64. When did the ‘Neolithic package’ reach Lepenski Vir? Radiometric and faunal evidence

53

UDK 903'12\'15(497.11)''633\634''>314.17Documenta Praehistorica XXXIV (2007)

When did the ‘Neolithic package’ reach Lepenski Vir|Radiometric and faunal evidence

Du[an Boric1 & Vesna Dimitrijevic2

1 University of Cambridge, UK, [email protected] University of Belgrade, Serbia, [email protected]

Introduction

The site of Lepenski Vir is one of the most importantsites for studying processes involved in the trans-formation of pre-Neolithic Europe. Situated in theDanube Gorges of the north-central Balkans (Fig. 1),the site is considered the type-site of a regionalgroup that encompassed at least 20 known, and pro-bably many presently unknown, settlements alongsome 150 km of the riverine landscape on bothbanks of the Danube (e.g. Radovanovi≤ 1996a; Sre-jovi≤ 1969; 1972). Yet, despite the richness of theexisting data, the site has not been published in adetailed way and there remains ambiguity and fac-tual inconsistencies in the original reports and sub-sequent data published from this site. Such a situa-tion requires rigorous scrutiny when treating theexisting evidence, in order to overcome the interpre-tive conundrums that have accumulated since its ex-

cavation (Bori≤ 1999; 2002a). In particular, therehave been numerous problems relating to the strati-graphic sequence of this site and the dating of itsmost ubiquitous features: buildings with trapezoidallimestone floors (Fig. 2). There are more than 70such structures at the site, and in the early days ofresearch these features were dated with around 20dates from charcoal (Quitta 1975; Bori≤ & Dimitri-jevi≤ 2005) which indicated the contemporaneity ofthe sequence with known Early Neolithic settlementsacross the Balkans from around 6300 to 5500 calBC(e.g. Gimbutas 1976; Milisauskas 1978; Whittle etal. 2002; 2005).

Yet many researchers of the site have been reluctantto accept this sequence of dates, and there has beensome debate as to the reliability of the dates from

ABSTRACT – A recent dating program on animal bone samples from Lepenski Vir, along with faunaland various archaeometric analyses, allows us to suggest a new stratigraphic and chronological se-quence for the Mesolithic-Neolithic site of Lepenski Vir in the north-central Balkans. In this paper, weparticularly focus on the question of the introduction of domesticates to this site. By directly datingbones of domestic animals from the preserved faunal assemblage of Lepenski Vir, we show whenthe full ‘Neolithic package’ reached the site and interpret the character of this transformation.

IZVLE∞EK – Program datiranja ∫ivalskih kosti iz Lepenskega Vira nam skupaj s favnisti≠nimi in raz-li≠nimi arheometri≠nimi analizami omogo≠a, da predstavimo novo stratigrafsko in kronolo∏ko se-kvenco mezolitsko-neolitskega najdi∏≠a Lepenski Vir na severnem delu centralnega Balkana. V ≠lan-ku se osredoto≠amo na vpra∏anje uvajanja domestikatov na to najdi∏≠e. Z direktnim datiranjem ko-sti doma≠ih ∫ivali iz ohranjenega zbira favne iz Lepenskega Vira prika∫emo, kdaj je najdi∏≠e dose-gel popoln »neolitski paket« in interpretiramo zna≠aj paleoekonomske transformacije.

KEY WORDS – Lepenski Vir; domesticates; Mesolithic; Neolithic; AMS; Danube Gorges

Du[an Boric & Vesna Dimitrijevic

54

Lepenski Vir (e.g. Tasi≤ 1992; Radovanovi≤ 1996a).These reservations were to some extent due to thefact that such a chronological framework for the sitedid not correspond to the excavator Srejovi≤’s un-derstanding of the phase with trapezoidal buildingsas Mesolithic and his insistence on a radical breakbetween the Mesolithic and the EarlyNeolithic occupations of the site (Sre-jovi≤ 1969.161; 1972). However,more recently, three new dates asso-ciated with the occupation/abandon-ment of trapezoidal buildings of Le-penski Vir suggest an overall agree-ment between charcoal conventional14C dates and new AMS (AcceleratorMass Spectrometry) dates from ani-mal bones (Bori≤ 2002a; Bori≤ &Dimitrijevi≤ 2005; Whittle et al.2002). Such dating is also in agree-ment with the idea that there areimportant similarities between thephase with trapezoidal buildings atLepenski Vir and very similar buil-

dings at the neighbouring siteof Padina (Bori≤ 1999, 2002a;Jovanovi≤ 1969), where theexcavator (Jovanovi≤ 1987)found Early Neolithic potteryassociated with the occupa-tion of at least some, if not allthe trapezoidal buildings atthis site. Also, the publicationof known, but previously un-published, photographs sho-wing Early Neolithic potteryon the floor of Houses 54 and4 from Lepenski Vir (Gara∏a-nin & Radovanovi≤ 2001)supports a growing consen-sus that the phase of trape-zoidal buildings at LepenskiVir must have been confinedto the Early Neolithic histo-rical context (Bori≤ 1999;2002a).

In order to remove anydoubts as to the absolutedate of the trapezoidal featu-res at Lepenski Vir, as well asto provide a more precisechronology for the completestratigraphic sequence of Le-penski Vir, we have absolu-

tely dated a number of contexts from this site thatcan elucidate these research questions. In this paper,we provide some of these new results and in parti-cular discuss the question of when all elements ofthe ‘Neolithic package’, including domesticates, rea-ched Lepenski Vir.

Fig. 1. Map of the Upper Gorge of the Danube Gorges.

Fig. 2. Lepenski Vir, trapezoidal buildings (photo).

When did the ‘Neolithic package’ reach Lepenski Vir| Radiometric and faunal evidence

55

The research context of the dating programand results

The AMS dating programme was made possiblethrough the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator DatingService and was funded by the Arts and HumanitiesResearch Council (AHRC) and the Natural Environ-mental Research Council (NERC) of the UK, whichallowed us to successfully date 34 samples from Le-penski Vir of which 30 samples were taken from ani-mal and 4 from human bones. The emphasis on da-ting non-canid animal bones in particular stemmedfrom the fact that it has been shown that the datingof human and dog bones in the Danube Gorges in-troduces a larger standard deviation due to the ne-cessity for correcting these dates for the aquatic(freshwater?) reservoir effect.1 Hence we chose toconcentrate on the dating of animal bones from well-defined contexts and the four AMS dates of the hu-man bones come from burials well-stratified withintrapezoidal buildings, and the dates obtained are ofcomparative value.

However, dating animal bones is not without itsshare of possible problems. That is, dating animalbones even from well-defined contexts does not re-move the possibility of dating residual remains insuch contexts, i.e. that particular dated animal bonesfound in well-stratified contexts come from, older,disturbed contexts. The best solution for this is todate articulated or partly articulated animal carcases,on the assumption that the deposition of such a ske-leton or its parts took place soon after the death ofthe animal, and that the dated context is the pri-mary context of deposition. For instance, in ourcase, the dating of red deer skulls with antlers,which in several buildings at Lepenski Vir were lefton the floor as (ritual?) acts of building abandon-ment, should be a good indicator about the abandon-ment of these features, although a possibility must

be recognized that these might have been curatedover a period of time. Details of all new AMS datesare published elsewhere (Bori≤ & Dimitrijevi≤ inpress), and here we provide a graph with the cali-brated ranges of these dates (Fig. 3), which indicatethat trapezoidal buildings cover the period fromaround 6200 to 5900 calBC.2 It now seems that af-ter around 5900 calBC most of the trapezoidal buil-dings at Lepenski Vir were abandoned and some ofthose that remained in use were primarily used forburial purposes (see footnote 2). The results of ourdating program have necessitated a revision of thecurrent phasing of this site and a reconsideration ofstratigraphic relations.

To summarize these findings for the purposes of thispaper, it suffices to say that the new dates indicate avery long duration of the Mesolithic period, fromaround 9400 to around 7500 calBC (Fig. 3). Theseearly dates are concentrated in two particular peri-ods that may point to two separate phases withinthese two millennia, with settlement discontinuities.It remains possible that there were many more oc-cupation episodes that these dates do not encom-pass, and more AMS dates may indicate whetherthese two groupings with three dates per groupingare meaningful and representative of two separateand defined phases of occupation at this locale. Thisearly period would correspond with the phase thatthe excavator Srejovi≤ (1969.28–30, 42–47; 1972)defined as Proto-Lepenski Vir, although his ideasabout the spatial distribution of this phase, its inter-pretation, duration and relation to the later phaseof trapezoidal buildings must be revised in the lightof new AMS dates and other available data (Bori≤& Dimitrijevi≤ in press).

The phase with trapezoidal buildings probably startsonly around 6300/6200 calBC, and most of the tra-pezoidal buildings might have been abandoned by

1 Aquatic reservoir age phenomenon is frequently found in food webs that are dependent on marine, but also freshwater sourcesdue to the gradual deposition of ‘old carbon’ in living organisms in such ecosystems. It is signalled in stable isotope measurementsby higher d15N and d13C values (see e.g. Lanting and van der Plicht 1998). A suggestion has been made that due to the limestonecomposition of geological strata in the Danube Gorges, ground and river water may have lower 14C/12C ratios than the atmosphere.In such environments, aquatic animal and plant species exhibit lower 14C than terrestrial organisms (Bonsall et al. 1997.84). Suchprocesses affect radiocarbon measurements from samples of animal species living in marine or freshwater ecosystems, renderingthe obtained radiocarbon measurements older. Consequently, humans and some other terrestrial species (e.g. otter, domesticateddog, etc.) that feed substantially on organisms rich in these protein components are also affected by the reservoir effect (for sta-ble isotope studies in the Mesolithic-Neolithic Danube Gorges, see Bonsall et al. 1997; 2000; 2004; Grupe et al. 2003; Bori≤ et al.2004).

2 Only one new date from a trapezoidal building falls into the period after 5900 cal BC: OxA-16537 dates a red deer skull found asa grave offering in Burial 7/I in House 21 in the range 5888-5728 at 95 per cent probability (see Fig. 3). It will be necessary todate another sample from this context in order to confirm this significantly late date. However, it is possible that certain trape-zoidal buildings were used in the post-5900 cal BC period for burial purposes. If so, this context would importantly suggest thecontemporaneity of two different burial traditions at Lepenski Vir during this period: extended and crouched inhumations (for moredetails see Bori≤ & Dimitrijevi≤ in press).


56

around 5900 calBC. The abso-lute span of only two or threehundred years for the flouri-shing of building activity rela-ted to the trapezoidal structu-res significantly compresses Sre-jovi≤’s phase I. Thus, it is diffi-cult to maintain the excavator’sfive subphases, which, similarlyto Ivana Radovanovi≤’s morerecent re-phasing of LepenskiVir into I–1–3 (Radovanovi≤1996a; 2000), remain largelyguesses before more extensiveand systematic dating of eachbuilding is accomplished, alongwith statistical modeling in or-der to narrow the magnitude oferror. On the whole, new datesfrom these contexts better cor-respond with Srejovi≤’s strati-graphic logic of sequencing buil-dings to particular phases onthe basis of their superimpos-ing and overcutting than withRadovanovi≤’s stylistic logic, i.e.her typology of hearth forms,ash-places, entrance platforms,and presence/absence of ∀-sup-ports around rectangularhearths as reliable chronologi-cal indicators (Bori≤ & Dimitri-jevi≤ 2005.45–46; in press; Bori≤ 2002b).

The short chronological span for phase I also sug-gests that phase II is not stratigraphically realistic.This has already been shown by overlapping plansof the phase I buildings and stone outlines that theexcavator of the site attributed to this phase. Accor-ding to Srejovi≤, his phase II was characterized bybuildings with stone walls in the shape of trapezes,repeating the outline of supposedly earlier lime-stone floors of his phase I. However, the trapezoidalbuildings must be envisioned as dug-in features3,with their rear, narrow side dug deep into the slope,as has previously been shown (Bori≤ 2002a.Figs. 7–9), since these features were dug into the sloping ter-race where the site is situated. It is more likely that

these stone constructions assigned to a separatephase were part of the same trapezoidal buildingswith limestone floors assigned by the excavator tophase I. Thus, on the level above limestone floorsthere were vertical stone walls built in dry wall tech-nique around buildings’ floors and cuts. The visualoverlap of phases I and II clearly shows the matchbetween these stone constructions and the trapezoi-dal limestone floors (see Fig. 4; Bori≤ 2002a.Fig.9). Even at the published section of the western partof the settlement, which runs through the backs ofbuildings Houses 43, 34, 27, 20, 33 and 32 (Srejo-vi≤ 1969.Fig. 6), phase II is not marked, which mightfurther support our conclusion about its elusive cha-racter. Furthermore, no activity areas were reportedwith regard to the ‘floor’ level of these structures,

Fig. 3. Calibrated ranges of new AMS dates from Lepenski Vir. Ages ofhuman burials 94 and 19 are corrected for the aquatic reservoir effectusing Method 2 as suggested by Cook et al. (2002). The δδ15N values usedto estimate percentages of aquatic diet (for details see Bori≤ & Dimitri-jevi≤ in press). Dates are calibrated with OxCal v. 4.0 (Bronk Ramsey1995; 2001). Bars: 1 standard deviation; line: 2 standard deviations;black bars: animal bone samples; white bars: human bone samples.

3 On the existing photographs of Lepenski Vir, one sees terraced areas with pedestalled building floors. This situation is due to dig-ging the site largely in arbitrary levels by which features, such as trapezoidal buildings, were not excavated by emptying the fillof a building as one would do if excavating stratigraphically. Trapezoidal building floors were exposed by excavating spits acrossa particular level, which exposed the area of sterile soil adjacent to the building floor and which occasionally contained older Me-solithic deposits. Such an excavation strategy created this misleading, largely two-dimensional perspective of trapezoidal buildings(see Bori≤ 1999; 2002a).


57

Fig.

4. L

epen

ski V

ir –

sit

e pl

an o

f pha

se I

–II,

wit

h so

me

shad

ed fe

atur

es o

f pha

se I

II fr

om w

here

the

AM

S da

ted

dom

esti

c bo

nes

ori

gin

ate.

Ove

rlap

pin

g tr

apez

oi-

dal b

uild

ings

of S

rejo

vi≤’

s ph

ase

I (l

abel

led

wit

h Ar

abic

num

eral

s) a

nd

con

stru

ctio

n s

ton

es o

f his

pha

se I

I (l

abel

led

wit

h R

oman

num

eral

s) (

afte

r Sr

ejov

i≤ 1

981.

20–1

). 1

– li

mes

ton

e fl

oors

; 2 –

con

stru

ctio

n s

ton

es a

ttri

bute

d to

pha

se I

(ac

c. t

o Sr

ejov

i≤);

3 –

con

stru

ctio

n s

ton

es a

ttri

bute

d to

pha

se I

I (a

cc. t

o Sr

ejov

i≤);

4 –

Earl

y N

eoli

thic

, pha

se I

II A

MS

date

d co

nte

xts

wit

h re

mai

ns

of d

omes

tic

anim

als.


58

with the exception of the largest building at the site,House XLIV4. Therefore, the trapezoidal stone wallspreviously attributed to phase II were part of thesame phase I buildings. Henceforth we suggest trea-ting Srejovi≤’s phases I and II as a single phase andwe refer to this building horizon as Lepenski Vir I–II(Bori≤ & Dimitrijevi≤ in press).

The new dating program also suggests no temporalbreak between phases Lepenski Vir I–II and phaseIII (contra Srejovi≤ 1969.161; 1972.139). The datesindicate that Srejovi≤ was right to separate the lat-ter, as it seems that most of the trapezoidal buildingswere abandoned by 5900 calBC and that a new anddifferent occupation pattern commenced at the sitein the period following 5900 calBC. Yet some of thedates indicate that at the current resolution of thechronological scale, there could have been someoverlapping between the use of some trapezoidalbuildings, perhaps primarily for the interment of hu-man burials (e.g. House 21 and Burials 7/I and II,see Fig. 4 and footnote 2), and the new types of con-texts that appear around 5900 calBC. These new con-texts included a number of pits, dug primarily in therear area of the site, outside of the zone with trape-zoidal buildings. There are also several domed ovenswhose function remains unclear (see below). Also,crouched inhumations became the dominant burialtype (of possibly migrant individuals, see Price & Bo-ri≤ forthcoming) during this phase. Some of thesecrouched burials were found lying on the floors oftrapezoidal buildings (Srejovi≤ 1969.Fig. 63). Thisseems to be a time of significant changes in patternsof habitation of the community. The bones of dome-stic animals were also found in those features assig-ned to phase III, suggesting that the domestic ani-mals must have been introduced in the post-5900calBC period. In the following, we discuss in detailfive AMS dates made on the bones of domestic ani-mals from contexts outside of trapezoidal buildings.

Dating the introduction of domesticates

Apart from dating trapezoidal buildings and theiruse, our dating programme explicitly focused on di-

rect dating of domestic animals. In this paper we dis-cuss and focus on this issue in particular. On the ba-sis of our previous analyses of faunal contexts asso-ciated with the trapezoidal buildings (Bori≤ & Dimi-trijevi≤ 2005; Dimitrijevi≤ 2000 in press), therewere no positively identified bones of domestic ani-mals lying directly on the floors. However, this con-clusion requires some caution. As we showed in pre-vious reports, the faunal assemblage of Lepenski Viravailable for our analyses is only a portion of the ori-ginal assemblage that survived initial analyses of thismaterial. Hence, there remains a possibility that somedomestic animals existed in those faunal units fromthe trapezoidal building floors that were not pre-served. However, Hungarian zoo-archaeologist Sán-dor Bökönyi (1969; 1972), who was the first to ana-lyze this assemblage, did not report any domesticanimal apart from dog in the context of Srejovi≤’sphases I–II, and it would be safe to assume that thisreflects a real and unbiased patterning. He reporteda relatively large number of domestic animals (cattle,sheep/goat and pig) from phase IIIa–b at the site,and, as we mentioned above, this younger phase canprimarily be related to several pits and layers asso-ciated with a couple of domed ovens found at thissite. It also seems that Bökönyi never analysed fau-nal units that were excavated in the course of the fi-nal excavation campaign in 1970 (for discussion seeBori≤ & Dimitrijevi≤ 2005). Some of this material ispreserved and available for analysis. The publicationof the whole faunal assemblage with all contextualdetails is forthcoming.

The remains of domestic animals come only fromphase III contexts (see above) and were found in as-sociation with pits and a domed oven, while somedeposits from this site were not in association withtrapezoidal buildings (Fig. 4). We dated 5 specimensof domestic animal from Lepenski Vir. Two dateswere established for domestic goat Capra hircus,two specimens of domestic cattle Bos taurus, andone specimen of domestic pig Sus domesticus (seeTab. 1). In Table 1 we provide details of five datedbones of domestic animals (sample number, Oxfordlaboratory reference number OxA–, contextual de-

4 House XLIV is the largest structure found in the rear of the site (Fig. 4). It also contained the largest number of representationa-list boulders at Lepenski Vir placed around the building’s large stone-lined rectangular hearth. This building might have had somecommunal and ceremonial usage (e.g. as ‘men’s house’ or similar). No limestone floor was found in the area around the hearth ofthis building and for this reason it was assigned by the excavator to phase II. However, limestone flooring was found in the rearof House XLIV. This flooring was by the excavator assigned to phase I and named House 57. This might have been an earlier buil-ding structure at this place with the same building outline as House XLIV or part of the same structure that was used over a longperiod of time, possibly resulting in the damage of the floor around the hearth area. This hearth area, also, might have been re-arranged several times in the course of the history of this structure. OxA-16010 dates crouched headless Burial 19 found at the floorlevel of House XLIV/57. This burial belongs to phase III and is dated in the range 5984-5752 at 95 per cent probability (Fig. 3)and likely postdates the use of this building.


59

tails of each sample, laboratory result expressed asBP, magnitude of error, stable isotope 13C and 15Nvalues for palaeodietary inferences, species, skeletalelement, as well as probability spans of calibrateddates at 1 and 2 standard deviations). In the follo-wing, we discuss each of the dated contexts separa-tely with regard to their provenance and sample as-sociations as well as the composition of the faunalunits from which these samples originate.

Pit 1: 6005–5841 calBC (OxA–16079)

Context descriptionThis pit was noticed while digging the rear, westernpart of the settlement in quadrants a/V–VI.5 Therewere three adjacent pits in this part of the settle-ment, marked as Pits 1–3 (Figs. 4–5). Pit 1 is a largepit feature, over 4 m in diameter. It was excavatedin the course of the 1968 excavation season and wasnoticed from the 5th excavation spit in quadrant a/VI (July 10th 1968, field diary). Yet, the available

plans of this pit suggest that it was partly excavatedin 1967, as the limit of excavations from the 1967season cuts off the front part of this pit. There is nomention in the field diary of a pit feature for thefront area excavated in 1967, which, among otherreasons, could be due to slope erosion in this partof the settlement that could have eroded the part ofthe pit closer to the Danube. The field diary entryfrom Lepenski Vir dated on July 12th, 1968 recordsthe following:

“The bottom level of the 7th excavation spit wasplanned. In quadrants ab/V, VI, VII from the levelof the 7th excavation spit, Pits 1, 2 and 3 belong-ing to pit horizon IIIa were planned. (…) Sinceone can see clear boundaries of zones [with pits]on the whole surface of these quadrants, these zo-nes and pits will be excavated separately. Pits arelocated in quadrants a/VI and VII, and are mar-ked as 1, 2 and 3. Pit 1 in quadrant a/VI was no-ticed as a cut from previous [upper] levels. (…) We

Sample OxA– Context, unit date error δδ13C δδ15N species element cal BCref. no. & exc. date (BP) (‰) (‰)S#35 16079 Pit 1, quad. a\VI, 7037 39 –20.2 9.3 Sus scapula 68.2 % probability

spit 9 (665) domesticus 5984BC (68.2 %) 5893BC(12\07\1968) 95.4 % probability

6005BC (95.4 %) 5841BCS#36 16211 Pit 3, quad. 7021 36 –21.1 6.7 Bos taurus horncore 68.2 % probability

a\VIII, spit 9 5982BC (31.6 %) 5942BC(674) 5928BC (36.6 %) 5880BC

(15\07\1968) 95.4 % probability5996BC (93.9 %) 5836BC5824BC ( 1.5 %) 5811BC

S#37 16212 Domed oven, 7041 35 –19.8 6.8 Capra metacarpus 68.2 % probabilityquad. d\3, spit 6 hircus proximal 5983BC (38.6 %) 5938BC

(831a) 5932BC (29.6 %) 5898BC(26\07\1968) 95.4 % probability

6000BC (95.4 %) 5845BCS#38 16253 quad. C\XVI, 7008 38 –20.7 7.1 Capra mandible 68.2 % probability

spit 3 hircus 5977BC (21.0 %) 5948BC(16\08\1968) 5920BC (35.5 %) 5870BC

5865BC (11.7 %) 5846BC95.4 % probability

5988BC (95.4 %) 5798BCS#39 16213 quad. c\I, spit 7 7043 37 –21.5 8.3 Bos taurus metatarsus 68.2 % probability

(unit 905a) proximal 5984BC (68.2 %) 5899BC(01\08\1968) 95.4 % probability

6002BC (95.4 %) 5845BC

Tab. 1. New AMS dates of domestic animal bones from Lepenski Vir. All dates calibrated with OxCal v. 4.0(Bronk Ramsey 1995; 2001).

5 Site grid that we refer to in the following context descriptions was established at the start of the 1967 excavation campaign at Le-penski Vir and it differs from the site grid used in 1965 and 1966 excavation campaigns (see Peri≤ & Nikoli≤ 2005). The site gridhas two main axes: axis x, approximately running NW-SE and axis y, approximately running NE-SW (Fig. 4). Quadrants (4 by 4 m)run from the central point across the four established fields, and are marked with the combination of a letter, capital (A, B, C, etc.)and small (a, b, c, etc.), that divide the x axis, and a numeral, Arabic (1, 2, 3, etc.) and Roman (I, II, III, etc.), that divide the y axis.


60

began excavating Pit 1 in spits, fol-lowing its outline on the basis ofsoil differences. In Pit 1, the 8th

spit was excavated. The soil is blackand loose, similar to the previousspit, and is significantly differentfrom the sediment with yellowsandy soil surrounding it. In the8th excavation spit [of the pit fill],there are fragments of pottery andbones and 2 flint artefacts [p. 19–20].”

The excavation of the 8th and the 9th

spits was finished on July 13th, 1968,when yellow virgin soil was reached.The bottom spit of this pit, from which comes thedomestic bone we dated, contained pottery and ani-mal bone [p. 23]. If one assumes that the backfillingof this pit took place over a period of time in the useof the site during phase III, the material we dated,found at its bottom, could be seen as a relativelyearly indication for the presence of domesticates.

Faunal descriptionOxA–16079 dates the right scapula of a domestic pigSus domesticus (Fig. 6). The coracoid process is bro-ken and the glenoid cavity eroded at the rim. Porousstructure of the bone indicates young animal – cora-coid process was probably fusing or close to fusing.A neck diameter (SLC after Driesch 1976) of 19.1 mmcan be assigned to a rather large domestic animal ifcompared to the Late Neolithic sites such as Opovo(minimum breadth of neck in the range 15–20 mmfor domestic and 25–40 for wild pig, Russel 1993.Fig. 6.34) or Vin≠a–Belo Brdo (15.1–19.8 mm in do-mestic pig and 30.1–34.8 in wild pig; Dimitrijevi≤forthcoming). Still, it is undoubtedly domestic, aswild pigs are more massive at this stage of growth.

Only one more bone is preserved in the availablefaunal assemblage from this pit: a left proximal me-tatarsal from an auroch, identified as wild cattle onthe basis of its size (medio-lateral breadth = 67.7 mm,anterio-posterior breadth = 64.9 mm). Judging fromthe marked robustness of muscle insertions, it comesfrom a mature if not an old animal. Several rows ofparallel cut marks are observable on the cranial, me-dial and lateral side of the bone: transverse cut marksare found next to the articular surface, and inclinedcut marks a few centimetres below it.

Both bones are slightly weathered and there areplant root marks in some places on the bone surface.

Pit 3: 5996–5811 calBC (OxA–16211)

Context descriptionPit 3 was noticed in the line of quadrants where Pits1 and 2 were found (Fig. 5). It encompassed parts ofquadrants a/VII–VIII. Here is the field diary descrip-tion of this pit feature:

“[12/07/1968] In quadrant a/VII, Pit 3 was noti-ced next to the section, and spreads across al-most half of the surface of this quadrant. In fact,it continues in the direction of the Danube andjoins up with a concentration of stones and potsfound in the previous excavation spit. The exposedarea at the 7th spit was photographed with Burial31, which was lifted [p. 20].

[15/07/1968] Pit 3 – the 8th spit contained a lot ofpottery and animal bones. Next to the section, aglobular pot was found in a concentration of sto-nes. The 9th spit was also excavated, and it contai-ned pottery and animal bones [material from thisunit was stored under 674 from which the AMS da-

Fig. 6. AMS dated right scapula of a domestic pigSus domesticus (OxA–16079) from Pit 1, LepenskiVir.

Fig. 5. Excavation of adjacent Pits 1–3, Lepenski Vir, 1968.


61

ted animal bone comes]. The 10th spit contained si-milar materials. (…) The 11th spit was also remo-ved, and it is characterized by soil with stone [in-trusions]. Larger, deeper buried stones were left[in situ]. Pit 3 – in the 7th spit there were 2 humanfemora marked as Burial 33. Apart from these fe-mora, there was one clavicle, 1 phalanx and a frag-mented vertebra [p. 24].

[17/07/1968] In quadrant a/VII, the12th spit wasexcavated in Pit 3 following the outline of the pit,i.e. by emptying the dark soil from the surround-ing yellow sediment. After the excavation of the12th spit, the whole area had been cleaned, and itwas determined that the virgin soil had been rea-ched over the whole surface. There were still somefinds of pottery in the 12th excavation spit. [Thecut of] Pit 3 was planned [p. 27].”

The described mix of animal bones, pottery and dis-articulated human remains (Burials 31 and 33) is oflittle help in discerning the character and significanceof this pit fill, or whether its infill was rapid or slow.It should be mentioned that Burial 31 found in Pit 2was directly AMS dated, in the range 6361 to 5902at 95 per cent probability, after correcting for the re-servoir effect (OxA–5827, Bonsall et al. 1997). Dueto the necessary correction of this date for the reser-voir effect, its standard error is too large for a moreprecise chronological determination. Such disarticu-lated human remains (possibly consisting of severalindividuals) found in the fill of Pit 2 (Fig. 5) possiblycome from earlier, disturbed burials at this location.For the moment, it remains unclear whether thesedisarticulated human bones were intentionally depo-sited in these pit features, or older burials were in-deed disturbed by pit digging. The chronologicallyearlier date obtained for Burial 31 may suggest thatdigging for Pit 3 might have disturbed the bones ofthis individual. However, a taphonomic examinationof this burial is necessary in order to test this.

Fig. 7. AMS dated of domestic cattle Bos taurushorncore (OxA–16211) found in Pit 3, LepenskiVir.

Faunal descriptionOxA–16211 dates fragments of a domestic cattle’s(Bos taurus) horncore with two fragments of theskull with basal portions of horncore (Fig. 7). It waspossible to join some fragments and approximate themaximal basal circumference to 5–6 cm. Accordingto this estimate, as well as the thickness of the skulland horncore fragments, it is safe to assume that thisfragmented horncore belonged to a breed of domes-tic cattle.

An otter (Lutra lutra) bone was found in the samefaunal unit: a left distal humerus (medio-lateralbreadth = 26.5 mm, anterio-posterior breadth =11.0 mm). The distal articulation is fused. It is notweathered. This is the only known otter bone fromthe site, and the only one from the whole of the Da-nube Gorges Mesolithic-Neolithic sites.

The domed oven: 6000–5845 calBC (OxA–16212)

Context descriptionThis dated context relates to the domed oven foundin quadrant d/3 (Figs. 4, 8). On the basis of a fielddiary entry dated on July 26th, 1968, this domedoven was at first recognized as a contour of red bur-ned soil in the 2nd excavation spit in quadrant d/3,and this situation was planned. The field diary entrydated on July 30th, 1968, mentions that during theexcavation of the 8th spit in quadrants d/2–4, thesoil was yellow and sandy in the part closer to thed line of the site grid, while only next to the c lineof the site grid and around the oven (which the ex-cavator in the diary characterizes as ‘pottery kiln’),the soil was grey and contains pottery. This soil dif-ference was investigated on July 31th, 1968. Here isa translation of the original diary entry for this dayon this context:

“In quadrants d/2–4 the level with stones belong-ing to LV IIIa horizon and Burial 48 were plannedat the 8th spit. The 9th spit is being excavated. Allquadrants and the area with grey soil are beingdug, while the area with yellow soil is left at the le-vel of the 8th spit. The line dividing the grey andyellow soils runs approximately through the mid-dle of these quadrants [along x axis]. In the 9th

spit, in the same soil, there were numerous findsof pottery and bones. A [whole] pot was removedfrom the 8th spit on the western side of the potterykiln, while on the eastern side of the kiln one frag-mented globular pot was found in the 9th spit. A ce-ramic altar leg with a fragmented part of a recep-


62

tacle was found in quadrant d/4. The pottery kilnwith its dome was left [in situ] and was photogra-phed [p. 57–58].”

Here is also a detailed description of this featurefrom the field diary entry of August 2nd, 1968, whichclarifies its construction details:

“In quadrant d/3, a zone with red soil was firstnoticed in the 2nd spit. Later, in the following spits,it was determined that there was a large Neolithicdomed oven here. While excavating this feature, itwas noticed that it consists of red layered burnedsoil, i.e. the oven dome. Finally, it was determinedthat there were 3 layered domes, which meansthat the top of the oven was not covered with onedome, but with three layered domes. This ovenwas constructed by first digging an oval hole. Itsbottom (floor) was polished, i.e. specially prepa-red. This horizontal surface was polished and har-dened, while the largest [outer] dome connected tothe edges of this floor was left unpolished andwithout special treatment. On the basis of the re-mains of the inner, smaller domes, it is possible tosay that these were prepared and placed withinthe already formed [area of the] floor and the outerdome. This was done by applying them to the in-ner walls of the outer dome, while at the entranceof the oven these were smoothed with the outerdome, and partly layered over it. The points of con-tact between the floor and the domes (two innerones) are then smoothed/polished, leaving the im-pression of a new floor (visible at the edges of thefloor). On the basis of the position of the collapseddomes and the lack of an opening on the outerdome on all of the preserved sides of the oven, itis possible to assume that the opening would havebeen at the north-eastern side of the oven, probablyfacing the Danube. While excavating the oven, [dis-articulated] human bones (Burial 52) were foundon the oven floor. Between the inner domes, closerto the outer dome, there were two pottery fragmentswhich were highly burned. Between domes, twozones with stones were found, one with smallerand the other with larger stones. The oven is sha-ped like a shoe-last. The diameter of the floor is 1.5by 1.4 m. The height of the [preserved] outer domeis 0.52 m, the thickness of the dome walls is 2–3 cmand the thickness of the oven floor is 6–7 cm. Thethickness of all domes is similar [p. 66–68].”

This domed oven is one of the most striking featuresat Lepenski Vir when it comes to the appearance ofEarly Neolithic material culture in the Danube Gorges.

It is the most obvious example of a very differentmaterial culture tradition from the trapezoidal buil-dings. It was found outside the area of trapezoidalbuildings, at a higher terrace, and almost in the linewith the trapezoidal buildings Houses 54 and 57/XLIV (Fig. 8). There are at least another two featu-res that can be characterized as domed ovens. Whilefor two of these features (one that we describe hereand one more) no association with dwelling structu-res was recognized or reported during excavation,one such possible oven was also recognized in thetransformation of the hearth area on the floor ofHouse 5, where an abandoned trapezoidal buildingwas probably reused during phase III from around5900–5700 (or later?) calBC (Srejovi≤ 1969.162–163; Peri≤ & Nikoli≤ 2005). One should also notethat such ovens are relatively rarely found in theEarly Neolithic central and northern Balkans, and itremains unclear what might have been the exactfunction of such features. In Greece, Perlès (2001.194–196) acknowledges the possibility that the re-mains of some ovens found at Achelleion might havebeen the earliest fully domed ovens in Europe. Atmost of the sites where these features appear insouth-east Europe, they are found rather outside of

Fig. 8. Domed oven found in quadrant d/3 at Le-penski Vir. The two largest buildings at LepenskiVir, Houses 57/XLIV and 54 are visible in the back-ground.


63

buildings and it seems that at Lepenski Vir, the samewas the case. Keeping in mind the technological cha-racteristics of the Early and Middle Neolithic Star≠e-vo pottery, such as the low firing at temperatures upto 800°C that might have been achieved in openbonfires or pits (Szakmány et al. 2005; see also Per-lès 2001.213 for Greece), one could assume that do-med ovens were unnecessary for the production oftypical Star≠evo pottery.

On the basis of the diary description, it seems thatthe oven was used over a longer period, with seve-ral, or at least two episodes of renewal, unless it wasnormal to build several layers of a dome in order tokeep it stable. Be that as it may, this feature hints ata very particular type of knowledge and a very diffe-rent construction technique from that used in theconstruction of the Lepenski Vir limestone floors.Such technical knowledge must have come fromelsewhere, i.e. it must have been either learned bythe local population in contact with farming groups,or this knowledge relates to incomers who were pi-cked up in the strontium signal of several analyzedindividuals dated to this period, i.e. phase LepenskiVir III (Price & Bori≤ forthcoming). The relativelyearly AMS date for domestic goat associated withthis feature may indicate that the oven might havebeen placed here very soon after the abandonmentof most of the trapezoidal buildings, which furtherindicates that the beginnings of phase III could haveeither coincided with the process of the abandon-ment of trapezoidal building of phase I–II, or follo-wed it closely, probably without a break in the stra-tigraphic/temporal sequence.

It is also very intriguing that disarticulated humanbones (two fragmented femura, two clavicles and ribfragments, marked as Burial 52) were found on thefloor of this feature. Unfortunately, there is no men-tion in the field diary about whether these boneswere burned, or whether and in what way the soilwithin the feature was burned to give some clues asto the character of this deposition and the nature of

the abandonment and infilling of this feature. For afuture AMS dating programme it would be desirableto date these human remains in order to attempt adating of the backfilling event with regard to theoven. However, there is a possibility that in this wayone would date residual remains rather than the actof backfilling itself, and a prior taphonomic exami-nation of these bones would be the best way to pro-ceed.

Faunal descriptionOxA–16212 dates a right proximal metacarpal of do-mestic goat Carpa hircus (medio-lateral breadth =28.9, anterio-posterior width = 20.4 mm) (Fig. 9).The bone belonged to an old animal, probably male,according to its large size and accentuated muscle in-sertions. Its size, in fact, exceeds all finds of Neoli-thic goats in Serbia. However, a goat metacarpalwith a medio-lateral width of 28.5 mm and anterio-posterior breadth of 20 mm is found at the Late Neo-lithic site of Berettyóújfalu-Herpály, and a metacar-pal with medio-lateral width of 29 mm and anterio-posterior width of 19 mm at the Bronze Age site ofTiszaluc-Dankadomb in Hungary (Bökönyi 1974.518).Such a large size makes it comparable to wild bovi-nes, like chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra) (maximalproximal breadth both in females and males = 23.0–27.0, proximal depth 17.0–19.0, in males 17.0–20.0,after Bosold 1968.tabelle 5) or ibex Capra ibex (ma-ximal proximal breadth in females = 27.0–32.0, and30.0–36.0 in males, proximal depth in females 18.0–23.0, and 20.0–24.0 in males, after Bosold 1968.Tab.6). Chamois is regularly present at the Lepenski Virculture sites (Lepenski Vir, Padina, Vlasac), whileibex is not, although its presence should not be ex-cluded, as the Danube Gorges should be its ideal ha-bitat and its presence is confirmed in the Upper Ple-istocene of the region, in the Tabula Traiana Cave,excavated in 2005 (Dimitrijevi≤ 2005). Fortunately,the morphology is helpful in this instance. The spe-cimen from the domed oven differs from chamois,since it lacks the incision on the caudal side of theproximal articulation, which is oriented towards theridge between medial and lateral articular facet (Prat1966.Pl. 61). Another difference is in the relation-ship between width and depth of the proximal arti-culation, i.e. the bone is more elongated in the me-dio-lateral direction than in chamois. In addition, itsmedial articular facet is markedly lower than in cha-mois and ibex (as well as in domestic sheep). Tracesof red burned clay and ash are present on the bonesurface, but also on the diaphysis break, indicatingthat the bone was broken prior to its deposition inthis context.

Fig. 9. AMS dated right proximal metacarpal of do-mestic goat Capra hircus (OxA–16212) found inassociation with a domed oven at Lepenski Vir.


64

The north-western part of the settlement:5988–5798 calBC (OxA–16253)

Context descriptionThis context relates to a long transact excavated ac-ross the northern spread of the settlement in quad-rants C/X–XVII along the lower reaches of the riverterrace (Fig. 4). No trapezoidal buildings with lime-stone floors were found here. There was at least oneclear Early Neolithic burial (Burial 66 in quadrant C/XII) in this area, as well as possibly much earlier Me-solithic occupation residues and a burial (Burial 67in quadrant C/XIII). In the upper levels, the remainsof Early Neolithic Star≠evo pottery were found.

Excavations in this area commenced on August 7th,1968. According to the field diary, on August 8th,1968, the upper layers of hill wash were being re-moved, and in quadrant C/XVII first fragments ofStar≠evo pottery were found in yellow soil mixedwith scree. It was noted that this level was taken asthe 1st excavation spit in this quadrant [p. 76]. Theexcavation of quadrant C/XVI, from which the sam-ple we dated originates, took place on August 9th,1968 [p. 79]. It was noted that in these quadrants,the layers slope towards the south-east, i.e. from theperiphery of the settlement toward the central partof the terrace. In the 2nd excavation spit with darksoil in quadrant C/XVI, there was a concentration oflarger stones that might have been part of a stoneconstruction. On August 10th, 1968, the 3rd spit wasremoved in quadrant C/XVI. From this comes thedated sample. It was noted that the soil was dark,loose and with very little gravel. Three large rockswere found in this quadrant at this level next to gridline C, i.e. closer to the river. There were numerousfinds of pottery at this level, the largest concentra-tion being encountered in this quadrant.

In the neighbouring quadrant, C/XV, the concentra-tion of larger stones continues deeper, and two boul-ders were also found here [p. 82]. In the 4th spit se-veral flint artefacts were found in quadrants C/XVand C/XVI, along with Early Neolithic pottery, as wellas a large stone axe (Antonovi≤ 2006.96, cataloguenumber 123). In the 6th spit the soil is loose andsandy, with some animal bones and no pottery [p.83]. It is possible that in this quadrant, older, Meso-lithic occupation residues were already reached atthis level as the consequence of the previously men-tioned sloping from the NW toward SE. In quadrantsC/XIV–XVI the number of pottery finds decreases inthe 5th and 6th spits [p. 88]. Also, in the 7th spit, alarge rock (bedrock?) was already reached in quad-

rant C/XVII. In C/XVI and XV, there were more con-struction stones in the same spit. Next to grid line B(upslope), the soil is yellow (sterile) and closer togrid line C (closer to the river) it is dark aroundthese stones. In the 8th spit in quadrant C/XV, asmall rectangular stone-lined hearth was found withan associated concentration of gravel and animalbones [p. 91]. It was temporarily marked as ‘House68’ [p. 96]. This feature confirms the Late Mesolithicoccupation of this area. At this level, Burial 68 wasalso found in quadrant C/XVI [p. 92]. In the 9th spitin this quadrant, the soil is dark around the hearth,while the bedrock or sterile soil were reachedaround it and in the neighbouring quadrants. Therewas also a layer of gravel behind the hearth. Afterlifting this layer of gravel, a thin layer of burnedwood was found [p. 98].

This stratigraphic sequence from quadrant C/XVIand the surrounding quadrants helps to understandthe complexity of the occupational sequence at Le-penski Vir. It would be helpful to date the Mesolithiclayer with the hearth and Burial 68, as it may be thecase that in this (probably peripheral) part of the set-tlement, one encounters a discontinuous sequenceencompassing the Late Mesolithic (Proto-LepenskiVir phases) and the Early Neolithic (Lepenski Vir IIIphase), without the presence of the transformatio-nal I–II phase between these two. In quadrants C/X–XII, two Early Neolithic pits were also found, aswell as a crouched Early Neolithic Burial 66 in qua-drant C/XII in the 5th excavation spit.

Faunal descriptionOxA–16253 dates the fragmented left mandible of adomestic goat Capra hircus (Fig. 10). The last pre-molar and all three molars are in alveoli. This was ayoung adult, on the basis of its teeth wear stage. Themandible surface shows traces of weathering fromplant root marks.

Backfill of trapezoidal buildings or pits? Rear,western area of the settlement: 6002–5845calBC (OxA–16213)

Context descriptionAccording to the field diary, the excavations in thisarea commenced on July 7th, 1968, encompassingquadrants cd/2, 1, I–IV (sector 2), although the hal-ves of quadrants cd/2 were excavated in the previ-ous season in 1967. There is a note in the diary thatin this part of the Lepenski Vir terrace the slope issignificantly steeper than in the area closer to theDanube [p. 6–7]. Upper levels consisting of sterile


65

deposits of hill wash were first removed in the lineof d quadrants in order to facilitate digging in qua-drants in line c. The first pottery finds in the line ofc quadrants were encountered on July 10th, 1968.Here, among animal bones and pottery fragments, 4fragments of fine pottery with a black painted or-nament on the red surface were found in the 1st spit[p.14–15]. In quadrants c/II–III a stone constructionwith associated Early Neolithic pottery was foundimmediately beneath the layer of hillwash, while inquadrant c/2 there was a concentration of pots withtwo large stone axes (Antonovi≤ 2006.93, cataloguenumber 115, catalogue number 124). In the 2nd

spit in c/1, I–II, the number of pottery fragments in-creases, some with impresso and others with incisedornamentation. There was also one black paintedfragment [p. 18]. It seems that a part of the stoneconstruction found in c/I extends back into quadrantd/I, where a large number of pottery fragments werefound, among which were fragments with a paintedblack rectilinear design [p. 21–22]. Two whole potswere found in quadrant c/1 in the 4th spit. In quad-rant c/I, one interesting object resembling a hookmade of bone was found in the same spit (Srejovi≤1969.Fig. VIII), as well as a stone weight with a gro-ove from a rope and a stone bead [p. 34].

From the 3rd excavation level in quadrant c/1, theremains of Burial 32 were encountered lying on topof a large rock that slanted towards the Danube. Thisburial was found along the line c/y–c/1. The burialwas excavated within the 5th spit. The burial con-sisted of several individuals placed in crouched po-sitions. There was another crouched, but headlessburial near-by in quadrant c/1: Burial 42 [p. 50].Skull fragments of this burial were found in the 4th

spit, while the rest of the body was found in the 6th

spit [p. 52], which may indicate that there was apractice of secondary burial, i.e. a post-depositionalremoval of the skull, which resembles various otherinstances of such practices in the Danube Gorges Me-solithic-Neolithic sites.

In quadrant c/I, from which our dated sample origi-nates, an Early Neolithic fire installation was recog-nized in the 5th excavation spit. This circular instal-lation had its floor renewed three times. The baseof the hearth is made of small stones 6–10 cm in dia-meter. Only a piece of the first floor was preserved,which was 2.5 cm thick. The second floor is 3 cmthick, is well-baked and polished, and slants to theside. The third floor is directly laid over the second,and slightly displaced toward section b of the sitegrid. This last floor layer was 2.5 cm thick and waspolished, well-baked and coarse-tempered. On thesurface, the floor is yellow-grey, while it is red-bur-ned at the bottom of the feature [p. 74]. This fire in-stallation was removed in the 8th spit. Pottery wasfound beneath the hearth [p. 75].

In the 6th excavation spit, the soil difference betweenyellowish soil on the one hand, and dark ‘sticky’ soil,on the other, indicated to the excavator the existenceof a feature that seems to have been spreading in thefront portions of quadrants c/1, I–III. If this weretrue, it would have been one large pit of some 20 mdiameter. However, as becomes obvious on the ba-sis of later field diary entries for this area, this soilchange probably relates to zones of backfilling inthe rear of the dug-in, i.e. semi-subterranean trape-zoidal buildings (Houses 43, 27, 20, 33 and 32; seeFig. 4). Since these were dug from a level that ishigher than the level on which the floor would befound (Bori≤ 1999; 2002a), these deposits, whichwere very loosely referred to as Early Neolithic pitinfills in the field diary, must have been in fact rearsides and infills of the cuts for the aforementionedtrapezoidal buildings. Hence these deposits, consis-ting of pottery and other finds, accumulated here af-ter the abandonment of trapezoidal buildings (seeFig. 3). In these fill deposits, numerous remains ofriver molluscs, tiny fish bones and Early Neolithicpottery were found. One bone hook was found herein quadrant c/II [p. 52]. In the 7th spit, the ‘pit’ is vi-sible along line b, where one encounters grey soilwith numerous pottery finds [p. 62]. The dated sam-ple of domestic cattle horncore comes from this spitin quadrant c/I. In the next excavation spit the zoneof this large ‘pit’ next to line b (closer to the river)is more visible in contrast with the yellow, sterile

Fig. 10. AMS dated fragment of the left mandible ofa domestic goat Capra hircus (OxA–16253) foundin quad. C/XVI, spit 3 at Lepenski Vir.


66

soil upslope. Child burial 53 was found in this spitin quadrant c/II [p. 65]. In this type of pit deposit,there were two more disarticulated burials – 56 and57 – found in quadrants c/IV and c/1 respectively.

One could assume that the previously mentionedBurial 32 is stratigraphically younger (5th excava-tion spit) than our dated domestic cattle horncore(7th excavation spit). This burial was directly AMSdated in the range 6076 to 5731 calBC at 95 per centprobability, after correcting for the reservoir effect(OxA–5828, Bonsall et al. 1997). As with some ofthe dates of human bones discussed above, there isa necessary correction of this date for the reservoireffect, and, therefore, its standard error is larger thandesirable for more refined chronological nuances.However, this range agrees broadly with the rangewe obtained on the domestic animal. If judged onthe basis of their stratigraphic positions and by com-parison to the more confined range of the domesticanimal bone, it is possible that Burial 32 is in factslightly younger than the freshwater corrected valueindicates.

In the 10th spit in quadrants c/2, 1, I–IV, one findsthe continuation of the zone of dark soil next to lineb mixed with charcoal. This zone ends in quadrantc/III. In quadrants c/2 and c/1, the remains of a tra-pezoidal building (House 43) are visible at this level[p. 75]. There are large stone plaques at this level inquadrants c/I and c/III. In c/I, close to line b, therewere remains of a limestone floor, probaly belongingto Lepenski Vir I [p. 76], as well as zones of red bur-ned soil and associated pottery [p. 77]. These floorremains were marked as House 66 (Fig. 4). In the11th spit, stone construction belonging to House 32was recognized in quadrants c/II–III. Below this le-vel in most of these quadrants, there was sterile soil,in which these trapezoidal buildings were interred[p. 78].

On the basis of the field diary descriptions of thisarea of the site, its stratigraphy and finds, one maysuggest that the rear parts of the buried and abando-ned trapezoidal buildings in this row must still havebeen visible and appropriated at a time when all theelements of the Early Neolithic reached Lepenski Vir.During phase III, this area was extensively used, andit seems that no clear Early Neolithic pit features canbe recognized, as is the case with the previously de-scribed row of Pits 1–3. OxA–16213 on domestic cat-tle bone may confirm this point and overlaps therange of occupation of trapezoidal buildings. Hencethere must have been no large chronological gap se-

parating the two phases, despite dramatic changesin the type of occupation. On the other hand, it re-mains of interest to try to date animal bone samplesfrom the same area which come from the upper le-vels/spits, where black-painted rectilinear ornamentsappear on pottery. Such ornaments are a typologicalcharacteristic of a later phase in the Star≠evo potterysequence (see discussion in Whittle et al. 2002)that can be characterized as the Middle Neolithic ofthe north-central Balkans, and it remains importantto define the time of the final Neolithic abandonmentof Lepenski Vir.

Faunal descriptionOxA–16213 dates a right proximal metatarsal of adomestic cattle Bos taurus (Fig. 11). Its size (medio-lateral breadth = 53.6 mm, antero-posterior breadth= 53.5 mm) indicates a domestic animal. Althoughdistal articulation, which fuses later in metapodials,is broken, it is safe to conclude that the bone belon-ged to an adult, if not an old animal, according tothe compactness of the bone structure and strongmuscle attachments. Two other domestic cattle bonesare preserved in this unit; one of them, a centrotar-sal from the same animal as it joins the metatarsalproximal articulation dated by OxA–16213. The thirdbone is an astragalus. This astragalus is probablyfrom the same animal, since it belonged to a rightleg, and given its size and bone structure, would fittwo other described specimens.

There are butchering marks on all three bones: asingle inclined elongated cut-mark on the metatarsaldiaphysis, some four centimeters below the proxi-mal articulation, and several rows of cut-marks bothon the centrotarsal and astragalus. Three short anddeep transverse parallel cuts are found on the me-dial side of the centrotarsal, and three additional sub-horizontal cut-marks are found next to the proximalarticulation on the cranial side of the same bone.There are many short transverse cuts on the cranialside of the astragalus: three on the medial ridge ofthe proximal trochlea, two at the distal end of thelateral ridge of the proximal trochlea, one mediallybetween the proximal and distal trochlea, and threemore at the lateral incision between the proximaland distal trochlea. The position of these cut-marksindicates that they were made in the process of dis-memberment. Their large number may support ourconclusion that it was an old animal. Furthermore,there are osteoporotic changes in two places on theastragalus: cranially in the base of the lateral ridgeof the proximal trochlea, and caudally at the lateralhalf of the distal trochlea.


67

Apart from these three domestic cattle bones, onemore bone is preserved from this unit, a sheep’sright shoulder blade. It bears cut marks – a longitu-dinal cut at the base of the spina scapulae – fromfilleting.

Discussion

According to Srejovi≤’s stratigrahic phasing, Lepen-ski Vir III with subphases a and b represents an EarlyNeolithic settlement at this location clearly separa-ted from the Mesolithic development at the site asrepresented by the Proto-Lepenski Vir, Lepenski VirI and II phases. This conclusion was based on thenew material culture that appears at the site withthe start of the Neolithic, as well as on the basis ofSrejovi≤’s understanding of the site’s chronologicaland stratigraphic sequence: “Lepenski Vir II wasneither burnt nor destroyed; the hearths, the stonesculptures and the household implements are co-vered by a fine layer of dark sand, giving the im-pression that the settlement was suddenly abando-ned and, for some time, lay desolate.” (Srejovi≤1972.139).

As mentioned previously, new AMS dates force us toreconsider a number of aspects of the site’s stratig-raphy, and a more detailed discussion of some speci-fic aspects of these results is provided elsewhere(Bori≤ & Dimitrijevi≤ in press). Here we primarilyfocus on the transformational (Lepenski Vir I–II)and Early Neolithic (Lepenski Vir III) phases. The Le-penski Vir II phase cannot really be sustained as aseparate phase, given recent stratigraphic observa-tions (see above; Bori≤ 2002a) and new AMS dates.Our dating results indicate that the span of five dates(6005–5798 calBC at 95 per cent probability) fromdomestic animals as a secure indication of the arri-val of the full ‘Neolithic package’ found in variousfeatures outside of the area of trapezoidal buildings

is only slightly younger than the range of dates forthe occupation of the trapezoidal structures (6240–5845 calBC at 95 per cent probability). The range ofdates obtained by dating domestic animals associa-ted with Early Neolithic features such as pits or ovensalso partly overlaps with the range of occupation andabandonment of the trapezoidal buildings, suggest-ing that we should probably exclude a major strati-graphic and temporal hiatus between these differentpatterns of occupation.

However, changes at Lepenski Vir seem to be consi-derable, both in the material culture, where all ele-ments of the ‘Neolithic package’ are included, and inburial practices with the appearance of crouched in-humations. Sometimes these inhumations were foundon the floors of trapezoidal buildings (Burials 8 and9 in House 24, and Burial 19 in House XLIV/57),which might already have been abandoned at thetime of the interment, and/or buildings were trans-formed into burial sites with an awareness and me-mory of their existence, if not always of particularmeanings associated with these structures, then atleast of their physical presence (contra Srejovi≤ 1969.161). We have dated one of theses burials, a head-less crouched inhumation (Burial 19; see footnote 4,Fig. 3) found close to the large rectangular stone-li-ned hearth of House XLIV/57. The hearth was sur-rounded by a concentration of most striking repre-sentational boulders showing human-fish hybrids(see Bori≤ 2005c).

It is very relevant to mention that new strontiumisotope analyses show that several Early Neolithiccrouched inhumations from Lepenski Vir might havebeen of non-local origin (Price & Bori≤ forthcom-ing). It remains open to speculation whether thesenewcomers to Lepenski Vir could be considered as arepresentative sample of a new population wave thatovertakes the region and is solely responsible forthe specifically Early Neolithic features such as pitsand ovens.6 Such a view would partly be in accordwith the proponents of the demic diffusion scenariofor the Neolithization of Europe (e.g. van Andel &Runnels 1995; Perlès 2001), apart from the fact thatthe change in the Danube Gorges took place over se-veral centuries (from around 6300 BC) with theslow, phased adoption of parts of the Neolithic pac-kage (pottery, polished stone axes and Spondylusbeads) and only later (after 5900 calBC) acceptanceof the full ‘Neolithic package’, including domestica-

Fig. 11. AMS dated right proximal metatarsal of dome-stic cattle Bos taurus (OxA–16213) found in quad.c/I, spit 7 at Lepenski Vir.

6 Spaces of trapezoidal buildings Houses 5 and 8 were transformed in this period and adopted to new needs by constructing newdomed ovens (Srejovi≤ 1969.162–163).


68

tes. Also, there is no clear sign of the violent destruc-tion of the forager community at this and other sitesat this time that would suggest a violent intrusion ofEarly Neolithic populations, although one cannot ruleout the possibility of small-scale conflicts.7

Another scenario would be that the local populationmixed with, it seems now, surprisingly mobile EarlyNeolithic groups that themselves might have adop-ted farming and new social and ideological frame-works not that long before their intensive interac-tions with the Danube Gorges foragers. The latterscenario could account with a staged, but voluntaryconversion of the Danube foragers into Neolithicways of life (see discussions in Bori≤ 2005a; 2005b;2006; 2007; Chapman 1994; 2000; Radovanovi≤2006; Tringham 2000; Whittle 1998; etc.). Such ascenario seems to be more at ease with the currentevidence. It accounts with the continuation of spe-cific local ways of life based on fishing and othereveryday practices involved in the occupation ofwhat were already very old and probably importantlocales on the banks of the Danube. There must havebeen at least partial recognition of previous buildingfeatures at these places (see above). Such a scenarioalso accommodates the evidence of dramatic changesin the type of occupation and new objects (pots, po-lished stone axes, large blades of yellow white-spot-ted flint, Spondylus beads, etc.) that were being in-troduced into the Danube Gorges.

In order to achieve an even finer-grained resolutionof the chronological scale, still more AMS dates willbe required, along with the statistical Bayesian mo-delling of the probability ranges in order to narrowdown the duration of specific events we are tryingto date. One question that also needs to be addres-sed in the light of the new data is the upper limit ofthe Neolithic occupation of Lepenski Vir. While pre-vious charcoal dates suggested that the site was inuse up until c. 5400 BC, our results based on sam-ples of animal bone indicate that the upper limit iscurrently around 5750 BC (see Fig. 3). A few AMSdated human burials belonging to phase III at Lepen-ski Vir may extend this upper limit to c. 5500 BC(see Tab. 2; Bonsall et al. 1997; 2004; Price & Bo-ri≤ forthcoming). Existing AMS dates from the con-temporaneous site of Padina suggest that some tra-pezoidal buildings at this site (House 15 and 18, seeJovanovi≤ 1987) were used until c. 5500 BC (Bori≤& Miracle 2004; Whittle et al. 2002). It is possiblethat future dates would firmly establish the upper

limit for the occupation of Lepenski Vir c. 5500 BC.This conclusion can also be related to the appearanceof black painted rectilinear designs on Star≠evo redpottery, as in the case of the previously discussed se-quence in quadrants c/2, 1, I–IV from which one ofthe dated samples originate (see above). Such pain-ted pottery is characteristic of the late Star≠evo pot-tery style (for a review of such typological discus-sions see Whittle et al. 2002). The appearance ofsuch pottery in the uppermost levels of Lepenski Virin certain parts of the settlement was the main rea-son that Srejovi≤ suggested two subphases, a and b,within phase III. However, more new dates from theuppermost levels of the site, or from well-definedfeatures with a distinct material culture, are neces-sary in order to accept the existence of these sepa-rate subphases. The publication of all pottery findsfrom this site with all contextual details would be astep in this direction.

It appears that after c. 5500 BC, the region of theDanube Gorges was abandoned for a whole millen-nium. No early Vin≠a culture settlements are knownfrom this area. Why this happened remains an im-portant and interesting, if very difficult, question toanswer. The first indication of the later reuse of Le-penski Vir can be connected with the Eneolithic pe-riod, when a female adult, Burial 2, was buried in acrouched position in quadrant A/II in the 1st excava-tion spit (see Fig. 4). The burial pit was cut throughthe Early Neolithic levels, and the skeleton wasfound at 80 cm below the surface. It was accompa-nied by several whole pots that belong to the Salku-ta culture group (Letica 1970). The burial is alsonow dated in the range 4237–3974 calBC at 95 percent probability after correcting for the freshwaterreservoir effect (Bonsall et al. 2004.299, Tab. 1).

On the basis of the discussion so far, largely basedon the new dating results coupled with a new under-standing of stratigraphic relations at Lepenski Vir,we suggest a somewhat revised phasing of this keysite of the Mesolithic-Neolithic sequence in the Danu-be Gorges (Tab. 2, see also Bori≤ & Dimitrijevi≤ inpress).

This revised phasing largely keeps the old nomencla-ture of the excavator. We would like to avoid confu-sions and complications of suggesting completelynew labels for particular phases when there is noneed for such a radical break from the original un-derstanding of the site’s stratigraphy. Although there

7 Evidence of body traumas from violent conflicts in the Danube Gorges is abundant for the Late Mesolithic (c. 7200–6600 BC) pe-riod (Boroneant 1993; Cook et al. 2002; Roksandi≤ 2004).


69

is no clear chronological continuity between the EarlyMesolithic phases and the transformational phase,we think that it is appropriate to keep the originalname of this phase ‘Proto-Lepenski Vir’, as it hintsat the general regional continuity of occupying thesame locales for several millennia, probably by thesame cultural tradition (see Bori≤ & Miracle 2004).Such a conclusion is in particular valid for phase Pro-to-LV 2, when stone-lined hearths, as striking featu-res of continuity with the later period, might haveappeared for the first time. However, one shouldemphasize that granting such regional continuitydoes not imply that the meanings and significance ofcertain practices from these early phases of occupa-tion of the site and its later re-use remained the sameand unaltered.

Conclusion

New AMS dates show a long duration of the earlyMesolithic phase, from around 9300 to 7200 calBC,with dates clustering in two main subphases. Thesedates can be associated with the excavator’s originalphase of Proto-Lepenski Vir. At present, there is nodating evidence for the occupation of the site in theLate Mesolithic, i.e. from around 7200 to 6300 calBC.The Lepenski Vir I phase, associated with the con-struction and occupation of trapezoidal buildingswith limestone floors, begins around 6250 calBC

and lasts only several centuries. It seems that by5900 calBC most of the buildings of phase I wereabandoned as habitation features. In the light ofnew dates, it seems difficult to sustain the chronolo-gical as well as stratigraphic existence of phase II,and we suggest merging this phase with phase I.Subphases of phase I, representing building phases,must be revised too, and only with a future control-led dating and the application of statistical model-ling might it be possible to narrow down the magni-tude of error and suggest a more realistic chronolo-gical framework for the occupation and abandon-ment of particular (groups of) structures.

Boric & Dimitrijevic SrejovicPeriod LV phase cal BC @ 2 s.d. Material culture Period LV phaseMiddle Neolithic III 6002–5752 (A) Pits, domed ovens, domesticates, culti- Middle

IIIb(c. 5900–5500 BC) (6 dates) gens (|), Middle Neolithic Star;evo style Neolithic6076–5478 (H) pottery, polished stone axes, ‘Balkan’

(6 dates) flint< crouched, disarticulated & some Early IIIaextended (|) burials, Spondylus beads. Neolithic

Transformational\ I–II 6240–5845 (A) Trapezoidal buildings, sculpted IIEarly Neolithic (20 dates) boulders, extended burials parallel to(c. 6300–5900 BC) 6216–5746 (H) the river, neonate burials, Early Neolithic

(9 dates) Star;evo style pottery, polished stone Ia–eaxes, ‘Balkan’ flint

Late Mesolithic – – Non-existent at LV| Mesolithic(c. 7500–6300 BC)Early Mesolithic Proto–LV 2 7580–7190 (H) Stone-lined hearths, extended &(c. 9500–7500 BC) (1 date) disarticulated burials, seated burials

8218–7587 (A) w\crossed legs Proto-LV(3 dates)

Proto-LV 1 9441–9150 (A) Occupation residues,(3 dates) hearths (|), burials (|)

Tab. 2. Comparative chronological table for the phasing of the stratigraphic sequence at Lepenski Vir; A –animal bone samples; H – human bone samples (for details of new AMS dates see Fig. 3, Bori≤ & Dimitri-jevi≤ in press; other published dates of human bones from Lepenski Vir after Bonsall et al. 1997; Price &Bori≤ forthcoming).

We acknowledge the funding for the dating projectprovided through the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelera-tor Dating Service NERC-AHRC programme. We arealso grateful to the Ministry of Science and Environ-mental Protection of the Republic of Serbia for fun-ding the project ‘Kultura Lepenskog Vira: kulturniprocesi i transformacije u periodu od IX do VI mile-nijuma p.n.e.’, in the scope of which animal boneswere analysed. We thank Jay Stock and Alasdair Whit-tle for their useful comments on earlier drafts of thispaper. We would also like to express our thanks toMihael Budja for his superb organization of the 13th

Neolithic seminar in Ljubljana, where this paper waspresented.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


70

Also, it is unlikely that there was a hiatus betweenwhat we consider Lepenski Vir I–II and III phases.Phase III followed the abandonment of most of thetrapezoidal buildings, introducing a very differentoccupation pattern (notably the construction of do-med ovens and the digging of oval pits, as well asthe introduction of domesticates). It seems that sometrapezoidal buildings of phase I–II were recognizedand appropriated, mostly for burial purposes, duringphase III. This might have been a phase lasting seve-ral centuries, with evidence of repair of old features(e.g. transformations of rectangular hearths intoovens or the renewal of oven floors and domes). Do-

ANTONOVI≥ D. 2006. Stone tools from Lepenski Vir. Ar-heolo∏ki institut. Beograd.

BÖKÖNYI S. 1969. Ki≠menjaci (prethodni izve∏taj). In D.Srejovi≤ (ed.), Lepenski Vir. Nova praistorijska kulturau Podunavlju. Srpska knji∫evna zadruga. Beograd: 224–228.

1972. The Vertebrate Fauna. In D. Srejovi≤ (ed.), Eu-rope’s First Monumental Sculpture: New Discoveriesat Lepenski Vir. Thames and Hudson. London: 186–189.

1974. History of Domestic Mammals in Central andEastern Europe. Akadémiai Kiado. Budapest.

BONSALL C., LENNON R., MCSWEENEY K., STEWART C.,HARKNESS D., BORONEANT V., BARTOSIEWICZ L., PAY-TON R. and CHAPMAN J. 1997. Mesolithic and early Neo-lithic in the Iron Gates: a palaeodietary perspective. Jour-nal of European Archaeology 5(1): 50–92.

BONSALL C., COOK G., LENNON R., HARKNESS D., SCOTTM., BARTOSIEWICZ L. and MCSWEENEY K. 2000. StableIsotopes, Radiocarbon and the Mesolithic-Neolithic Tran-sition in the Iron Gate. In M. Budja (ed.), 7th NeolithicStudies. Documenta Praehistorica 27: 119–132.

BONSALL C., COOK G. T., HEDGES R. E. M., HIGHAM T. F.G., PICKARD C. and RADOVANOVI≥ I. 2004. Radiocarbonand stable isotope evidence of dietary changes from theMesolithic to the Middle Ages in the Iron Gates: new re-sults from Lepenski Vir. Radiocarbon 46(1): 293–300.

BORI≥ D. 1999. Places that created time in the DanubeGorges and beyond, c. 9000–5500 cal BC. In M. Budja(ed.), 6th Neolithic Studies. Documenta praehistorica26: 47–70.

2002a. The Lepenski Vir conundrum: reinterpretationof the Mesolithic and Neolithic sequences in the Da-nube Gorges. Antiquity 76: 1026–1039.

2002b. Seasons, life cycles and memory in the DanubeGorges, c. 10000–5500 BC. Unpublished Ph.D. Disser-tation. University of Cambridge.

2005a. Deconstructing essentialisms: unsettling fron-tiers of the Mesolithic-Neolithic Balkans. In D. Bailey,A. Whittle and V. Cummings (eds.), (un)settling theNeolithic. Oxbow Books. Oxford: 16–31.

2005b. Fuzzy horizons of change: Orientalism and thefrontier model of the Meso-Neolithic transition, in N.Milner and P. Woodman (eds.), Mesolithic Studies atthe beginning of the 21st Century. Oxbow Books. Ox-ford: 81–105.

2005c. Body Metamorphosis and Animality: VolatileBodies and Boulder Artworks from Lepenski Vir. Cam-bridge Archaeological Journal 15(1): 35–69.

2006. New discoveries at the Mesolithic-Early Neolithicsite of Vlasac: Preliminary notes. Mesolithic Miscellany18(1): 7–14.

2007. Mesolithic-Neolithic interactions in the DanubeGorges. In J. K. Kozłowski and M. Nowak (eds.), Meso-lithic-Neolithic Interactions in the Danube Basin.British Archaeological Reports, Int. Ser. (in press). Ar-chaeopress. Oxford.

BORI≥ D. and MIRACLE P. 2004. Mesolithic and Neolithic(dis)continuities in the Danube Gorges: New AMS datesfrom Padina and Hajdu≠ka Vodenica (Serbia). OxfordJournal of Archaeology 23(4): 341–371.

REFERENCES

∴∴

mestic animals, which were not present during phaseI–II, make their appearance at the site in the periodafter 6000/5900 calBC, when all the other elementsof the Early Neolithic habitation pattern also becameestablished. The introduction of domestic animalswas the final element of the ‘Neolithic package’ thatbecame available and accepted by the inhabitants ofthe site. At that time, Lepenski Vir had for severalcenturies been accepting slowly both various aspectsof the new, Early Neolithic material culture, as wellas the living and the dead bodies of foreign humanbeings.


71

BORI≥ D., GRUPE G., PETERS J. and MIKI≥ Ω. 2004. Is theMesolithic-Neolithic subsistence dichotomy real? New sta-ble isotope evidence from the Danube Gorges. EuropeanJournal of Archaeology 7(3): 221–248.

BORI≥ D. and DIMITRIJEVI≥ V. 2005. Continuity of fora-ging strategies in Mesolithic-Neolithic transformations: Da-ting faunal patterns at Lepenski Vir (Serbia). Atti della So-cietà per la preistoria e protoistoria della regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia XV (2004–05): 33–107.

in press. Apsolutna hronologija i stratigrafija LepenskogVira (Absolute Chronology and Stratigraphy of Lepen-ski Vir). Starinar.

BORONEANT V. 1993. Nouvelles données sur découvertesanthropoloqiques de Schela Cladovei a Drobeta Turnu Se-verin (Roumanie). L’Anthropologie (Paris) 97(2/3): 511–514.

BOSOLD K. 1968. Geschlechts- und Gattungsunterschiedean Metapodien und Phalangen mitteleuropäischen Wild-wiederkäuer. Säugetierkundlische Mitteilungen 16(2):93–153.

BRONK RAMSEY C. 1995. Radiocarbon calibration andanalysis of stratigraphy: the OxCal Program. Radiocarbon37(2): 425–430.

2001. Development of the radiocarbon program OxCal.Radiocarbon 43(2A): 355–363.

CHAPMAN J. C. 1994. The origins of farming in South EastEurope. Préhistoire Européenne 6: 133–156.

2000. Fragmentation in Archaeology. People, placesand broken objects in the prehistory of south-easternEurope. Routledge. London and New York.

COOK G., BONSALL C., HEDGES R. E. M., MCSWEENEY K.,BORONEANT V., BARTOSIEWICZ L. and PETTITT P. B.2002. Problems of dating human bones from the Iron Ga-tes. Antiquity 76: 77–85.

DIMITRIJEVI≥ V. 2000. The Lepenski Vir fauna: bones inhouses and between houses. In M. Budja (ed.), 7th Neoli-thic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 27: 101–117.

2005. Vertebrate fauna from Tabula Traian Cave. Un-published manuscript.

in press. Lepenski Vir animal bones: what was left inthe houses? Proceeding of the Conference "The IronGates in Prehistory: New Perspectives", Edinburgh, 30March – 2 April 2000.

forthcoming. Vin≠a – Belo Brdo, campaigns 1998–2003,vertebrate fauna. Unpublished manuscript.

DRIECH VON DEN A. 1976. A Guide to the Measurmentof animal bones from archeological sites. Peabody Mu-seum Bulletin 1. Harvard University. Cambridge.

GARAπANIN M. and RADOVANOVI≥ I. 2001. A pot in house54 at Lepenski Vir I. Antiquity 75(287): 118–125.

GIMBUTAS M. 1976. Chronology. In M. Gimbutas (ed.),Neolithic Macedonia: as reflected by excavation at Anza,southeast Yugoslavia. The Institute of Archaeology, Uni-versity of California at Los Angeles. Los Angeles: 29–77.

GRUPE G., MANHART H., MIKI≥ Ω. and PETERS J. 2003.Vertebrate food webs and subsistence strategies of Meso-and Neolithic populations of central Europe. In G. Grupeand J. Peters (eds.), Documenta Archaeobiologiae 1.Yearbook of the State Collection of Anthropology andPalaeoanatomy, München, Germany. Verlag M. Leidorf.Rahden/Westf.: 193–213.

JOVANOVI≥ B. 1969. Chronological Frames of the IronGate Group of the Early Neolithic Period. ArchaeologicaIugoslavica 10: 23–38.

1987. Die Architektur und Keramik der Siedlung Padi-na B am Eisernen Tor, Jugoslawien. Germania 65(1):1–16.

LANTING J. N. and VAN DER PLICHT J. 1998. Reservoir ef-fects and apparent ages. The Journal of Irish Archaeo-logy 9: 151–165.

LETICA Z. 1970. Grob Salkuta kulture sa Lepenskog Vira.Starinar XXI: 117–124.

MILISAUSKAS S. 1978. European Prehistory. AcademicPress. New York.

PERLÈS C. 2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece. The firstfarming communities in Europe. Cambridge UniversityPress. Cambridge.

PERI≥ S. and NIKOLI≥ D. 2004. Stratigraphic, Cultural andChronological Characteristics of the Pottery from Lepen-ski Vir – 1965 Excavations. In S. Peri≤ (ed.), The CentralPomoravlje in Neolithisation of South-East Europe. TheNeolithic in the Middle Morava Valley 1. ArchaeologicalInstitute. Belgrade: 157–217.

PRAT F. 1966. Les Capridé. In Lavocat R. (ed.), Atlas dePréhistoire, Tome III, Faunes et flores préhistoriques del’Europe Occidentale. Editions N. Boubée et Cie. Paris:279–321.

PRICE T. D. and BORI≥ D. forthcoming. Mobility in theMesolithic-Neolithic Danube Gorges: Strontium IsotopeAnalyses. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology.


72

QUITTA H. 1975. Die Radiocarbondaten und ihre histo-rische Interpretation. In D. Srejovi≤ (ed.), Lepenski Vir.Eine vorgeschichtliche Geburtsstätte europäischer Kul-tur. Gustav Lübbe Verlag. Bergisch Gladbach: 272–285.

RADOVANOVI≥ I. 1996a. The Iron Gates Mesolithic. In-ternational Monographs in Prehistory. Ann Arbor. Michi-gan.

1996b. Mesolithic/Neolithic contacts: a case of the IronGates region. Poro≠ilo o raziskovanju paleolitika,neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji 23: 39–48.

2000. Houses and burials at Lepenski Vir. EuropeanJournal of Archaeology 3(3): 330–349.

2006. Further notes on Mesolithic-Neolithic contacts inthe Iron Gates Region and the Central Balkans. In M.Budja (ed.), 13th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Prae-historica 33: 111–128.

ROKSANDI≥ M. 2004. Contextualizing the evidence of vio-lent death in the Mesolithic: Burials associated with vic-tims of violence in the Iron Gates Gorge. In M. Roksandi≤(ed.), Evidence and meaning of violent interactions inMesolithic Europe. Archaeopress. Oxford: 53–74.

RUSSELL N. 1993. Hunting, herding and feasting: Hu-man use of animals in Neolithic southeast of Europe.UMI Dissertation Services.

SREJOVI≥ D. 1969. Lepenski Vir – Nova praistorijska kul-tura u Podunavlju. Srpska knji∫evna zadruga. Beograd.

1972. Europe’s First Monumental Sculpture: New Dis-coveries at Lepenski Vir. Thames and Hudson. London.

SREJOVI≥ D. and BABOVI≥ L. 1983. Umetnost LepenskogVira. Beograd. Jugoslavija.

SZAKMÁNY G., STARNINI E. and RAUCSIK B. 2005. A pre-liminary Archeomtric Investigation of Early-Neolithic Pot-tery from the Körös Culture (S. Hungary). In H. Kars andE. Burke (eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd InternationalSymposium on Archaeometry, 22–26 April 2002, Am-sterdam (Geological and Biological Studies, Vol. 3, 2005).

TASI≥ N. N. 1992. A review of the C14 series of dates from∑erdap. Balcanica (Hommage a Nikola Tasi≤. A l’occa-sion de ses soixante ans) XXIII: 89–98.

TRINGHAM R. 2000. Southeastern Europe in the transitionto agriculture in Europe: bridge, buffer or mosaic. In T. D.Price (ed.), Europe’s first farmers. Cambridge UniversityPress. Cambridge: 19–56.

VAN ANDEL T. and RUNNELS C. 1995. The earliest farm-ers in Europe. Antiquity 69: 481–500.

WHITTLE A. 1998. Fish, faces and fingers: presences andsymbolic identities in the Mesolithic-Neolithic transitionin the Carpathian Basin. In M. Budja (ed.), 5th NeolithicStudies. Documenta praehistorica 25: 133–150.

WHITTLE A., BARTOSIEWICZ L., BORI≥ D., PETTITT P. andRICHARDS M. 2002. In the beginning: new radiocarbondates for the Early Neolithic in northern Serbia and south-east Hungary. Antaeus 25: 63–117.

2005. New radiocarbon dates for the Early Neolithic innorthern Serbia and south-east Hungary. Antaeus 28:347–355.

64. When did the ‘Neolithic package’ reach Lepenski Vir? Radiometric and faunal evidence

Documents

Transcript of 64. When did the ‘Neolithic package’ reach Lepenski Vir? Radiometric and faunal evidence