their abundance in other Late Neolithic contexts in Thrace. Anthropomorphic figurines are also scarce – 28 in total, all of them fragmented – but the absence of animal imagery does not seem accidental, in view of the fact that animal bones, horns and antlers played such a significant role in the structured deposition at Sarnevo.

Outside of its original formulation (Richards and Thomas 1984), the term ‘structured deposition’ has no conventional definition, as it has been employed by numerous authors to address a multitude of different phenomena. Essentially, the concept is interpretive, and as Garrow (2012, 86) has argued, has become an interpretation in and of itself. For the purposes of this text and specifically in regard to the Late Neolithic pit field at Sarnevo, it is used to signify deliberate placing of specially selected diverse materials in pits in a certain mode, order, and connection to each other. This definition includes the following general characteristics of the pits, formulated on the basis of the above consideration:

Clay plastering/sealing The whole deposits in the inner pits, certain parts of them or single items were often plastered or sealed with sterile clay. Especially instructive examples of such internal structuring are attested in features 66 and 99, where the deposit was divided into levels with layers of sterile clay obviously signifying the end of a given phase of deposition. In feature 99, this inner sealing put out the fire which had burnt or smouldered in the pit.

1) Shape, size and position of the pits that suggest they were cut especially for the commission of certain activities within their deepest part, resulting in the deliberate deposition of diverse materials. 2) Clay plastering of the walls and/or bottoms at least of inner pits, which is sometimes followed by plastering of the walls with burnt daub pieces and/or ceramic sherds. 3) The act of deposition includes the following elements: • recurrent types of items: large amounts of ceramic sherds, small grinding-stone fragments and faunal remains; single burnt daub pieces, horns/antlers,

Firing/burning Although rarely, some of the features yielded evidence of firing of the bottom, while in others, a fire had burnt or 204

Off-settlement Ritual Practices in the Neolithic

•

• • •

artefacts made from exotic/rare raw materials and/ or having other distinctive qualities; imitations (e.g. pots of smaller than usual size and/or lower quality, and stone tools of larger than usual size and/or with ‘unfinished’ working edges); deliberate fragmentation, selectivity and diversity of the deposited items, including deposition of fragments from the same artefact in different pits and of fragments from different artefacts of the same type in the same place (including human/animal bone fragments from different individuals, figurines and other objects); plastering/sealing with sterile clay of the deposits or single items in the inner pits; firing/burning; deposition occurring shortly after initial pit cutting.

The ceramic assemblages from the pits at Sarnevo contained hundreds of sherds from highly fragmented and in most cases poorly fired ceramic vessels (e.g. feature 66 contained 428 diagnostic sherds and many more body sherd fragments, handles/lugs and pedestal bases). The surface treatment of the ceramics was also of low quality. This suggests a local manufacture for short-term use, possibly even specifically for use in pit-filling activities. The high volume of plain sherds made refitting extremely difficult. A single complete vessel was recovered at Sarnevo. Some almost complete vessels were intentionally broken and arranged near the top of the pit, with artefacts placed directly on top of them. Other vessels were intentionally broken and then arranged around the mouth of the pit, making it look like the mouth of a vessel. The pits also contained large numbers of animal bones, which were heavily fragmented and most probably represent food remains. Many of the bones came from cattle and fallow deer, with caprines and pigs also present in large numbers. In addition to the hundreds of fragmented animal remains, some complete and nearcomplete elements (horn cores and antlers) were selected for structured deposition.

4) Sealing of the entire deposit with burnt structural debris. The high recurrence rate and the composition of these elements suggest relative normativity and ritualised action. On the other hand, the ritual nature of the activities directly aiming at pit deposition in no way rules out the possibility that they could have been indirectly – regarding their physical result only – related to everyday farming or production activities carried out elsewhere and at another time. Most probably, structured deposition at Sarnevo represented an initial, intermediate or final phase in a longer and more comprehensive sequence of activities. And lastly, it seems to be part of the complex ritual system of the Late Neolithic community.

Other artefact types were also intentionally fragmented and deposited into the pits, most notably broken grinding stones. It is quite uncommon to find grinding stones broken into so many pieces through daily use and wear. At Sarnevo (and other pit sites), the features contained pieces of grinding stones that do not show traces of burning. This suggests that they were not broken during the destruction of a structure (such as a house) and were not transported together with the settlement debris.

Whatever the purpose of these rituals, their multi-faceted nature and labour-intensiveness demanded the organised collective effort of large groups, perhaps of the entire community. And while the deposition of symbolically rich material culture in pits was obviously aimed at its ‘concealment’, somewhat paradoxically the impetus to conceal was undermined by closing the pits with piles of burnt daub, which would have been visible above the prehistoric land surface. Preserving the knowledge of ritual activities through structured deposition and marking its place in the landscape ensured that it was preserved in the collective memory and participated in the process of creating and maintaining social identity. The totality of these fixed and recurrent material and processual elements of structured deposition at the Late Neolithic pit field of Sarnevo can be defined as a ‘ritual package.’

Despite intensive sampling for plant remains, very little material was recovered, and at least most of it probably came along with the settlement debris. On the other hand, although the overall number of plant remains is low, there is a high species diversity, which could be suggestive of selective deposition.

Conclusion: The Late Neolithic ‘ritual package’

There are several patterns of structured deposition that are common for the features. The most obvious at the time of excavation was the placement of horn cores or antlers at either the top or bottom of the pit deposits. In some cases, fragments of broken grinding stones were carefully placed directly on the element itself. Where these cranial elements were placed at the top of the deposit, they were always the last items deposited before the entire pit was sealed with burnt daub.

Certain patterns have emerged from the examination of the deposits from most of the pits at Sarnevo which, taken together, form what Bacvarov (2017) termed the ‘ritual package.’ Elements of this package have been identified at other pit sites in Thrace (e.g. Voden, Hadzhidimitrovo, Kapitan Andreevo), but the unique combination of material associations observed in features at Sarnevo is considered so far to be site-specific.

Refitting artefacts with a unique typology proved easier and highlighted the importance of fragmentation and deposition at the site, the most instructive being an intricate bone pin in feature 99, broken into six pieces, three of which were placed in different locations around the walls of the pit; a spindle whorl made from the ‘mushroom-knob’ handle of a ceramic jug, fragmented and placed into two different features (65 and 73B); a fragment from a large anthropomorphic 205

Krum Bacvarov & John Gorczyk figurine in feature 9, found together with pieces from two other figurines of a similar type representing the missing parts of the former; and finally, four pieces of an upper grinding stone – accounting for roughly one half of the object – found in three different features (28B, 89 and 104).

Chapman, John. 2000b. ‘Pit-digging and structured deposition in the Neolithic and Copper Age of Central and Eastern Europe.’ Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61: 51–67. Cook, Gordon T., Derek Hamilton, and Clive Bonsall. 2017. ‘Radiocarbon dates.’ In Sarnevo: vkopani strukturi ot kasniya neolit, rannata i kasnata zhelyazna epoha i rimskiya period. Vol. 1, Kasnoneolitnoto yamno pole, edited by Krum Bacvarov, Milena Tonkova and Georgi Katsarov, 505–09. Sofia: NAIM–BAN.

Sarnevo is the only pit field in Bulgaria where numerous analyses have been brought together to investigate the prehistoric practices involved in its creation. It therefore provides a unique opportunity to understand the elements of Neolithic rituals that were integral to creating and maintaining social life. The identification of features of ritual deposition at Sarnevo serves as a starting point for a larger discussion of ritual practices and their role in shaping later Neolithic society, but much more work is required. For example, the relationship between the pit field and the nearby settlement has yet to be investigated. Other pit fields also need to be studied and compared with Sarnevo to determine if the patterns identified at the latter are present elsewhere in Thrace.

Garrow, Duncan. 2012. ‘Odd deposits and average practice. A critical history of the concept of structured deposition.’ Archaeological Dialogues 19/2: 85–115. Greenfield, Haskel J. and Tina L. Jongsma. 2008. ‘Sedentary pastoral gatherers in the early Neolithic: architectural, botanical, and zoological evidence for mobile economies from Foeni-Salaş – south-west Romania.’ In Living well together? Settlement and materiality in the Neolithic of South-East and Central Europe, edited by Douglass Bailey, Alasdair Whittle, and Daniela Hofmann, 108–30. Oxford: Oxbow.

References cited Bacvarov, Krum. 2017. ‘Sarnevo: kasnoneolitniyat ritualen paket.’ In Sarnevo: vkopani strukturi ot kasniya neolit, rannata I kasnata zhelyazna epoha i rimskiya period. Vol. 1, Kasnoneolitnoto yamno pole, edited by Krum Bacvarov, Milena Tonkova and Georgi Katsarov, 224– 33. Sofia: NAIM-BAN.

Nikolov, Vassil. 2011. ‘A reinterpretation of Neolithic complexes with dug-out features: pit sanctuaries.’ Studia Praehistorica 14: 91–119. Nikolov, Vassil, Viktoria Petrova, Elka Anastasova, Nedko Elenski, Desislava Andreeva, Stoilka Ignatova, Petar Leshtakov, Miroslava Dotkova, Evgenia Naydenova, Miroslav Klasnakov. 2007. ‘Arheologichesko prouchvane na kasnoneolitnoto yamno svetilishte Lybimets – Dana bunar 2.’ Arheologicheski otkritiya i razkopki prez 2006 g.: 44–47.

Bacvarov, Krum and Petar Leshtakov. 2011. ‘Terenno arheologichesko izdirvane v zemlishata na selata Sarnevo i Pshenichevo, Starozagorsko.’ Arheologicheski otkritiya i razkopki prez 2010 g.: 575–77. Bacvarov, Krum, Krassimir Leshtakov, Nadezhda Todorova, Vanya Petrova, Georgi Katsarov, Denitsa Ilieva, Nikolina Nikolova, Nikola Tonkov, Selena Vitezović, Stanimira Taneva, Tzvetana Popova. 2013. ‘Praistoricheski obekt pri s. Voden, obsht. Dimitrovgrad (AM “Maritsa”, LOT 2, km 43+350 do km 43+750).’ Arheologicheski otkritiya i razkopki prez 2012 g.: 62–64.

Nikolov, Vassil, Viktoria Petrova, Tanya Hristova, Petar Leshtakov. 2014. ‘Pra- i protoistoricheski obreden kompleks v m. Hauza kray Kapitan Andreevo, Svilengradsko. Trase na Via Diagonalis.’ Arheologicheski otkritiya i razkopki prez 2013 g.: 68– 70. Petrova, Viktoria. 2010. ‘Arheologicheski prouchvaniya na kasnoneoliten obekt № 21, LOT 3, AM Trakia (km 275+250 – 276+100) pri s. Hadzhidimitrovo, obshtina Yambol.’ Arheologicheski otkritiya i razkopki prez 2009 g.: 54–56.

Bacvarov, Krum, Ralf Gleser, Rainer Komp, Valeska Becker, Nikola Tonkov, Petar Zidarov, Victoria Russeva. 2016. ‘Geomagnitno kartirane po techenieto na r. Azmaka pri s. Sarnevo, obsht. Radnevo, i s. Pshenichevo, obsht. Stara Zagora.’ Arheologicheski otkritiya i razkopki prez 2015 g.: 144–48.

Richards, Colin and Thomas, Julian. 1984. ‘Ritual activity and structured deposition in later Neolithic Wessex.’ In Neolithic studies: a review of some current research, edited by Richard Bradley and Julie Gardiner, 189– 218. (Reading Studies in Archaeology 1). British Archaeological Reports British Series 133. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Bacvarov, Krum, Milena Tonkova, and Georgi Katsarov, (eds.). 2017. Sarnevo: vkopani strukturi ot kasniya neolit, rannata i kasnata zhelyazna epoha i rimskiya period. Vol. 1, Kasnoneolitnoto yamno pole. Sofia: NAIM–BAN. Brück, Joanna. 1999. ‘Ritual and rationality: some problems of interpretaton in European archaeology.’ European Journal of Archaeology 2/3: 313–44.

Thomas, Julian. 2012. ‘Introduction: Beyond the Mundane?’ In Regional perspectives on Neolithic pit deposition: beyond the mundane, edited by Julian Thomas and Hugo Anderson-Whymark, 1-10. Oxford: Oxbow.

Chapman, John. 2000a. Fragmentation in archaeology: people, places, and broken objects in the prehistory of South Eastern Europe. London; New York: Routledge. 206

Off-settlement Ritual Practices in the Neolithic

Figure 15.1. Location of the archaeological site of Sarnevo. Above: maps showing the location of the site and the catchment area of the river Sazliyka. Below: aerial photograph of the site after the excavation, view to the east (to the Azmaka Creek, marked by the line of shrubs and trees).

207

Krum Bacvarov & John Gorczyk

Figure 15.2. Example of a large pit (feature 66): the lowest level of the deposit in the inner pit (the arrow points to a fallow deer antler placed in the bottom of the inner pit). View to the northwest.

Figure 15.3. Example of a pit chain (feature 34) after excavation; view to the southeast. Upper left corner: detail of the same feature, with deposits in inner pits (34D and 34E); view to the east.

208

Off-settlement Ritual Practices in the Neolithic

Figure 15.4. Example of a lined pit (feature 21), with sherd pavement on the bottom; view to the northeast.

Figure 15.5. Feature 63: fallow deer antler deposited on a burnt daub piece in an inner pit; a small grinding stone fragment lies on the palmate portion of the antler.

209

16 Contextualising the Neolithic House: A View from Aşağı Pınar in Eastern Thrace Eylem Özdoğan Prehistory Section of Istanbul University, Turkey Heiner Schwarzberg Bavarian State Archaeological Collection at Munich, Germany Abstract: The dwellings and even the settlements themselves that constitute the Neolithic way of life from the Near East to Southeast Europe are a fictionalised and re-engineered concept. The Neolithic dwellings emerged and transformed into various forms simultaneously with the other components of the Neolithic. In this article, the houses and the settlement structure of Aşağı Pınar are evaluated in order to contextualise them within a generalised concept of the Neolithic way of life. The evaluation of the site will detail a process beginning after the end of the 7th millennium BC and continuing until the first quarter of the 5th millennium BC in Eastern Thrace. Keywords: Neolithic house/dwelling, Eastern Thrace, Aşağı Pınar, wattle-and-daub architecture, pre-planned settlement layout, ditch Introduction

various symbolic associations such as house burying or burning, the repetitive building of a house, intramural burial customs under the floor, cult areas in domestic buildings, or wall paintings and house models, etc. All of these show that the ‘house’ in the Neolithic is not only a place where physical needs are met but a place which addresses the social and spiritual needs of society as well.

As stressed by Kent Vaughn Flannery (1972), the concepts of agriculture, sedentary and village life do not necessarily need to coexist in any location. However, the Neolithic in western Asia, in addition to many other innovations in human lifeways, almost always appears with these three concepts in combination. But these innovations were not sudden and concomitant; on the contrary, they began gradually and at different times (for an overview see M. Özdoğan et al. 2011–13). Consequently, human communities became societies, the wild was domesticated, camps turned into villages, and shelters became houses.

In the late 8th and in the course of the 7th millennium BC, the organised physical environment consisted of open areas and buildings with typical features of the Neolithic way of life. It is possible to identify standard features of the Neolithic house, such as a rectangular plan, which is sometimes divided into rooms. Different activities occur within houses, which are further organised with installations such as ovens, platforms, and silos. From this point of view the house is the centre of the Neolithic settlement, a basic element of a village. However, the village is more than a cluster of houses or buildings. Each village is distinct from every other in terms of building materials, house features, the appearance of structures, annexes, the arrangement of structures, the usage of open spaces, and the sizes of the settlements. More importantly, a tangled social network lies hidden behind the patterns of the village. Accordingly, these myriad features make each village socially and culturally distinct. Along with many other components of the Neolithic, in Western Anatolia, Greece and the Balkans,68 in other words, in the secondarily Neolithicised areas, the physical and social

Architectural developments are the most decisive reconstruction of the physical environment that occurs during the transition to the Neolithic. Basic problems of architectural structures had already been solved between the 10th and 8th millennium BC with semantic transformation of a shelter into a house; transitioning from subterranean dwellings to ground-level structures; from circular to rectangular plans, the discovery of self-supporting walls and building materials, foundations, subbasements, second floors, and even such details as stairs (Aurenche 1981; Banning 1998; Bıçakçı 1998; 2003; M. Özdoğan and Özdoğan A. 1989). As a structure develops formally, its function and meaning in the society also change. The house in the Neolithic has divisions separating areas for storage, sleeping, living, and performing certain tasks. Buildings are no longer places intended simply for shelter or protection, but have been transformed into a more permanent residential place. The house as a place for living also has spiritual connotations. Various practices imbued the house with

68 In Southeastern Europe, where the house is not encountered in this form, this situation is related to the tangled path of Neolithisation. Indeed, circular subterranean huts, common in the Balkans at the advent of the Neolithic period, are replaced by houses in a relatively short span of time.

211

Eylem Özdoğan & Heiner Schwarzberg occupation in the site can be divided into two main phase: the first phase is represented by layers 8–6, which correspond to the Late Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic in Anatolian terminology, but are related to the SE European Early Neolithic,69 at the beginning of a village life based on agricultural and domesticated animal food production in the Balkans. After that phase, dated 6200–5600 BC, the 5/6 transition layer occurs, which represents the transition to a new process, followed by layers 5–1, dated in the second half of the 6th and the first quarter of the 5th millennium, corresponding to the Middle Chalcolithic in Anatolia, and (respectively) the Middle–Late Neolithic Period in the Balkans. It is understood that the number of settlements greatly increased and the components of a new lifestyle with local Balkan characteristics emerged at this time.

structures of a house do not differ. In many settlements in these areas, the ‘house’ is encountered in a standard form rather than being redesigned to fit the specific region. The main scope of this article is to evaluate architectural remains from Aşağı Pınar in Eastern Thrace within the context of the Neolithic, both in regard to the dwellings and the village itself. The long and continuous sequence observed at Aşağı Pınar provides an opportunity to examine more closely the early farming life in this area and put it in the wider geographical context, especially with respect to the contemporaneous settlements of the Balkans. The analysis that follows aims to contribute to better understanding of the forms of interaction in the area and help us to comprehend how those forms shaped the process of Neolithisation by observing the interaction within this formative zone and areas of expansion.

Although the earliest layer, 8, has been identified, knowledge about this period is limited to the material found at the bottom of some pits, ditches and undefined contexts. This layer, which has yet to be well understood architecturally, represents a Pre-Karanovo phase in the eastern Balkans, as indicated by the pottery assemblages (M. Özdoğan 2013, 168).

Aşağı Pınar The prehistoric site of Aşağı Pınar is located in the vicinity of the Kırklareli city centre in Eastern Thrace (Figure 16.1), where the foothills of the Istranca Mountains descend into the Ergene Basin to the south (M. Özdoğan 1999; Parzinger et al. 1998; Schwarzberg and E. Özdoğan, 2013). The settlement was set up on an area surrounded by springs at the south of a little stream, named Haydardere, that has mostly fallen dry at present. The geological position of the site is at the intersection of the endemic steppe environment of the Ergene basin and the forested mountainous habitat of the Istranca Mountains, two entirely different natural environments, providing access to a variety of raw materials and food sources (Figure 16.2).

The subsequent layers, 7 and 6, which date to the end of the 7th and first half of the 6th millennium BC, are well defined (E. Özdoğan, 2011; M. Özdoğan 2013; Schwarzberg and E. Özdoğan 2013). Tulip-shaped cylindrical vessels, open-mouthed or globular vessels with cylindrical necks, conical or globular deep bowls, and shallow plates are frequently seen in these layers. Surface colours range between tones of red, orange red-brown, dark beige, greybrown and grey (Schwarzberg and E. Özdoğan, 2013). Characteristic white painted decoration occurs, along with fluted, barbotine, impresso and applique band decoration (M. Özdoğan 2011). Bottoms with matting impressions are one of the other features of both layer 7 and layer 6 vessels. Besides the chronological overlap, all features of the pottery assemblages indicate the presence of the same Karanovo I and II phases known from Bulgaria (Krauß 2008; Nikolov 1997 Todorova 2003).

The earliest occupation at Aşağı Pınar was found just south of the Haydardere river, and dates to the end of the 7th millennium BC. It continued for about a thousand years without interruption, ending in the first quarter of the 5th millennium BC (Figure 16.3). The area was reused during the Early Iron Age. In spite of evidence from Aşağı Pınar and its environs, which indicates substantial farm structures in the area, it is hard to identify this period in a stratified layer of the mound. It is known, however, that the southern part of the mound was used as a sacred place during the Iron Age and in the northern part there lies an entirely destroyed 5th-century BC tumulus the presence of which could only by determined by minimal traces (M. Özdoğan et al. 1997; M. Özdoğan 1999).

Broad-hipped figurines with female anatomical features, clay stamps (pintaderas), clay bracelets, polypod vessels, altars and iron-like/columnar objects, stone vessels, stone amulets, bone spoons and other items of a versatile bone tool technology are the most typical finds of these layers (Aytek 2015; Hansen 2004; 2016; Schwarzberg 2006a). In addition to these, tools for everyday use such as loom weights, clay coverings, bone points and scrapers, stone axes etc. are seen frequently (M. Özdoğan, 2007). On the one hand, these common components are typical for the Neolithic in a very wide geographic area from the Near East to the Balkans, but on the other, the technology of chipped stone is more similar to that discovered in the Balkans. Chipped stone technology at the site is distinct from the contemporary technology in Anatolia, and the quantity of

The project at Aşağı Pınar began in 1993 with a joint team from Istanbul University and the German Archaeological Institute under the direction of Mehmet Özdoğan and Hermann Parzinger (Karul et al. 2003; Parzinger and Schwarzberg 2005; M. Özdoğan 3013; Eres et al. 2015). The site dates from approximately 6200 to 4800 BC, with nine identified layers. These layers are numbered 1–8 from surface to bottom, with an additional distinct transitional layer appearing between 5 and 6, numbered layer 5/6. The investigation of the settlement shows that the Neolithic

69

212

In Greece, the Early and Middle Neolithic Period.

Contextualising the Neolithic House chipped-stone tools is more restricted. Typical finds of the period are so-called Karanovo blades made from honeycolored flint (Gatsov 2009). As with other sites in Balkans, at Aşağı Pınar sling missiles are frequently used instead of the arrowheads known from Anatolia and the Near East (M. Özdoğan 2002).

Deposits are 40–60 cm thick, revealing only sparse finds. The deposit above the virgin soil and the superincumbent brown soil is 0.70–1 m thick and composed of 1–2 or 3–5 cm thick layers of ash, limestone, clay and occasionally burnt mud bricks or mud rubble which accumulated consecutively. The patterns of accumulation as well as the consistent thickness and distribution of layers indicate that they were intentionally spread into the ditch. There is another deposit above that layer which contains yellowish clay, brown soil and burnt mud-brick/mud layers, which are 5–8 cm thick. Belonging to this phase there are four ovens located at the northern side of the ditch in different sections of both earlier and later ditches. The history of the ditches indicates that at least some part of them gained a different function after they were filled to a certain level. Perhaps they were converted to an indoor space. From this level the ditch remained shallow but open, and a visible part of the settlement for a long time, until it was finally completely filled in the mid-6th millennium.

Architectural features of the site The earliest currently identifiable architectural remains at Aşağı Pınar come from layer 7. They were discovered in the northeastern part of the mound. Layer 7 has three sub-layers and the oldest is represented by a group of wattle-and-daub structures (Figure 16.4). Here, there are four rooms sharing walls and another single room structure located at the east of this building complex. No in situ finds were found, suggesting that the houses were emptied before being abandoned, but ovens, platforms and silos have been recovered inside the houses. Pieces of red-painted floor discovered in two of the rooms seem to be reminiscent of the Neolithic plaster floors of Anatolia. While the northern parts of these houses are well defined, the southern portion of the buildings were destroyed by ditches of the later sub-layers of layer 7, so there is no information about possible open spaces. In the northern part, ovens and areas with ash, clay, or chalk deposits were identified in an open space, indicating that this place was probably used as a communal space for everyday activities.

The assemblages from the ditches and pits in general are similar to each other. Beside the elaborate, finely made vessels with wall thicknesses down to a few millimetres, which are sometimes decorated with paint, there are channelled or dot impressed and incised decorations. Common finds include figurines, high-quality bone tools, marble and semiprecious stones used for the production of ornaments, elaborately worked bone objects, and pieces of clay bracelets. Additionally, fragmented human bones, belonging to different individuals, were found scattered in different parts of the ditch. Cattle and wild sheep/goat horns as well as antlers were also deposited in some areas. The selective pattern of this assemblage indicates that ditches were intentionally re-filled and perhaps were part of some ritual behaviour (M. Özdoğan 2013, 185).

In the middle sub-layer of layer 7, the structures described above were levelled. Adjoining to the south, a ditch with a northwest–southeast orientation was dug into the virgin soil. The ditch was complemented by a number of ovalshaped pits of ca. 6–10 x 2–3 m in width and 2–2,5 m in depth, forming a row of pits, of which approximately 60 m have been uncovered. The ditch was widened in three locations by pits that opened to the south. The similarity of the deposits and materials in the long pit row and the direction of both the ditch and the southern pits indicate that they were used almost simultaneously. The characterisation and type of accumulated deposits also indicate that these were deliberately refilled in a premeditated process. The upper sub-layer of 7 is again represented by a ditch. However, the direction and the construction of the ditch was somewhat different. It was dug south-southeast of the aforementioned ditch, in the shape of a concave bow running from the north. Hence, it is understood that the settlement was presumably enclosed by the ditch and accordingly widened in that direction. The ditch does not consist of a series of pits but is channellike and was completely opened all at the same time. At the top, the broadest part is around 2–2,5 m wide and it narrows at the bottom. Pits were dug to the south of the ditch, again in order to widen it. The deposits in the ditch and pits are similar to those of the previous layer, and it can be followed for around 100 m almost without interruption.

The building structures related to the upper sub-layer of 7 remain still unknown. They may have been removed during the construction of buildings in layer 6. The architecture of this subsequent layer, 6, follows the outline of the youngest ditch and it is understood from its content that the depression was preserved during this period. In this context, a stratigraphic continuity between the upper sub-layer of 7 and layer 6 is certain. Some destroyed floor pieces which should be contemporaneous with the upper sub-layer of 7 were seen under the layer 6 building, especially on its west side. This indicates that there were houses parallel to the latest ditch in upper sub-layer 7 and the settlement developed in the same area in layer 6, with a similar plan. Thus, continuity is apparent both in pottery and the other material culture, as well as in the architecture. Representing the middle of the 6th millennium BC is layer 6. Wattle-and-daub structures in this layer have a series of rooms with common partition walls (Figure 16.6). This indicates that they were built all at once and that the entire site was planned. Due to their destruction by a severe fire, the structures are well preserved in most areas (E. Özdoğan, 2011). Inside the buildings, silos, platforms and ovens are found, along with numerous in situ finds

The fill in the bottom of both ditches consists of shifted material of the yellow virgin soil and brown sediment, which generally lies just above the virgin soil (Figure 16.5). 213

Eylem Özdoğan & Heiner Schwarzberg to the Karanovo III and IV sequence, i.e. to the Middle and Late Neolithic period of the Balkans. The pottery assemblage of these layers includes dark grey and tones of black or dark and light brown wares (Parzinger 2005, 40). The main types consist of carinated pots or bowls, jars with long necks and cups. The vessels, which were fired at a much lower temperature than the Early Neolithic ones, are extremely varied in terms of form and size, and the same form is used for small, medium and large vessels. Carinated and sharply inclining profiles are characteristic of these vessels. There is also pronounced variation in the surface treatment of the pottery and its decoration techniques. The surfaces of finely made vessels were carefully polished and usually decorated by channelling. Additionally, different techniques such as incision, puncturing, impression, applique, and barbotine are used (Parzinger 2005, 40). Roughened surfaces are also common, especially in layer 5. Some of the vessels have anthropomorphic faces or even shapes (Schwarzberg 2006b), and there are also composite (hybrid) vessels, and strainers. Vertical band handles with a knob at the top, long legs and high pedestals, and lids are also characteristic features of this stage.

(Figure 16.7). Frequently, installations and artefacts in the rooms were very dense and limited to the living spaces; especially in such rooms, there are also traces of a second floor. No traces outside the layer 6 buildings have been found that can be described as a courtyard or workshop. Therefore, either everyday activities and all of the work was done within the structures, or the contemporaneous open working or living areas have been completely erased by later occupation. In the middle of the 6th millennium BC there was a significant change not only in the material culture but also in the architecture. Until recently, this change was thought to be what distinguished the Early Neolithic and Middle/ Late Neolithic throughout the Balkans, and was thought to be a radical cultural change too. The observation of the dynamics of the Early Neolithic and the presence of a transitional period at several Bulgarian sites (see e.g. Karastoyanova 2004; Nikolov 1997, 2004; Stanev 2002), however, indicate that there was no general cultural break, but a gradual transformation. At Aşağı Pınar the transition process can be most easily understood by examining the changes and continuities in pottery assemblages. A variety of shapes, decorative elements and techniques known from the Early Neolithic pottery remained widespread in the following period. Apparently, the transition layer (5/6) developed only in the northern part of the mound, on the same spot as the preceding settlements of layers 7 and 6. The most striking architectural remains of this layer are of a large palisade. The surface and standing structure of the wall, which can be followed for approximately 80 m, was scraped and entirely destroyed by the settlement of layer 5. Therefore, only the foundation ditch with its wooden post holes could be discerned (Figure 16.8). The wall runs along the remains of the layer 6 building debris in an east–west direction. It has a concave bow shape in the north and has niches on the south side, which gives the structure a distinct ‘meandering’ disposition. Due to its length, the very prominent niches and its solid construction with large wooden posts, the palisade may certainly have had a massive appearance. In the northern portion of the wall, the settlement layer is heavily destroyed and therefore could not be well understood. Only a related semi-subterranean wattle-and-daub hut in the west of the area was found. South of the palisade, the shallow concavity of the upper sub-layer 7 was refilled in the transition layer with a flow deposit. Besides scattered pottery sherds, it contained mainly bones of domestic animals.

The Middle–Late Neolithic layers share similar finds in general. A variety of bone and stone implements for everyday use constitute the majority of these assemblages. Baked clay spindle whorls and loom weights are frequent finds. Human figurines (Hansen 2004), a limited number of animal figurines, mostly triangular polypod vessels (Schwarzberg 2005), stone, bone, spondylus, and malachite beads (M. Özdoğan and Parzinger 2000), clay spoons and miniature vessels constitute the non-utilitarian assemblages of these layers. In the Middle–Late Neolithic, the settlement expanded to the southwest and became two to three times larger than in the former periods. Although the structures were still built in the wattle-and-daub technique, they have a precise, almost standardised plan (Figure 16.9) (Eres and E. Özdoğan 2012). In layer 5, the freestanding houses are 30–35 m2 in size, and built with one or two rooms (Figure 16.10) (Karul 2003, 52–62). A thin wall with small posts was used during the construction of the buildings and structural problems like a carrier system were solved by the posts that lined the inside or outside of the building. In all of the well-preserved houses, there are ovens in front of the walls, and platforms are sometimes placed in the corners. Surprisingly, there are no storage bins in this layer, although they are often found during the Early Neolithic in the area. On the other hand, there are ovens and work places which were located in open areas around the houses and some small annex structures which were built in the vicinity of the houses.

Even though the evidence is still weak, it seems likely that the tradition of a quadrangular ground plan, the adjacent setup of the buildings, and the well-organised inner spaces with installations were abandoned and, for a while, replaced by settlement structures with dispersed semisubterranean huts surrounded by a palisade wall.

The settlement of layer 4 is planned in the same neat rows, but compared to the previous layer the settlement diminishes slightly in size. The architectural remains are well preserved due to their destruction by fire. The houses are approximately 40 m2 in size and have one or two rooms with elements which suggest the existence of a second

After the transition layer 5/6, the second half of the 6th millennium BC is represented by layers 5 to 2, corresponding 214

Contextualising the Neolithic House typical Balkan settlement with material culture and architectural features that well represent the Karanovo culture sequence. The architectural remains of layers 7 to 2 have been observed over a large area, which makes it possible to analyse the construction techniques of the buildings, their plans, and the planning of each settlement layer. Alongside the settlements of layers 7, 5/6, 3 and 2, the ditch or palisade systems, related to particular layers, were also available for detailed analysis.

floor (Figure 16.11) (Karul 2003, 62–72). Large wooden posts, which were built into relatively thick walls, indicate that they were strong enough to carry the structure. Open spaces around the houses are the places where daily work continued to be done, but installations, such as ovens, platforms and silos, were also found inside buildings with numerous in situ finds. The settlement of the layer labelled as 3 was even smaller in size than those of previous layers, and it was defined by a palisade on its eastern flank. The wooden palisade wall was raised on top of a stone foundation and houses were placed next to it (Karul 2003, 72–88). Although the architectural remains are not well preserved, it is clear that the multi-roomed long houses were once again aligned in neat rows. Unfortunately, there is scarce evidence demonstrating the use of space in this layer.

It appears that Aşağı Pınar had an uninterrupted but dynamic settlement structure which changed as it grew and shrank along with constant mound formation. In the Early Neolithic and the following transition period to the Middle Neolithic, the site grows to the north. During the Middle–Late Neolithic Period, it expands towards the south, growing in size to two or three times larger than in the previous phase. In the end, the settlement shrinks during the final layers of its occupation.

The palisade wall continued to be in use in layer 2. However, there were some important changes in construction techniques: five excavated apsidal buildings, some 35 m2 in size, strongly suggest that the wall was intentionally slanted inwards, similarly to the so-called ‘cruck’ buildings which are still to be seen in the mountainous area of Eastern Thrace (Eres 2003; 2009; Karul, 2003, 88–98;). In spite of the changes in construction techniques, the settlement pattern and use of open spaces continued in the same way as in previous layers. There are various installations within layer 2, including silos, ovens, and bins, which were fairly well preserved. Although the walls were generally in poor condition, the documented installations demonstrate how the interiors of the buildings were organised and working areas were created by these units.

Thanks to the meticulous excavations, it is possible to evaluate the architecture, dwelling, and settlement patterns in the context of the site’s internal dynamics. Houses From the earliest layer of Aşağı Pınar, the excavated houses reveal some distinct features. The structures are of quadrangular or rectangular plan and the building interiors demonstrate the versatility of the spaces. Particularly, inside the well-preserved houses, ovens, platforms, storage facilities and silos were discovered in groups. Occasional finds of two-storey houses indicate the efficient use of living space.

There is only limited knowledge available about dwelling layer 1, which has been mostly destroyed by later agriculture and erosion. Nevertheless, it can be assumed that the whole settlement was abandoned in the first quarter of the 5th millennium BC.

Nevertheless, the presence and distribution of different installations, such as ovens, silos etc., and of finds varied from layer to layer, but this is probably due to different moments and the reasons the houses became disused. For example, the buildings in layer 7 were completely emptied before being abandoned. By contrast, the buildings of layer 6 were destroyed by a severe fire together with the whole household equipment in situ. It seems that at the outbreak of the fire these buildings were full of various vessels and tools. Several silos full of grain indicate that most of the silos were full of cereals and legumes. Installations and the distribution and amount of finds indicate that village life was suddenly interrupted by fire. On the other hand, both the preservation of the buildings and emptied buildings in layer 5 point to almost the same situation as in layer 7. Except for a find cluster next to an oven in one of the layer 5 buildings, the houses seem to have been deliberately abandoned after they had been completely emptied. Most buildings contain one or two rooms furnished with ovens, and sometimes low platforms. An apparent lack of storage bins in the houses suggests that baskets or sack-like storage devices made of organic materials were used. Another common feature of the deposit of layers 7 and 5 is that merely 15–25 cm of archaeological deposit was preserved; therefore, the buildings must have been

As presented above, a timespan of over a thousand years is covered by Aşağı Pınar’s nine layers. However, some evidence indicates that there are sub-layers that cannot be assigned to particular architectural layers, such as the transitional layer between 5 and 4, as well as between 4 and 3. A reason for this might be that the complete surfaces of some layers were totally destroyed by surface levelling. Perhaps the architectural remains of these transitional layers have survived almost entirely as post hole lines, becoming apparent as rectangular structures or as traces of simple fences visible in the virgin soil. Because it is almost entirely uncertain which layer they come from, their exact stratigraphy cannot be determined. It is possible to see the same situation in the pottery assemblages (see Parzinger 2005, 41). Discussion Despite its apparently peripheral location in Eastern Thrace, the Neolithic site of Aşağı Pınar represents a 215

Eylem Özdoğan & Heiner Schwarzberg levelled after they were destroyed. Since the settlement of layer 4 was terminated by fire, architectural units and other related remains were well preserved, but the frequency of installations and finds is less than in layer 6. Although it is difficult to generalise for layer 3, there are working spaces related to food preparation that are determined by the presence of ovens and grinding stones. Despite slightly burnt traces within some buildings, it is hard to say whether a fire destroyed the whole settlement of layer 3. The buildings of layer 2 were also destroyed by a fire of moderate intensity. Installations inside the buildings indicate organised and efficient usage of the spaces.

it can be deduced that the village was built based on a common plan, all at once. In this process, the nature of the public areas or open spaces also changed. Daily tasks seem to have completely shifted to the interior of the houses. For this reason, the distribution of the silos, ovens and platforms used as a working space indicates some differences between the rooms. While this settlement layout is similar to that of Ilıpınar VI (Roodenberg and Aslan-Roodenberg 2013) and Aktopraklık in northwest Anatolia (Karul and Avcı 2013), Aşağı Pınar is different from these two settlements in terms of building material and techniques. Another significant difference is that Aşağı Pınar does not have the same features as the standardised houses and settlements of northwest Anatolia.

A remarkable feature at Aşağı Pınar is the stratigraphic distribution of conflagration; layer 7 as well as 5/6, 5 and 3 were not damaged or destroyed by fire, but layers 6, 4 and 2 were. Save for transition layer 5/6, it seems that unburnt layers were regularly followed by burnt layers.

Important parallels can be drawn between Aşağı Pınar 6 and houses from other Karanovo II sites. The tradition of a rectangular ground plan and the use of wattle and daub, as observable at Aşağı Pınar, exist throughout the Balkans. However, adjacent buildings in a semicircular outline are not known from any contemporary site there in this period. Aşağı Pınar and Stara Zagora (Kalchev 2005) both share similar house plans and general distribution of in situ finds. Because Stara Zagora was excavated in limited areas, the settlement layout is not known. But, both settlements were destroyed by severe fires while the buildings were in use. Accordingly, it is possible to state that the dwellings of Aşağı Pınar are of the same type as structures discovered at contemporary sites in the Balkans with similar construction techniques, materialisation and interior organisation.

Nevertheless, the fire in layer 6 was different from the other layers, in its intensity. The rooms of the building were so heavily burnt that the heat had melted and vitrified the walls and installations as well as the finds. This indicates that it must have started at various points and was purposely set. Fires were common throughout the Neolithic period of the Balkans (Brami 2014; Stefanovich 2002; Tringham 2005). Numerous Karanovo II sites, roughly contemporary with Aşağı Pınar 6, e.g. Stara Zagora, Kovachevo, ended in a fire as well. However, since there are no indications of violent social conflicts in the region during that period, this all points to the possibility that houses were intentionally and deliberately burnt by their inhabitants. This insight might put them into the same context with burnt layers, the symbolic burying of buildings and other house-related rituals of the Neolithic period in northern Mesopotamia and Anatolia. Significantly, a sheep/goat skeleton surrounded by several intact pots was discovered on the floor of one of the western rooms of the large layer 6 building, suggesting especially composed deposition (structured depositions) arranged before the fire took place.

After the end of the Early Neolithic, this particular architectural tradition ends at the settlement. The remains of layer 6 were left in the open, and jugding by some particularly well-preserved areas, may even have been a feature of the site’s topography during the transition layer 5/6. This layer, almost completely destroyed by later occupation, is not well understood. However, the remains of temporary huts enclosed by a solid palisade could be observed.

Settlement layout

There were some changes in the layout and in the positioning of the houses, required by the growth of the settlement during the Middle–Late Neolithic. One such innovation was the free-standing houses which appear in this phase. They were arranged in parallel rows rather than in clusters or adjacent to each other. It is understood that the open spaces around a house were rearranged according to the requirements of each individual house in this pattern. The replacement of the adjacent building layout with detached houses indicates significant changes in the social aspect of village life. The emergence of independent houses could be evidence of the development of more individual household economies. However, this does not mean that the new layout was without a plan. On the contrary, the layers of the second phase, which consisted of free-standing houses, were arranged according to strict rules not only in terms of their relationship to each other but also in terms of their construction techniques, ground plan, and installations.

At Aşağı Pınar the most important factor determining the layout of the settlement is the house and the relationships between the houses. In this regard, it is possible to determine some differences between the Early and Middle/ Late Neolithic layers. It is apparent that the houses were built adjacent or in close proximity to each other and the open spaces in front of them are areas like the defined courtyard in layer 7. The density of artefacts found outside the houses suggests that the daily activities were done in this ‘communal’ courtyard. Similar courtyards are also common in northwest Anatolia and the Lake District (Duru 2008; Karul and Avcı 2013; E. Özdoğan 2016; Roodenberg and Aslan-Roodenberg 2013). The pattern of interdependence among houses and open spaces changes over the course of time at Aşağı Pınar. The houses in layer 6 consist of adjoining rooms and therefore 216

Contextualising the Neolithic House Duru, Refik. 2008. MÖ 8000’den MÖ 2000’e Burdur Antalya Bölgesi’nin Altıbin Yılı. Antalya: Suna‐İnan Kıraç Akdeniz Medeniyetleri Araştırma Enstitüsü Yayınları.

Although there are some differences in building technique and size, the settlement retains its general overall structure during the second half of the 6th millennium BC. The chronological continuity of the settlement patterns and planning is worth emphasising. Although this type of settlement layout, houses organised in neat rows, is unfamiliar in the Anatolian tradition, it became one of the characteristic features of the Balkans by the period of the Middle Neolithic. When taken together with the other changes encountered in this period, it can be said that the Balkan cultures began to adapt locally during the Middle Neolithic and gave rise to their own settlement pattern coinciding with this transformation.

Eres, Zeynep. 2003 ‘Die Hüttenlehmreste von Aşağı Pınar.’ In Aşağı Pınar I. Einführung, Forschungsgeschichte, Stratigraphie und Architektur, Archäologie in Eurasien 15 = Studien im Thrakien-Marmara-Raum 1, edited by Necmi Karul, Zeynep Eres, Mehmet Özdoğan and Hermann Parzinger, 126–54. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. Eres, Zeynep. 2009. ‘Erkenntnisse aus der ländlichen Architektur in Thrakien für das Verständnis der vorgeschichtlichen Flechtwerkbauweise. Rekonstruktionsversuche zu den Bauten der Schicht 2 des Siedlungshügels Aşağı Pınar.’ In Bautechnik im antiken und vorantiken Kleinasien, edited by Martin Bachmann, 39–63. İstanbul: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Istanbul.

Acknowledgements Excavation at Aşağı Pınar is being supported by the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism, the Research Fund of the Istanbul University (Project No. 2017-25584; 2018-30107), the German Archaeological Institute (DAI Berlin) and the German Research Foundation (DFG) (Project No. SCHW 1570/1-1). We would like to express our gratitude to all supporting institutes.

Eres, Zeynep and Eylem Özdoğan. 2012. ‘A New Approach in Studying the Structural Systems of Prehistoric Wooden Post Buildings: A Case Study from Aşağı Pınar in Eastern Thrace.’ In Nuts & Bolts of Construction History. Culture, Technology and Society, vol. 3, edited by Robert Carvais, André Guillerme, Valérie Negre and Joël Sakarovitch, 149–56, Paris: Editions A&J Picard.

References cited Aurenche, Olivier. 1981. La Maison Orientale. L’Architecture du Proche Orient Ancien des Origines au Milieu du Quatrième Millénaire. Paris: Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner.

Eres, Zeynep, Svend Hansen, Eylem Özdoğan, Mehmet Özdoğan, Hermann Parzinger, Heiner Schwarzberg. 2015. ‘Das Kırklareli Projekt Ein Forschungsüberblick anlässlich des 20 jährigen Jubiläums des TürkischDeutschen Gemeinschaftsprojekts/ Kırklareli Projesi Türk-Alman Ortak Projesinin 20. Yıldönümünde Araştırmalar Toplu Bakış.’ In Anatolien – Brücke der Kulturen. Aktuelle Forschungen und Perspektiven in den Deutsch-Türkischen Altertumswissenschaften/ Kültürlerin Köprüsü Anadolu Türk-Alman Eskiçağ Bilimlerinde Güncel Bilimsel Araştırmaalr ve Yeni Bakış Açıları. Der Anschnitt, Suppl. 27, edited by Ünsal Yalçın and Hans-Dieter Bienert, 131-46. BochumBonn: Deutsches Bergbaumuseum.

Aytek, Özlem. 2015. ‘Aşağı Pınar Höyüğü’nde Bulunan Kil Bilezilk / Halkalar Üzerine Bir Ön Değerlendirme.’ In Mustafa Büyükkolancı’ya Armağan/ Essays in Honour of Mustafa Büyükkolancı, edited by Celal Şimşek, Bahadır Duman and Erim Konakçı, 55–70. İstanbul: Ege Yayınları. Banning, Edward Bruce. 1998. ‘The Neolithic Period: Triumphs of Architecture, Agriculture, and Art.’ Near Eastern Archaeology 61(4): 188–237. Bıçakçı, Erhan. 1998. ‘An Essay on the Chronology of the Pre-pottery Neolithic Settlements of the East-Taurus Region (Turkey), with the Building Remains and the 14C Dates.’ In Light on Top of the Black Hill, Studies presented to Halet Çambel/Karatepe’deki Işık, Halet Çambel’e sunulan yazılar, edited by Güven Arsebük, Machteld Johanna Mellink and Wulf Schirmer, 137–50. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları.

Flannery, Kent V. 1972. ‘The Origins of the Village as a Settlement Type in Mesoamerica and the Near East: A Comparative Study.’ In Man, Settlement, and Urbanism, edited by Peter J. Ucko, Ruth Tringham and Geoffrey W. Dimbleby, 23-53. London: Gerald Duckworth.

Bıçakçı, Erhan. 2003. ‘Observations on the Early PrePottery Neolithic Architecture in the Near East: 1. New Building Materials and Construction Techniques.’ In  From Primary Villages to Cities, Essays in Honour of Ufuk Esin, edited by Mehmet Özdoğan and Nezih Başgelen, 385–413. İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları Brami, Maxime. 2014. ‘House-related practices as markers of the Neolithic expansion from Anatolia to the Balkans.’ Bulgarian e-Journal of Archaeology, 4(2): 161–78. 217

Gatsov, Ivan. 2009. Prehistoric Chipped Stone Assemblages from Eastern Thrace and the South Marmara Region 7th–5th mill. B.C. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1904. Oxford: BAR Publishing. Hansen, Svend. 2004. ‘Neolithische Statuetten aus Aşağı Pınar in Türkisch-Thrakien.’ In Prehistoric Thrace, Proceedings of the International Symposium in Stara Zagora, Institute of Archaeology with Museum BAS, edited by Vasil Nikolov, Krum Bacvarov and Petar Kalchev, 193-202. Sofia, Stara Zagora: Regional Museum of History of Stara Zagora.

Eylem Özdoğan & Heiner Schwarzberg Hansen, Svend. 2016. ‘Early Neolithic Figurines in Aşağı Pınar, Turkish Thrace.’ In Anatolian Metal VI. Anatolien und seine Nachbarn vor 10.000 Jahren, Der Anschnitt, Suppl. 30, edited by Ünsal Yalçın, 85-94. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbaumuseum.

Özdoğan, Eylem. 2016. ‘Diversity and homogeneity among the early farming communities of Western Anatolia.’ Documenta Praehistorica, 43:1–19. Özdoğan, Mehmet. 1999. ‘Anadolu’dan Avrupa’ya Açılan Kapı: Trakya. Gerçekleşen Çalışmalar ve Beklentiler.’ Arkeoloji ve Sanat 90: 2–28.

Karastoyanova, Dessislava. 2004. ‘The Middle Neolithic Karanovo I–III Ceramic Assemblage of Tell Kazanlăk.’ In Prehistoric Thrace, Proceedings of the International Symposium in Stara Zagora, Institute of Archaeology with Museum BAS, edited by Vasil Nikolov, Krum Bacvarov and Petar Kalchev, 105–14. Sofia, Stara Zagora: Regional Museum of History Stara Zagora.

Özdoğan, Mehmet. 2002. ‘On Arrows and Sling Missiles. What Happened to the Arrows?.’ In Mauerschau. Festschrift für Manfred Korfmann I, edited by Rüstem Aslan, Stephan Blum, Gabriele Kastl, Frank Schweizer, and Diane Thumm, 437-444. Stuttgart: Verlag Bernhard Albert Greiner.

Karul, Necmi, Zeynep Eres, Mehmet Özdoğan, Hermann Parzinger, (eds.). 2003. Aşağı Pınar I. Einführung, Forschungsgeschichte, Stratigraphie und Architektur. Archäologie in Eurasien 15 = Studien im ThrakienMarmara-Raum 1. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.

Özdoğan, Mehmet. 2011. ‘Polychrome Early Neolithic Painted Pottery at Aşağı Pınar.’ Studia Praehistorica 14: 83–90. Özdoğan, Mehmet. 2013. ‘Neolithic Sites in the Marmara Region Fikirtepe, Pendik, Yarımburgaz, Toptepe, Hoca Çeşme and Aşağı Pınar.’ In Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavations and New Research. Northwestern Turkey and Istanbul edited by Mehmet Özdoğan, Nezih Başgelen and Peter Kuniholm, 167–269. İstanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications.

Karul, Necmi. 2003. ‘Die Architektur von Aşağı Pınar.’ In Aşağı Pınar I. Einführung, Forschungsgeschichte, Stratigraphie und Architektur, Archäologie in Eurasien 15 = Studien im Thrakien-Marmara-Raum 1, edited by Necmi Karul, Zeynep Eres, Mehmet Özdoğan and Hermann Parzinger, 42–120. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.

Özdoğan, Mehmet, Nezih Başgelen, and Peter Kuniholm, (eds.). 2011-2013. Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavations and New Research. Vol. 1–5. İstanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications.

Karul, Necmi and Mert Bertan Avcı. 2013. ‘Aktopraklık’, In Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavations and New Research. Northwestern Turkey and Istanbul, edited by Mehmet Özdoğan, Nezih Başgelen and Peter Kuniholm, 45-68. İstanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications.

Özdoğan, Mehmet and Aslı Özdoğan. 1989. ‘Çayönü, A Conspectus of Recent Work.’ Paleorient, 15(1): 65–74.

Krauß, Raiko. 2008. ‘Karanovo und das südosteuropäische Chronologiesystem aus heutiger Sicht.’ Eurasia Antiqua 14: 117–48.

Özdoğan, Mehmet, Hermann Parzinger, and Necmi Karul. 1997. ‘Kırklareli Kazıları – Aşağı Pınar ve Kanlıgeçit Höyükleri.’ Arkeoloji ve Sanat 77: 2–11.

Nikolov, Vasil. 1997. ‘Die neolithische Keramik.’ In Karanovo I: Die Ausgrabungen im Südsektor 1984– 1992, edited by Stefan Hiller and Vasil Nikolov, 105– 46. Wien: Phoibos.

Özdoğan, Mehmet and Hermann Parzinger. 2000. ‘The Status of Metallurgy between the Balkans and Anatolia: The Evidence of Aşağı Pınar and Kanlıgeçit Excavations in Eastern Thrace.’ In Der Anschnitt 13, edited by Ünsal Yalçın, 83-91. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbaumuseum.

Nikolov, Vasil. 2004. ‘Dynamics of the Cultural Processes in Neolithic Thrace’ In Prehistoric Thrace, Proceedings of the International Symposium in Stara Zagora, Institute of Archaeology with Museum BAS, edited by Vasil Nikolov, Krum Bacvarov and Petar Kalchev, 1825. Sofia, Stara Zagora: Regional Museum of History Stara Zagora.

Parzinger, Hermann. 2005. ‘Die mittel- und spätneolithische Keramik aus Aşağı Pınar, Grabungen 1993–1998.’ In Aşağı Pınar II. Die mittel- und spätneolithische Keramik. Archäologie in Eurasien 18, Studien im Thrakien-Marmara-Raum 2, edited by Hermann Parzinger and Heiner Schwarzberg, 1-245. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.

Özdoğan, Eylem. 2007. ‘Neolitik Dönem Kil Kapamaları Aşağı Pınar Örneği.’ In VITA Belkıs Dinçol ve Ali Dinçol’a Armağan Kitabı, edited by Metin Alparslan, Meltem Doğan-Alparslan and Hasan Peker, 561-567. İstanbul: Ege Yayınları.

Parzinger, Hermann, Mehmet Özdoğan, and Necmi Karul. 1999. ‘An der Schwelle vom Orient zum Okzident. Die deutsch-türkischen Ausgrabungen in Kırklareli, Türkisch-Thrakien.’ Antike Welt 4:325–36.

Özdoğan, Eylem. 2011. ‘Settlement Organization and Architecture in Aşağı Pınar. Early Neolithic Layer 6.’ In Beginnings – New Research in the Appearance of the Neolithic between Northwest Anatolia and the Carpathian Basin, edited by Raiko Krauß, 213-23. Rahden/Westfalen: Verlag Marie Leidorf.

Parzinger, Hermann and Schwarzberg, Heiner 2005 (eds.). Aşağı Pınar II. Die mittel- und spätneolithische Keramik. Archäologie in Eurasien 18, Studien im Thrakien-Marmara Raum 2. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.

218

Contextualising the Neolithic House Schwarzberg, Heiner and Eylem Özdoğan. 2013. ‘Archäologische Ausgrabungen in Kırklareli. Zwei Jahrzehnte türkisch-deutscher Forschung in Ostthrakien.’ In Anatolian Metal VI, Der Anschnitt, Suppl. 25, edited by Ünsal Yalçın, 123-44. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbaumuseum.

Roodenberg, Jacob and Songül Alpaslan-Roodenberg. 2013. ‘Ilıpınar and Menteşe. Early Farming Communities in the Eastern Marmara.’ In Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavations and New Research. Northwestern Turkey and Istanbul. edited by Özdoğan, Mehmet, Başgelen, Nezih and Kuniholm, Peter, 69-91. İstanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications.

Stanev, Peter. 2002. Samovodene neolitna seliščna mogila. Veliko Tărnovo: Faber.

Schwarzberg, Heiner. 2005. ‘Kultgefäße von Aşağı Pınar. “Kulttischchen” und ihre Stellung im Neolithikum und Chalkolithikum Südosteuropas und Anatoliens’ In Aşağı Pınar II. Die mittel- und spätneolithische Keramik. Archäologie in Eurasien 18, Studien im Thrakien-Marmara-Raum 2, edited by Hermann Parzinger and Heiner Schwarzberg, 246–416. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.

Stevanović, Mirjana. 2002. ‘Burned Houses in the Neolithic of Southeast Europe.’ In Fire in Archaeology, edited by Dragos Gheorghiu, 55-62. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1089, Oxford: BAR Publishing. Todorova, Henrieta. 2003. ‘Prehistory of Bulgaria.’ In Recent Research in the Prehistory of the Balkans, edited by Dimitrios V. Grammenos, 257-328. Publications of the Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece 3. Thessaloniki: Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece.

Schwarzberg, Heiner. 2006a. ‘Figurale Ständer. Sozialkeramik des frühen Neolithikums aus KırklareliAşağı Pınar, Türkisch Thrakien.’ TÜBA-AR 9: 97–124. Schwarzberg, Heiner. 2006b. ‘Neolithische Gesichtsgefäße von Aşağı Pınar, Türkisch Thrakien.’ In Pontos Euxeinos. Beiträge zur Archäologie und Geschichte des antiken Schwarzmeer- und Balkanraumes ZAKSSchriften 10, edited by Sven Conrad, Ralph Einicke, Andreas E. Furtwängler, Henryk Löhr and Anja Slawisch, 1-12. Langenweissbach: Beier und Beran.

Tringham, Ruth. 2005. ‘Weaving house life and death into places: a blueprint for a hypermedia narrative.’ In (Un)settling the Neolithic, edited by Douglass Bailey, Alasdair Whittle and Vicki Cummings, 98-111. Oxford: Oxbow.

Figure 16.1. Location of Aşağı Pınar and contemporary sites.

219

Eylem Özdoğan & Heiner Schwarzberg

Figure 16.2. Aşağı Pınar, view from the west towards the northern sector (2010) (by S. Dereli).

Figure 16.3. Aşağı Pınar, general plan (2015) (by İ. Türkoğlu).

220

Contextualising the Neolithic House

Figure 16.4. Schematic settlement plan of Layer 7, architecture and detail of the red-coated floor (by E. Özdoğan and Ö. Aytek).

Figure 16.5. Section of the ditch in Layer 7 (middle sub-layer) (by S. Dereli).

221

Eylem Özdoğan & Heiner Schwarzberg

Figure 16.6. Schematic settlement plan of the Layer 6 buildings (by E. Özdoğan and İ. Türkoğlu).

Figure 16.7. Excavation of one of the eastern rooms of the large building of Layer 6 (by S. Dereli).

222

Contextualising the Neolithic House

Figure 16.8. Postholes of the palisade of transition Layer 5/6 (by S. Dereli).

Figure 16.9. Schematic settlement plan of Layers 5 (left) and 4 (right) in the SW sector (by N. Karul and Z. Eres).

223

Eylem Özdoğan & Heiner Schwarzberg

Figure 16.10. Houses of Layer 5 in the northern sector (by S. Dereli).

Figure 16.11. A house of Layer 4 in the northern sector at different stages of excavation: (a) with debris of mud bricks, (b) floor level of the same building (by S. Dereli).

224

17 Living in an Enclosed Settlement: Settlement Pattern and Social Organisation at Aktopraklık Necmi Karul Istanbul University Abstract: In the first half of the 6th millennium BC, a settlement encircled by a ditch and comprised of structures with standardised features was founded at Aktopraklık. Rectangular mud-brick houses, almost identical in size and plan, were arranged in a circular manner and surrounded by a ditch. The layout of the settlement incorporated well-planned courtyards with installations such as ovens and working spaces, and the enclosure system comprised of a ditch and the row of houses show that the site was pre-planned. This kind of designed village life suggests a certain social organisation characterised by developed internal collaboration. In this chapter it will be argued that such an intra-site organisation must have entailed both communal negotiation and sophisticated workforce organisation, which appear to have played a decisive role in shaping the village structure. Keywords: Late Neolithic–Early Chalcolithic, Northwest Anatolia, Aktopraklık, ditch, mud-brick architecture, buttressed houses, Anatolian Settlement Plan Introduction

that changes in architectural and settlement concepts and readiness for innovations are related to social changes and changes in the way of life.

For humans, the motivation to build dwellings should not be explained as a mere technological innovation. The decision to build structures for habitation implies the existence of division between concepts of indoor and outdoor space. But the border line between these two concepts has more meaning than their obvious physical delineation, not only for archaeology or the history of architecture, but also for the social sciences in general, as it pertains more broadly to human beings and their environment. Since the beginning of settled life, the earliest dwellings have been built with a certain level of consistency. Recent excavations reveal that buildings recovered at Gusir Höyük, Hasankeyf, Hallan Çemi and Çayönü in southeast Anatolia were built within a preconceived general plan (Özdoğan et al. 2011). A village, which consists of a variety of components including buildings, annexes, open areas, yards, and workshops, frequently changes form while evolving within the preconceived plan. These findings indicate how complex and elaborate the various inputs could be which determined the characteristics of a site.

The settlement at Aktopraklık effectively exemplifies the idea that Late Neolithic–Early Chalcolithic villages were not defined by their buildings as isolated structures, but instead as a combination of structures which are inherently tied to emerging social structures. This enclosed site furthermore provides data for the analysis of the concept of the frontier. In this article, settlement patterns are investigated by separating their components and examining the settlement logic and its relationship to social demands. The site Aktopraklık is located in Northwestern Anatolia, east of Uluabat Lake, south of the Marmara Sea (Karul 2007; 2016). The settlement occupies one of the terraces descending to the lake and covering several hectares on both sides of a small riverbed. During its lifetime, the settlement was shifted within this area (Figure 17.2). The long history of the settlement can be divided into two main chronological phases. During the earlier phase, dating to 6600–6300 calBC, the settlement was situated at the northern edge of the area, labelled as ‘Area C.’ The wattle-and-daub round-plan huts, which measure 2.5– 3 m in diameter approximately, are found in this area in two layers (Karul 2017; Karul and Avcı 2013; Karul and Avcı 2011). Inside those simple semi-subterranean huts, ovens, and sometimes graves under the floors, are found. Although the data are not sufficient to reach definitive conclusions regarding the whole settlement plan, it appears

Sites dated to the early phases of the Neolithic provide plenty of samples that indicate crucial developments and innovative thinking regarding architecture, including various solutions to construction problems and a variety of raw materials, plans, settlement layouts, and site locations (Aurenche 1981; Banning 1998; 2003; Byrd 2005). The desire to construct a particular space individually and the effort to enhance it never ends. Accordingly, trends and developments in architecture in terms of technology and social concepts, which are regarded as typical for different periods, can be observed and identified. We can be certain 225

Necmi Karul are also traces of wooden beams that were used for wall construction. A 50 cm long niche placed on the side of the buildings that face the ditch is a standard feature found in each building. Buttresses exist in all the walls that extend towards the buildings’ interior. They are almost 1 m long and made in exactly the same way as the walls. It is possible that the buttresses supported the roof or an upper story. They also served to divide the structures into room-like spaces. For example, a round oven built on a platform is a standard element in the settlement house, always built in a corner in an area delimited by the buttresses.

that the settlement was small, covering an area of 50–60 m in diameter, where pit-huts surrounded by courtyards were positioned in a random pattern (Karul 2011). At the beginning of the 6th millennium BC, the settlement shifts southwards to ‘Area B’, and demonstrates a completely different type of architectural tradition from the former phase. Differentiations between the two settlements are seen also in the material assemblage. A multilayered tell formation in this new location was inhabited until 5500 calBC. In Area B, the layers dated to 5750–5600 calBC will be investigated here more extensively than the other layers of the mound. These layers reflect a settlement plan defined by the careful positioning of buildings in an area encircled by a ditch (Figure 17.1).

In the previous layer, although it was investigated in a smaller area, it is clear that the same type of dwellings and settlement pattern were used. A similar building unearthed in this layer yielded more information in terms of the internal layout of the house and the functions of different spaces (Figure 17.5). The entrance faces the centre of the settlement to the south. The oven is on the right side of the entrance, and a tandoor or silo lies on the left side, in an area surrounded by buttresses. It seems that the house was divided into three spaces according to floor covering. These vertical divisions are independent of the ones created by the buttresses. The area to the left is covered with a lime plaster floor, unlike the other two spaces. The area in the middle is covered with an organic material made of wood, perhaps a mat. The space on the right is distinguished by its clay floor. At the right part of the house, which is where the oven is located, there is perhaps also a raised platform. Another house in this layer that was only partly excavated has storage facilities.

The most prominent feature of the settlement was the ditch, which encircled the whole settlement in this period between 5750–5600 calBC in three layers. The ditch was circular, with a diameter of 110–30 m, and a width of 10–12 m, was renewed at least three times (Figure 17.3). When it was first built, it was 4  m deep, but after each renewal phase, it gradually accreted material, decreasing in depth as a result. During the first phases of renewal, the walls were repeatedly plastered with a chalk coating a few centimetres thick, then a thick green-coloured plaster was applied. In some spots a thick layer of soil was laid between renewal phases. This practice suggests that, during renewal activities, soil was used to fill in the damaged parts of the ditch surface. After the ditch was almost completely filled, two parallel walls were built within. This suggests that the ditch kept its function as a surrounding border, even after it was filled to the top.

The distribution of the finds is consistent with the differences in floor treatment. For example, the left part of the building, covered with lime plaster, is more sterile and could suggest a place where food might have been stored; in fact, this is the place where the fewest finds have been documented. In the section with an oven there are finds like grinding stones, which might have been used for food preparation. In the central space, however, a greater diversity of tool types and finds like bone tools and ornaments were found. This appears to be a place for other daily activities.

There are two more practices identifiable in the ditch that give us information about its additional functions. First, two burials were discovered in the ditch. Two of them were laid in a contracted position on top of the chalk surface of the ditch. This demonstrates that some of the burials were placed while it was still in use. Second, pits were found excavated into the ditch. These might be interpreted as offering pits, as they contain broken ground stones and intact Middle Chalcolithic vessels. The stratigraphic position and the contents of these pits clearly show that they were dug when the ditch filled up and lost its original function. The distribution of the pits is limited to the confines of the ditch, suggesting that the pits are strongly related to the ditch (Figure 17.4).

Courtyards are also important features providing further information about the village pattern. As previously stated, the entrances of the buildings open into yards facing the centre of the village. The post-holes in front of these houses show that this area was covered by a light roof, like a porch. Stone platforms or grinding stones placed together stand out among the standard features of those spaces. Dense clusters of flint flakes and other concentrations of finds suggest active workshops. A space with similar features exists in front of every building, indicating that every one of those has a courtyard of its own (Figure 17.6).

In the uppermost layers in this horizon, dating to 5750– 5600 calBC, the buildings constructed parallel to the ditch are remarkably well organised, and are highly standardised in both size and plan. They are single-room rectangular houses, 35–40 m2 in size, built adjacent to each other. They also curve slightly, following the contour of the ditch. Thus, the rear of the houses lies against the ditch that surrounds the entire settlement. Mud bricks, 40 cm2 in size, were used in the construction of walls. Internal walls were plastered with lime, which was renewed many times. In a few cases a red coating was applied over the white lime plaster. There

Large ovens are located in front of these yards, and they too have a circular pattern, like the arrangement of houses and yards. These ovens have many renewed layers, showing that they were rebuilt many times (Figure 17.7). The fact 226

Living in an Enclosed Settlement that these large ovens lie beyond the yards of houses and that there are fewer of them than there are houses suggests that these ovens were for common use.

house floors and around the houses. When the settlement moved further to the east, and mud-brick architecture emerged, burial customs changed (Alpaslan-Roodenberg 2011b).  Area C began to be used as a graveyard. The burial tradition continued with pit graves in the flexed position. Grave offerings such as bone tools, ornaments and whole vessels, probably accompanied by perishable goods, were placed in graves, and some double burials have also been discovered.

Central houses and inner court Apart from the houses lined up along the ditch, a cluster of buildings was found in the centre of the settlement. In terms of their architectural features and finds, these buildings are identical to those previously described. However, they are not lined up in one direction, but instead their walls are built in an adjoining manner, forming a cluster. So, the most important feature that differentiates this group of buildings is their location. There is another courtyard in the centre of the building cluster (Figure 17.8). This central court covers an area approximately 15 m in diameter. Unlike the other courtyards in front of the lined-up houses, in this section, there are no standard installations like ovens and workshops, but there are strong indications that the yard was used very frequently and regularly. Although the intramural burial tradition is abandoned in the Late Neolithic, in the second quarter of the 6th millennium BC there are a large number of burials found in this inner courtyard. The burials in this central courtyard are quite different from the Chalcolithic graveyard located in the vicinity of the settlement. In the central courtyard, there are eight unusual burials belonging to children and adults (Alpaslan-Roodenberg 2011a). In two of these graves, an adult and a child are buried together; the adults were positioned almost in a sitting position, and their arms are tied up behind their bodies (Figure 17.10). The children are almost placed in the arms of the adults. One of these adults is female and the other is male. In another burial, there are two male adults, possibly tied to each other back to back, and in another grave, there is a child lying face down whose hands and feet are folded behind his body. There is also one grave which belongs to another male who is lying face down. What attracts attention is not only the extraordinary positions in which they were placed, but also the lack of grave goods. Indeed, whole vessels, stone tools, bone spoons and implements, and ornaments are very common features in the extramural graveyards of the settlement. While there is still not enough evidence for the cause of death of the individuals discovered here, there are also no apparent cut marks on the bones. The bones from 10 individuals were found in another grave located in the same area (Figure 17.11). The bones are generally upper and lower limbs and pieces of skulls. The way the bones had been deposited indicates secondary burial practices. The multiple burials, with rather odd positions for the bodies, together with the evidence of secondary burial practices, imply that the burials at the centre of the settlement must have had an extraordinary purpose or reasoning behind them. We expect this to be clarified when the excavations and analyses of the materials have been completed.

Discussion This village surrounded with a ditch was recovered over a large area with well-preserved remains at Aktopraklık Area B. Therefore, detailed information was obtained on construction techniques, building layouts, and settlement plans along with data on the use of indoor and outdoor spaces. It is clear that the layout of the settlement shows that village structures such as houses, courts etc. served not only their intrinsic purpose but also some secondary purpose in the settlement, which will be discussed below. Houses and ditch In order to understand the settlement layout, and to define the Early Chalcolithic village as a whole, the relationship between the houses and the ditch must be resolved. This will also provide information about the function of the ditch. The buildings that extend parallel to the ditch seem to support the circular outline of the ditch (Figure 17.9). They also emphasise the depth of the ditch: the back wall of the ditch and outer walls of the houses, considered together, make each other seem more massive. Together, they make it harder to access the village. The ditch and buildings are by no means only part of a system of defence, but it is evident that this line made by the ditch and the buildings make up an insurmountable structure. The niches on the house walls facing the ditch side extend the houses’ internal dimensions, as well as reinforcing the structure. Thus, the external walls of the buildings, which look like a fortification wall just above the ditch, complete the enclosure system and become a part of enclosure system. Houses and open spaces

Graveyard

The outer buildings of the village shared common features: their basic size, plan, and construction technique, but also their installations. For example, the entrances of the buildings are all along the long wall facing the centre of the village. All the buildings also have courtyards in front of them. It seems that each house had its own separate property. Although large ovens, which are few in number, are located to the rear of the open yards, areas for common usage also existed. Therefore, the society which occupied the settlement consisted of distinct household units.

During the earliest occupation at Aktopraklık, in ‘Area C’, the intramural burial tradition was practised. Burials were interred in simple pit graves in flexed position under

There is no difference between the central and peripheral houses in terms of building construction technique, size, or installations. What differentiates them is only their 227

Necmi Karul discuss the function of the ditches that we come across over the entire prehistoric period. It can be assumed that the ditches were used to protect settlements against threats coming from the outside, or to control animals inside the settlement. Although the ditch may have been part of a defence system, it is also more than a physical construction, since it was meticulously maintained with plaster several times, and was the site of offerings and burials.

location in the settlement and their relationship to the inner court, which they all surrounded and presumably shared. The central houses may have been built as the settlement expanded, since it was not possible to extend the settlement outward, because of the ditch along the perimeter. The exclusivity of this system is remarkable for the unit that these buildings and courtyard together constitute. The burials in the central yard are also extraordinary and exclusive; yet, besides these two components – the structural unit and burials – there is no social discrepancy or hierarchy based on economy, status, or spirituality that can be deduced from the evidence. Nevertheless, as will be explained in more detail below, beyond the settlement tradition, shaped by strict social rules at Aktopraklık, there is a strong social order as well.

The plan of the settlement at Aktopraklık has meaning beyond its pre-designed character. Its circular arrangement, bordered with a ditch, delineated the perimeter of the settlement when it was founded, and the layout of the buildings emphasises this boundary. This limit also restricted the future expansion of the village. Since the boundary and number of buildings were defined upfront, there may have been a restriction in terms of the population. Thus, when there was a need to expand, there had to be a solution other than adding a new building to the settlement area, and this decision, like all others, was made in the social context of the settlement.

The consistency of the settlement and the houses The evidence from the layers dating back to the beginning of the 6th millennium BC on the northern slope of Area B show that the layout of the later settlement is the result of a long-term tradition on the mound. It is clear that it was a pre-planned settlement based on strict rules from the very beginning, and it continued in this way until the end of the site’s occupation. Layers VI and VA at Ilıpınar (Roodenberg and Roodenberg-Alpaslan 2013; Coockson 2008) show that this settlement pattern is regional trait70. In addition, an earlier example of this pattern is found in Layer Vd at Barcın Höyük, which has been dated to the second half of the 7th millennium BC (Gerritsen at. al. 2013; Gerritsen and Özbal 2016). There, a set of singleroom adjacent houses are lined up and arranged with courtyards in front of them. Perhaps the most remarkable form of this plan can be found at the Early Bronze Age site of Demircihöyük in the southeast of the region, where it is known as the ‘Anatolian Settlement Plan – Anatolisches Siedlungsschema’, as described by Manfred O. Korfmann (Korfmann 1983). Very specific to northwestern Anatolia, this settlement pattern consists of a ditch, houses that follow it and an inner court, and has roots that go back to the end of the 7th millennium calBC in the region.

Acknowledgements The archaeological project at Aktopraklık Höyük has been supported by the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Scientific Research Projects Office of Istanbul University (Project No: SBA-2017-25443). We would like to express our thanks to these institutions and Bursa Metropolitan Municipality, Karsan Automotive Ind. Com. Co., and Mastership Agency Services for their contribution and support. References cited Alpaslan-Roodenberg, Songül. 2011a. ‘Homicide at Aktopraklık, A Prehistoric Village in Turkey.’ Near Eastern Archaeology 74(1): 60–61. Alpaslan-Roodenberg, Songül. 2011b. ‘A Preliminary Study of the Burials from Late Neolithic–Early Chalcolithic Aktopraklık.’ Anatolica 37: 17–43. Aurenche, Olivier. 1981. La maison orientale: L’architecture du Proche-Orient ancien des origines au milieu du quatrie`me mille ́naire. Paris: Geuthner.

The social system which had built the settlement at Aktopraklık is inseparable from the settlement structure itself. Along with the collective decision to live in such a pre-planned site, an organised workforce would have been necessary. Perhaps the best evidence of the need for an organised workforce is the ditch, which is quite extensive and would have required a large investment of labour. The workforce required for constructing the ditch, as well as for its continuous maintenance by plastering its walls repetitively, shows the determination and continuity of Aktopraklık’s complex social organisation. It is also a proof that this work was the result of a preplanned communal decision. However, it is still too early to suggest a specific spiritual or socioeconomic reason for this structure. Indeed, at this point, it is possible only to

Banning E. Bruce. 1998.‘The Neolithic Period: Triumphs of Architecture, Agriculture, and Art.’ Near Eastern Archaeology 61(4): 188–237. Banning, E. Bruce. 2003. ‘Housing Neolithic farmers.’ Near Eastern Archaeology 66(1/ 2): 4–21. Budd, Chelsea, Malcolm Lillie, Songül AlpaslanRoodenberg, Necmi Karul, Ron Pinhasi. 2013. ‘Stable isotope analysis of Neolithic and Chalcolithic populations from Aktopraklık, northern Anatolia.’ Journal of Archaeological Science 40(2): 1–8. Byrd, F. Brain. 2005. ‘Reassessing the emergence of village life in the Near East.’ Journal of Archaeological Research 13(3): 231–90.

70 The same settlement layout has known from Aşağı Pınar in Eastern Thrace (see Özdoğan 2011).

228

Living in an Enclosed Settlement the Neolithic between Northwest Anatolia and the Carpathian Basin, edited by Raiko Krauß, 213-23. Rahden/Westfalen: Verlag Marie Leidorf.

Coockson, C. Ben. 2008. ‘The Houses from Ilıpınar X and VI Compared.’ In Life and Death in a Prehistoric Settlement in Northwest Anatolia The Ilıpınar Excavations, Volume III, edited by Jacob J. Roodenberg and Songül Alpaslan-Roodenberg, 149–203. Leiden.

Özdoğan, Mehmet., Nezih Başgelen, and Peter Kuniholm, (eds). 2011. The Neolithic in Turkey – The Tigris Basin / Volume 1. İstanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications.

Gerritsen, Fokke, Rana Özbal, and Laurens Thissen. 2013. ‘Barcın Höyük: The Beginnings of Farming in the Marmara Region.’ In Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavations and New Research. Northwestern Turkey and Istanbul, edited by Mehmet Özdoğan, Nezih Başgelen and Peter Kuniholm, 93–112. İstanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications.

Roodenberg, J. Jacob and Songül Alpaslan-Roodenberg. 2013. ‘Ilıpınar and Menteşe. Early Farming Communities in the Eastern Marmara.’ In Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavations and New Research. Northwestern Turkey and Istanbul, edited by Mehmet Özdoğan, Nezih Başgelen and Peter Kuniholm, 69–91. İstanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications.

Gerritsen, Fokke and Rana Özbal. 2016. ‘Barcın Höyük and the pre-Fikirtepe Neolithisation of the Eastern Marmara Region.’ In Anatolian Metal VII – Der Anschnitt 25, edited by Ünsal Yalçın, 199–208. Bochum – Bonn: Grafisches Centrum Cuno GmbH & Co. KG Karul, Necmi. 2017. ‘Northwest Anatolia: a Border or Bridge Between Anatolia and the Balkans During the Early Neolithic Period.’ In Going to West. The Dissemination of Neolithic Innovations between the Bosporus and the Carpathians, edited by Agathe Reingruber, Zoi Tsirtsoni and Petranka Nadelcheva, 7–18. London and New York: Routlege Taylor&Francis. Karul, Necmi. 2007. ‘Aktopraklık: Kuzeybatı Anadolu da Gelişkin Bir Köy.’ In Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem: Anadolu’da Uygarlığın Doğuşu ve Avrupa’ya Yayılımı. Yeni Kazılar, Yeni Bulgular, edited by Mehmet Özdoğan, Nezih Başgelen and Peter Kuniholm, 387–92. İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. Karul, Necmi. 2011. ‘The Emergence of Neolithic Life in South and East Marmara Region.’ In Beginnings – New Research in the Appearance of the Neolithic between Northwest Anatolia and the Carpathian Basin, edited by Raiko Krauß, 57–65. Rahden/ Westfalen: Verlag Marie Leidorf. Karul, Necmi. 2016. ‘Die Entwicklung des vorbronzezeitlichen Siedlungsschemas in der südlichen Marmara-Region.’ In Anatolian Metal VII – Der Anschnitt 25, edited by Ünsal Yalçın, 231-32. Bochum – Bonn: Grafisches Centrum Cuno GmbH & Co. KG. Karul, Necmi and Mert B. Avcı. 2011. ‘Neolithic Communities in the Eastern Marmara Region: Aktopraklık C.’ Anatolica 37: 1–15. Karul, Necmi and Mert B. Avcı. 2013. ‘Aktopraklık’ In. Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavations and New Research. Northwestern Turkey and Istanbul, edited by Mehmet Özdoğan, Nezih Başgelen and Peter Kuniholm, 45–68. İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. Korfmann, Manfred. 1983. Demircihüyük Die Ergebnisse Der Ausgrabungen 1975–1978 Band I, Architektur, Stragraphie und Befunde. Mainz. Özdoğan, Eylem 2011. ‘Settlement Organization and Architecture in Aşağı Pınar. Early Neolithic Layer 6.’ In  Beginnings – New Research in the Appearance of 229

Necmi Karul

Figure 17.1. Plan of Aktopraklık Area B (5750–5600 cal. BC).

230

Living in an Enclosed Settlement

Figure 17.2. General view of Aktopraklık Area B and Uluabat Lake.

Figure 17.3. The ditch, which encircled the settlement in Area B.

231

Necmi Karul

Figure 17.4. Pits, dug into the ditch, containing broken grinding stones and Middle Chalcolithic vessels.

Figure 17.5. Courtyards in front of the dwellings in Area B.

232

Living in an Enclosed Settlement

Figure 17.6. A single-room rectangular dwelling in Area B.

Figure 17.7. Large ovens with renovated phases in the courtyards.

233

Necmi Karul

Figure 17.8. Central dwellings and courtyard.

Figure 17.9. General view form Area B.

234

Living in an Enclosed Settlement

Figure 17.10. Adult grave in the central courtyard.

Figure 17.11. The bones of 10 individuals found scattered around in the central courtyard.

235

210mm WIDTH

2020

During three millennia of the Neolithic in southeastern Europe important changes in the social organisation, everyday practices and beliefs formed a diverse and rich cultural landscape expressed in settlement patterns, architecture and numerous aspects of material culture. A growing body of data uncovered over the last few decades shows striking variety in settlement organisation, from single-layered, short-lived sites to long-lived tell settlements located in different geographical settings. In addition, small sites (e.g. 0.5 ha) and extended settlements also appear in most sub-regions. This volume brings together new data on the Neolithic of southeastern Europe, emphasising the organisation and use of space within the regions of Northern Greece, the Balkan hinterland and north-western Turkey. To this end, individual chapters focus either on the intra-site organisation of recently excavated settlements or provide an up-to-date synthesis on the regional level, combining old and new data. ‘Making Spaces into Places is a strong statement on the quality and directions of Balkan prehistory today.’ Professor Nikos Efstratiou, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

Nenad N. Tasić is a professor of archaeology at Belgrade University, Serbia. His work and previous publications are dedicated to establishing chronologies, tracing origins, and study of the art of the Neolithic period of the Balkans. He has been the chief researcher at the site of Vinča since 1998. Dushka Urem-Kotsou is an associate professor of Prehistoric Archaeology at Democritus University of Thrace, Greece. Her expertise ranges from pottery to environmental and food archaeology, architecture and settlements in prehistory of the Aegean and Southeastern Europe. She is currently the director of a research project on the Neolithic settlements in the Aegean Thrace.

210mm WIDTH

B A R I N T E R NAT I O NA L S E R I E S 3 0 0 1

2020

297mm HIGH

‘The papers cover an important region, which was in touch with central Anatolia and Mesopotamia and forwarded the Neolithic way of life to other parts of Europe (central Europe and further west). The proceedings will be of great interest to all researchers who are dealing with Neolithisation and the Neolithic in general.’ Dr Peter Tóth, Masaryk University

BAR  S3001  2020  TASIĆ, UREM-KOTSOU & BURIĆ (Eds)  Making Spaces into Places

B A R I N T E R NAT I O NA L S E R I E S 3 0 0 1

15.4mm

Making Spaces into Places The North Aegean, the Balkans and Western Anatolia in the Neolithic

Marcel Burić is an associate professor of Prehistoric Archaeology at the University of Zagreb, Croatia. His specific professional interests are social and technological developments in the Late Neolithic of Southeast Europe. He is the director of research of the Neolithic settlement at Bapska (Croatia). Contributors: Dragana Antonović, Krum Bacvarov, Olga Bajčev, Tamara Blagojević, Vera Bogosavljević Petrović, Ksenija Borojević, Areti Chondroyianni-Metoki, Vesna Dimitrijević, Dragana Filipović, Gazmend Elezi, John Gorczyk, Jelena Jovanović, Nemci Karul, Dimitris Kloukinas, Kostas Kotsakis, Stavros Kotsos, Marianna Lymperaki, Marić Miroslav, Goce Naumov, Djurdja Obradović, Eylem Özdoğan, Kristina Penezic, Slaviša Perić, Marko Porčić, Agathe Reingruber, Sofija Stefanović, Ivana Stojanović, Heiner Schwarzberg, Teresa Silva, Georgia Stratouli, Nenad N. Tasić, Boban Tripković, Dushka Urem-Kotsou, Jasna Vuković

EDITED BY

N E NA D N . TA S I Ć , DUSHKA UREM-KOTSOU AND MARCEL BURIĆ

Printed in England

210 x 297mm_BAR Tasic et al. CPI 15.4mm ARTWORK.indd 3

22/9/20 9:33 AM