Formal Chronological Models for the Use and Development of Vinča Ceramics in South-East Europe
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
This is a repository copy of A Vinča potscape: : formal chronological models for the use and development of Vinča ceramics in south-east Europe. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/111429/ Version: Published Version Article: Whittle, Alasdair, Bayliss, Alex, Barclay, Alistair et al. (11 more authors) (2016) A Vinča potscape: : formal chronological models for the use and development of Vinča ceramics in south-east Europe. Documenta Praehistorica. pp. 1-60. ISSN 1854-2492 https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.43.1 Reuse This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA) licence. This licence allows you to remix, tweak, and build upon the work even for commercial purposes, as long as you credit the authors and license your new creations under the identical terms. All new works based on this article must carry the same licence, so any derivatives will also allow commercial use. More information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Documenta Praehistorica XLIII (2016) A Vin;a potscape> formal chronological models for the use and development of Vin;a ceramics in south-east Europe Alasdair Whittle 1, Alex Bayliss 2, Alistair Barclay 3, Bisserka Gaydarska 1, Eszter Bánffy 4, Du[an Boric´ 1, Florin Dras¸ovean 5, János Jakucs 6, Miroslav Maric´ 7, David Orton 8, Ivana Pantovic´ 9, Wolfram Schier 10, Nenad Tasic´ 11 and Marc Vander Linden 12 1 Department of Archaeology and Conservation, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK [email protected]< [email protected]< [email protected] 2 English Heritage, London, UK< and Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK [email protected] 3 Wessex Archaeology, Salisbury, UK< [email protected] 4 Römisch-Germanische Kommission, Frankfurt am Main, DE< [email protected] 5 The National Museum of Banat, Timis¸oara, RO< [email protected] 6 Institute of Archaeology, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, H< [email protected] 7 The Institute for Balkan Studies, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Belgrade, RS< [email protected] 8 BioArCh, Department of Archaeology, University of York, York, UK< [email protected] 9 The City Museum of Vr[ac, Vr[ac, RS< [email protected] 10 Institute of Prehistoric Archaeology, Free University of Berlin, Berlin, DE< [email protected] 11 Faculty of Philosophy, Belgrade University, Belgrade, RS< [email protected] 12 Institute of Archaelogy, University College, London, UK< [email protected] ABSTRACT – Recent work at Vin≠a-Belo Brdo has combined a total of more than 200 radiocarbon dates with an array of other information to construct much more precise narratives for the struc- tural history of the site and the cultural materials recovered from it. In this paper, we present the results of a recent attempt to construct formal models for the chronology of the wider Vin≠a potscape, so that we can place our now detailed understanding of changes at Belo Brdo within their contem- porary contexts. We present our methodology for assessing the potential of the existing corpus of more than 600 radiocarbon dates for refining the chronology of the five phases of Vin≠a ceramics proposed by Miloj≠i≤ across their spatial ranges, including a total of 490 of them in a series of Baye- sian chronological models. Then we outline our main results for the development of Vin≠a pottery. Finally, we discuss some of the major implications for our understanding of the source, character and tempo of material change. IZVLE∞EK – Nedavne raziskave najdi∏≠a Vin≠a-Belo Brdo zdru∫ujejo ve≠ kot 200 radiokarbonskih da- tumov z zbirko drugih podatkov z namenom ustvariti bolj natan≠ne zgodbe o strukturni zgodovini najdi∏≠a in o izkopanem kulturnem materialu. V tem ≠lanku predstavljamo rezultate nedavnih po- skusov oblikovanja formalnih modelov za kronologijo na ∏ir∏em obmo≠ju kulture Vin≠a, da lahko umestimo zdaj ∫e podrobno razumevanje sprememb na Belem Brdu v njihove so≠asne kontekste. Predstavljamo tudi na∏o metodologijo za ocenjevanje potenciala obstoje≠ega korpusa ve≠ kot 600 radiokarbonskih datumov za bolj natan≠no kronologijo vseh petih faz vin≠anske keramike, kot jih je postavil Miloj≠i≤, v njihovih prostorskih omejitvah, vklju≠ujo≠ ∏e skupaj 490 datumov v seriji Ba- yesovega kronolo∏kega modeliranja. Nato ori∏emo glavne rezultate razvoja vin≠anske lon≠enine. Na koncu razpravljamo ∏e o nekaterih glavnih posledicah na∏ega razumevanja vira, zna≠ilnosti in hi- trosti sprememb v materialni kulturi. KEY WORDS – Neolithic; Vin≠a ceramics; Bayesian chronological modelling; radiocarbon dating; network DOI> 10.4312\dp.43.1 1 Whittle, Bayliss, Barclay, Gaydarska, Bánffy, Boric´, Dras¸ovean, Jakucs, Maric´, Orton, Pantovic´, Schier, Tasic´and Vander Linden The significance of the Vin≠a culture for the timescale of several centuries. Explanations of the development of the Neolithic in SE Europe radical transformations which both the emergence and the demise of the Vin≠a culture brought have The Vin≠a culture belongs to the latter part of the varied considerably, from migrations within the cul- sixth millennium cal BC and the first half of the ture history framework (e.g., N. Tasi≤ et al. 1990.32– fifth millennium cal BC (Chapman 1981; Markoti≤ 33; cf. Hervella et al. 2015), to the increasing impor- 1984; Bori≤ 2009; Por≠i≤ 2011; Orton 2012). Its tance as time went on of individual households and broad distribution extends through the river valleys competitive social relations (Tringham, Krsti≤ 1990a; – the Danube, its tributaries and their catchments – Chapman 2000). One widely shared view, within a of the northern and central Balkans, from southern- culture-historical framework, has been of southern most Hungary and easternmost Croatia through Ser- origins for both initiation of the Vin≠a culture and bia down to Kosovo and parts of Macedonia, and subsequent changes during its development (such from Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina eastwards as the claimed ‘shock of Vin≠a C’ (e.g., Gara∏anin as far as parts of Transylvania in Romania and west- 1951; 1979; G. Lazarovici 2000; Suciu 2009)). So ern Bulgaria (Fig. 1). The phenomenon presents a the Vin≠a phenomenon is central to our understand- series of significant changes in the character of Neo- ing of social and cultural change in Neolithic south- lithic settlement and social relations (Gara∏anin east Europe, and also in surrounding areas. Despite 1979; Chapman 1981; Kaiser, Voytek 1983; Tring- the host of interpretations and chronological schemes ham, Krsti≤ 1990a), following the initial establish- produced, however, it remains the case that the cal- ment of Neolithic existence in the area of its distrib- endar dating of Vin≠a culture changes – which prin- ution from the late seventh and early sixth millen- cipally boil down to changes in pottery – has not so nium cal BC onwards (Whittle et al. 2002). These far been rigorously or widely established, though include changing materiality; the expansion of mate- important earlier efforts in that direction should be rial networks; the spread, consolidation and diver- noted (Bori≤ 2009; 2015; Orton 2012; Schier 1995; sification of settlement, involving increased seden- 1996; 2000; 2014). tism in the form of large settlements and tells; the intensification of subsistence; the introduction of Periodisation schemes for Vin≠a ceramics: a copper metallurgy; and the emergence of both larger brief historiography communities and distinctive households within them (Chapman 1981; 2000; Kaiser, Voytek 1983; Tring- Distinctive material culture, including modelled face- ham, Krsti≤ 1990a; Tripkovi≤, Mili≤ 2009; Orton like lids, figurines and copper artefacts but predomi- 2010; Orton et al. 2016). Im- portant issues of settlement expansion, population incre- ase, changes in production, a greater variety of sites includ- ing tells themselves, more per- manence of occupation, the role of households and the nature of community have all been much discussed (see also Bori≤ 2009; 2015; Borojevi≤ 2006; Chapman 1990; Crno- brnja et al. 2009; Lazarovici 1979; Link 2006.93–6; Orton 2010; 2012; Por≠i≤ 2012; Schier 1995; Tasi≤ 2011; Tringham et al. 1992; Tripko- vi≤ 2011; Whittle 1996.105). It has been clear since the first radiocarbon dates (see Chapman 1981) that these Fig. 1. Map of the maximum extent of the occurrence of Vin≠a ceramics features developed over a across south-east Europe. 2 A Vin;a potscape> formal chronological models for the use and development of Vin;a ceramics in south-east Europe nantly the ubiquitous, abundant and high-quality, es labelled A–E, with phases A–D covering the Neo- dark-burnished pottery, has been the basis for clas- lithic development of the site. Although redefined sic periodisations of Vin≠a material (see Tasi≤ et al. and remodelled by later authors, this basic struc- 2016a; Fig. 2). That these in turn have been the spur ture continues to underpin most periodisations of for prolonged debate about the nature and source Vin≠a material as a whole. of origins and subsequent changes underlines their continuing importance. The practice of researchers In 1943 and 1949 Vladimir Miloj≠i≤ proposed a fur- has been to infer chronology from changing typo- ther refinement, using exclusively the published logical phases of ceramics, sometimes placing this material from Vasi≤’s Preistoriska Vin≠a 1. He basi- on an absolute scale by reference to the available cally reproduced Holste’s scheme but added sub- radiocarbon dates or by analogy with dated schemes phases B1 and B2.