Vin^A–Belo Brdo: Vernissages of Eneolithic Belgrade and Its Vicinity I1

MILO[ SPASI] Belgrade City Museum, Belgrade

VIN^A–BELO BRDO: VERNISSAGES OF ENEOLITHIC BELGRADE AND ITS VICINITY I1

UDC: 903"636"(497.11) e-mail: [email protected] DOI: 10.2298/STA0959027S Received: January 25, 2009 Original research article Accepted: May 4, 2009

Abstract. – The following paper will discuss the problems of Eneolithic settlements of Baden and Kostolac culture at Vin~a near Belgrade. Eneolithic horizons from Vin~a site were scarcely published owing to the fact that both Baden and Kostolac layers are not well stratified because of heavy medieval devastations. In spite of all post-depositional destructions Eneolithic settlements at Vin~a show enormous significance for understanding the life of the period, both on the micro and macro-regional scale. At the same time, this work is a sort of an insight into the results of ongoing analysis of material culture and socio-economic patterns of Eneolithic period settlements in Belgrade and its vicinity.

Key words. – Vin~a, Eneolithic, Baden and Kostolac culture, Settlement organization, Chronology.

in~a–Belo Brdo is situated on the right bank Vin~an settlements between 4,5 m and 2,5 m of vertical of the river Danube, in the immediate vicinity section, and correctly dated them to his Danubian IV–V V of Serbian’s capital Belgrade. Its importance cultures, that is to Baden culture and Middle Bronze age is recognized as the the eponymous site of the Late period.7 Neolithic Vin~a culture. The abundance of Neolithic In the course of new excavations at Vin~a (1978–1986; architectural remains, ceramic vessels, anthropomorphic 1998–2008) numerous Eneolithic finds were associated figurines, chipped and ground stone, and bone tools has with small Bodrogkerseztur necropolis, Baden and Ko- drawn attention shortly after the first excavations in early stolac settlements, of which only Bodrekeresztur necro- 20th century conducted by Serbian archaeologist Miloje polis has been published adequately.8 The full scientific Vasi}2. Owing to the thickness of the cultural layers with analysis of Baden and Kostolac cultural horizons is still more then 10 meters of archeological deposits, Vin~a became the key site for studying Balkan Neolithic and 3 cross-cultural relations in whole Europe. 1 Current paper presents the shorter version of my BA thesis Although the finds from Eneolithic and Bronze Age Baden and Kostolac Settlements at Vin~a–Belo Brdo defended on settlements have been neglected for long time, sporadic October 2007 at Department of Archaeology on Phaculty of Philo- reports of so called non Vin~a or Pannonian ceramic sophy, Belgrade University, under the mentorship of prof. Milo{ vere were published by M. Vasi}4 and V. Miloj~i}, the Jevti}. 2 Vasi} 1932–1936. first scholar who has attributed Eneolithic pottery to 3 Childe 1958; Miloj~i} 1949; Gara{anin 1951; Chapman 1981. 5 Baden and Kostolac cultural layers at Vin~a. In the 4 Vasi} 1911, 126–132; Vasi} 1936, 135–139. meantime typological and stylistic characteristics of 5 Miloj~i} 1949, 73. Eneolithic and Bronze Age pottery from Vasi}’s exca- 6 Srejovi} 1957, 73–79; Jovanovi} 1963, 19–24. vations at Vin~a were briefly evaluated by D. Srejovi} 7 Childe 1958, 94–95. and B. Jovanovi}.6 V. G. Childe also referred to post- 8 Tasi} 1984, 69–75; Tasi} 1995, 165; Jevti} 1986, 135–144.

27 Milo{ SPASI], Vin~a–Belo Brdo: Vernissages of Eneolithic Belgrade and its Vicinity I (27–51) STARINAR LIX/2009 missing except the proliferation of study on Baden As it is obvious from the ground plan of Baden anthropomorphic figurines9, and partially published settlement (Fig. 1), the dug-out objects themselves were Kostolac ceramic finds.10 In the following chapters the not grouped in any organized manner, except in the case author will present his analysis of Baden and Kostolac of irregular cluster of seven pits excavated in the settlements from Vin~a–Belo Brdo. northwestern part of the trench II. Still, the connection between the objects in the mentioned cluster isn’t interpretable since the function of each locus itself isn’t THE BADEN CULTURE SETTLEMENT clear. The dug out objects contained neither the floor ORGANIZATION debris nor the remains of postholes which could suggest the residential purpose of the pits. However, it should After the abandonment of the site by the bearers of be stressed that objects 18 and 19 contained fragments Late Vin~a D2 culture and the reuse of the Vin~a in of burnt house daub, the evidence which could be indi- middle Eneolithic elapsed a significant time period, the cative for functional interpretation of a structure as a so called hiatus, which according to relative chronology, dwelling on every single layered site. But in case of could last around two or three centuries. The first reuse Vin~a, one cannot claim with certainty that the daub in of the site was in connection with small Bodrogkerszetur features represents the remains of Baden culture architec- necropolis which consisted of four flat graves dug in to tural activity, or it was simply thrown in a pit as garbage abandoned Vinca settlement. Shortly afterwards, new po- from the Vin~a horizon, after leveling and cleaning of pulation occupied Vin~a, the bearers of Baden culture, the site by Baden inhabitants. Also, none of the excavated who formed a completely new type of settlement with structure was dug-out in the course of acquisition of dug-out houses, open-air hearths and refuse pits (Fig. 1). water or clay, because their lowest levels didn’t reach Dug-out features were of circular or ellipsoid shape the clayish subsoil of Vin~a settlement. Deductively, it whose size varied from 1,00 m to 2,50 m in diameter, could be concluded that Baden culture dug-out object and up to 0,90 m in depth. As a result of implemented from Vin~a served either for residential, storage, gar- field methodology during the 1978–1984. excavations bage, ritual utility or their function changed during their seasons, which considered removing of unified artificial life time. layers, up to depth of one spade (cca. 30 cm), some of the Although N. Tasi} mentions above ground structures dug out pits were very shallow, with evidenced depths and houses of Baden culture,11 except one open-air ranging from 0,15 m to 0,40 m. Regarding the function hearth, there isn’t solid confirmation for such claim in of 17 excavated dug-out structures there is not much to field documentation. Also, further difficulty with defining say since almost all of them were heavily devastated with and dating above ground features is the fact that Baden intrusions of Middle Bronze Age settlement and medieval culture horizon is severely devastated with activities of necropolis. The most numerous part of material culture later occupants of the site, during the Eneolithic, Middle repertoire from dug-out features are sherds of ceramic Bronze age and Medieval period. Therefore, in many vessels. Almost all of the excavated Baden culture objects cases when above ground structure is only partially pre- also contained animal bones and river shells, while in served and when there isn’t any diagnostic material, just few pits there are documented worked animal bones which is in a clear context with the excavated structure, and/or chipped or ground stone tools, levels of ashes and one can not safely date it neither to Eneolithic nor to small daub fragments. The fact that in not a single Baden Middle Bronze age Vatin culture. Only one above ground culture dug-out structure, intact and in situ artifact assem- Baden culture structure has been documented in the blages have not been found shouldn’t be regarded as an course of 1978–1984. excavations. That is an open-air evidence for functional determination of all such struc- hearth with burnt floor founded with pottery sherds. tures as refuse pits. Rather, such situation should be The exact appearance of the hearth couldn’t be recon- sought as an implication of mentioned devastations, and structed since it was only the burnt floor and its founda- as distinct life biography of each structure which could tion that were preserved. The hearth hadn’t had calotte be functionally used as a house, storage, refuse or ritual pit in different time sequence of the site occupation. How- ever, due to the lack of informations about exact size of the excavated structures and knowledge about (post)depo- 9 Tasi} 1980–1981, 27–33; Tasi} 1984, 70–71; Tasi} 1995, 56. sitional processes it is impossible to give a solid inter- 10 Tasi} 2001, 411–418; Nikoli} 2000, 10. pretation of any dug-out object’s life biography. 11 Tasi} 1984, 69.

28 Milo{ SPASI], Vin~a–Belo Brdo: Vernissages of Eneolithic Belgrade and its Vicinity I (27–51) STARINAR LIX/2009

05 m

ENEOLITHIC HORIZONS 1978–1998

Fig. 1. Ground plan of Eneolithic horizons with above ground buildings of Late Vin~a horizon Sl. 1. Plan eneolitskih horizonata sa osnovama nadzemnih gra|evina poznovin~anskog horizonta

and its function was probably in the sphere of everyday those two horizons. On the other hand, a misleading path activities in the settlement such as cooking, and/or for determining the relationship between Baden culture maintaining the light and warmth, and scaring the settlement and Bodrogkerszetur necropolis was the stra- beasts. It looks as the hearth isn’t in any obvious context tigraphic analysis of correlation between the absolute with some other above ground or dug out Baden feature sea-level altitudes of Bodrogkeresztur graves and Baden but due to the fact that in the immediate vicinity of it is hearth in their vicinity.12 There isn’t enough stratigra- the foundation of the biggest dug out feature of the phic data for a claim that Bodrogkeresztur necropolis is Baden settlement, it shouldn’t be excluded that those younger then Baden settlement. Bearing in mind that all structures could be an integral contextual unit. post Neolithic horizons at Vin~a are severely devastated, the fact that one Bodrogkeresztur grave is 15 cm dug deeper then Baden hearth 2 m away, itself doesn’t speak STRATIGRAPHY in favor for late dating of Baden settlement.13

Relative-chronological relationship between Eneo- lithic settlements at Vin~a isn’t interpretable on the base of depositional stratification itself. Since, six Baden pits 12 Jevti} 1986, 143; Tasi} 1984, 75. were dug into the floors of late Vin~a houses, there isn’t 13 For late dating of Baden culture cf. Csalog 1931, 102; Di- a question about the chronological relationship between mitrijevi} 1979, 35–78.

29 Milo{ SPASI], Vin~a–Belo Brdo: Vernissages of Eneolithic Belgrade and its Vicinity I (27–51) STARINAR LIX/2009

It is difficult to establish the exact position and settlement, there isn’t any significant shift in number of thickness of the Baden culture horizon. If the criteria for herding animals such as domestic sheep and goat.18 The determining its absolute position is the stratification of most prominent substantial change that occurred during dug-out objects then the lowermost level is around the life of the Baden culture settlement is the number of 84,18 m while the upper most level is at 85,22 m sea- domestic pig, which increased almost double since the level altitude. Still, the limits of Baden horizon in Vin~a late Neolithic. Also, it is worth of mentioning that the vertical section aren’t clear since both the profiles from number of domestic cattle declined since the latest Vin~a Vasi}’ excavations and ones from 1978–1980. do not settlement, at almost the same ratio. show exact stratigraphic position of post-Vin~a settle- Concluding remark on subsistence and economy of ments. It should be mentioned that according to B. Jo- Eneolithic settlement at Vin~a is in harmony with H. vanovi}’ and M. Stevanovi}’ stratigraphic analysis of Greenfield’s analysis. It looks as at the beginning of Late vertical sections at Vin~a, Eneolithic, Bronze age and Eneolithic the small Baden population settled at unin- Medieval settlements are probably positioned between habited Danube terrace in Vin~a and built humble dug- the present day surface and the depth of 1 meter, that is -out houses. Their economy was probably of mixed agro- between 86,12 m and 85,12 m sea-level altitudes.14 Less -pastoral character, with a great emphasis on fishing reliable are M. Vasi}’ observations regarding the strati- which is confirmed with well documented data on the fication of Eneolithic horizons at Vin~a. Under the term significant presence of fish bones in the Baden culture Pannonian ware M. Vasi} considered the pottery of pits.19 The vicinity of Vin~a offered the same extent of Baden, Kostolac and Vatin culture, which is positioned natural recourses as in Neolithic period: fertile plain between the 3,90 m and 0,20 m in vertical section.15 which has been even easier cultivated since the invention Thus, the stratification of each post-Vin~an horizon can- of plough, enough easy accessible slopes for pasture, not be studied separately from the conglomerate of Eneo- and the Danube, as the mightiest communicational route lithic and Bronze Age finds, but the registered level of and a perennial source of fish and shell. Also, due to the 3,90 m in vertical section could be considered just as a invention of wheeled vehicles and the presence of trac- real Terminus ante quem for Baden culture settlement. tion animals Baden population at Vin~a traveled, com- As it was shown earlier, there isn’t obvious cluste- municated and traded with less effort then Neolithic ring of Eneolithic objects in Vin~a. Likewise in the inhabitants did. terms of horizontal stratigraphy and distribution of As attested from this short retrospection of Baden Baden culture pottery in the cultural layer the only economy at Vin~a, it is obvious that one should not a pattern that was observed follows the density and the priori consider all Late Eneolithic population as traveling, degree of later devastations. That is, on the part of the set- pastoral nomads with big herds moving from one pasture tlement where the Eneolithic cultural layer is severely to another. Rather, it should be stressed that in many damaged with later Bronze Age dug-out pits (i.e. Blocks cases, subsistence and economy of Baden population C–D/V) Baden and Kostolac culture pottery is less had a dominant pastoral component,20 but also that often found and it is usually heavily fragmented. On the leading subsistence components are closely associated other hand, bigger density and better perseverance of with various socio-cultural and geo-economical factors. Eneolithic pottery in cultural layer is to be observed on Therefore, mixed agro-pastoral economy of Baden po- the segments of site with the lesser post-depositional devastations (i.e. Blocks C/3, D–E/4).

14 Stevanovi} and Jovanovi} 1996, 200, Figs 2–3; cf. Jovano- vi} 1961, 9–19; Jovanovi} 1984, 23–34. SUBSISTENCE AND ECONOMY 15 Vasi} 1936, 135. 16 Arnold and Greenfield 2006, 29–30. Absence of solid above ground houses and different 17 Sherratt 1981, 261–305; Sherratt 1983, 90–104; Spasi} 2008. site organization are in direct link with pastoral and 18 I would like to express big gratitude to my dear colleague semi-nomadic based economy of the new occupants at prof Haskel J. Greenfield for a kind permission to take account on Vin~a. This time-period coincides with appearance of his unpublished analysis of animal bones from Eneolithic horizon at Vin~a. Full report on zooarchaeological analysis of Late Neo- transhumant pastoralism in Southeastern Europe16 and lithic, Eneolithic and Middle Bronze Age settlements is to be publi- the beginning of the so called Secondary Product Revo- shed in Journal of Serbian Archaeological Society. 17 lution. However, zooarchaeological analysis from 19 Greenfield in press Vin~a showed that in comparison with late Neolithic 20 Horváth 2007, 151.

30 Milo{ SPASI], Vin~a–Belo Brdo: Vernissages of Eneolithic Belgrade and its Vicinity I (27–51) STARINAR LIX/2009 pulation at Vin~a is to be sought as a response to socio- pottery. The vessels were made out of semi-fine and finely cultural and natural conditions and needs of the time refined clay with inorganic and organic inclusions. The period and environment. most common type of inclusions is sand, crushed shells and crushed ceramic sherds and white magnesite. There isn’t a strong relationship between the type and quantity MATERIAL CULTURE of inclusion and type/size of the vessel. That is, at almost the same ratio appear small-sized vessels (i.e. cups, The most numerous part of finds discovered in the bowls) made out of poorly refined clay with big amount Baden culture horizon at Vin~a are fragmented clay of sand and magnesite, and large-sized vessels (i.e. pots, vessels, while worked bone and antler tools (pins, har- amphorae, pithoi) made out of finely refined clay with poons, hoes…) represent rather modest collection of small quantity of organic or inorganic inclusions, and finds from Baden settlement. Ground and chipped stone vice versa. Vessels were handmade, and fired in oxidiz- tools are found quite often at Vin~a, but when they are ing and reducing atmosphere. Finishing was executed found outside the pits or in a pit that was dug in to Vin~a by burnishing and polishing or by implementing some house their dating to Baden culture is conspicuous since of the various ornamental techniques and motifs. Baden the material itself is not datable. The most exceptional people from Vin~a were skilled potters. The quality of finds from Baden settlement at Vin~a are four anthropo- their end-products is displayed through the harmony, morphic figurines of Die Kopflosidole type.21 Besides symmetry, uniformity and typological diversity of vessel those four finds, there is one more anthropomorphic forms. Miniature vessels are the only exceptions to the figurine of the same type which was earlier erroneously remarkably modeled forms, being modeled very clumsy, dated to the late Vin~a culture. Although it is a scarce find often with asymmetrical walls, insufficiently dried and its Baden culture provenience is unquestionable.22 Until badly fired. Such properties and attributes could point now, sites of Cernavodã, Vin~a, Vu~edol and [arovce out to hands of an unskilled craftsman or to the function remain as the only early Baden and Cernavodã–Boleráz of such items. Besides miniature vessels, spindle whorls settlements which yielded more then three such are also carelessly modeled. figurines.23 Baden figurines from Vin~a were found Basic forms of Baden culture ceramic vessels from outside the pits, in cultural layer. Similar find contexts Vin~a–Belo Brdo include cups, bowls, pots, amphorae, were observed in Vu~edol and Cernavodã also. Clear pithoi, fischbuttegefäse and miniature vessels of various Kopflosidole find context is only to be observed in [a- forms imitating the shapes of the full-size ones. Typolo- rovce where more then ten anthropomorphic figurines gical analysis of each studied form enables division of were found in dugout ritual pit along with ceramic many subtypes and varieties.25 Cups with onion shaped vessels. Therefore the meaning and interpretation of die belly are diagnostic vessel type of Baden culture, their Kopflosidole figurines is to be sought only within the lower part is usually vertically channeled with one ribbon cross-cultural analysis on a broader macro-regional scale, handle which exceeds the height of the rim (Pl. I/3, 5–7). the task which exceeds the outlines of the current paper.

21 POTTERY Anthropomorphic figurines from Vin~a were discussed in detail on other place, c.f. footnote 9. 22 Tasi} 1995, 164, Fig. 45/3. Repertoire of Baden culture vessels from Vin~a in- 23 It is worth of mentioning that at Baden settlement Bole~ica cludes all the basic forms and ornamental patterns typical which is some 300 m from Vin~a one more Kopflosidole was found for the post Boleráz or pre-classical phase of Baden cul- (kind information of academian N. Tasi}); for Cernavodã cf Roman ture, with the strong reminiscence on Boleráz–Cerna- 2001, 19, Taf. 2/ 1–8, Taf. 4/1–9; for Vu~edol c.f. Te`ak-Gregl 1988, 11–21; For [arovce c. f. Novotny 1981, 130–138. vodã III culture pottery and a sort of prelude to the 24 Vasi} 1936, 136–138. material culture patterns of classical Baden culture. M. 25 The text will not be burdened with proliferation of typolo- Vasi} was the first one to point out to the technology of gical subdivisions of formal types and varieties of vessel. It is the his so called Pannonian vere, outlining the poorer author’s deepest conviction that exhaustive typological study has quality of Eneolithic and Bronze Age pottery as an enormous significance for the chronology and knowledge of ma- opposed to perfectly refined and fired Vin~an buccero terial culture of prehistoric community, but also that minor deviations from the basic form doesn’t always signal the affinities, ambitions 24 ceramics. The same could be said now, some 70 years and changes in the studied cultural milieu. However, detailed typo- after Vasi}’analysis of small repertoire of Baden culture logical schemes will be given in the plates at the end of the text.

31 Milo{ SPASI], Vin~a–Belo Brdo: Vernissages of Eneolithic Belgrade and its Vicinity I (27–51) STARINAR LIX/2009

Subtypes and varieties include forms of cups with ornamental composition carried out in combination with different profilation of lips and the belly. Bowls are the different decorative technique. Stabbed dots, triangles and most frequent type of vessel form in Baden settlement crescent shaped stabs are also performed on wet walls at Vin~a–Belo Brdo (Pl. II–IV). This group of vessels is of the clay, either organized in horizontal or slanting almost always decorated, so our knowledge of Baden cul- parallel rows or in combination with incising. Both in- ture ornamental techniques and motifs mainly depends cised and stabbed ornaments are found on almost all on the study of those types of finds. The main types types of vessel, with onion shaped cups as an only ex- include spherical (Pl. II/2, 6, III/1/3), semispherical (Pl. ception. On the contrary, horizontal rows of impressed II/4, 7–8), conical (Pl. II/1, 3, 5) and biconical bowls fingers and fingernails below the rim, and applied stripes (Pl. III/5–7, IV/1–7). As the leading types appear conical on the rim and below it, are exclusively found on the and biconical bowls with S profiled walls and fluted rim large-sized vessels such as pots, amphorae and pithoi. (Pl. III/7, IV/2–6). Spherical and semispherical bowls Channeling as a leading ornamental technique of the are also typical for early Baden culture, especially for Baden culture pottery production appears only scarcely Boleráz culture Eastern counterpart-Cernavoda III cul- at Vin~a, usually in a form of multiple vertical fields on ture. Subtypes and varieties of bowls are distinguished the belly of onion shaped cups. Absence of channeling on the basis of angle of profilation of the neck and rim. which is almost fundamental for understanding Baden Besides bowls, pots make the most frequent type of vessel culture stylistic expression is to be sought as a reflection at Baden settlement (Pl. V/1–7, VI/1–6). Because of their of specific regional, socio-economic aspirations of size and the fact that most of the finds are heavily frag- Baden inhabitants at Vin~a. mented it was only possible to separate conical (Pl. V/3, VI/1–2), biconical pots (Pl. V/1) and S profiled pots (Pl. V/6–7, VI/3, 5, VII/1–3), while the rest of the repertoire THE KOSTOLAC CULTURE SETTLEMENT could be differentiated on the basis of variation in rim and neck profilation. Furthermore, pots are often deco- During the 20th century Kostolac culture settlement rated, also in a distinctive manner, typical just for this at Vin~a was briefly evaluated by Serbian archaeologists. group of finds. Fragmentation and bad perseverance All of them came to the same conclusion, that small were also the problem dealing with typological study of Kostolac population established settlement which was amphora type vessel (Pl. VII/4–9, VIII/1, 3), because in shortly inhabited, and that its cultural horizon cannot be many case, it was impossible to differentiate weather distinguished in Vin~a’ vertical section.26 In her study the studied fragment belongs to the pot or amphora. of Kostolac culture D. Nikoli} also referred to settle- Amphorae with conical necks and narrow mouth are the ment at Vin~a, mainly focusing on the material from only safely distinguished type of this vessel. Amphorae 1978–1983. excavations.27 Up to 1998. campaign, there with impressed, crest modeled rim are found too. Also wasn’t much to discuss about Kostolac settlement at because of the bad perseverance of large sized vessels, Vin~a owing to the fact that there was not a single Kosto- pithoi are rarely found (Pl. VIII/4–5). In the case of the lac object excavated and that only about 30 vessel frag- only one example of fischbuttegefäse vessel found at ments were published. During the 1998. excavations, the Vin~a (Pl. VIII/2), it is even surprising having it in the most important Eneolithic find came to light, a Kosto- early Baden culture level since their full affirmation is lac culture dug out ritual pit, containing assemblage of to be found only in late Baden, Kostolac and Vu~edol six intact and one fragmented clay vessels turned upside culture. Repertoire of miniature vessels from Baden ho- down.28 The find itself wasn’t of big help in solving the rizon at Vin~a is very modest, it includes forms of pots old problems, such as stratigraphy, settlement organiza- and onion shaped cups. tion, subsistence and economy of the Kostolac culture Characteristic ornamental techniques and composi- horizon at Vin~a, but its significance for the further tions on Baden culture pottery at Vin~a signal out for a study of Kostolac culture on the wider macro-regional classical stylistic expression of Early Baden culture pot- scale is invaluable. Also, it points out to the conclusion, tery production, with a certain degree of local distincti- veness (Fig. 2). The most common ornamental technique is incising which is executed before firing of the vessel. Rows of incised slanting lines, broom-strike and net-like 26 Vasi} 1910, 23–39; Miloj~i} 1953, 151–158; Tasi} 1984, 72. motifs, fishbone, zigzag and triangular ornaments are 27 Nikoli} 2000, T. III/1, 2, 6. executed either separately, as a single ornament or as an 28 Tasi} 2001, 411–418.

32 Milo{ SPASI], Vin~a–Belo Brdo: Vernissages of Eneolithic Belgrade and its Vicinity I (27–51) STARINAR LIX/2009

Fig. 2. Ornamental motifs and composition of Baden culture clay vessels Sl. 2. Ornamentalni motivi i kompozicije na posudama badenske kulture purposed long ago by V. Miloj~i}, that Kostolac culture with quite small typological deviations and variations settlement at Vin~a was of greater importance then from the main type (Pl. IX–XI). One of the leading types archaeologists used to consider.29 As it was pointed out, of Kostolac culture vessels is small conical or biconical there aren’t enough firm evidences for a wider discussion cup with high ribbon handle. Besides two fragments of of Kostolac culture settlement organization at Vin~a, decorated massive ribbon handles, only one cup was subsistence and economy of its inhabitants. Therefore recovered from Vin~a (Pl. IX/2). Conical, biconical and just a brief evaluation of ceramics will be given in the semispherical shapes are the most common types of sequence. bowls (Pl. IX/3–7, X/1–8, XI/1–4), the vast majority of which comprise of biconical bowls with various subtypes and varieties distinguished on the basis of distinct POTTERY rim, neck and shoulder profilation (Pl. X/1–8, XI/1–4). Large-size vessels (i.e. pots, amphorae, pithoi) are very Rather modest repertoire of Kostolac clay vessels hard to identify because of their morphological resem- consists of less then one hundred sherds and seven re- blance with Baden culture counterparts. Thus the only constructed vessels, which doesn’t allow broader typo- secure attributed finds are ones from the Kostolac ritual logical and stylistic consideration. However, it could be pit. A real contribution to the knowledge of Kostolac stressed that vessels were mainly made out of fine refined pottery production is a miniature conical bowl decorated clay mixed with crushed shells and sand, and fired in with square impressions (Pl. IX/1). both reducing and oxidizing atmosphere. Outer surfaces are well burnished and decorated in well known Kostolac ornamental manner. Six basic types are distinguished: cups, bowls, pots, amphorae, pithoi and miniature vessels 29 Miloj~i} 1949, 73.

33 Milo{ SPASI], Vin~a–Belo Brdo: Vernissages of Eneolithic Belgrade and its Vicinity I (27–51) STARINAR LIX/2009

Fig. 3. Ornamental motifs and composition of Kostolac culture clay vessels Sl. 3. Ornamentalni motivi i kompozicije na posudama kostola~ke kulture

It was outlined above that the leading vessel type of should be outlined that Kostolac culture ornamental Kostolac culture is high-handled cup, likewise the same system is far more sophisticated then it was observed on could be said for Furchenstich (stab and drag) ornamen- the material from Vin~a. The reason for the modest tal technique which is taken as a synonym for the whole stylistic expression at Vin~a shouldn’t be explained as culture. The motifs executed in this technique comprise local degradation of Kostolac ornamental system.30 of simple linear ornaments such as single or multiple Rather, explanations for utterly limited corpus of horizontal and vertical lines and some kind of chess applied ornamental motifs at Vin~a are to be sought in fields, which are usually filled with white incrustation. Alternatively, Furchenstich is combined with stabbed ornaments. Still, the most common ornamental techniques and compositions are ones inherited from the Baden 30 Ornamental techniques and compositions on pottery of culture stylistic expression (Fig. 3), such as stabbed trian- Kostolac culture are quite uniform on the vast territory of Belgrade gles, crescents, squares and dots organized in simple and its vicinity. More variations are to be observed only at macro- linear compositions like horizontal and vertical lines, regional scale, such as it is in Eastern Serbia where Kostolac culture hanging triangles and chess fields. Impressed and incised is under strong influence of Coþofeni culture and vice versa, or in Hungarian Transdanubia and southern Slovakia where Kostolac ornaments are rather rare, the only securely dated finds pottery production is under influence of local Early Furchenstisch up to now are examples from ritual pit. In conclusion, it traditions of Baj~-Retz-Gajary type.

34 Milo{ SPASI], Vin~a–Belo Brdo: Vernissages of Eneolithic Belgrade and its Vicinity I (27–51) STARINAR LIX/2009 the sphere of vivid processes that surrounded, to us still Baden culture, as well as for Kostolac and Vu~edol cul- unrecognizable, activities of Kostolac population at tures, their presence in Early Baden context is well Vin~a. testified at the site of Sarva{,35 while for the finds from Gomolava and Dobanovci–Ciglana somewhat later dating was proposed.36 RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY Vessel repertoire of Baden culture from Vin~a is slightly remote from typological and ornamental style As it was shown, stratigraphic data doesn’t allow of Boleráz culture. Some basic forms of vessels and orna- relative dating of Eneolithic horizons at Vin~a, except mentation on it, which survive from Boleráz to classical the fact that it is well testified that Eneolithic horizons Baden culture, such as cups with pseudo-torded handles, are younger then the late Vin~an settlement and older jugs, bowls with inner channeled and incised rim and then Vatin culture layer. However, both Baden and Kos- neck, plastically applied ribs, channeling, subcutaneous tolac settlements from Vin~a are securely dated via handles are all missing or are underrepresented at Vin~a. relative chronology, owing to the presence of diagnostic On contrary, there is a strong resemblance with Cerna- vessel types and ornamentation on them.31 Up to know, voda III culture material which reflects, before all, in there are three chronological systems regarding the vast appearance of spherical and semispherical bowls, division and evolution of Baden cultural complex on but also in presence of combined incised and circular the territory of Central and Southeastern Europe, all of stabbed ornaments. Nevertheless, applied straps with them being based on the typological and ornamental de- fingertip and fingernail impressions and die Kopflossi- velopment of vessel types and ornamentation on them.32 dole type figurines are distinctions of the both cultures Most appropriate chronological scheme for the territory which are observed at Vin~a. From the observed of Serbia is the one proposed by S. Dimitrijevi} which typological patterns it follows that Vin~a belongs to the is compatible and comparable with the chronology of V. following cultural horizon: Gomolava IIIa1–Jabuka– Némejcová-Pavúková. According to Dimitrijevi}’ Dobanovci–Mostonga I–U{}e Bole~ice–Vu~edol (Gra- chronology, Baden settlement at Vin~a fits into his A2 dac)–Sarva{ in Southern Pannonia, Berea–Cetatea–Carei phase or the so called Fonyod horizon33. This phase is –Drumul Cãminului–Locusteni–Predesti–ªimnic in synchronous with IIa phase in chronological system of Romanian Banat and Oltenia, Fonyód–Pilshmarót V. Némejcová-Pavúková.34 The phase in question is in Basaharc–Balatonbogláron–Balatonöszöd–Temetöi dýlö fact an early Baden culture period manifestation, which in Hungarian Transdanubia, Nevidzany–Malé Kosihy immediately follows Boleráz horizon in the Central –Tekovsky Hrádok–^erveny Hrádok in Slovakia, set- Europe and Cernavoda III culture in the East. The ma- tlements of Schöningen–Salzmünde–Oberwerschen terial culture of this period is still under strong influence and Arbon–Bleiche–Altheim 3 in Central Europe.37 of the typological and ornamental patterns inherited from Chronological relationship of Early Baden culture in the Boleraz–Cernavoda III cultural complex. Diagnostic pottery forms and decoration that secure dating of Baden settlement at Vin~a to an Early phase of Baden culture are small onion-shaped, channeled cups, S profiled 31 There isn’t a single absolute C 14 date from post Vin~an conical and biconical bowls with fluted neck, deep bell- horizons. Even Neolithic sequences of site are poorly dated (c.f. shaped and S profiled pots and amphorae, crest Schier 1996, 141–163). modeled rims of pots and amphorae, single or multiple 32 Neustupny 1959, 260–284; Dimitrijevi} 1962, 239–261; applied plastic straps with finger, fingertip and nail Némejcová-Pavúková 1981, 261–296. 33 impressions, incised zigzag and fishbone motifs, as Dimitrijevi} 1979, 209. 34 well as anthropomorphic figurines of die Kopflossidole Némejcová-Pavúková 1981, 266, Obr. 3. 35 Balen 2005, 30–34, T. 7/24–25, T. 8/26–28. type. Material culture from Baden settlement at Vin~a 36 Petrovi} and Jovanovi} 2002, 23; Tasi} 1958–1959, shows outstanding uniformity and cultural homogeneity. 228–241; Dimitrijevi}1962, 211. Studied pottery forms and motifs don’t allow distingui- 37 General overview of the selected Early Baden and Cerna- shing more then one cultural or building horizon at voda III–Boleraz sites can be found in Banner 1956; and Cernavo- Vin~a. A cup with long neck (Pl. I/7) and an example of dã III–Boleráz, ein vorgeschichtliches Phänomen; for sites in fischbuttgefase (Pl. VIII/2) are the only finds which could Southern Pannonia c.f. Dimitrijevi} 1979, 183–234; Tasi} 1995; Petrovi} and Jovanovi} 2002; for Romania c.f. Roman and Nemeti signal for later dating of settlement at Vin~a. Although 1976; for Slovakia c.f. Némejcová-Pavúková 1974, 238–360; for mentioned finds are more typical for the later phase of Central Europe c.f. Driehaus 1960; Beran 1993.

35 Milo{ SPASI], Vin~a–Belo Brdo: Vernissages of Eneolithic Belgrade and its Vicinity I (27–51) STARINAR LIX/2009

Central and Southeastern Europe with the synchronous which needs to be answered. Careful examination of both manifestations in Upper Thrace, Greece and Aegean typological and ornamental development and their se- isn’t clear as it was thought. Although there is more then quencing in order implied by relative and absolute resemblance in the terms of vessels forms and decoration dating of their appearance is the only path which could between Boleraz–Cernavoda III repertoire and material solve the problem. culture of Ezero XIII–IX and Dikili Tash–Sitagroi III38, The question of possible synchronism of earlier there is more then two century long chronological gap Kostolac culture horizon with the later Baden culture which doesn’t allow such synchronization.39 Therefore, one is still unclear because all such finds derive from an it would be more reasonable to synchronize Ezero unclear context, that is from cultural layer. Still, in two XIII–IX and Dikili Tash–Sitagroi III with Baden IIa, or Baden culture dug out pits (nos. 7a and 19) few frag- to the so called post Boleraz horizon. N. Merpert came ments of Kostolac culture vessels were found. Pit 7a is to the same conclusion in his discussion on relative heavily devastated with later Vatin culture pit. Deriving chronology of Ezero.40 conclusion that there are evidences for contemporaneous In the terms of absolute dates and according to the habitation of Baden and Kostolac population at Vin~a is relative chronology Baden culture settlement at Vin~a still in the sphere of assumption, and needs to be attested can be dated to the period between 3400 and 3200 BC, in the course of new excavations. which is in harmony with calibrated dates from the There are only few absolute dates for Kostolac cul- Baden Ib–IIa period.41 ture on the territory of Serbia, ones from Gomolava and Due to the fact that only one dug out object is secu- Vu~edol are perhaps the most illustratable for Vin~a.46 rely attributed to Kostolac culture, the youngest Ene- Time span for both settlements is between 3100. and olithic settlement at Vin~a is even harder datable. 2800. B.C. which is in harmony with Vin~a. Hence, if Concerning the attribution of finds from Kostolac ritual there is synchronicity between late Baden and early pit it should be stressed that vessels in question don’t Kostolac culture settlements, an earlier date for Kostolac exhibit significant chronological or even cultural sensiti- settlement is also possible. Such high dating of Kosto- vity. However, finds are well dated because of uniformity lac culture is also proven on Vu~edol.47 in the ritus which is observed on the vast territory,42 and because there are both typological and ornamental ana- logies in the repertoire from Gomolava IIIb2.43 Also, CONCLUSION there is strong resemblance with the material from the oldest Kostolac settlement at Gomolava (IIIb1), before Late Eneolithic settlements from Vin~a–Belo Brdo all in the prevalence of triangular, circular and crescent offer a new insight into the social dynamics and life- stabbed ornaments which are typical for Baden culture.44 biography of the settlement which is, with sometimes On the other hand, vessels decorated in Furchenstisch centuries long hiatuses, inhabited or used in some other technique display rather modest repertoire of ornamental ways, for more then seven millennia. During the time compositions which are usually combined with stabbed sequences in question the territory of Belgrade and its and pricked motifs. Following the relative chronological vicinity was densely populated, just to mention Baden time span established for Gomolava and Vin~a, Kosto- lac settlement could be dated to the following cultural horizon: Gomolava IIIb1–2–Karaburma–Gardo{–Doba- novci–Erdevik–Most II–Tri humke in Serbia, Vu~edol– 38 Némejcová-Pavúková 1981, Obr. 6–10, 13, 14. Sarva{–Slav~a in Croatia, with Kostolac manifestations 39 Wild et all 2001, 1062. of Hodmezovasarhely–Balatonboglaron–Ordacsehi/ 40 Merpert 1979, 497–520. Major type in Hungaria and with Kostolac culture influ- 41 Wild 2001, 1057–1064; Stadler et all, 2001, 541–563. ences in Southern Slovakia, as it is observed in I`a.45 42 Tasi} 2001, 414–418. With respect of the existing chronological systems of 43 Petrovi} and Jovanovi} 2002, 289. Kostolac culture, future excavations will show whether 44 Petrovi} and Jovanovi} 2002, 89/kat. 11, 111/kat. 11, 123/ it is possible to distinguish two phases of Kostolac cul- kat. 2, 128/kat. 1, 130/kat. 4, 136/kat. 1, 181/kat. 3. 45 General overview of the selected Kostolac culture settle- ture settlement at Vin~a: earlier one, which is represented ments could be found in Nikoli} 2000. For the territory of Croatia in the cultural layer, and the later one which is re- c.f. Balen 2002, 35–52; for Hungary c.f. Bondár 1984, 59–84. gistered in ritual pit. However, the problem of Kostolac 46 Petrovi} and Jovanovi} 2002, 298; Balen 2005, 31. culture intern periodisation is still an open question 47 Nikoli} 200, 77.

36 Milo{ SPASI], Vin~a–Belo Brdo: Vernissages of Eneolithic Belgrade and its Vicinity I (27–51) STARINAR LIX/2009 and Kostolac settlements at Bole~ica, Beljarica, Zemun on a broader macro-regional scale since the abandon- –Gardo{, Zemun–Surduk, Zemun–Prigrevica, Dobanovci ment of the site by Late Neolithic occupants. Those –Ciglana, Karaburma, Rospi ]uprija, Kalemegdan, changes included shifts in the subsistence, economy, Avala etc. Baden and Kostolac culture settlements at transport, procurement and trade of raw materials. The Vin~a were built on a place which was prestigious even changes were sometimes gradual, other times abrupt. after the abandonment of the site by Late Neolithic Therefore, the place of Baden and Kostolac culture occupants. There was lot of reasons for both Eneolithic settlement at Vin~a in the Southeast European Late populations to choose Vin~a as their habitat. Although it Eneolithic oikoumene is to be sought in the sphere of is quite certain that Late Neolithic and Late Eneolithic the temporal socio-economic trends and capability or inhabitants hardly ever met at Vin~a, it is not questiona- inability to follow them. ble whether the later ones new for wealth, rank and reputation that had had settlement of their predecessors. Thus by settling Vin~a, newcomers could have obtained ACKNOWLEDGEMNTS the legitimacy to all of the socio-economic privileges and rights that Vin~an population used to have. And what a I would like to express my deepest gratitude to se- privileges that were! It would be redundant mentioning veral colleagues whose help was of great importance for diverse opportunities that natural environment offered the final version of this paper: Professor Milo{ Jevti} and what could have been the advantages and reputation and Assistant professor Marija Lju{tina for their help achieved by using and controlling them, on both micro and encouragements during the work on my BA thesis; and macro-regional scale. Another question is if the academians Nikola Tasi} and Borislav Jovanovi} for their merchant connections and strains that Late Neolithic kind suggestions on various questions concerening the inhabitants had remained and did the new-comers suc- Eneolithic period; Mi{a Ignjatovi} and Nino Rosi, cura- ceed to retrieve the existing ones or to build a new tors of Vin~a collection at the Belgrade City Museum; network on their on. On the first glance it seems as they Dubravka Nikoli} and Jasna Vukovi} for their help with didn’t accomplish any of it, since the settlement itself the finds from vertical section of Vin~a, as well as to doesn’t exhibit the importance of the Neolithic one. Yet, Pedja, Miksa, Kristina and Jovana from the Center for we should not anticipate Neolithic settlement socio-cul- Digital Archaeology, for their help with field documen- tural and economic patterns in Late Eneolithic milieu. tation from Vin~a. Responsibility for any errors and With the respect of circumstances situation has changed missinterpretations in the paper is all mine.

37 Milo{ SPASI], Vin~a–Belo Brdo: Vernissages of Eneolithic Belgrade and its Vicinity I (27–51) STARINAR LIX/2009

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Arnold and Greenfield 2006 – E. R. Arnold and H. Jevti} 1986 – M. Jevti}, Grobovi bakarnog doba J. Greenfield, The Origins of Transhumant Pastorialism iz Vin~e, Starinar N.S. XXXVI, Beograd 1986, in Temperate South Eastern Europe: A Zooarchaeological 135–144. Perspective from the Central Balkans, Oxford 2006. Jovanovi} 1961 – B. Jovanovi}, Stratigrafska Balen 2002 – J. Balen, Topografija nalazi{ta kosto- podela Vin~anskog naseqa, Starinar N.S. XI, la~ke kulture u sjevernoj Hrvatskoj, Vijesnik arheolo{kog Beograd 1961, 9–19. muzeja u Zagrebu XXXV, Zagreb 2002, 35–52. Jovanovi} 1963 – B. Jovanovi}, Les groupes de Balen 2005a – J. Balen, Sarva{: Neoliti~ko i eneoli- civilisation de l’ âge des métaux á Vin~a, Archaeologia ti~ko naselje, Zagreb 2005. Iugoslavica IV, Beograd 1963, 19–24. Balen 2005b – J. Balen, The Kostolac horizon at Vu- Jovanovi} 1984 – B. Jovanovi}, Naseqe ~edol, Opvscula Archaeologica 29, Zagreb 2005, 25–41. vin~anske kulture: Stratigrafija, in: S. ]eli} (ed.) Banner 1956 – J. Banner, Die Péceler Kultur. Bu- Vin~a u Praistoriji i sredwem veku, Beograd 1984, dapest 1956. 23–34. Beran 1993 – J. Beran, Untersuchungen zur Stellung Merpert 1979 – N. Ý. Merpert, Periodizaciý i der Salzmünder Kultur im Jungneolithikum des Saalege- hronologiý, in: G. Georgiev (ed.) Ezero: Rannobron- bietes, Wilkau–Hasslau 1993. zovoto seli÷te. Sofiý 1979, 497–520. Bondár 1984 – M. Bondár, Neuere Funde der Ko- Miloj~i} 1949 – V. Miloj~i}, Chronologie der jun- stolac und der Spätbadener Kultur in Ungarn, Acta geren Steinzeit Mittel- und Sudosteuropas, Berlin 1949. Archaeologica Hungarica 36, Budapest 1984, 59–84. Miloj~i} 1953 – V. Miloj~i}, Funde der Kostolacer Chapman 1981 – J. Chapman, The Vin~a culture of Kultur in der Sammlung des Vorgeschichtlichen Semi- Southeast Europe. Studies in chronology, economy and nars in Marburg/Lahn, Prähistorische Zeitschirft society, Oxford 1981. XXXIV–XXXV, Berlin 1953, 151–158. Childe 1958 – V. G. Childe, The Dawn of European Némejcová-Pavúková 1974 – V. Némejcová- Civilization, New York 1958. Pavúková, Beitrag zum Kennen der Postboleráz- Csalog 1931 – J. Csalog, Siedlung und das kupfer- Entwicklung der Badener Kultur, Slovenská Arheologia zeitliche Gräberfeld in Kiskörös, Prähistorische Zeit- XXII, Bratislava 1974, 238–360. schrift 22, Berlin 1931, 102–115. Némejcová-Pavúková 1981 – V. Némejcová- Dimitrijevi} 1962 – S. Dimitrijevi}, Prilog stup- Pavúková, Ná~rt periodizácie badenskej kultury a jej njevanju badenske kulture u sjevernoj Jugoslaviji, chronologickych vztahov k juhovychodnej Europe, Arheolo{ki radovi i rasprave II, Zagreb 1962, 239–261. Slovenská Arheologia XXIX–2, Bratislava 1981, Dimitrijevi} 1979a – S. Dimitrijevi}, O nekim kon- 261–296. troverznim pitanjima u kronologiji eneolita ju`nih pod- Neustupny 1959 – E. Neustupny, Zur Etstehung ru~ja karpatske kotline, Osje~ki zbornik XVII, Osijek der Kultur mit kannelierter Keramik, Slovenska Arche- 1979, 35–78. ologia 7, Bratislava 1959, 260–284. Dimitrijevi} 1979b – S. Dimitrijevi}, Badenska Novotny 1981 – B. Novotny, Zur Idolatrie der kultura, in: A. Benac (ed.) Praistorija jugoslovenskih Badener Kultur in der Slowakei, Slovenska Archeologia zemalja III, Sarajevo 1979, 183–235. XXXIX–1, Bratislava 1981, 130–138. Driehaus 1960 – J. Driehaus, Die Altheimer Gruppe Petrovi} and Jovanovi} 2002 – J. Petrovi} and B. und das Jungneolithikum in Mitteleuropa, Mainz 1960. Jovanovi}, Gomolava – naselja poznog eneolita, Novi Gara{anin 1951 – M. Gara{anin, Hronologija Sad 2002. vin~anske grupe, Ljubljana 1951. Roman P. and Nemeti 1976 – P. Roman and I. Greenfield in press – H. Greenfield, Subsistence Nemeti, Cultura Baden in Romania, Bucuresti 1976. and taphonomy during the Late Neolithic, Eneolithic and Roman 2001 – P. Roman, Die Cernavodã III – Middle Bronze Age at Vin~a–Belo Brdo, Serbia: Analysis Boleráz-Kulturerscheinung and der Unteren Donau, in P. of the zooarchaeological data from the 1982 excavations. Roman and S. Diamandi (hers.) Cernavodã III–Boleráz, Horváth 2007 – T. Horváth, Häuser der Badener ein vorgeschichtliches Phänomen zwischen dem Ober- Kultur am Fundort Balatonözöd–Temetöi Dýlö, Acta rhein und der Untern Donau. Symposium Mangalia, Archaeologica Hungarica 58, Budapest 2007, 43–105. Bucureºti 2001, 13–60.

38 Milo{ SPASI], Vin~a–Belo Brdo: Vernissages of Eneolithic Belgrade and its Vicinity I (27–51) STARINAR LIX/2009

Schier 1996 – W. Schier, The Relative and Absolute Tasi} 1958–1959 – N. Tasi}, Praistorijsko na- Chronologie of Vin~a: New Evidence from the Type Site, seqe kod Dobanovaca i prilog prou~avawu badenske in: F. Draºovean (ed.) The Vin~a culture. Its role and grupe u Vojvodini, Starinar IX–X, Beograd cultural connections, Timisoara 1996, 141–163. 1958–1959, 228–241. Sherratt 1981 – A. Sherratt, Plough and pastora- Tasi} 1980–81 – N. Tasi}, Die Idole der Baden- lism: aspects of the secondary products revolution, in: I. Kultur in Vin~a, Arhaeologia Iugoslavica XX–XXI, Hodder, G. Isaac and N. Hammond (eds.) Pattern of the Beograd 1980–1981, 27–33. Past: The studies in honor of David Clark, Cambridge Tasi} 1984 – N. Tasi}, Vin~a u bakarno i 1981, 261–305. bronzano doba, in: S. ]eli} (ed.) Vin~a u Praistoriji Sherratt 1983 – A. Sherratt, The Secondary Pro- i sredwem veku, Beograd 1984, 69–75. ducts Exploitation in the Old World, World Archaeology Tasi} 1995 – N. Tasi}, Eneolithic Cultures of Central 15/1, London 1983, 90–104. and West Balkans, Belgrade 1995. Spasi} 2008 – M. Spasi}, Horizontal and Vertical Vasi} 1910 – M. Vasi}, Die Hauptergebnisse der Communication Axis in Middle and Late Eneolithic, prähistorischen Ausgarbung in Vin~a in Jahre 1908, Anallele Banatului XVI, Timisoara 2008, 31–45. Prähistorische Zeitschirft II, Berlin 1910, 23–39. Srejovi} 1957 – D. Srejovi}, Badenska kerami- Vasi} 1911 – M. Vasi}, Die Datierung der Vin~a- ka u Vin~i, Zbornik Filozofkog fakulteta IV–1, schicht, Prähistorische Zeitschirft III, Berlin 1911, Beograd 1957, 73–79. 126–132. Stadler et al 2001 – P. Stadler et all, Absolute Chro- Vasi} 1932 – M. Vasi}, Preistoriska Vin~a I, nology for Early Civilizations in Austria and Central Euro- Beograd 1932. pe using C14 Dating with Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Vasi} 1936a – M. Vasi}, Preistoriska Vin~a with special Results for the Absolute Chronology of the II, Beograd 1936. Baden Culture, in: P. Roman and S. Diamandi (hers.) Vasi} 1936b – M. Vasi}, Preistoriska Vin~a Cernavodã III- Boleráz, ein vorgeschichtliches Phäno- III, Beograd 1936. men zwischen dem Oberrhein und der Untern Donau. Vasi} 1936c – M. Vasi} Preistoriska Vin~a Symposium Mangalia, Bucureºti 2001, 541–563. IV, Beograd 1936. Stevanovi} and Jovanovi} 1996 – M. Stevanovi} Wild et all 2001 – M. W. Wild et all, New Chrono- and B. Jovanovi}, Stratigraphy of Vin~a–Belo Brdo Re- logical Frame for the Young Neolithic Baden Culture in considered, Starinar XLVII, Beograd 1996, 193–204. Central Europe (4th millenium BC), Radiocarbon 43, Te`ak-Gregl 1988 – T. Te`ak-Gregl, O problemu Arizona 2001, 1057–1064. idoloplastike u badenskoj kulturi, Opuscula Archeolo- gica 13, Zagreb 1988, 11–21.

39 Milo{ SPASI], Vin~a–Belo Brdo: Vernissages of Eneolithic Belgrade and its Vicinity I (27–51) STARINAR LIX/2009

Rezime: MILO[ SPASI], Muzej Grada Beograda, Beograd

VIN^A–BELO BRDO: VERNISA@I ENEOLITSKOG BEOGRADA I OKOLINE I

Kqu~ne re~i. – Vin~a, eneolit, badenska i kostola~ka kultura, organizacija naseqa, hronologija.

Teku}i rad predstavqa rezultate analiza badenskog i ko- kulturnih i relativno-hronolo{kih odnosa na mikro i stola~kog naseqa na ~uvenom lokalitetu Vin~a–Belo Br- makro regionalnoj razmeri. do, u blizini Beograda. Re~ je o inicijalnom radu, uvodu u Detaqnom analizom kerami~kog materijala iz oba ene- seriju studija koje }e se odnositi na problematiku eneo- olitska horizonta utvr|eno je da se naseqe nosilaca baden- litskog perioda u Beogradu i wegovoj okolini. Dobru osno- ske kulture moè vezati za ranu fazu ove kulture, Baden A2 vu za detaqnu analizu eneolitskih horizonata na Vin~i po S. Dimitrijevi}u, odnosno za post Boleraz–êrnavoda omogu}ili su rezultati druge i tre}e kampawe sistemat- III horizont, to jest Baden IIa po hronologiji V. Nemejcove- skih istraìvawa (1978–1986; 1998–2008), dok su vezi sa Pavukove. Uo~ena je izvesna lokalna osobenost u ornamen- pojedinim istraìva~kim pitawima bila referentna i tici posuda od pe~ene gline, koja se ogleda u velikoj zapaàwa Miloja Vasi}a, prvog istraìva~a Vin~e. Razma- zastupqenosti urezanog i punktiranog ornamenta i na~inu trawa o badenskoj i kostola~koj arhitekturi, horizontal- wihove organizacije u ornamentalnom sistemu. Ipak, ke- noj i vertikalnoj stratigrafiji i dinamici naseqavawa rami~ki inventar badenskog naseqa ne odstupa u mnogome bila su donekle ograni~ena budu}i da su postvin~anska od standardnih stilsko-tipolo{kih formi i moè se veza- naseqa te{ko devastirana ukopima preko 900 sredwovekov- ti za isto~ne tradicije êrnavoda III kulture, mnogo vi{e nih grobova. U okviru istraènog dela badenskog naseqa nego za severne oblasti ranobadenskih, odnosno post Bole- ustanovqeno je ukupno 17 ukopanih objekata i jedna nad- raskih manifestacija ma|arske Transdanubije i ju`ne zemna pe}. Uz izvesnu rezervu moè se re}i da su ukopani Slova~ke. U tom pogledu, badensko naseqe na Vin~i upravo objekti sluìli kao stani{ta i otpadne jame. Tako|e, u leì na razme|u ova dva velika kulturno-geografska kom- radu je nagla{eno da se funkcionalna uloga ukopanih obje- pleksa, a wegovi ìteqi su verovatno koristili predno- kata verovatno mewala u razli~itim vremenskim sekven- sti uloge posrednika u odnosima izme|u istoka i zapada. cama, u odnosu na iscrpqenost wihovog funkcionalnog Materijalna kultura kostola~kog naseqa tako|e ne izlazi kvaliteta, ali i u odnosu na potrebe badenskih stanovnika. iz okvira poznatih obrazaca kostola~ke keramikografije, Kostola~ko naseqe je znatno maweg obima i verovatno je pa je i pored veoma ograni~enog broja nalaza bilo mogu}e bilo kratkotrajnog karaktera. Na ne{to druga~ije tuma- izdvojiti dva horizonta. Stariji horizont ozna~en je nala- ~ewe kostola~kog naseqa navodi jedini istraèni objekat zima iz kulturnog sloja sa dobrim analogijama u Gomolava ove kulture, ukopana ritualna jama sa sedam o~uvanih su- IIIb1 sloju, dok bi ne{to mla|em horizontu pripadala ri- dova. Materijalna kultura eneolitskih stanovnika Vin~e tualna jama koja se moè sinhronizovati sa Gomolava IIIb predstavqala je osnov za prou~avawe ekonomije, socio- 2–3 slojem.

40 Milo{ SPASI], Vin~a–Belo Brdo: Vernissages of Eneolithic Belgrade and its Vicinity I (27–51) STARINAR LIX/2009

4 3

7 0 5 cm

Plate I – 1, 6 (Block CIII/3), 2 (Block BIII/3), 3 (Block CIV/1–4), 4 (Block BIV), 5 (Block DIII/1), 7 (Block CIII/1), 8 (Block DIV/3), 9 (Block DIV) Tabla I – 1, 6 (blok CIII/3), 2 (blok BIII/3), 3 (blok CIV/1–4), 4 (blok BIV), 5 (blok DIII/1), 7 (blok CIII/1), 8 (blok DIV/3), 9 (blok DIV)

41 Milo{ SPASI], Vin~a–Belo Brdo: Vernissages of Eneolithic Belgrade and its Vicinity I (27–51) STARINAR LIX/2009

2 1

6 0 5 cm

Plate II – 1 (Block EIII/4), 2 (Block BIV/1–4), 3, 8 (Block DIV), 4 (Block EIII), 5 (Block EIII/4), 6 (Block DIII), 7 (Block CIV/1–4) Tabla II – 1 (blok EIII/4), 2 (blok BIV/1–4), 3, 8 (blok DIV), 4 (blok EIII), 5 (blok EIII/4), 6 (blok DIII), 7 (blok CIV/1–4)

42 Milo{ SPASI], Vin~a–Belo Brdo: Vernissages of Eneolithic Belgrade and its Vicinity I (27–51) STARINAR LIX/2009

1 2

0 5 cm

Plate III – 1 (Block CIII), 2, 5 (Block EIII), 3 (Block DIII/1), 4 (Pit 30), 6 (Block DIV/1–4), 7 (Block BIV) Tabla III – 1 (blok CIII), 2, 5 (blok EIII), 3 (blok DIII/1), 4 (jama 30), 6 (blok DIV/1–4), 7 (blok BIV)

43 Milo{ SPASI], Vin~a–Belo Brdo: Vernissages of Eneolithic Belgrade and its Vicinity I (27–51) STARINAR LIX/2009

1 2

0 5 cm

Plate IV – 1 (Block BIV/3), 2 (Block EIV/1), 3 (Block EIII–IV/1–3), 4 (Block CIV), 5 (Block DIV), 6 (Block BV/4), 7 (Block CIV/4) Tabla IV – 1 (blok BIV/3), 2 (blok EIV/1), 3 (blok EIII–IV/1–3), 4 (blok CIV), 5 (blok DIV), 6 (blok BV/4), 7 (blok CIV/4)

44 Milo{ SPASI], Vin~a–Belo Brdo: Vernissages of Eneolithic Belgrade and its Vicinity I (27–51) STARINAR LIX/2009

1 2

0 5 cm

Plate V – 1 (Block CIV/1–4), 2, 5 (Block BIV/1–4), 3 (Block DIII/1), 4 (Block DIV), 6 (Block DIII/1–4), 7 (Block BIV/1–2) Tabla V – 1 (blok CIV/1–4), 2, 5 (blok BIV/1–4), 3 (blok DIII/1), 4 (blok DIV), 6 (blok DIII/1–4), 7 (blok BIV/1–2)

45 Milo{ SPASI], Vin~a–Belo Brdo: Vernissages of Eneolithic Belgrade and its Vicinity I (27–51) STARINAR LIX/2009

1 2

0 5 cm

Plate VI – 1 (Block DIII), 2, 4, 6 (Block DIII/1–4), 3 (Pit 7a), 5 (Block V/2) Tabla VI – 1 (blok DIII), 2, 4, 6 (blok DIII/1–4), 3 (jama 7a), 5 (blok V/2)

46 Milo{ SPASI], Vin~a–Belo Brdo: Vernissages of Eneolithic Belgrade and its Vicinity I (27–51) STARINAR LIX/2009

1 4

0 5 cm

2 5

6 7

8 9

Plate VII – 1, 3 (Block DIV), 2 (Block BIII), 4 (Block DIV), 5 (Block BIV/4), 6 (Block DIV/3), 7 (Block CIII), 8 (Block EIV/1–3), 9 (Block DIII) Tabla VII – 1, 3 (blok DIV), 2 (blok BIII), 4 (blok DIV), 5 (blok BIV/4), 6 (blok DIV/3), 7 (blok CIII), 8 (blok EIV/1–3), 9 (blok DIII)

47 Milo{ SPASI], Vin~a–Belo Brdo: Vernissages of Eneolithic Belgrade and its Vicinity I (27–51) STARINAR LIX/2009

0 5 cm

Plate VIII – 1 (Block DIV), 2 (Block DIV/1–4), 3 (Block DIII), 4 (Block EIII), 5 (Block CIII/1–4) Tabla VIII – 1 (blok DIV), 2 (blok DIV/1–4), 3 (blok DIII), 4 (blok EIII), 5 (blok CIII/1–4)

48 Milo{ SPASI], Vin~a–Belo Brdo: Vernissages of Eneolithic Belgrade and its Vicinity I (27–51) STARINAR LIX/2009

0 5 cm

3 6

4 7

Plate IX – 1(Block DIV/4), 2 (Block EIII/4), 3 (Block CII/4), 4 (Block BIII–IV/1–2), 5 (Block CIII/1–3), 6 (Block DIV/1–4), 7 (Block EIV/1–2) Tabla IX – 1 (blok DIV/4), 2 (blok EIII/4), 3 (blok CII/4), 4 (blok BIII–IV/1–2), 5 (blok CIII/1–3), 6 (blok DIV/1–4), 7 (blok EIV/1–2)

49 Milo{ SPASI], Vin~a–Belo Brdo: Vernissages of Eneolithic Belgrade and its Vicinity I (27–51) STARINAR LIX/2009

2 0 5 cm

3 4

Plate X – 1 (Block BIII/3), 2, 4, 7 (Without position), 3 (Block CIII/1–3), 5 (DIV), 6 (Pit 7a), 8 (Block FIV/1) Tabla X – 1 (blok BIII/3), 2, 4, 7 (bez polo`aja), 3 (blok CIII/1–3), 5 (DIV), 6 (jama 7a), 8 (blok FIV/1)

50 Milo{ SPASI], Vin~a–Belo Brdo: Vernissages of Eneolithic Belgrade and its Vicinity I (27–51) STARINAR LIX/2009

0 5 cm 1

2 5

3 6

Plate XI – 1 (Block CII), 2 (Block EIII), 3 (Block CII/4), 4 (Block DIV), 5 (Block DIV), 6 (Block EIV), 7 (Block B–E/4) Tabla XI – 1 (blok CII), 2 (blok EIII), 3 (blok CII/4), 4 (blok DIV), 5 (blok DIV), 6 (blok EIV), 7 (blok B–E/4)