J. Šarić, Paleolithic and Mesolithic Finds From Profile of the Loess Starinar LVIII/2008, 9-27

JOSIP ŠARIĆ, Institute of Archaeology,

PALEOLITHIC AND MESOLITHIC FINDS FROM PROFILE OF THE ZEMUN LOESS

UDC Received: January 15, 2009 DOI Accepted: May 04, 2009 Short communication

Abstract: Segment of the material from these two sites was published already in 1984. Owing to circumstances two new Paleolithic sites discovered in the territory of in recent times have made possible placing of the finds from the sites ‘Ekonomija 13 maj’ and Beljarica in the new context. This work, by revising already published material and also by presenting the artifacts discovered in the meantime, expands the data base related to the human settlements on the fringes of the Pannonian basin, i.e. in the territory of present-day Serbia during Middle and Late Paleolithic but also during Mesolithic period.

Key words: Chipped artifacts, Middle Paleolithic, Late Paleolithic, Mesolithic, raw materials, chert, quartzite, handaxes, hand points, shouldered projectiles/points, sidescrapers, geometric microliths.

Introduction he first indirect evidence for the existence of scull with the characteristics of the Neanderthal man the Paleolithic stations in the Belgrade city ter- as interpreted by N. Županić.1 This fossil skull, which ritory were provided in the works of H. Breuil, was found near the former Vidin kapija (Vidin Gate) in T a layer together with the teeth of Elephas antiquus in G. Mac Curdy, H. Obermaier and J. Skutil quoting the data about the existence of caves with the Auri- 1919, has been lost in the meantime, so the mentioned gnacian finds but on the other hand S. Brodar denied claims could not be verified today. The first chipped and doubted it in his work from 1954. The finds of the stone artifacts ascribed to the Paleolithic period were Pleistocene fauna in a few cave entrances and one rock the chance finds from the river bank few hundred shelter on the southwestern slopes of Banovo Brdo, meters far from the layers with the Pleistocene fauna at between Čukarica and Žarkovo discovered in 1955 ac- Banovo Brdo and they were published in 1958.2 There tualized at that time once again the assumptions con- are also some unreliable data impossible to verify that cerning the settling of the Paleolithic populations in the vicinity of the present day Belgrade. To the men- 1 Gavela 1956. tioned assumptions was added the story of the human 2 Gavela 1958.

* The article results from the project: Lepenski Vir Culture: Cultural processes and transformations during 9. to 6. Millennium BC (no 147009 D) funded by the Ministry of Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia.

Josip Šarić, e-mail: [email protected]

9 J. Šarić, Paleolithic and Mesolithic Finds From Profile of the Zemun Loess Starinar LVIII/2008, 9-27 the remains of Elephas cf. primigenius Blumb., frag- results were published in 2006.20 The most recent ex- ments of small singed(?) bones, resin, charcoal and cavations at the Petrovaradin fortress near Novi Sad21 triangular wedges of lajtovac3 have been found under that brought to light rich Mousterian (and somewhat the foundations of the palace ‘Albanija’ in Terazije in less abundant Late Paleolithic) assemblage of chipped Belgrade and indicating the existence of the Paleo- stone artifacts as well as already mentioned Mousteri- lithic, according to the author, probably the Gravettian an endscraper from Rušanj are the best proofs that we settlement.4 In the period between 1958 and 1984, i.e. should seriously count on the finds from the Middle for almost thirty years, there have been no new data Paleolithic stations in the Pannonia region in Serbia. about the Paleolithic finds in the territory of Belgrade. These finds are at the same time obvious confirmation However, in that year (1984) was published a text con- that the assumption about the existence of the Mous- cerning the segment of a large assemblage of chipped terian in the Zemun loess suggested already in 198422 stone artifacts gathered on the river bank few was absolutely justified. The most recent results of the kilometers upstream of Zemun.5 Some articles about investigations of the Paleolithic in the territory of Ser- the excavations in the vicinity of Vršac and the test bia are the works of B. Mihailović and D. Mihailović trench excavations in the Smolućka pećina were pub- concerning the finds from Šalitrena pećina published lished in 1984 but also in 19866 and in the years fol- in 2007 and 2008 and the finds from the cave Baranica lowing the publishing of these texts the investigations also published in 2008.23 of the Paleolithic sites throughout Serbia have been The new information resulting from the inves- conducted, so there were more published texts with tigations conducted in the previous years, some new very significant results. The results of excavations in finds from the mentioned site in the vicinity of Zemun the Šalitrena pećina were published in 19857 and from as well as the need to revise the published material 1985 to 1987 were published the results of investiga- from Zemun are the reasons for writing this treatise. tions in the Smolućka pećina.8 New discoveries of the chipped stone artifacts from the Vršac Paleolithic sites Zemun loess plateau and location of the sites were published in 1989,9 and an accidental but very im- ‘Ekonomija 13. maj’ and Beljarica portant find of the Mousterian endscraper from Rušanj The mountain ridge of Fruška Gora was a barrier, was published in 1990.10 Kaludjerović published com- which caused the creation of the Srem loess plateau as prehensive work in 1991 concerning the Paleolithic a result of accumulation of the loess sand. The Zemun in the light of more recent investigations11 while the loess plateau is situated in the south east periphery of results of excavations of the Paleolithic sites in the vi- Srem, bordering on the Danube in the northeast, on cinity of Vršac were published in the following year.12 the Sava in the southeast and the line connecting Stari The data concerning excavations in Drenaića pećina Banovci and Boljevci in the west. The loess plateau on Medvednik,13 at Kremenac near Niš,14 in Mirilovska consists of alternating layers of light yellow loess and pećina,15 in the cave habitations in the Knjaževac ter- dark layers of the buried i.e. fossil soil. ritory16 as well as the results of surveying in the Soko banja valley17 were published in 1996. The synthetic 3 Lajtovac is a local name for a Miocene limestone occurs in vicinity work about the investigations of the Paleolithic con- of Belgrade. ducted so far in the eastern Serbia was published by D. 4 Stevanović 1977. Mihailović, Lj. Djuričić and Z. Kaludjerović in 1997.18 5 Šarić 1984. 6 Kaluđerović 1984; Radovanović 1986. In 2001 after the revision of the osteological material 7 Jež i Kaluđerović 1985. in the collection of the Institute for Regional Geology 8 Kaluđerović 1985, 1986, 1987. 9 Joanovič 1989. and Paleontology of the Faculty of Mining and Geol- 10 Kaluđerović 1990. ogy in Belgrade, the academic public was informed 11 Kaluđerović 1991. 12 Mihailović 1992. about a very important anthropological find. It is the 13 Kaluđerović i Jež 1996. fragment of right half of the mandible discovered some 14 Kaluđerović i Đurić 1996. time ago by Prof. V. D. Laskarev but never published. 15 Đuričić 1996. 16 Sladić i Jovanović 1996. On the basis of the morphological characteristics M. 17 Kaluđerović 1996. Roksandić and V. Dimitrijević came to conclusion that 18 Mihailović, Đuričić i Kaluđerović 1997. 19 Roksandić i Dimitrijević 2001. this was an individual belonging to the Upper Paleo- 20 Mihailović 2006b. lithic population.19 The investigations in Hadži Pro- 21 Mihailović 2006a. 22 Šarić 1984. danova pećina near Ivanjica suggested the existence 23 Mihailović B. and Mihailović D. 2007; Mihailović B 2008; Mihai- of Middle and Upper Paleolithic industry and these lović D. 2008.

10 J. Šarić, Paleolithic and Mesolithic Finds From Profile of the Zemun Loess Starinar LVIII/2008, 9-27

B. Laskarov is of the opinion that loess is the creation of interglacial period while A. Penk and B. Bula relate the creation of the loess plateau and sandy terrains to the glacial period. This assumption is cor- roborated by the field investigations of B. Ž. Milojević as well as of D. Mihajlović-Matić.24 Zeremski, Maruščak and Butrim define the ex- istence of two segments within the Zemun loess pla- teau – the bottom one, consisting of river-marshy sedi- ments dating from the Riss glaciation and the top one consisting of four layers of loess and four layers of fossil soils dating from the Riss and Würm periods. The problem of defining relative and absolute chronol- ogy of the Zemun loess plateau is a very complex one as it is confirmed by striking difference in number of layers of loess or fossil soils distinguished by differ- ent authors. In his first works about the Zemun loess plateau Gorjanović identified four layers of loess and three layers of fossil soils while V. Laskarov distin- guished five layers of loess and four layers of fossil soils.25 J. M. Marković identified eight layers of loess and eight layers of fossil soils on a profile near Bata- jnica, Maruščak and Butrim identified 10 layers of loess and 12 layers of fossil soils at the same location while Rakić and al. recognized four layers of loess and four layers of fossil soils (Fig. 1).26 Fig.1. Profile of the Zemun loess at Beljarica. The main reason for this problematic synchroni- Along the entire Danube bank from Zemun almost zation lies in the subjective stratigraphic assessments to Banovci the loess plateau is over 20 meters high as well as in the scarce paleontological material, which, (after the text of V. Laskarev reconstructed by P. in addition, has not been sufficiently studied.27 The sit- Stevanović, Petković, 1977) uation is aggravated also by the fact that the analyses Сл. 1. Профил Земунског леса, код Бељарице. using thermoluminescence technique provided data, Дужином целе обале Дунава од Земуна па which coincide only partially with the stratigraphic di- скоро до Бановаца, лесни брег је висок преко vision while even the C14 dating for the loess horizons 20 м (по тексту В. Ласкарева конструисао П. in central Europe and the Danube basin, for the Würm Стевановић, Петковић, 1977.) as the latest stratigraphic element of the Pleistocene, offered considerably different results. On the basis of all results achieved so far in the attempts to determine meters asl) and Surčin (103 meters asl). Between Ze- precise chrono-stratigraphy of the loess in mun and Surčin is broad and shallow depression with it became clear that methods of dating using thermolu- absolute altitude between 97 m and 80 m. Consider- minescence and C14 together with biogenetic, pale- ing that the pre-loess relief was of marshy character it ontological, sedimentological and archaeological data could be assumed that this broad depression is filled should be supplemented and combined with the results up marshy ground. of investigation of the dynamic geomorphology. This The Zemun loess plateau is in its northeastern means that data about erosion-denudation and neotec- periphery bordering on the steep often vertical cliffs, tonic processes to which the loess complex had been which are due to erosion of the Danube waters still exposed to should be taken into account.28 The highest points on the fringes of the Zemun 24 Mihajlović-Matić 1952. loess plateau on the Danube are Kapela (114 meters 25 Marković-Marjanović 1972. 26 Zeremski, Maruščak i Butrim 1991. above sea level) and Gornji grad in Zemun (103 me- 27 Stevanović 1977. ters asl). On the south fringes are Bežanija (with 114 28 Zeremski, Maruščak i Butrim 1991.

11 J. Šarić, Paleolithic and Mesolithic Finds From Profile of the Zemun Loess Starinar LVIII/2008, 9-27 very active even today. In this area is located also con- siderable number of the escarps (locally called sur- duk), i.e. the initial valley forms, which transect the edge of the loess plateau and where the access from the plateau to the Danube bank is easiest. The Danube waters were undermining the loess plateau and took away huge quantities of accumulation for which ex- ceptionally large river energy had been necessary. This implies the large quantity of water and corresponding big water fall that besides taking away the loess ac- cumulation would not accumulate the material on the banks. Such conditions existed in the Pannonian plain only in the time of accumulation of the loess. Namely, the level of the Black Sea was much lower during the Würm period than it is today, so the erosion of the Danube banks was very intensive because of the fall- ing of the Black Sea level and the faster flow of the water mass.29 The Paleolithic site ‘Ekonomija 13. maj’ is situ- ated in the northwestern periphery of Zemun on a high loess hill, which dominates the right Danube bank, while the site Beljarica is situated somewhat more upstream at around 2.5 km from ‘Ekonomija 13. maj’ (Fig. 2). Considering the fact that it is impossible to lo- cate the cultural layers in the hill profile the initial idea was to determine the position of the site in the loess hill on the basis of the texts about the Zemun loess and dating of horizons of terrestrial loess and fossil soils as well as on the basis of the chronological determination Fig. 2. Position of the sites ‘Ekonomija 13. maj’ and of the artifacts. Unfortunately, the discrepancy in the Beljarica works of the authors investigating the origin and dat- ing of the Zemun loess plateau pushed this initial idea Сл. 2. Положај локалитета „Економија 13. мај“ in the background so this work would be primarily и Бељарица dealing with the analysis of the chipped stone artifacts in an attempt to draw attention of the academic public until the late medieval times. The mentioned web of to this geographic region as an important zone where circumstances is also confirmed by the finds from the probably more finds of this kind could be expected. nearby site Beljarica where the finds from Late Paleo- For the cave sites is quite clear why they are of- lithic and Mesolithic are entirely missing while just ten multi-layered with cultural layers dating from the two artifacts date from the Middle Paleolithic, but as Middle Paleolithic through all later periods and some- at the site ‘Ekonomija 13. maj’ there are finds from the times even to the Middle Ages. Also the site ‘Ekonomi- Bronze and Iron Age and from Antique to the medieval ja 13. maj’ although it is the site in the open area re- finds. The discovery of the mentioned two Paleolithic vealed just the same stratigraphic picture according to artifacts is the result of happy coincidence but also an the finds from the collapsed profile. At first it could indirect indication that the Middle Paleolithic station seem strange that site in the open area covers such in this area was of considerably smaller size than at the large chronological span. Nevertheless, the things that site ‘Ekonomija 13. maj’. should be kept in mind are the favorable position for Certain amount of osteological finds, which settling on the loess hill protected from flooding and were submitted for the analysis to Dr. V. Dimitrijević considerable increase in population that resulted in from the Department of Paleontology at the Faculty much higher population density in the course of time. of Mining and Geology have been found with the Due to the concatenation of circumstances in the area material gathered from the site ‘Ekonomija 13. maj’. where in one time resided the Paleolithic man, peo- ple resided successively for longer or shorter periods 29 Mihajlović-Matić 1952.

12 J. Šarić, Paleolithic and Mesolithic Finds From Profile of the Zemun Loess Starinar LVIII/2008, 9-27

Unfortunately, this osteological material was in such clearly distinguishable from the Neolithic material ac- fragmentary state and it was damaged so much by the cording to the raw materials they were made and also water that it was absolutely impossible to determine on the basis of their technological and morphological the animal species, so the dating of the chipped arti- characteristics. facts to the Pleistocene could not have been confirmed The assemblage of the chipped artifacts from the on the basis of these osteological remains if there were site ‘Ekonomija 13. maj’ resulted from many years any from the Pleistocene period at all. of material gathering (when the water level was low) One of the indirect although unreliable indica- on the pebbly river bank within an area around 250 tors of the Pleistocene date of the artifacts from the meters long and 20 meters wide.34 This is the section site ‘Ekonomija 13. maj’ are one cowrie shell and of the bank upstream and downstream from the pump two fragments of Dentalium shells, which had often station, which provided water for the agricultural been used as the fossils of interesting shape for mak- estate on the hill. The mixing of material makes at- ing necklaces during the Late Paleolithic period.30 The tribution of some artifacts difficult to a considerable use of Dentalium shells together with snail shells and degree and many of them will, unfortunately, remain deer teeth for making necklaces is also recorded in the useless for more precise analyses only because these Late Epigravettian layers at the site Badanj near Stolac were the tool types (primarily endscrapers on blades (Bosnia and Herzegovina) although author incorrectly and flakes), which are chronologically relatively- ir identified them as bone tubules.31 Unfortunately, these relevant. Fortunately, one group of chipped artifacts fossil shells also drew the attention of the populations because of their distinct typological and morphologi- from the later periods so there are examples that cowrie cal characteristics is clearly distinguishable from the shells were used even in the medieval period.32 When mentioned chronologically irrelevant material, which the characteristics of the Neolithic material gathered is one of the characteristics of the Neolithic as well as on the Danube bank at the site ‘Ekonomija 13. maj’ are the ensuing prehistoric epochs. These are the artifacts, concerned it should be particularly emphasized that it which indicate by their presence that people lived in differs considerably from the material found at the this area already during the Middle Paleolithic and site Beljarica. While very abundant Neolithic material possibly also stayed here longer during the Late Pa- from Beljarica dates from the classic Vinča culture and leolithic and the Mesolithic. includes feet of red burnished goblets, black burnished The petrological analysis based on investigation vessels with punctuated meanders, fragments of pros- of few microscopic samples confirmed that mostly used opomorphic lids, zoomorphic protomes from the ves- raw materials were chert, precrystallized radiolarite sels, ground stone trapeze-shaped axes and chisels, the and radiolarite. The macroscopic inspection confirmed Neolithic material from the site ‘Ekonomija 13. maj’ that also quartzite (Plate II/1), silicified magnesite or is very small in quantity and consists of few trapeze- resilicified radiolarite (Plate II/3, 4), metaquartzite shaped ground stone axes and relatively atypical pot- sandstone (PlateII/7) and corneite (Plate I/1) had been tery fragments of which one vessel bottom with perfo- sporadically used. These rocks also have clearly con- rated small conical feet most probably belongs to the spicuous characteristics essential for successful knap- Tiszapolgár culture. Besides, we should bear in mind ping – great hardness and conchoidal fracture so it is that the amount of chipped stone artifacts from the site understandable why they had also been used besides ‘Ekonomija 13. maj’ is much greater than the amount the chert and radiolarite. The river pebble cortex is encountered at the site Beljarica. This is already one conspicuous on one group of the artifacts while the of indirect but very conspicuous indicators that flint cortex identified on other specimens indicates the use industry from the site ‘Ekonomija 13. maj’ is a phe- of raw materials from the primary deposits. The chert, nomenon, which deserves special attention. which occurs in a very large spectrum of colors in the primary deposits, could be found as sediments in the Characteristics of the assemblage of Jurassic layers on the slopes of Fruška Gora but also Paleolithic and Mesolithic chipped stone artifacts 30 Bárta 1974. 31 Basler 1979a. Two Paleolithic artifacts from the site Beljarica 32 Bajalović-Birtišević 1960. have been found among the dislocated material on the 33 Šarić 1984. Danube river bank upstream from the escarp (surduk) 34 The assemblage of the chipped stone artefacts is a result of many years of collecting with generous help of the boys living in the houses giving access to the bank and under almost vertical nearby. They spent their summer holiday not only in swimming in over 20 meters high loess profile. Although the finds the rapid Danube waters but also in collecting the chipped stone artefacts after I draw their attention to them after their inquisitive from the Late Neolithic, La Tène and Roman period questions when we first met long ago in 1977. In the course of time 33 are prevailing in that area these two artifacts were the assemblage reached over 7,000 chipped stone artefacts.

13 J. Šarić, Paleolithic and Mesolithic Finds From Profile of the Zemun Loess Starinar LVIII/2008, 9-27 in the wider surroundings of Belgrade. Secondary de- This is the pentagonal endscraper with irregular rough posits occur in the river accumulations of the Sava and flakes circumlaterally removed from one side in order the Danube.35 to shape the tool (Plate II/6). The artifacts, which according to their morpho- The Mousterian inventory of the site ‘Ekonomija technical characteristics date from the Middle Paleo- 13. maj’ also includes the denticulated double side- lithic make a group of finds from the sites Beljarica scraper on the Levallois blade made of silicified mag- and ‘Ekonomija 13. maj’ with clearly distinguished nesite or recrystallized radiolarite with distinct milk- characteristics, which do not leave any doubt in their white patina (PlateII/3), one unretouched Levallois attribution. Particularly interesting in that group are blade (Plate II/4) made of the same material and short Mousterian hand points, the largest specimen being Levallois blade made of chert with direct irregular and the one from Beljarica (PlateI/1) made of corneite and denticulated retouch, which covers the distal end of specimen from the site ‘Ekonomija 13. maj’ (PlateI/2) both edges (Plate II/5). made of chert of dark brown color.36 The point from Two more tools could be determined as the Moust- Beljarica was made of massive flake and it has promi- erian artifacts from the site ‘Ekonomija 13. maj’. These nent triangular shape with rough bilateral retouch, are finely retouched double sidescraper on the Leval- which creates irregular zigzag edges but also very lois flake (Plate III/1) and the retouched Levallois flake prominent tip. In contrast to the previous specimen, with clearly defined notch on the left edge (PlateIII/2). the point from ‘Ekonomija 13. maj’ was made of river Both these tools were made of the high quality chert. pebble, which had most of the cortex on one side re- The Late Paleolithic artifacts from the site moved by a single flake while on the other side was ‘Ekonomija 13. maj’ are represented by many speci- applied stepped abrupt retouch, which actually defined mens and they reveal technological and morphologi- the shape of the tool. All other points presented in this cal characteristics that define them as Gravettian/ work (PlateI/3-9) are made of various cherts and are Epigravettian finds and they were all made of chert of considerably smaller size and the characteristics of and radiolarite. Few finds including two nosed end- flakes used for their production and the characteristics scrapers on flakes (Plate III/3, 4), three trapeze end- of the retouch indubitably classify them in the Middle scrapers on flakes (Plate III/6-8) and large atypical Paleolithic assemblage as is the case with two larger nosed endscraper (Plate III/5) are in fact tools, which specimens. still reveal the influences of the Aurignacian techno- Three tools of the cleaver/chopper type also be- logical tradition. Particularly important finds from this long to the Mousterian inventory of these two sites. site are two shouldered projectiles/points (Plate IV/1, The quartzite artifact of the cleaver type (Plate II/1) 2),38 two endscrapers-perforators on flakes (PlateIV/3, comes from Beljarica and this is the only specimen 4) and one shouldered perforator (PlateIV/5). These in the inventory of both sites made of this kind of raw are so characteristic specimens, from the morphologi- material. Considering the granoblastic structure of the cal point of view, that it could be easily said that they quartzite it is a happy coincidence that in this case the are the ‘identity card’ of a given site. In addition, in raw material of somewhat better quality was used thus the group of Late Paleolithic artifacts have also been making possible better retouch and because of that the identified small circular endscrapers (Plate IV/6-10), final shape of the tool was better defined. The truncated short thumbnail endscraper (Plate IV/11-28), so-called tip made possible using of this artifact in two ways – stemmed blades (PlateV/1, 2), burins (Plate V/3, 4), as cleaver (chopper) as well as endscraper. Two small abruptly retouched blades most of which are perfora- choppers have been found at the site ‘Ekonomija 13. tors (Plate V/5-13) and short and narrow backed blade maj’, one was made of chert (Plate II/2) and the other (Plate V/14). of metaquartzite sandstone (Plate II/7). The speci- Group of 21 short blades with retouched trunca- men made of chert is in fact the reutilized core with tion (PlateV/15-34) could be related either to the very clearly visible damages resulting from use, while the end of the Late Paleolithic period or to the Mesolithic specimen made of metaquartzite sandstone is a rep- period. Although some specimens were retouched as resentative of the Mousterian pebble industry where perforators (Plate V/15) most of them are shaped as modification of the prospective tool was reduced to the artifacts used for composite tools. This is also suggest- removal of few smaller flakes from one or both sides ed by the use polish covering the triangular surface of the original pebble.37 The result was the artifact, which could be considered as a reminiscence of the 35 Šarić 1984. earliest tools of the early hominids. Still another tool 36 Šarić 1984. 37 Mihailović 1993. was made by modification of the original river pebble. 38 Šarić 1984, 2005b.

14 J. Šarić, Paleolithic and Mesolithic Finds From Profile of the Zemun Loess Starinar LVIII/2008, 9-27 typical of the artifacts, which were parts of sickles or account that this geographic concept could not be as- composite knives (Plate V/16, 17, 21-26, 28, 29, 31, sociated exclusively with those sites, which are located 33) and this could possibly be the indicator of their along the coast but that it is a complex spreading much Mesolithic provenance. farther and deep into the hinterland. It is particularly Rather large is the group of classic geometric mi- important to stress their microlithic habitus that clear- croliths that includes one triangle (Plate VI/1), seven ly relates them to the Mousterian finds from Zagorje in segments (Plate VI/2-8), 47 trapezes (Plate VI/ 9-55), Croatia as the closest analogies in the region, although three rectangles (Plate VI/56-58) and one atypical spec- microlithization is conspicuous also among the finds imen with one truncation retouched convexly and the from the cave habitations in Montenegro.39 other retouched concavely (PlateVI/59). The use polish The Late Paleolithic industry from the Zemun identified as characteristic triangular surface could be loess shows evident and great similarities to the in- noticed on 19 geometric microliths (Plate VI/1, 12, 21, dustry of the Kostjenki-Borshevo complex. There are 25, 28, 30, 32-35, 37, 38, 40, 44, 45, 49-51, 55). close resemblances to the industries in the territory of This completes the review of the most charac- Slovakia and Check Republic as well as in the material teristic artifacts, which indicate by their techno-mor- from many sites in northern Bosnia. Speaking about phological characteristics the undoubted importance this segment of the assemblage of chipped artifacts of these two sites for the study of the Paleolithic, not from the Zemun loess it is necessary to point to some only on the southernmost borders of the Pannonian exceptionally characteristic finds, which because of plain but also in the territory of Serbia as well. their characteristics are genuine keystones for dating but also geographical linking of this site with the re- Conclusion gions where the cultural influences arrived from. Despite two handaxes, which are somewhat In the first group are so-called atypical shouldered larger than other Mousterian inventory from Beljarica projectiles/points, which are actually very typical and and the site ‘Ekonomija 13. maj’ the striking dominant easily recognizable (Plate IV/1, 2). The easternmost characteristic is the microlithization of artifacts as one sites where the occurrence of shouldered projectiles/ of the characteristics of the Micocian facies, which has points have been recorded are the sites Gvardžilas been defined on many sites in the Mediterranean basin. Klde, Kvačara and Čahata in Georgia having in mind But, we should bear in mind also possible enforced mi- that finds from the complex Kvačara are dated into crolithization caused by frequent use of river pebbles, Early Mesolithic.40 Number of these points is consider- which because of their small size dictate the final size ably increasing in the area of the Russian steppe and in of the artifacts made of them. Even the handaxe as one Crimea, so they were encountered in Moldova 5 (lay- of the largest tools from the site ‘Ekonomija 13. maj’ ers VII and VIII dating from 24th millennium BC to the that is slightly less than 9 cm long (Plate I/2) was made 17th millennium BC), in Puškari I (dating before the of the river pebble as it is confirmed by the preserved 24th millennium BC), in Kostenki 1 (layers also dating cortex. before 24th millennium BC), Kostenki 4 (around 17th It could not be said with absolute certainty that millennium BC) and Borshevo 1 (initial dating sug- this Mousterian industry was characterized by the high gested the Aurignacian date but sometime later it was degree of standardization because it should be taken dated in the late Solutrean).41 More to the south and into account that presented specimens are the result of somewhat to the west from these sites the shouldered selection in order to illustrate the most typical artifacts, projectiles/points were found at the sites Bistricoara- which make possible the dating in the situation when Lutărie and Bafu Mic in present-day Romania where there is no stratigraphy. It means that they perhaps they were dated in the final Gravettian.42 represent only smaller proportion of the entire Mous- Few Late Paleolithic sites have been recorded in terian material, which could have not been presented the region of the west Rhodope, in present-day Bulgar- because it is atypical. On the other hand it could not ia, and the particularly interesting one is the mountain be ignored and denied that these presented specimens site specialized in production of Epigravettian points are typologically clearly defined examples and that be- and especially the shouldered projectiles/points.43 ing the essential characteristic of this industry indicate theoretically somewhat later phases of the Mousterian. The handaxes, cleaver, choppers and sidescrapers from 39 Malez 1978; Basler 1979c; Đuričić 2006. these two sites fit, according to the noticed character- 40 Praslov i Rogačev 1982. istics, into already established picture of the Mediter- 41 Praslov i Rogačev 1982; Borikovski 1984. 42 Păunescu 1970. ranean Mousterian. But we certainly must take into 43 Ivanova 2008.

15 J. Šarić, Paleolithic and Mesolithic Finds From Profile of the Zemun Loess Starinar LVIII/2008, 9-27

Considerable number of shouldered projectiles/ maj’ could be also used the atypical nosed endscraper points has been recorded in the central Europe and (Plate III/5), which is dated in the Middle Aurignacian particularly important are the finds from Slovakia, at the site Křepice in Slovakia.55 But it should be taken from the sites Žakovska44and Podkovica45 where they into account that this is very old type of the artifact are dated in the Gravettian period. Farther to the west whose origin dates back to the layers of the Middle the atypical shouldered projectiles/points and their Pleistocene period at the site Kumari.56 variant known as the Willendorf-Kostenki type appear Also, the trapeze endscrapers (Plate III/6-8) fit at the eponymous site in Austria where they are dated into the basic scheme of the eastern technocomplex between 30,000 and 20,000 BC. In Laussel in France, as it is confirmed by similar specimens from the site such specimens have been found in the layers of the Afontova Gora II.57 same date as in Willendorf and that corresponds to the Small shouldered perforator (Plate IV/5) for Aurignacian, i.e. the Gravettian period.46 From the rock which there are analogous, though slightly larger, shelter Schmidt in Bavaria also comes few shouldered specimens at the site Molodova 5, in the layers dated projectiles/points for which the author of excavations 23rd and 17th millennia BC58 also belongs to this tech- emphasizes that they indicate clear eastern influences nocomplex or to the successors of this technocomplex. and relates them to the Russian late Aurignacian of the Similar perforators have also been found in the mate- Kostenki complex emphasizing that two small shoul- rial from the layers with late Gravettian inventory at dered points have their analogies in the Paleolithic of the site Kadar in Bosnia and Herzegovina in.59 the Lower Austrian loess.47 The discoid endscrapers (Plate IV/6-10) and short The shouldered projectiles/points, which have thumbnail endscrapers (Plate IV/11-28) have analogies been found in the material from the Tardigravettian in the central Balkans in Crvena Stijena (Montenegro) layers of Jama v Lozi in Slovenia,48 in the layers of the and Badanj (Bosnia and Herzegovina) where they are advanced Gravettian in the Šandalja cave near Pula in dated in the Epipaleolithic, i.e. in the Epigravettian pe- Croatia,49 in the Epigravettian layers in the rock shel- riod.60 The ‘Gravettianized’ blades/point from the site ter Badanj in Herzegovina50 and in the Late Paleolithic ‘Ekonomija 13. maj’ (Plate V/5-13) also have analo- layers in the Asprochaliko cave in Greece51 are the in- gies in the material from Crvena Stijena (Montene- dicators of the southward routes taken by the bearers gro) and Badanj and Kadar (Bosnia and Herzegovina) of the culture with the points and they are probably where they are dated in the late Epigravettian.61 the farthest points of their intrusion when the south The closest analogy for the single short and nar- borders of the European continent is concerned. On row backed blade (Plate V/14) is the specimen from the that route, from the east, i.e. the Russian steppe via Epigravettian layer in Šalitrena pećina near the village central Europe towards these south peripheries was Breždje, around 100 km to the southwest of Belgrade.62 also the Pannonian plain and on its fringes is the site The conclusion of N. Krstić that after Paudorf- ‘Ekonomija 13. maj’ with two shouldered points. interstadial it was too cold for men to reside at our Particularly significant for the dating of the finds geographic latitudes based on the finds of the Colu- from the site ‘Ekonomija 13. maj’ are except the shoul- mella columella snails in the top loess horizon dat- dered projectiles/points also the artifacts, which com- ing from Würm-3 period (they live today only in the bine the functions of endscraper and perforator (Plate northernmost parts of Europe)63 could not be accepted IV/3, 4). They were made on flakes or short blades in such a way that convex working edge of the endscrap- 44 Bárta and Bánesz 1971. er was created on one end while from one of lateral 45 Bárta 1965. edges was retouched a concave surface, which creates 46 Müller-Karpe 1977. 47 Prufer 1961. a point with the other edge. Something particularly 48 Brodar i Osole 1979. characteristic for these tools is that the point was ad- 49 Malez 1987. 50 I. Bodulić personal communication. ditionally emphasized and defined by the burin-type 51 Coles and Higgs 1975. retouch at the right angle to the tool edge. 52 Borikovski 1984; Holliday et al. 2007. The tools of this type were encountered at the 53 Praslov and Rogačev 1982. rd th 54 Borikovski 1984. sites Mezino (dating between 23 and 17 millennium 55 Bánesz 1998. BC), Kostenki 19 (new dating for Kostenki 17 pro- 56 Praslov i Rogačev 1982. vides calibrated dates between 37th and 41st millenni- 57 Borikovski 1984. 52 53 58 Borikovski 1984. um BC), Borshevo 1 (Late Solutrean) and Sakažija 59 Basler 1979a. (Late Paleolithic).54 60 Basler 1979b, 1979c. As an indicator of the Paleolithic date of the as- 61 Basler 1979c, 1979a, 1979b. 62 Jež i Kaluđerović 1985. semblage of the artifacts from the site ‘Ekonomija 13. 63 Krstić 1992.

16 J. Šarić, Paleolithic and Mesolithic Finds From Profile of the Zemun Loess Starinar LVIII/2008, 9-27 because it is the period when the transition from the Au- sites Beljarica and ‘Ekonomija 13. maj’ was published. rignacian to the Gravettian technocomplex within the During that period exceptionally important Paleolithic Paleolithic cultures took place and just from that very settlements have been discovered and they started to period we have exceptionally abundant Aurignacian in- fill the gaps on the archaeological map of Serbia. Some dustry from the sites At-Vršac64 and Balata65 also near authors understood the importance of the sites Beljari- Vršac as well as the industry from the sites in the Ze- ca and ‘Ekonomija 13. maj’ on the whole70 while some mun loess that reveals distinct characteristics of the one understood that importance only when the Late Pa- as well as the other technocomplex representing most leolithic finds are concerned although the Mousterian probably the transitional stage between them. component is much better represented and confirmed This claim also confirms the conclusions stated than it is the case with the isolated specimen from the by Basler when discussing the Aurignacian finds in the site Cigan near Irig.71 northern Bosnia. He emphasizes that these finds have Considerable shifting of the Danube riverbed closest analogies in the material from the Pannonian sites to the south being at some spots many tens of meters in the vicinity of Vršac and in the Romanian but since the Middle Ages poses the question to the inves- also from Slavonia, northern Hungary and eastern Slo- tigators whether perhaps the largest section of the site vakia66 that is still another indirect evidence indicating ‘Ekonomija 13. maj had been destroyed explaining thus the directions of intrusion of the bearers of that culture. an exceptionally large quantity of chipped stone arti- Short blades with retouched truncations (Plate facts discovered on the bank where they remained after V/15-34) and geometric microliths (Plate VI/1-59) are natural flotation process of the crumpled material. the specimens, which represent the latest finds among The proximity of the open loess profile at Bel- the artifacts presented in this work. These are the ar- jarica allows the assumption that the loess profile at tifacts, which represent the significant characteristic the site ‘Ekonomija 13. maj’ is identical but its thick of the Late Paleolithic period but they are even more grass cover does not allow the distinguishing of pos- significant indicator of the Mesolithic and the cultures sible cultural layers. starting to practice agriculture. The silica gloss or more The existence of military and police installations precisely use polish could be frequently noticed on on the hill and particularly in the zone where the larg- the geometric artifacts and therefore it has often been est amount of finds had been identified on the bank explained by the investigators as the clear indicator makes impossible, at least in this moment, more de- of use in the agricultural communities. Still, it should tailed investigations in an attempt to identify cultural be taken into account that some artifacts had not been layers in the trenches. used long enough for the gloss to occur, some had been But, regardless of the mentioned problems and used for cutting wild grass used for thatched roofs or ambiguities concerning the location of the chipped making straw mats, i.e. not for cutting semi-cultivated stone artifacts in the loess profile, it is a happy coin- or cultivated cereals, some geometric microliths were cidence that in that industry encompassing one rather the parts of projectiles on which the gloss could not oc- long time span, there are many typologically clearly cur… The problem of dating such type of the artifacts, defined artifacts, which could be the reliable marks, without distinct chronological relations, is certainly a from the cultural standpoint, for the dating of the site. very complex one. Regardless of the fact that the term Many analogous specimens from close or more distant Tardenoisian or Balkan-Danubian Epigravettian with neighborhood as well as the results achieved in inves- trapezes is used for this group of chipped artifacts as tigation of the Paleolithic in Serbia in the last 25 years chronological determination, the chipped stone industry concede the author’s point in emphasizing once again from the territory of Romania that is clearly connected the importance of the site Beljarica and in particular to the Starčevo-Körös-Criş complex is characterized by the site ‘Ekonomija 13. maj’ either as individual points distinct microlithization and large number of geometric of investigation or as the indicators to the investigators microliths – primarily the trapezes.67 Very rich Tardenoi- who should direct their attention in the future to the sian chipped stone industry of the populations inhabit- loess plateau in its entire length, from Zemun as far as ing also the territories of present-day Slovakia and Hun- Fruška Gora mountain. gary68 as well as its indisputably strong and long-lasting influence on the peripannonian Neolithic settlements as 64 Mihailović 1992b. it has been noticed at the site Donja Branjevina69 are 65 Mihailović 1992a. 66 Basler 1979b. clear indicators for the traces of the Tardenoisian settle- 67 Păunescu 1970. ment also at the site ‘Ekonomija 13. maj’. 68 Bárta 1957, 1959, 1965; Kertész 2002. 69 Šarić 2005a. Exactly the quarter of a century passed since por- 70 Kaluđerović 1991. tion of the Paleolithic chipped stone artifacts from the 71 Marković et al. 2004.

17 J. Šarić, Paleolithic and Mesolithic Finds From Profile of the Zemun Loess Starinar LVIII/2008, 9-27

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bajalović-Birtišević 1960 - M. Bajalović-Bir­ Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, tišević, Srednjevekovna nekropola u Mirijevu - La néc­ Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, Sarajevo, 1979. ropole medievale dans la village de Mirievo, Muzej Coles and Higgs 1975 - J.M. Coles and E.S. Hi- grada Beograda, povremena izdanja, sv. 1, 1960. ggs, The Archaeology of Early Man, Middlesex, Pen- Bánesz 1998 - L. Bánesz, Socio-historical and guin Books Ltd., 1975. palaeo-ecological consideration of aurignacian in Eu- Срејовић 1990 - Д. Срејовић (уредник), Ар- rope and Near East, Slovenská archeológia XLVI-1: хеологија и природне науке, Научни скуп Српске 1-30, Bratislava, Slovenská akadémia vied, 1998. академије наука и уметности и Војвођанске ака- Bárta 1957 - J. Bárta, Pleistocénne piesočné демије наука и уметности, Београд-Нови Сад, ок- duny pri Seredi a ich paleolitické a mezolitické тобар 1990. Научни скупови, књ LXIV, Одељење osídlenie, Slovenská archeológia V-1, 5-72, Bratislava, историјских наука, књига 21, Београд, Српска ака- Slovenská akadémia vied, 1957. демија наука и уметности, 1990. Bárta 1959 - J. Bárta, Mezolitické a neolitické Гавела 1956 - Б. Гавела, Економске основе kamenné nástroje z dún “Vŕšky” pri Dolnej Strede, најстаријих насеља у Београду и његовој околини, Slovenská archeológia VII-2, 241-259, Bratislava, Годишњак Музеја града Београда III, 9-20, 1956. Slovenská akadémia vied, 1959. Гавела 1958 - Б. Гавела, О најстаријим ет- Bárta 1965 - J. Bárta, Slovensko v staršej a stred- ничким агломерацијама на подручју Београда, Го- nej dobe kamennej, Bratislava, Slovenska akadėmia дишњак града Београда V, 5-18, 1958. vied, Pravek Slovenska I, 1965. Ђуричић 1996 - Љ. Ђуричић, Пробна сон- Bárta 1974 - J. Bárta, K niektorým historicko- дирања у Мириловској пећини, ГСАД 11, 173-177, spoločenským otázkam paleolitu na Slovensku, Slo- 1996. venská archeológia XXII-1, 7-32. Bratislava, Sloven- Đuričić 2006 - Lj. Đuričić, A contribution to re­ ská akadémia vied, 1974. search on Bioče Mousterian, ГСАД 22, 179-196, 2006. Bárta and Bánesz 1971 - J. Bárta, and L. Holliday et al. 2007 - T. V Holliday et al., Geo- Bánesz, Výskum staršej a strednej doby kamennej na archaeology of the Kostenki-Borshchevo Sites, Don Slovensku, Slovenská archeológia XIX-2, 291-317, River Valley, Russia, Geoarchaeology: An Interna- Slovenská akadémia vied, 1971. tional Journal, Vol. 22, No. 2, 181-228, 2007. Basler 1979a - Đ. Basler, Nalazišta paleolitskog Ivanova 2008 - S. Ivanova, Early Human Pres- i mezolitskog doba u Bosni i Hercegovini, Praistorija ence and Rock-Cut Structures in The Eastern Rho- jugoslavenskih zemalja, Paleolit i mezolit, 313-330, dopes, Geoarchaeology and Archaeomineralogy, Pro- Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, ceeding of the International Conference, 29-30 Octo- Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, Sarajevo, 1979. ber 2008 - Sofia, 185-192, Sofia, 2008. Basler 1979b - Đ. Basler, Paleolitske i mezo- Jež i Kaluđerović 1985 - Ž. Jež i Z. Kaluđerović, litske regije i kulture u Bosni i Hercegovini, Pra- Šalitrena pećina, paleolitsko i mezolitsko nalazište, istorija jugoslavenskih zemalja, Paleolit i mezolit, Arheološki pregled 26, 33-34, 1985. 331-355, Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Јоанович 1989 - Ш. Јоанович, Налази горњег Hercegovine, Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, палеолита са локалитета Црвенка крај Вршца, Рад Sarajevo, 1979. Војвођанских музеја 31, 7-12, Нови Сад, Војвођан- Basler 1979c - Đ. Basler, Paleolitske i mezolit- ски музеј, 1989. ske regije i kulture u Crnoj Gori, Praistorija jugosla- Калуђеровић 1984 - З. Калуђеровић, Палео- venskih zemalja, Paleolit i mezolit, 387-403, Akade- литска истраживања у СР Србији током 1984. го- mija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, Centar дине, ГСАД 1, 32-33, 1984. za balkanološka ispitivanja, Sarajevo, 1979. Калуђеровић 1985 - З. Калуђеровић, Истра- Бориковский 1984 - П.И. Бориковский et al., живања Смолућке пећине. Новопазарски зборник Археология СССР – Палеолит СССР, Москва, На- 9, 5-18, Нови Пазар, 1985. ука, 1984. Калуђеровић 1986 - З. Калуђеровић, Изве- Brodar i Osole 1979 - M. Brodar i F. Osole, Pale- штај о археолошком ископавању Смолућке пећине olitske i mezolitske regije i kulture u Sloveniji, Praisto- 1986. године, Новопазарски зборник 10, 225-226, rija jugoslavenskih zemalja, Paleolit i mezolit, 159-194, Нови Пазар, 1986.

18 J. Šarić, Paleolithic and Mesolithic Finds From Profile of the Zemun Loess Starinar LVIII/2008, 9-27

Калуђеровић 1987 - З. Калуђеровић, Изве- Marković et al. 2004 - B.S. Marković, D. штај о истраживањима археолошког налазишта Mihailović, A. E. Oches, M. Jovanović and T. Gaudé- Смолућка пећина код Тутина 1987. год, Новопазар- nyi, The last glacial climate, environment and the evi- ски зборник 11, 221-222, Нови Пазар, 1987. dence of palaeolithic occupation in Vojvodina prov- Калуђеровић 1990 - З. Калуђеровић, Креме- ince, Serbia: An overview, Antaeus 27, 145-152, Bu- ни стругач из Рушња, ГСАД 6, 167-169, 1990. dapest: Communicationes ex Instituto archaeologico Kaluđerović 1991 - Z. Kaluđerović, Palaeolithic academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 2004. in Serbia in the Light of the recent Research, Starinar Mihailović B. 2008 - The Gravettian Site XLII, 1-8, 1991. Šalitrena pećina near Mionica (western Serbia), Калуђеровић 1996 - З. Калуђеровић, Соко- in A. Darlas, D. Mihailović (eds.) The Palaeolithic of бањска котлина, Палеолитска налазишта, Стари- the Balkans. BAR International Series 1819, 101-106, нар VLII, 289-292, 1996. Archaeopress, Oxford, 2008. Калуђеровић и Јеж 1996 - З. Калуђеровић и Михаиловић Д. 1992a - Д. Михаиловић, Ж. Јеж, Палеолитско налазиште Дренаићка пећина Збирка орињасјенских налаза са локалитета Балата на Медведнику код Ваљева, ГСАД 12, 49-54, 1996. (Вршац), ГСАД 8, 92-98, 1992. Калуђеровић и Ђурић 1996 - З. Калуђеровић Михаиловић Д. 1992b - Д. Михаиловић, и Н. Ђурић, Кременац код Ниша, Палеолитско на- Орињасијенска кремена индустрија са локалите- лазиште, Старинар VLII, 289-290, 1996. та Црвенка-Ат у близини Вршца, Цeнтар за архе- Kertész 2002 - R. Kertész, Mesolithic hunter- олошка истраживања, Филозофски факултет, Уни- gatherers in the Northwestern part of the great верзитет у Београду, 1992. Hungarian plain, Praehistoria vol. 3, 281-304, 2002. Михаиловић Д. 1993 - Д. Михаиловић, Оруђа Kozlowski and Kaszanowska 2004 - J.K. Ko- на облуцима са локалитета Медена Стијена, ГСАД zlowski and M. Kaszanowska, Gravettian/epigravet- 9, 13-16, 1992. tian sequences in the Balkans and Anatolia, Mediter- Михаиловић Д. 2006а - Д. Михаиловић, Пет- ranean Archaeology and Archaeometry Vol. 14 No. 1, роварадинска тврђава – палеолитско налазиште, 5-18, 2004. Археолошки преглед Српског археолошког друшт- Крстић 1992 - Н. Крстић, Животна средина ва 1 (2003), 9-12, Београд, 2006. током вирма и холоцена у равничарским дело- Михаиловић Д. 2006b - Д. Михаиловић, Па- вима Војводине у Археологија и природне науке, леолитско налазиште Хаџи Проданова пећина код Научни скуп Српске академије наука и уметнос- Ивањице, Археолошки преглед Српског археолош- ти и Војвођанске академије наука и уметности, ког друштва 1 (2003), 13-16, Београд, 2006. Београд-Нови Сад, октобар 1990, Научни скупови, Mihailović D. 2008 - D. Mihailović, New data књ LXIV, Одељење историјских наука, књига 21, about the Middle Palaeolithic of Serbia, in A. Darlas, ур. Д. Срејовић, Београд, Српска академија наука D. Mihailović (eds.) The Palaeolithic of the Balkans. и уметности, 1992. BAR International Series 1819, 93-100, Archaeopress, Marković-Marjanović 1972 - J. Marković-Mar- Oxford, 2008. janović, Rasprostranjenje i stratigrafija lesa u Jugosla- Mihailović D. and Mihailović B. 2007 - D. viji, Prethodno obaveštenje, Glasnik Prirodnjačkog Mihailović and B. Mihailović, Considération sur le muzeja, Serija A, Knjiga 27, 93-107, Beograd, 1972. Gravettien et l’Epigravettien ancien aux Balkans de Malez 1978 - M. Malez, Novija istraživanja pa- l’Ouest. Paleo 19, 115-129, 2007. leolitika u hrvatskom Zagorju, Arheološka istraživa- Михаиловић, Ђуричић и Калуђеровић 1997 nja u sjeverozapadnoj Hrvatskoj, Hrvatsko arheološko - Д. Михаиловић, Љ. Ђуричић и З. Калуђеровић, društvo, Znanstveni skup – Varaždin 22-25. X 1975, Истраживање палеолита на подручју источне Ср- 9-69, Zagreb, 1978. бије. у М. Лазић (ур.) Археологија источне Србије, Malez 1987 - M. Malez, Pregled paleolitičkih Филозофски факултет – Центар за археолошка ис- i mezolitičkih kultura na području Istre, Arheološka траживања, 33-44, Београд, 1997. istraživanja u Istri i Hrvatskom primorju, Knjiga I, Михајловић-Матић 1952 - Д. Михајловић-Ма- Znanstveni skup, Pula 15-18.09.1982, Hrvatsko arhe- тић, Земунски лесни плато, Зборник Матице српске, ološko društvo, Pula, 1987 Серија природних наука 2, 135-149, Нови Сад, 1952.

19 J. Šarić, Paleolithic and Mesolithic Finds From Profile of the Zemun Loess Starinar LVIII/2008, 9-27

Müller-Karpe 1977 - H. Müller-Karpe, Hand- Стевановић 1977 - П. Стевановић, Квартар buch der Vorgeschicht, Band I, Altsteinzeit, München, (Антропоген), Општи преглед фација и њихово C. H. Beck, 1977. распрострањење, с посебним освртом на пре- Păunescu 1970 - A. Păunescu, Evoluţia uneltelor лесне, лесне и антропогене наслаге северне Ср- şi armelor de piatră cioplită descoperite pe teritoriul бије у К. Петковић (Уредник) Геологија Србије, României, Bucureşti, Academia Republicii socialiste II-3, Стратиграфија – кенозоик, Завод за регио- România, Biblioteca de archeologie XV, 1970. налну геологију и палеонтологију Рударско-гео- Петковић 1977 - К. Петковић (Уредник), Гео- лошког факултета, Универзитет у Београду, 1977, логија Србије, II-3, Стратиграфија – кенозоик, 357-417. Завод за регионалну геологију и палеонтологију Шарић 1984 - Ј. Шарић, Прилог истражи- Рударско-геолошког факултета, Универзитет у вању најстаријих култура на територији Београда, Београду, 1977. Годишњак града Београда XXXI, 5-33, 1984. Праслов и Рогачев 1982 - Н.Д. Праслов и Šarić 2005a - J. Šarić, Chipped stone artifacts. А.Н. Рогачев, Палеолит Костенковско-Борщевс- 57-65 in Karmanski, S. Donja Branjevina, A Neolithic кого района на Дону 1879-1979, Некаторые итоги Settlement Near Deronje in the Vojvodina (Serbia), полевыџ исследований, Ленинград, Наука, 1982. Vol 10, еd. P. Biagi, Trieste, Societa per la preistoria e Prufer 1961 - H.O. Prufer, The abri Schmidt, An protostoria della regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, 2005. important upper palaeolithic site in Bavaria, The Ohio Šarić 2005b - J. Šarić, Chipped Stone Projectiles Journal of Science 61 (1), 45-59, 1961. in the Territory of Serbia in Prehistory, Starinar LV, Radovanović 1986 - I. Radovanović, Vršac–At, 9-33, 2005. paleolitsko nalazište, Arheološki pregled 25, 11–12, Титов и Эрдели 1980 - В.С. Титов и И. Эрде- 1986. ли, Археология Бенгрии, Каменный век, Академия Roksandić and Dimitrijević 2001 - M. Roksan- наук СССР, Институт археологии, Венгерская Ака- dić and V. Dimitrijević, A human mandible from the демия наук, Археологический институт, Москва, loess in the vicinity of Belgrade (Yugoslavia), Human Наука, 1980. Evolution Vol. 16 – N. 1, 27-35, 2001. Зеремски и др. 1991 - М. Зеремски, Х. Ма- Сладић и Јовановић 1996 - М. Сладић и С. рушчак и Ј. Бутрим, Проблеми хроностратигра- Јовановић, Сондажно рекогносцирање пећинских фије леса Војводине, Зборник радова Географског станишта на подручју Књажевца, ГСАД 11, 228- института «Јован Цвијић», САНУ, књ 43, 17-32, 231, 1996. Београд, 1991.

20 J. Šarić, Paleolithic and Mesolithic Finds From Profile of the Zemun Loess Starinar LVIII/2008, 9-27

Резиме ЈОСИП ШАРИЋ, Археолошки институт, Београд

Палеолитски и мезолитски налази из профила Земунског леса

Кључне речи: Окресани артефакти, средњи палеолит, млађи палеолит, мезолит, сировине, рожнац, черт, кварцит, ручни клинови, ручни шиљци, коленасти пројектили/шиљци, пострушке, геометријски микролити, Земун, Србија.

Земунски лесни плато се налази на југоисточној хабитус, што их доводи у јасну везу са мустеријенским на- периферији Срема, Дунавом ограничен са североистока, лазима из хрватског Загорја као најближим аналогијама у Савом са југоистока и линијом између Старих Бановаца и окружењу, мада је микролитизација јасно изражена и међу Бољеваца са запада. Изграђен је од наизменичних слојева налазима из пећинских станишта у Црној Гори. светложутог леса и тамних слојева погребене, односно, фо- Млађепалеолитска индустрија Земунског леса пока- силне земље. зује јасне и велике сличности са индустријом комплекса Палеолитски локалитет „Економија 13. мај“ налази Костјенки–Боршчево. Подударности се уочавају са индуст- се на северозападној периферији Земуна, на високом лес- ријама на територији Словачке и Чешке, као и у материјалу ном брегу који доминира десном обалом Дунава, док је ло- са бројних налазишта у северној Босни. Говорећи о овом калитет Бељарица лоциран нешто узводније, на око 2,5 км сегменту збирке окресаних артефаката из Земунског леса од „Економија 13. мај“. За пећинска налазишта је потпуно неопходно је указати на неколико изузетно карактеристич- јасно услед чега су често вишеслојна, са културним слоје- них налаза, који својим одликама представљају праве путо- вима чије се датовање протеже од средњег палеолита преко казе за датовање, али и географско повезивање овог локали- свих каснијих периода, па неки пут, и до средњег века. И тета са просторима са којих су стизали културни утицаји. локалитет „Економија 13. мај“, иако налазиште на отворе- У првој групи се налазе тзв. атипични коленасти ном простору, по налазима из обрушеног профила показује шиљци, који су заправо врло типични и лако препознатљи- управо такву стратиграфску слику. У првом тренутку може ви (Т IV/1, 2). се учинити чудним да налазиште на отвореном простору Посебно значајни за датовање налаза са локалитета пружа тако богат хронолошки распон. Међутим, треба има- „Економија 13. мај“, осим коленастих шиљака, јесу арте- ти на уму повољан положај за насељавање на лесном брегу факти који у себи сједињују функције стругача и перфора- заштићеном од плављења и знатан пораст популације, који тера (Т IV/3, 4). временом знатно увећава густину становања. Сплет окол- Као показатељ млађепалеолитске старости дела збирке ности је довео до тога да се на простору на којем се у јед- артефаката са локалитета „Економија 13. мај“ може да пос- ном периоду зауставио човек палеолита, у наредним перио- лужи и необичан, али типски веома специфичан кљунасти дима сукцесивно, у краћем или дужем периоду, задржавају стругач (Т III/5), као и трапезасти стругачи (Т III/6–8), који се људи све до касног средњег века. уклапају у основну шему источног технокомплекса, што по- И поред два ручна клина, који су нешто већи у односу тврђују слични примерци са локалитета Афонтова Гора II. на остали мустеријенски инвентар са Бељарице и локали- Кратка сечива са ретушираним преломом (Т V/15–34) тета „Економија 13. мај“, доминанта је микролитизација ар- и геометријски микролити (Т VI/1–59) примерци су који тефаката, што је једна од карактеристика микокијенског фа- репрезентују најмлађе налазе међу артефактима приказа- цијеса, дефинисаног на бројним локалитетима медитеранс- ним у овом раду. Реч је о артефактима који представљају ког басена. Но, треба имати на уму и могућу принудну мик- значајну карактеристику млађег палеолита, али су још зна- ролитизацију, условљену веома израженим коришћењем чајнија одредница мезолита и култура које почињу да се речних облутака, који својим малим димензијама диктирају баве земљорадњом. Без обзира на то да ли ће се за ту гру- и коначну величину артефаката израђених од њих. Једна од пу окресаних артефаката користити термин тарденоазијен највећих алатки са локалитета „Економија 13. мај“ ручни или балканско-дунавски епиграветијен са трапезима, ин- клин, дужине непуних 9 цм (Т I/2), израђен је управо од дустрија окресаног оруђа са територије Румуније, која је речног облутка, о чему сведочи сачувани кортекс. јасно везана за комплекс Старчево–Körös–Criş, каракте- За ову мустеријенску индустрију не можемо са пуном рише се израженом микролитизацијом и знатним бројем сигурношћу рећи да је карактерише висок степен стандар- геометријских микролита – првенствено трапеза. Веома дизације, јер треба имати на уму да су приказани примерци богата тарденоазијенска индустрија окресаног камена по- резултат тријаже с циљем презентовања најтипичнијих ар- пулација које су насељавале и територије данашње Словач- тефаката који омогућавају датовање у условима недостат- ке и Мађарске, као и њен неспориво јак и дуготрајан утицај ка стратиграфије. Ручни шиљци, један cleaver, chopper-и и на перипанонске неолитске насеобине, како је то уочено на пострушке са ова два локалитета уклапају се по уоченим локалитету Доња Брањевина, представљају јасне индика- карактеристикама у већ формирану слику о медитеранском торе за трагове тарденоазијенског насеља и на локалитету мустеријену. Посебно треба указати на њихов микролитски „Економија 13. мај“.

21 J. Šarić, Paleolithic and Mesolithic Finds From Profile of the Zemun Loess Starinar LVIII/2008, 9-27

Plate I - Beljarica - 1, middle palaeolithic hand point; “13. maj” - 2-9, middle palaeolithic hand points Табла I - Бељарица - 1, средњопалеолитски ручни шиљак; „13. мај“ - 2-9, средњопалеолитски ручни шиљци

22 J. Šarić, Paleolithic and Mesolithic Finds From Profile of the Zemun Loess Starinar LVIII/2008, 9-27

Plate II - Beljarica - 1, middle palaeolithic cleaver; “13. maj” - 2, 6, 7, middle palaeolithic cleavers/choppers; 3, middle palaeolithic double sidescraper on levallois blade; 4, middle palaeolithic unretouched levallois blade; 5, middle palaeolithic denticulated short levallois blade Табла II - Бељарица - 1, средњопалеолитски cleaver; „13. мај“ - 2, 6, 7, средњопалеолитски cleaver-i/ chopper-i; 3, средњопалеолитска двојна пострушка на левалоа сечиву; 4, средњопалеолитско неретуширано левалоа сечиво; 5, средњопалеолитско назубљено кратко левалоа сечиво

23 J. Šarić, Paleolithic and Mesolithic Finds From Profile of the Zemun Loess Starinar LVIII/2008, 9-27

Plate III -”13. maj” - 1, middle palaeolithic double sidescraper on levallois flake; 2, middle palaeolithic notched levallois flake; 3, 4, upper palaeolithic nosed endscrapers; 6-8, upper palaeolithic trapezoidal scrapers on massive flakes; 5, upper palaeolithic massive atypical nosed scraper Табла III - „13. мај“ - 1, средњопалеолитска двојна пострушка на левалоа одбитку; 2, средњопалеолитски ретуширани левалоа одбитак са анкошом; 3, 4, млађепалеолитски кљунасти стругачи; 6-8, млађепалеолитски трапезасти стругачи; 5, млађепалеолитски атипични кљунасти стругач

24 J. Šarić, Paleolithic and Mesolithic Finds From Profile of the Zemun Loess Starinar LVIII/2008, 9-27

Plate IV - “13. maj” - 1, 2, upper palaeolithic shouldered points; 3, 4, upper palaeolithic endscrapers/ perforators; 5, upper palaeolithic shouldered perforator; 6-10, upper palaeolithic discoidal scrapers; 11-28, upper palaeolithic short ednscrapers Табла IV - „13.маj“ - 1, 2, млађепалеолитски коленасти пројектили; 3, 4, млађепалеолитски стругачи/ перфоратери; 5, млађепалеолитски коленасти перфоратер; 6-10, млађепалеолитски кружни стругачи; 11-28, млађепалеолитски кратки ноктасти стругачи

25 J. Šarić, Paleolithic and Mesolithic Finds From Profile of the Zemun Loess Starinar LVIII/2008, 9-27

Plate V - “13. maj” - 1, 2, upper palaeolithic stemmed blades; 3, 4, upper palaeolithic burins; 5-13, upper palaeolithic steep retouched blades(mostly of them are perforators); 14, upper palaeolithic narrow backed blade; 15-34, upper palaeolithic or mesolithic transversal retouched blades Табла V - „13. мај“ - 1, 2, млађепалеолитска тзв. подвезана сечива, 3, 4, млађепалеолитска сечива се длетастим ретушем; 5-13, млађепалеолитска стрморетуширана сечива (већина су перфоратери); 14, млађепалеолитско уско сечиво се хрптом; 15-34, млађепалеолитска или мезолитска сечива са ретушираним преломом

26 J. Šarić, Paleolithic and Mesolithic Finds From Profile of the Zemun Loess Starinar LVIII/2008, 9-27

Plate VI - “13. maj” - 1-59, mesolithic geometric microliths Табла VI - „13. мај“ - 1-59, мезолитски геометријски микролити

27