Late Mesolithic lifeways and deathways at Vlasac (Serbia)

Late Mesolithic lifeways and deathways atVlasac (Serbia)

Dusan Boric1, Charles A. I. French2, Sofija Stefanovic3, Vesna Dimitrijevic3,Emanuela Cristiani2, Maria Gurova4, Dragana Antonovic5, Ethel Allue6,Dragana Filipovic7

1Cardiff University, Cardiff, U.K., 2University of Cambridge, Cambridge, U.K., 3Belgrade University, Belgrade,Serbia, 4Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria, 5Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences, Belgrade,Serbia, 6Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, Spain, 7Oxford University, Oxford, U.K.

Recent excavations (2006–2009) at the Mesolithic-Neolithic site of Vlasac in the Danube Gorges region ofthe north-central Balkans have focused on a reevaluation of previous conclusions about site formationprocesses, stratigraphy, chronology, and the nature of occupation. Mostly Late Mesolithic remains hadbeen encountered in the preserved portion of the site, but, for the first time, in a restricted zone of theexcavated area, vertical stratification of burial and occupation features yielded evidence about the use ofthe site in the period that is contemporaneous with Phase I–II at Lepenski Vir, the Mesolithic-Neolithictransition phase in this region, ca. 6200–5900 CAL B.C. Various strands of archaeological evidence showboth continuities and discontinuities in Late Mesolithic forager life- and deathways at the start of theNeolithic in the central Balkans.

Keywords: southeastern Europe, Mesolithic-Neolithic transition, Vlasac, the Danube Gorges, forager-farmer interactions

Introduction: The Research ContextThere are few places in Europe, and even fewer in

southeastern Europe, where one can study details of

the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition when autochtho-

nous communities of Late Mesolithic foragers were

affected by the spread of the Neolithic economy and

lifeways. Despite years of research, including targeted

surveys that aimed at identifying pre-Neolithic

occupation in parts of Greece and the Balkans (e.g.,

Chapman et al. 1996; Cherry and Parkinson 2003;

Runnels et al. 2005; Runnels and van Andel 2003), we

still know little about the character of early Holocene

human adaptation here, although the region shows

unquestionable chronological priority in the spread

of the Neolithic way of life into Europe from

southwestern Asia (cf., Bocquet-Appel et al. 2009;

Gkiasta et al. 2003). Researchers have focused their

efforts on countering various biases (e.g., preference

for later prehistoric periods with ceramic finds,

unsystematic surveys, etc.) in the history of research

regarding the pre-Neolithic periods in this part of

Europe (Galanidou 1996) through micro-regional

case studies, which provide substantial evidence for

forager lifeways across the region (e.g., Eichmann

et al. 2010; Galanidou 2011; Galanidou and Perles

2003; Gaspari 2006; Komso 2006; Miracle 1997,

2001; Miracle et al. 2000; Mlekuz et al. 2008; Runnels

et al. 2004, 2009; Sampson 2007, 2010).

In contrast to this patchy archaeological record for

foragers is the evidence from the Danube Gorges area

in the north-central Balkans. The Danube Gorges area

is split by the River Danube between the territories of

present day Romania and Serbia (FIG. 1). With the

discovery of more than 20 sites having Mesolithic

deposits in the Danube Gorges area in the mid-1960s,

new data became available that were unprecedented

for other areas with a known Mesolithic presence in

Europe (cf., Bonsall 2008; Boric 2011; Boroneant

2000; Clarke 1976; Jovanovic 2008; Nandris 1971;

Radovanovic 1996; Srejovic 1972; Tringham 2000).

However, excavations conducted at these sites were

rather crude rescue projects because of the threat of

the rising waters of the artificial lake created by the

construction of a hydroelectric dam (Boric 2011: 159;

Boroneant 2000: 11–15; Radovanovic 1996: 3–8). This,

in tandem with a controversy about the dating of the

key site of Lepenski Vir (Boric 1999, 2002a) as well as

the slow pace of the publishing of the primary data

from the 1960s–1980s excavations in this region, left

this rich corpus of archaeological data undeservedly

on the margins of archaeological discussions about the

character and tempo of the Mesolithic-Neolithic

Correspondence to: Dusan Boric, Department of Archaeology andConservation, SHARE, Cardiff University, Colum Drive, Cardiff CF103EU, U.K. Email: [email protected]

4� Trustees of Boston University 2014DOI 10.1179/0093469013Z.00000000070 Journal of Field Archaeology 2014 VOL. 39 NO. 1

transition in Europe. This research context signifi-

cantly changed in the mid-1990s with a fresh synthesis

of the available evidence by I. Radovanovic (1996),

new absolute dating of the rich corpus of mortuary

remains coupled with stable isotope analyses (Bonsall

et al. 1997), and the reexamination of collections with

human osteological and faunal remains along with

other material remains (Antonovic 2006; Boric 1999,

2002a; Boric and Dimitrijevic 2007; Roksandic 2000;

Stefanovic and Boric 2008). In addition, new field

research was undertaken in the early 1990s at the only

site at the time still available for continuing research

after the rise of the Danube—Schela Cladovei, (FIG. 1)

on the Romanian side of the river (Bonsall 2008;

Boroneant et al. 1999).

In 2004, a collaborative survey and excavation

project, titled ‘‘Prehistory of North-East Serbia,’’ was

initiated by the Department of Archaeology, Univer-

sity of Cambridge, U.K. and the Department of

Archaeology of the University of Belgrade, Serbia,

with Dusan Boric and Milos Jevtic as the principal

investigators. A part of this wider project was designed

to test the validity of the forager-farmer moving

frontier model of cultural change and its applicability

in this region by reference to known Mesolithic

settlements on the Danube and largely uninvestigated

hinterland areas on the Serbian side of the river. In

2004–2005, the project focused on cave sites across this

karstic area (Boric and Jevtic 2008) but did not confirm

their use during the Mesolithic/Neolithic. However, in

the course of the project the Early/Middle Neolithic

open air site of Aria Babi was discovered, situated on

Koso Hill (FIG. 2) above the site of Lepenski Vir (Boric

2007a, 2011; Boric and Starovic 2008). Further survey

efforts in 2006 discovered preserved Mesolithic depos-

its at the previously investigated site of Vlasac (FIG. 3A),

situated in the Upper Gorge or Lady’s Whirlpool

(Gospod–in Vir) region of the Danube River (Srejovic

and Letica 1978). Due to the endangered nature of the

deposits that were exposed to constant erosion by the

Danube, and the possibility of excavating deposits with

higher standards of recovery and recording than those

applied during the first excavations (1970–1971), the

preserved portion of the site was excavated from 2006

to 2009 and protected from further erosion (FIG. 3B).

This new research at this ‘‘classic’’ Mesolithic site

in the Danube Gorges region made possible a better

understanding of forager-farmer interactions in this

part of the Balkans. New evidence allowed us to

understand in more detail the nature of the Late

Mesolithic (ca. 7300–6200 CAL B.C.) occupation with

regard to the life- and deathways of the generations

of people who had inhabited it. For the first time

Vlasac revealed contexts that are now dated on the

basis of both material culture and radiocarbon assays

to the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition (ca. 6200–5900

CAL B.C.), with evidence of continuous development

from the Late Mesolithic in one vertically stratified

sequence. There is also unequivocal evidence for

Mesolithic forager-Neolithic farmer contact, offering

Figure 1 Map of the Danube Gorges region with the location of principal Epipalaeolithic and Mesolithic sites. Dots5open-air

sites. Half-dots5caves and rockshelters.

Boric et al. Late Mesolithic lifeways and deathways at Vlasac (Serbia)

Journal of Field Archaeology 2014 VOL. 39 NO. 1 5

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showImage?doi=10.1179/0093469013Z.00000000070&iName=master.img-000.jpg&w=472&h=294

greater understanding of the nature of this interac-

tion. We also reexamined the larger corpus of

evidence recorded and collected at the site in

1970–1971.

What follows is an interim report on this work,

highlighting both continuities and changes that affected

these foragers during the Mesolithic-Neolithic transi-

tion. We focus on the evidence for subsistence and

material culture manufacture and use, as well as on the

evidence for ritual and other structured deposition.

Vlasac: Research History and Site SettingVlasac is one of the Mesolithic-Neolithic sites found

in the Upper Gorge of the Danube (FIG. 2). The

geological history of the Danube Gorges (also known

as the Iron Gates) is marked by different geological

strata visible as the Danube cuts the southern extent

of the Carpathian Mountains. The Danube Gorges

area, connecting the Pannonian and Dacian basins,

is some 150 km long and is composed of three

small valleys and four gorges with distinct geological

histories and irregular riverbeds due to differential

erosion of the underlying rocks (Vulcanescu 1972;

Markovic-Marjanovic 1978). By the end of the last

glacial period, the Danube was a very large meandering

and fast flowing river confined within the limestone/

granitic and sedimentary rock-dominated gorges, with

narrows, cataracts, and terrace remnants on the

floodplain edges. These terrace remnants often occur

as promontories on the valley floor, and are composed

of riverine sand, wind blown loessic silt and/or scree off

the adjacent steep slopes, and they are often re-cut and

re-carved by channel avulsion processes. It was on

these ‘‘tongues’’ of land projecting at near right angles

to the adjacent valley slopes that the Mesolithic peoples

established themselves in settlements with burial sites:

Lepenski Vir on finely laminated riverine sands and

Vlasac on granitic and limestone derived scree. These

floodplain edge ‘‘terrace remnants’’ could be seen as

more accessible, as they were just above the river’s

influence, but not yet covered to the same extent with

the thick and developing woodland that gradually

blanketed the adjacent slopes in the early Holocene.

Vlasac is located close to the downstream exit of

the Upper Gorge of the Danube, marked by a large

promontory known as Greben. The site is found near

Greben, at the place known as Tahtalija, at the foot

of Boljetinsko Hill (FIG. 2). Before the 19th-century

regulation of the Danube, there used to be a

dangerous cataract at Tahtalija with the strong sound

of roaring water (Petrovic 1941). Here the channel is

2400 m wide and rocky, which in the past created

navigational problems. Greben is a large promontory

and it narrows the navigation channel to 420 m or,

together with the rocky plateau called Vranj at the

time of low water levels, to 220 m. Immediately after

Greben there is a very strong and deep whirlpool (30

m deep) (Petrovic 1941). After Greben the Danube

widens again and the depth is ca. 3–9 m; the Upper

Gorge is followed by the Donji Milanovac valley

filled with Miocene sediments (Markovic-Marjanovic

1978).

D. Srejovic and Z. Letica (1978) investigated the

site in 1970–1971, covering an area of 640 sq m along

Figure 2 View of the Upper Gorge of the Danube from the

Neolithic site of Aria Babi on Koso Hill above the site of

Lepenski Vir. The arrow indicates the location of the

Mesolithic-Neolithic site of Vlasac.

Figure 3 A) View of Vlasac at the beginning of excavations

in 2006, facing west; B) View of Vlasac under excavation in

2007, facing west.


6 Journal of Field Archaeology 2014 VOL. 39 NO. 1



the riverbank up to an altitude of around 70 masl, the

zone that would have been flooded with the

construction of the Ðerdap (Iron Gates) Dam I some

100 km downstream from Vlasac. The rising water

levels of the artificial lake in front of the first dam in

1971 prevented further work in the area below 70

masl while the Danube slowly eroded away the newly

created riverbank section, continuing to the start of

our work in 2006 (FIG. 3A). Prior to the discovery and

excavation of Vlasac, D. Srejovic (1972) excavated

the neighboring site of Lepenski Vir, located approxi-

mately 3 km upstream from Vlasac. Lepenski Vir is

well known for elaborate trapezoidal limestone

building floors and central stone-lined hearths along

with the presence of numerous carved sandstone

boulder artworks, some depicting hybrid human-fish

beings (Boric 2005; Radovanovic 1996; Srejovic 1972;

Srejovic and Babovic 1982). Most of these features

are now dated to the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition

from ca. 6200 to 5900 CAL B.C. (Boric 2011).

The 2006–2009 field seasons at Vlasac covered an

area of 326 sq m, investigating a 63 m stretch of the

new riverbank section created after 1971 in the (likely

peripheral) southernmost part of the site (FIG. 4). This

new effort was upslope from the area that was

excavated in 1970–1971. In the course of new

excavations at the site, all archaeological deposits

were watersieved using 3 to 5 mm mesh. Flotation

samples were taken from every unit or context,

commonly 20 L of soil but occasionally also 35 L per

unit or more. Heavy residue fractions were sieved

with the addition of 0.3 mm and 0.5 mm mesh,

enabling the recovery of a large number of small

artifacts, including different types of beads.

Formation Processes and StratigraphyThe first excavators of the site, Srejovic and Letica

(1978), on the basis of observations made during

their 1970–1971 campaign at Vlasac, described the

cultural stratigraphy of the site as consisting of four

‘‘cultural’’ horizons or phases: Vlasac I to IV. Vlasac

I was further divided into two subphases: Ia and Ib.

While a detailed ‘‘dissection’’ of stratigraphic pro-

blems related to this older division is provided

elsewhere (Boric et al. 2008), it suffices to say that

the formation processes at Vlasac along with its

topography suggest that these horizons cannot be

maintained as defined by the first excavators of

the site, the principal reason being that the site

deposits were formed through complex colluvial

processes on a sloping river terrace. Our recent

fieldwork, which was aided by geoarchaeological and

micromorphological examinations of these compo-

site colluvial deposits, suggests that the horizons

reflect woodland clearance and downslope movement

of scree, and these factors must be incorporated

into an adequate understanding of the site formation

processes.

The stratigraphy of Vlasac largely consists of

hillwash deposits formed on top of the palaeosol at

the base of the stratigraphic sequence. Minor colluvial

episodes continued to affect this soil, alternating with

periods of stability and incipient soil development, and

together led to slow soil aggradation and thickening

throughout the later Mesolithic and into the Early/

Middle Neolithic period. This early Holocene soil is

essentially a cumulative colluvial soil. The composite

hillslope sequence of deposits as seen on the north-

facing, exposed riverbank section of Trench 3/2006 at

Figure 4 Site plan of Vlasac showing only Late Mesolithic pits and burials (indicated with ‘‘F.’’ and ‘‘H.’’ prefixes respectively)

in the central part of the area excavated in 2006–2009 in the southernmost part of the site with Trenches 1–3/2006, 2–3/2007, and

1/2008 (indicated with ‘‘T.’’ prefixes). Context numbers are in brackets. Drawn by Dusan Boric and Miroslav Kocic.




Vlasac is shown in Figures 5 and 6 and described in the

online supplement.

The complete profile at Vlasac exhibits episodic

deposition of variable mixtures of soil and chalk

rubble hillwash occurring around trees within greater

or lesser amounts of open woodland. Thus, some

areas of the hillside were more intact and stable than

others; some areas were severely affected by overland

flow hillwash processes. There is much ‘‘tree throw’’

activity in evidence, i.e., tree uprooting which causes

soil disturbance features that are visible both in

the field and through the polarizing microscope. In

particular, tree throw may lead to the mixing and

inversion of soil fabrics from different horizons and

Figure 5 North-facing section in Trench 3/2006. A) Section drawing with stratification of context numbers and burials (with

‘‘H.’’ prefixes) and vertical positions of AMS dates and associated context/burial numbers (see online supplement for a

description of the stratigraphic sequence); dotted lines indicate uncertain context boundaries; burnt soil from cremation zones

is light shaded; reddish flooring is dark shaded; visible bones are shaded black; 2785292 marks the basal scree deposit; B)

Cleared section before the start of excavations in 2006.




the movement of fine silt, organic matter and clay

down profile. Former root depressions and root

disturbed areas are often associated with concentra-

tions of Mesolithic artifacts. Hillwash activity essen-

tially occurred on bare, devegetated slopes; colluvial

slumping may have led to some folding over of

existing deposits on the hillside, such as the upper/

uphill fill of the inhumation burials, and even the

inversion of sediments.

The main archaeological deposits, even though

they occur at different levels on the hillside, are

probably indicative of the same stabilized soil surface

level in the Late Mesolithic, from ca. 7300 CAL B.C. or

perhaps even earlier. Nonetheless, there is little doubt

that this relative stability was broken from time to

time by some downslope soil movement. When the

woodland on the slope above became seriously

disturbed/exploited, hillwash events began in earnest,

and may well have led to the abandonment of parts of

the site at the base of the slope. Archaeologically,

complete abandonment did not occur before the end

of the Middle Neolithic, i.e., sometime between 5700

and 5500 CAL B.C., but parts of the site might have

been abandoned much earlier, i.e. by ca. 6300 CAL

B.C.

At the bottom of the stratigraphic sequence is the

bedrock consisting of gray limestone scree. Above

this level one finds reddish brown calcitic clay, 15–40

cm thick (FIG. 6B) (Boric et al. 2008: fig. 11). This is a

palaeosol with some stability, representing incipient

Early Holocene soil formation with woodland cover.

At the upper part of this palaeosol one may see some

anthropogenic activity, possibly related to woodland

clearance, which, with time, intensified downslope

erosion of scree and its deposition in depressions and

tree throws. Cultural activities continued for more

than a millennium (see below) even in those areas

affected by the hillwash accumulation as in the case

of the burial sequence discovered in Trench 3 in 2006

(FIG. 6A).

In sum, on the basis of our understanding of the

colluvial sequence at Vlasac, it is difficult to justify

the assumption that the cultural levels (Vlasac Ia-b to

IV) identified by Srejovic and Letica (1978) during

the first excavations of the site were laid down

uniformly across the site; the deposition of anthro-

pogenic sediments at Vlasac must have taken place

at different times in different areas. Two related

processes created the cultural stratigraphy at Vlasac:

on the one hand, the dynamics of hillwash movement

affected by woodland clearance, and, on the other

hand, complex anthropogenic practices of digging

into older deposits and the redepositing of older

layers and materials. These redeposited sediments are

often difficult to notice in the hillwash deposits where

one finds scree of different sizes to be a significant

component of the soil matrix. These observations

were aided by radiocarbon dating of dwelling features

and primary burials found in this complex strati-

graphic matrix.

Stratigraphy and Radiocarbon DatingCurrently, there are 53 radiocarbon measurements

from Vlasac (Boric 2011: appendix). There are 17

dates from charcoal (excavated in the 1970s) and 36

are more recent AMS dates from samples of human

bones (14 dates) and animal bones (21 measurements

dating 20 contexts), with the addition of one sample

from a charred Cornelian cherry Cornus mas pit.

Here we discuss only 13 dates obtained from features

excavated in the course of the 2006–2009 seasons at

Vlasac (TABLE 1). This series of dates should by and

large be representative of the most intensive period of

occupation/use of the site from the last century of the

8th millennium B.C. to the first century of the 6th

millennium B.C., with a spread of dates throughout

the duration of the 7th millennium B.C. There are no

dates for possible Early Mesolithic features found

sporadically in the area excavated in 1970–1971

(Boric et al. 2008). The reasons for this could be the

small number of currently available dates from the

Figure 6 A) Close-up of the north-facing section in Trench 3/

2006 upon exposure of burial H53; B) Bottom of the colluvial

sequence with the reddish palaeosol (2725291) about 20–

55 cm above the base of the profile in squares 104/98 and

105/98 in Trench 1/2007 (see online supplement for a

description).




new excavation area; the restricted zone of the Early

Mesolithic settlement, which might have been con-

fined to a much smaller area in comparison to the

Late Mesolithic settlement; and/or possible devasta-

tion and removal of Early Mesolithic deposits by

Late Mesolithic inhabitants of Vlasac. The estab-

lished deposits of the Early/Middle Neolithic occupa-

tion at the site remain inadequately dated at present.

However, 6006–5838 CAL B.C. (OxA-16544) (at 95%

confidence) (TABLE 1) can be taken as a terminus post

quem for the appearance of Starcevo pottery at the

site on the basis of the stratigraphic sequence

established in Trench 3/2006 (FIGS. 5, 6A) (see below).

Dwelling FeaturesThe 1970–1971 excavations at Vlasac revealed remains

of five dwellings with floors of reddish crushed

limestone mixed with sand (Srejovic and Letica

1978). There were also 26 rectangular stone-lined

hearths as well as 17 stone constructions of different

shapes and extent, the functions of which remain

unclear, but many of which might have been used as

stone foundations of huts or acted as retaining walls.

In the area of the site where new excavations have

taken place there is much less evidence of dwellings,

likely due to the peripheral position of this remaining

portion of the site. However, we have been able to

identify portions of two dugout features that might

have served as dwellings. Unfortunately only the back

parts of both features were preserved.

In Trench 3/2006, at the bottom of the burial

sequence, the reddish burnt flooring of a possible semi-

subterranean dwelling had only a partly preserved rear

area and one is left to speculate whether it might have

had a trapezoidal shape like similar features discov-

ered in 1970–1971. Unfortunately, the Danube waters

eroded away the front part of this feature and left the

floor line (context 149) visible in the exposed section

(FIGS. 5, 6A). Upon the abandonment of this feature a

layer of sterile soil (context 145) was placed over the

Table 1 AMS dates from new excavations at Vlasac (2006–2009). Calibrated with OxCal v. 4.0 (Bronk Ramsey 1995,2001).

Labnumber Context and material

14C age(B.P.)

d15N(%)

d13C(%)

68.2% probability(CAL B.C.)

95.4% probability(CAL B.C.)

OxA-16544 Context 19, red deerskull (VL50) over BurialH53, Trench 3/2006

7035¡40 6.8 –21.3 5984–5891 6006–5838

OxA-16542 Burial H63, human rib 7701¡39* 17.0 –17.7 6212–6066 6232–60187261¡60a

OxA-16539 Context 40, x.8, Trench3/2006, square 95/96 (20),large mammal bone (VL18)

7425¡39 6.8 –21.7 6362–6246 6393–6229

OxA-20762 Burial H81, human femur –proximal diaphysis,Trench 3/2006

8125¡45* 14.0 –19.3 6590–6468 6639–6440

7685¡64a

OxA-20702 Charred pit of Corneliancherry in context 249(Feature 26); terminus postquem for H232

7725¡40 – –22.8 6596–6502 6636–6476

OxA-24769 Context 320, x.17 (tool onred deer antler with tracesof green pigment)

7738¡35 6.6 –22.0 6602–6506 6640–6482

OxA-16540 Context 118, x.1, boneprojectile point (VL21), abovethe floor, context 149 ofFeature 12, Trench 3/2006

7764¡38 7.7 –22.1 6644–6531 6654–6484

OxA-16541 Burial H2, human rib (VL42),Trench 1/2006

8228¡40* 16.3 –18.2 6681–6530 6775–6470

7788¡60a

OxA-18865 Burial H136, human right tibia(VL1/2008), Trench 3/2006

8231¡36* 16.2 –18.5 6684–6530 6774–6472

7791¡58a

OxA-24809 Context 282, x.7 (tool of largemammal bone), Trench 3/2006

7943¡40 6.2 –22.1 7025–6703 7034–6692

OxA-24810 Context 282, x.6 (tool of largemammal bone), Trench 3/2006

7952¡38 5.2 –21.1 7028–6768 7035–6698

OxA-24811 Context 314, x.54, spit 2 (toolof large mammal bone),Trench 1/2009

7905¡39 7.4 –22.6 6898–6659 7028–6648

OxA-21962 Context 314, x.23, spit 1, roedeer skull (S3/2009),Trench 1/2007

8050¡40 5.0 –23.0 7075–6840 7131–6823

*Values corrected for ages affected by the aquatic reservoir effect (d15N values . z 10 %) using Method 2 as suggested by Cooket al. (2002); a5100 % reservoir correction applied (440¡45 years).



floor. There are several cremation pits found around

this dwelling floor with traces of intense burning and

containing burnt human remains. These pits were

likely dug at a later date around the abandoned

dugout. Above the backfilled floor area of this feature,

the remains of the earliest primary burial in this

location—H136 (see below)—are dated to between

6774 and 6472 CAL B.C. (OxA-18865) (at 95%

confidence) after the correction for the aquatic

reservoir effect (TABLE 1), representing a terminus ante

quem for the occupation of the dwelling floor. There

are two other dates, coming from two bone tools

found in a concentration of artifacts beneath the floor

of the dwelling (context 282). Their respective date

ranges are: 7035–6698 CAL B.C. (OxA-24810) and

7034–6692 CAL B.C. (OxA-24809) (at 95% confidence)

(TABLE 1). Hence the likely construction, use, and

abandonment of the dwelling floor can be estimated to

fall sometime in the first three centuries of the 7th

millennium CAL B.C., which corresponds well with the

dates of dwelling features from the 1970–1971 excava-

tions at Vlasac (cf. Boric et al. 2008). A bead made

from the marine gastropod Columbella rustica was

found beneath this feature, in context 282 (FIG. 5A).

Another possible dwelling feature was discovered

in the easternmost portion of the excavation area in

Trenches 1/2007 and 1/2009. Approximately one-third

to one-quarter of the feature (its backside) was

preserved. The feature was cut into the slope of this

part of the terrace removing the reddish palaeosol and

further cutting into the gray sterile soil. On the basis of

the excavated portion of this feature one may

speculate about the oval shape of the dugout but there

is no way of telling whether it might have had a

differently shaped floor area in the front part which

had eroded away. A large flat stone slab was found

next to the eroded section at the level of the possible

dwelling floor. A relatively large number of artifacts

(flint, quartz, bone and antler tools, ground stones,

and burnt limestone plaques from destroyed stone-

lined hearths) and faunal remains were found in the

feature fill (context 314 and a pit intruding into this fill,

context 228). One radiocarbon date comes from a roe

deer skull with antlers from the upper portion of the fill

and it yielded the earliest currently available date from

the new excavations of the site: 7131 to 6823 CAL B.C.

(at 95% confidence) (OxA-21962). Another bone tool

from the fill of the feature is dated to 7028–6648 CAL

B.C. (OxA-24811) (at 95% confidence) (TABLE 1). One

bead made from the marine gastropod Columbella

rustica was found in the fill of this feature.

Human-Environment InteractionsFaunal remainsFaunal remains collected in the course of the 2006–

2009 campaigns comprise bones of mammals, birds,

tortoises, frogs and fish, as well as land and aquatic

mollusk shells (TABLE 2). Animal remains were

extremely fragmented, and relatively poorly pre-

served. The color of the remains is pale yellow and/

or whitish. Poor preservation is mostly due to

depositional factors, and to a much lesser degree to

weathering. Depositional factors that influenced the

preservation of animal remains include mechanical

damage on bones caused by abrasion with rock clasts

as well as corrosive action of plant roots and liquids

that circulated through the deposits. Taphonomic

changes include pitted bone surfaces or worm-like

traces that were made by plant roots. Yet, because of

careful recovery methods even fragile skeletal ele-

ments or milk teeth of dogs, red deer and wild swine

were collected. Few bone fragments were rounded by

water transport. Fragmentation and preservation

were also influenced by biogenic factors such as

trampling and gnawing. Gnawing traces were

recorded on 1.6% of mammal bones and they are

mostly consistent in their size and distribution,

indicating dogs were the main agents of bone

attrition. A high degree of fragmentation is reflected

in the distribution of the size classes of animal

remains: approximately 73% of mammal remains

have maximal lengths less than 2 cm. Less than 3% of

mammal remains are complete or almost complete

bones or teeth, and they are represented mostly by

short carpal and tarsal bones and isolated teeth.

The faunal composition (TABLE 2) is similar to the

one recorded for the large collection of bones that

came from the assemblage recovered in 1970–1971 at

Vlasac (Bokonyi 1978) and from other Mesolithic

sites in the Danube Gorges region (cf. Bokonyi 1970;

Boric and Dimitrijevic 2005, 2007; Clason 1980;

Dimitrijevic 2000, 2008). The major difference is that

dog remains are dominant in material from the 2006–

2009 excavations at Vlasac according to the number

of identified specimens (NISP), minimum number of

individuals (MNI) or number of diagnostic zones

(DZ). Yet, one should note the high occurrence of

dogs also in the southern downslope area of the site

excavated in 1970–1971. The reason for the highest

frequency of dog remains in the northern upslope

area excavated in 2006–2009 is possibly related to the

lack of red deer remains, primarily antler fragments

associated with manufacturing (see below), in this

likely peripheral zone of the settlement. The high

representation of red deer antler in the core zone

downslope is the consequence of more domestic

activities there.

The presence of dogs on the site is further inferred

on the basis of the high incidence of gnawing marks.

Moreover, gnawing is more frequent on dog bones

(15% of all dog bones) than on other mammal

remains (1.6% of all other remains have traces of



gnawing). A similar pattern of gnawing marks is also

recorded for Lepenski Vir and Padina (Boric and

Dimitrijevic 2005; Dimitrijevic 2008), illustrating that

leftovers from human consumption of various other

mammalian species rarely reached dogs. This could

also suggest a particular treatment of dog bones as a

reflection of a specific cultural practice. Out of the

total number of dog remains, excluding isolated teeth

and short bones such as carpals, tarsals and

phalanges, which, almost never bear gnawing traces

due to their position in the skeleton and their small

size, one-third of all dog remains exhibit gnawing

marks.

The most frequent dog skeletal elements are cranial

parts, including mandibles and isolated teeth, and

bones of distal extremities. Although this is partly

due to their frequency in the skeleton, it seems that

this is also the consequence of the destruction by

Table 2 Frequencies of faunal remains from the 1970–1971 (after Bokonyi 1978: table 2 supplemented by Boric 2003b:appendix 4) and 2006–2009 excavation seasons at Vlasac expressed by the number of identified specimens (NISP),minimum number of individuals (MNI), diagnostic zones (DZ), and weight.

SpeciesNISP(1970–1971)

NISP(2006–2009)

MNI(2006–2009)

DZ(2006–2009)

Weight (g)(2006–2009)

MammalsAurochs Bos primigenius 54 1 1 – 76Bos sp. – 1 1 – 16Dog Canis familiaris 1914 326 20 51 850Wolf Canis lupus 103 4 1 – 9.2Canis sp. – 6 2 2 25.8Roe deer Capreolus capreolus 510 48 2 14 240.4Beaver Castor fiber 71 6 1 1 6.6Red deer Cervus elaphus 6732 199 6 20 3548.4Chamois Rupicapra rupicapra 22 – – – –Fallow deer Dama dama – 1 1 – 0.1Hedgehog Erinaceus concolor 1 2 2 2 1.2Wild cat Felis silvestris 45 4 1 – 0.7Hare Lepus europaeus 22 4 1 – 0.9Lynx Lynx lynx 5 1 1 – 1.4Pine marten Martes martes – 4 1 3 3.4Marten Martes sp. 248 4 1 1 0.7Badger Meles meles. 58 1 1 1 0.6Weasel Mustelidae sp. 8 – – – –Squirrel Sciurus vulgaris 5 – – – –Wild swine Sus scrofa fer. 1175 77 3 12 487.7Sus sp. – 6 1 – 7.3European mole Talpa europea – 1 1 1 0.1Brown bear Ursus arctos 169 6 1 1 54.6Fox Vulpes vulpes 30 7 2 – 3Small-sized carnivore 13 – – – –Unidentified ? 10,675 – – 5794.7Total for mammals 11,185 11,384 – – 11,128.8ReptilesPond tortoise Emys orbicularis 317 40 – – 29.8FishCatfish Siluris glanis 2283 85 – – 114Carp Cyprinus carpio 1552 – – – –Cyprinidae sp. 5230 6566 – – 776.8Beluga Huso huso 21 – – – –Acipenseridae sp. 19 7 – – 0.5Pike Essox lucius 11 1 – – –Unidentified 8372 16,570 – – 1119.1Total for fish 17,488 23,229 – – 2010.4BirdsWhite pelican Pelecanus cf. onocrotalus 3 – – – –Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo 3 – – – –Great white egret Egretta alba 2 – – – –Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 2 – – – –Teal Anas crecca 2 – – – –Ferruginous (?) duck Aythya nyroca (?) 1 – – – –Black kite Milvus migrans 5 – – – –Imperial eagle Aquila heliaca 6 – – – –White-tailed eagle Haliaeetus albicilla 27 2 – – 3.8Tawny owl Strix aluco 2 – – – –Jay Garrulus glandarius 1 – – – –Magpie Pica pica 1 – – – –Raven Corvus corax 4 – – – –Unidentified 87 36 – – 10Subtotal for birds 146 38 – – 13.8



gnawing of the more nutritive axial elements and the

bones of upper extremities. Cut marks and traces of

burning were also present on dog remains indicating

their slaughter and/or defleshing by humans. Dogs

might have been used for their pelts as well (cf.,

Bonsall 2008). Isotopic values for dog remains from

both the old (Boric et al. 2004) and new (Becker 2010)

excavations at Vlasac show elevated d15N values over

10 % and up to 13.6 %, suggesting a high protein

intake that might have come from consuming fish

and from consuming the meat of other dogs.

Upper and lower jaws of dogs clearly show jaw

shortening and crowding of teeth rows caused by the

domestication process as previously suggested by

Bokonyi (1975, 1978) for the collection he examined.

The same process must have caused anomalies in

teeth morphology and distribution (Dimitrijevic and

Vukovic 2013). Apart from adult individuals, there

were remains of puppies. In one instance (context

306) upper and lower jaws with milk teeth of at least

two puppies were found together; they were probably

from the same litter.

On the basis of weight counts, red deer provided

the most substantial contribution to diet while the

bones of this animal were the most important raw

material for tool manufacturing. The most frequent

red deer skeletal elements were the cranial bones and

the lower limbs. From other mammal species, only

wild pig and roe deer are represented with somewhat

higher frequencies of specimens, while less than 2% of

the sample comprises all other species: aurochs,

various carnivores (brown bear, wolf, red fox, marten,

badger, wild cat), hare, and beaver. Butchering marks

were observed on a relatively small number of red

deer, roe deer, and wild swine bones.

Watersieving of all archaeological deposits and

flotation of a large number of soil samples enabled

the recovery of numerous small vertebrates and

invertebrates. There were 38 bird remains in the

sample but only two bird bones have positively been

identified at present and both come from a white-

tailed eagle, Haliaeetus albicilla; the bones were found

in the same unit (context 314) of the likely dwelling

feature (see above). In fact, most of the bird bones

from the 2006–2009 excavations at Vlasac come from

contexts relating to the two dwelling features. One

should note that the dominant bird species from the

1970–1971 excavations at Vlasac is also the white-

tailed eagle, followed by the imperial eagle, Aquila

heliaca (TABLE 2). One could assume that these birds,

which can still be found today in the cliffs above the

site of Vlasac (FIG. 3A), were hunted for their feathers

possibly used for body decoration.

Among fish remains cyprinids sp. (various species

of carp) are the most numerous along with the

presence of some catfish bones and scales of different

Acipenseridae (sturgeon) species. Such an assemblage

of fish bones corresponds with the one from the

1970–1971 excavations at Vlasac. Cyprinids bones

were very fragmented and included vertebrae and a

plentitude of pharyngeal teeth, perforated or unmo-

dified, which were often used as ornaments in burials

(TABLE 3).

Isotopic evidence for human dietFour AMS-dated burials from the recent excavations

have yielded stable isotope evidence, showing ele-

vated d15N levels that range from 14.0 to 17.0 %(TABLE 1). These high d15N values are in keeping with

the isotopic evidence from burials excavated at

Vlasac in 1970–1971 and in the region as a whole,

indicating the intake of aquatic resources. The fact

that the diet was based on fish is a characteristic of

the Late Mesolithic in particular (Bonsall et al. 1997;

Boric and Miracle 2004; Boric et al. 2004; Cook et al.

2009; Nehlich et al. 2010). While at present we have

obtained isotopic ratios for only one individual (H63)

dated to the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition phase at

Vlasac, this individual exhibits one of the highest

d15N values (17.0%) (TABLE 1) known for the Danube

Gorges region, suggesting that during that period

there was no change at Vlasac in subsistence

practices, with fish as a staple. In combination with

the faunal evidence (see above), this pattern would

suggest concentrated and predictable resources,

implying residential stability at Vlasac (Heffley

1981; Radovanovic 1996).

Macrobotanical remainsAll excavated deposits were sampled for flotation or

watersieving. The selection of samples for flotation

was based on context types and on the overall

quantity of charred material visible in the sediments

in the field. Twenty L of soil were collected wherever

possible (except in cases when the deposits seemed

particularly rich and more was taken).

Water from the Danube was used for the recovery

of plant remains. Flotation was the most effective

method for separating residue that floats (charred

plant remains, light bone fragments, and small

mollusks) from residue that sinks in water (stone,

bone). The flotation machine on the riverbank at

Vlasac was a converted plastic wheeled bin; it

consisted of a plastic tank of ca. 240 L in capacity,

with water pipes at the bottom and a removable 2 mm

mesh in the upper half for collecting heavy residue.

The water outlet at the top was used for collecting light

residue (in 0.3 mm mesh).

In total, 74 samples from 40 units excavated in

2006–2008 were floated, with soil volume ranging from

less than 1 L up to 35 L. Of these, 65 samples from 38

units were available for analysis; all light fractions plus

17 heavy fractions were sorted and analyzed. The light



fractions were sieved through 2 mm and 0.3 mm mesh;

the 2 mm fraction was entirely sorted for charred

wood fragments and other plant remains. In most

cases, 100% of the 0.3 mm fraction was sorted for

plant remains other than charred wood (a few 0.3 mm

fractions were subsampled to not less than one-quarter

using a sample splitter). Heavy fractions were sieved

for 4 mm, 1 mm and 0.5 mm particle sizes; the 4 mm

and 2 mm fractions were entirely sorted for plant and

other remains (faunal, beads, stone objects); the

0.5 mm fraction was randomly subsampled (to not

less than one-fifth; sample splitter was not used) and

sorted for plant remains and diagnostic bone frag-

ments (and small finds, if any).

In the analyzed samples, a total of 58 identifiable

macroscopic (non-wood) botanical remains were

encountered and ca. 5 ml of parenchyma (root/tuber

tissue)/nut kernel fragments. In terms of the diversity

(i.e., number of identified taxa), density (number of

items per L of soil), ubiquity (number of samples in

which a taxon occurs) and abundance, the Vlasac

assemblage appears relatively poor compared to, for

example, the Franchthi Mesolithic dataset (Hansen

1991). It is, however, consistent with the record from

the contemporaneous Schela Cladovei site in the

Danube Gorges area where, in Mesolithic contexts,

only minute wood charcoal fragments and a few

fragments of possible parenchyma were discovered

Table 3 Summary of primary and secondary inhumations and cremations discovered in the course of new excavationsat Vlasac and ornamental beads found in these burials. Scattered human remains found in various settlement contextsare not listed in the table.

Context/featurenumbers Burial type Sex Age

Carp teethornaments*

Cyclopeneriteaornaments

Spondylusbeads

Discoidlimestonebeads

H2 Primary Female Ca. 40 y 310z255z775642

32 – –

H53 Primary Female Ca. 50 y 5z8z3516 – 7{ 21{H60 (z59) Primary/secondary/

cremation(973 burnt bone frags.weighing 1766 g)

Male? 14–16 y 1z3z155 – 3 31

H62 Primary ? 38–40 weeks – – 2{ 5{H63 Primary/secondary Female 25–30 y 9z113z565178 – 2 4H69 Primary ? 36–38 weeks – – – –H81 Primary/secondary Male Ca. 40 y 1 – – –H136 Primary/secondary Female 40–60 y – – – 10H153/21 Primary/secondary ? 2–3 y – – – –H232 Primary Female Ca. 25 y 17z9z1527 – – –H244 Primary/secondary/

cremationFemale 30–40 y – 1 – –

H254 Primary Male 30–50 y 1 – – –H267 Primary Female Ca. 50 y 15z161z755251 – – –H297 Primary ? 1 y 252z294z155

570122 – –

H317 Primary Female Ca. 30 y – – – –H326 Primary Male Ca. 50 y 1 1 – –54 Cremation (34

burnt bonefrags. weighing 14.1 g)

na Adult (?) 6z3z4513 – – –

87 Cremation (8burnt bonefrags. weighing 1.8 g)

na Adult (?) 4z22z3529 – – –

96, 97 Cremation (4burnt bonefrags. weighing 5.4 g)

na Adult (?) – – – –

110, 115 Cremation (1052 burntbone frags. weighing769 g)

na Adult (?) 8z26z21555 1{ – –

146 Cremation (40burnt bonefrags. weighing 22.4 g)

na Adult (?) – – – –

242, 261(Feature 23)

Cremation (468burnt bonefrags. weighing 158.4 g)

na Adult (?) 1 10{ – –

260, 249(Feature 26)

Cremation (520burnt bonefrags. weighing 598 g)

na Adult (?) – – – –

* The figures show the number of specimens that are: entire and unmodified z entirely perforated z fragmented5totals.{ While the beads were found in the fill of these burials, it is likely that they are in their secondary positions as a consequence of thedisturbance of earlier burials by later interments.{ Burnt specimens.



(Mason et al. 1996). At Vlasac, the only taxon that

stands out in terms of quantity and frequency is

Cornelian cherry, Cornus mas L., of which complete

and fragmented pits were discovered. Other taxa were

represented in very small numbers, the majority by

just one specimen per sample. Amorphous fragments

of plant material that could not be identified to

species/genus included parenchyma and nut kernels,

and some unknown fragments.

An MNI total of 38 Cornus mas pits (complete and

fragmented) was encountered in 14 (out of 65)

samples from 11 (out of 38) excavation units; 26

(MNI) pits were discovered in three samples from a

single unit-cremation pit, Feature 26 (context 249)

(see below). In five other cases, Cornus mas remains

(MNI56) were also derived from burial contexts,

often with evidence of burning (contexts 17, 19, 24,

and 146, all in Trench 3/2006).

The study of charcoal remains has yielded 20

different taxa distributed over 40 units. The most

significant taxa according to their relative value in the

entire assemblage are Cornus, Quercus sp. deciduous,

and Prunus. These taxa have values between 20–30%

of the record. There is a group of taxa including

Corylus, Cotinus, Fraxinus, and Maloideae represent-

ing between 2–5%. The rest of the taxa have values

under 1%. There are also undetermined angiosperm

and other undetermined fragments representing very

low values. In the cremation pit, Feature 26 (context

249), there are 5 taxa with Prunus and Quercus ssp.

showing the highest values. In this unit the absence of

Cornus charcoal remains is remarkable, considering

that this context is rich in Cornus mas pits. The burial

units have yielded 196 charcoal fragments with 12

different taxa identified. Concerning the relative

values, the most significant taxon is Cornus. Other

important taxa are Quercus ssp. deciduous, Corylus,

and Cotinus. The rest of the taxa are represented in

low frequencies (Allue et al. in press; Filipovic et al.

2010).

In sum, the archaeobotanical record of Vlasac

allows us to describe plant communities in the

Danube Gorges region. The identified taxa mostly

indicate forest plant formation with an important

shrubby vegetal cover. Oaks might have formed the

main forest and most of the other taxa might have

formed understory or shrubby vegetation at the

forest edges or on the riverbanks. The Vlasac record

shows the significance of Cornus mas L. It is possible

to relate archaeobotanical remains to firewood in

some ritual practices but this does not necessarily

suggest symbolic preferences for particular species.

Based on the association of Cornelian cherry with

burial deposits (i.e., in burial fill), it is tempting to

suggest that this species had a symbolic meaning for

the Vlasac community and was somehow linked to

their burial rites. A relatively large number of Cornus

mas pits from Feature 26 (context 249) seem to be the

best indication of such an intentional symbolic use of

the Cornelian cherry fruits, since the complete

absence of Cornus mas charcoal (despite a high

frequency of ca. 70 ml of charcoal remains, which is

much more than any of the other analyzed samples)

from this unit seems to exclude the accidental

association of cherries with the branches of burnt

firewood used for keeping the cremation fire. We can

only speculate about the meaning of the Cornelian

cherries’ association with this context. Here we

mention only a few possibilities: they might have

represented remnants from a feast for the dead; the

fruits might have been of symbolic importance due to

their red color, perhaps analogous to ochre and other

red minerals in meaning (cf., Boric 2002b); and/or the

Cornelian cherry might have been the type of food

discarded in the course of the burial ceremony (as a

sign of the social rejection of the deceased). Cornelian

cherries become ripe in September (Jancic 1990: 36)

and we may suggest that the cremation and probably

also the burial event took place in the fall. However,

if meant for consumption, cherries could have been

dried and stored for several seasons (Wiltshire 1995:

385). Palynological analysis of human coprolites

discovered in the 1970–1971 excavations at Vlasac

(Carciumaru 1978) showed the presence of pollen

grains from species with potentially edible parts (e.g.,

Pinus, Quercus, Juglans, Corylus). This could suggest

that these species were particularly selected for food;

if consumed, they would have provided valuable

vitamins and minerals for the diet, complementing

the nutrients available from fish and meat.

TechnologyChipped stoneThe chipped stone industry from the 2006–2009

excavations at Vlasac comprises 503 pieces of which

315 (62.6%) are flint, 181 (36%) are quartz and 7

(1.4%) are quartzite. Considering the area excavated,

this is a very modest sample in comparison to the

amount of material found in the course of the 1970–

1971 excavations at the site, which included 31,225

chipped stone artifacts with 7250 pieces of flint

(23.2%), 19,092 pieces of quartz (61.1%), and 243

pieces of quartzite (0.8%) (Kozłowski and Kozłowski

1982; Srejovic and Letica 1978). This is despite the fact

that the area excavated in 2006–2009 represented half

of the area excavated during the first excavations and

that a more meticulous recovery methodology char-

acterized the new excavations. Hence the observed

difference must be related to functional characteristics

of the excavated settlement space, i.e., the peripheral

nature of the southern upslope area excavated in 2006–

2009 in comparison to the northern downslope core



area excavated in 1970–1971. This conclusion is sup-

ported by the absence of rectangular hearths as

indicators of domestic activities in the more recent

excavations along with the fact that most of the

recovered artifacts in general were concentrated in

those zones where the supposed dwelling features were

found.

A relatively large proportion of quartz in the

assemblage is characteristic of Late Mesolithic

chipped stone industries in the Danube Gorges region

as a whole (Radovanovic 1996), suggesting a

predominant reliance on locally available lithic raw

materials. This conclusion is strengthened by the

predominance of gray non-transparent flint with poor

technological properties corresponding to type A1

identified by Kozłowski and Kozłowski (1982). This

type of flint is readily available in the immediate

vicinity of the site in the Jurassic geology of the

region. Some other raw materials are found too, such

as beige, non-transparent flint (type A2), gray white

spotted flint (type A8), and occasional radiolarites.

Finally, in both Late Mesolithic and transitional

levels as well as in units with the first Early Neolithic

pottery (see below), there were also several specimens

of the so called ‘‘Balkan’’ yellow white-spotted flint

(type A11), originating several hundred kilometers

away from the Danube Gorges, in northern Bulgaria

(Biagi and Starnini 2010; Gurova 2012).

The Mesolithic technological chaıne operatoire

indicates the use of the splinter technique and bipolar

cores, which might have been an adjustment to the

properties of the raw material used, with the outcome

of a predominantly flake-based industry. The follow-

ing techno-typological categories are present: small

single platform cores for bladelets, retouched blades

made on regular blanks, some with denticulated

retouch, truncations, irregular scrapers, chisel-like

tools, splintered pieces, perforators and microliths,

such as backed pieces, micro-retouched bladelets, and

two trapezes (FIG. 7). The two trapezes are restricted

to Late Mesolithic dwelling contexts. A similar range

of tools was reported for the analyzed assemblage

from the 1970–1971 excavations at Vlasac (Kozłowski

and Kozłowski 1982: plates IX, XXXIII, XXXV). The

presence of all production stages in the assemblage and

the prevalence of expedient over curated artifacts

would suggest the role of Vlasac as a long term base

camp during the Late Mesolithic. A sample of 34

artifacts (8 flakes, 14 blades, 4 chips, and 8 formal tools)

were analyzed for use-wear patterns. The analysis

revealed 9 pieces with use-wear traces from working on

various materials: wood, bone, hide, and meat.

While this Late Mesolithic industry is dominated

by flakes as the consequence of selecting locally

available raw materials which exhibit poor technolo-

gical characteristics, the technological basis of this

industry is in the Balkan Epipalaeolithic or Epigra-

vettian tradition, with its roots in the industry

documented at the rockshelter site of Cuina Tur-

cului (FIG. 1), found on the northern bank of the

Danube downstream from Vlasac. The blade techni-

que, which is dominant in the Cuina Turcului

Epipalaeolithic industry (Paunescu 1970), is clearly

present at Vlasac, and when used with good quality

flint it allowed the production of regular blades and

trapezes. The preference for locally available materi-

als throughout the Mesolithic at Vlasac and the

Danube Gorges area in general led Kozłowski and

Kozłowski to suggest that this was the consequence

of ‘‘the increasing forestation which blocked the

access to some primary deposits, and … the increas-

ing isolation of human groups in the Early Holocene’’

(Kozłowski and Kozłowski 1982: 100). Yet, occa-

sional pieces of good quality non-local flint, as well as

marine gastropods, such as Columbella rustica and

Cyclope neritea, the closest source for which was at

least 400 km away, were found in the Late Mesolithic

deposits at Vlasac (Cristiani and Boric 2012).

Moreover, there are striking similarities in both

mortuary rites and the types of body ornaments used

in Mesolithic levels at Vlasac and at Franchthi Cave

in Greece (Cullen 1995; Perles and Vanhaeren 2010)

(see below). This would suggest that at the very least

the community at Vlasac and other Late Mesolithic

sites in the Danube Gorges region must have been

part of trade and information networks operating

across the wider region. Hence the argument that

locally available stone raw materials were preferred

throughout the Mesolithic due to the isolation of

human groups in this region must be carefully

reexamined. The key to solving this question would

be to better understand correlations between chang-

ing patterns of the availability of lithic raw materials

and of ‘‘exotic’’ decorative items (Whallon 2006).

Ground stone toolsThere are 70 pieces of ground stone from the most

recent excavations of Vlasac in contrast to 131

specimens from the 1970–1971 excavations at the site

(Srejovic and Letica 1978: 98–103). These artifacts

were largely made from sandstone boulders (over

50%) and amphibolites (ca. 25%) with several speci-

mens made from aplite, micaschist and chert. The

raw material structure of the assemblage corresponds

to those at other sites in the region, such as the

neighboring site of Lepenski Vir (Antonovic 2006:

19); the primary source of the sandstone boulders is

in the vicinity of both sites, in the upper reaches of

the Boljetinska River.

Twenty-four specimens had clear traces of use and

fall into the following categories: fish stunners, small

anvils, or hammerstones. The latter were used on one



Figure 7 A selection of chipped stone artifacts, some with their use-wear patterns, found at Vlasac in 2006–2009. Provenance

information (context no., x-find no., square no.) of each artifact is indicated. 1) Blade (45.61, sq. 28); 2) Flake (35. 610); 3) Blade

(16. 61, sq. 8); 4) Blade (115. 610); 5) Pointed retouched flake/perforator (40.613, sq. 19); 6) Chip (24); 7) Trapeze (36); 8)

Trapeze (145, sq. 7); 9) Blade (288. 63); 10) Truncation (unstratified); 11) Blade (293.61); 12) Blade (217.61); 13) Blade

(228.683); 14) Blade (309.61); 15) Bladelet (237.61); 16) Blade (251); 17) Blade (308); 18) Backed piece (228.6182); 19)

Retouched flake (228.6143). Drawn by Maria Gurova.




or several sides (FIG. 8: 2,3) over a considerable period

of time most often for flintknapping, or to make

borers and shaft-straighteners, which were possibly

used for bone tool manufacturing or bead making.

One large river pebble found in context 235, a layer

above burial H244, has the shape of a massive axe

and has traces of use as a polisher on one face

(FIG. 8:1). Anvils are the most frequent category of

ground stone tools found in both the old and new

excavations at the site.

There are no elements in the assemblage of ground

stone tools from the new excavations at Vlasac with

Neolithic morphologies, such as polished shoe-last

stone adzes and axes like those found associated with

the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition phase at Lepenski

Vir (Antonovic 2006). At least one small polished

shoe-last stone adze, associated with the Neolithic

occupation at Vlasac, was found during the 1970–

1971 excavations at the site, however. Residue

analyses on two hammerstones from the new

excavations at Vlasac indicate the presence of starch,

suggesting that those specimens were used for

crushing nut kernels; further analyses on those and

other specimens are in progress (Huw Barton,

personal communication 2009). This evidence con-

tributes to our understanding of plant processing at

Vlasac, suggesting the importance of starchy foods

despite the paucity of macrobotanical remains.

Antler, bone, and ivory toolsThe whole osseous assemblage is comprised of bone

(N5 28), antler (N5 47), and ivory (N5 15) artifacts.

Pointed and edged tools and artifacts with lateral

cutting edges are the main morphological categories

(FIG. 9). Manufacturing debitage has also been found.

The analysis has revealed the existence of a wide

ranging repertoire of techniques for bone, antler and

ivory tool manufacturing. The relationship between

artifacts and raw materials is evident in the selection

of specific bones for the production of blanks for

specific tools.

The majority of pointed tools (awls and curated

points) and edged bone tools (straight wedges on

bone splinters) were manufactured using mainly

metapodials of red deer, Cervus elaphus. The main

technique for the processing of metapodials was

indirect percussion followed by retouch of the

obtained blanks (‘‘shaft-wedge-splinter technique

followed by counterblow retouch’’ [David 2003,

2009]). Once obtained, the blanks were further refined

by scraping and/or abrasion. For the manufacture of

projectile points, longitudinal grooving was used. The

proximal parts of the points were finished by flint

shaving, in order to produce a stem, or by transverse

abrasion, to produce tapered bases.

Lateral cutting edged tools (knives and gorges) were

mostly manufactured using wild boar, Sus scrofa lower

canines/tusks. The canines were processed by indirect

percussion for separating the main blades, while active

edges were shaped by scraping with flint, and proximal

parts were shaped by abrasion.

Red deer antler beams were the main raw material

used for the production of numerous types of edged

tools, such as blade axes, axes, and short and long

intermediate pieces. Tines were utilized as chisels

(FIG. 9: 6). Antler processing is characterized by

techniques different from those used for manufactur-

ing bone and ivory. The beam was at first sawed and

then snapped or was partitioned by indirect percus-

sion followed by snapping. The separation of the

tines from the main antler beam was carried out by

means of nicking and subsequent snapping. The

definition of the functional area was carried out by

means of scraping with a knapped stone tool as well

as by chopping and abrasion.

Based on tool morphologies and use-wear traces,

bone and antler edged tools were used for some heavy

duty processing of hard materials such as wood; they

were likely used as axes and wedges (FIG. 9: 4). Traces

of use on some ivory burins and knives (FIG. 9: 8–10)

indicate that these categories of tools were likely used

for woodworking. Bone projectile points were used as

hunting and fishing gear, but they might also have

been used for tribal or interpersonal combat, as

suggested by a bone point embedded in the pelvic

Figure 8 Examples of ground stone tools found at Vlasac in

2006–2009. Provenance information (context no., x-find no.)

of each artifact is indicated. 1) Massive ‘‘blunt axe’’ of

amphibolite (235.61); 2) Sandstone anvil used on several

sides (304.65); 3) Sandstone anvil-hammerstone used on

several sides (320.67). Photographs by Dragana Antonovic.




bone of a skeleton from the 1970–1971 excavations at

Vlasac (Roksandic 2004). There were similarly

embedded bone points in skeletons excavated at the

contemporaneous Late Mesolithic site of Schela

Cladovei found 80 km downstream from Vlasac

(Bonsall 2008; Boroneant and Nicolaescu-Plopsor

1990).

In sum, the sample of osseous artifacts coming

from the most recent excavations at the site is

significantly smaller than the preserved assemblage

of osseous tools coming from the area excavated in

1970–1971 where close to 3000 were discovered

(Cristiani and Boric in press; Srejovic and Letica

1978). The reason for this discrepancy relates to

differences in the character of the settlement in each

of the excavated zones. Yet, the repertoire of artifacts

recovered in the two zones of the settlement is

uniform and is characteristic of the typical European

Mesolithic technological chaıne operatoire with a

range of morphologies for foraging activities as well

as intensive wood processing. Such a repertoire also

characterizes other Late Mesolithic sites in the

Danube Gorges region (e.g., Beldiman 2005; Dinu

et al. 2007). The abundant traces of woodworking are

most likely indicative of the long term occupation of

the site in the Late Mesolithic. Woodworking with a

range of tools might be related to the construction of

dwellings, and also possibly to make canoes for water

transportation. As mentioned above, there is clear

evidence of the clearing of vegetation from the slope

above the settlement, which caused the intensification

of hillwash episodes in the Late Mesolithic. Contrary

to some other elements of material culture at this site,

the osseous industry from Vlasac does not exhibit any

Figure 9 A range of typical osseous tools found at Vlasac in 2006–2009. Provenance information (context no., x-find no.) of

each artifact is indicated. 1) Edged tool–chisel (314.654 directly dated with OxA-24811); 2) Pointed tool–awl (215.61); 3)

Pointed tool–awl (282.66 directly dated with OxA-24810); 4) Edged tool–wedge (214.62); 5) Edged tool–chisel (320.622); 6)

Edged tool–chisel (320.617); 7) Short intermediate piece (314.621); 8) Cutting edged tool–knife (314.663); 9) Cutting edged

tool–gorge (214); 10) Cutting edged tool–knife (228.64). Photographs by Dusan Boric and Emanuela Cristiani.




signs of change related to the introduction of a new

technological chaıne operatoire or new morphologies

during the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition. Yet, this

period saw the introduction of new tool shapes and

techniques in the osseous industry during Phase I-II

at the neighboring site of Lepenski Vir (Boric and

Cristiani in press). The likely reason for the lack of

change at Vlasac lies in the changing nature of the site

at the end of the 7th millennium B.C., at which time

the site started to be primarily used as a burial

ground (see below).

Death and Body DecorationIn the course of the 1970–1971 excavations, 87 graves

containing either 119 individuals (Nemeskeri 1978) or

164 individuals (Roksandic 1999, 2000) were exca-

vated at Vlasac. Our new excavations furnished

evidence of at least 16 individuals from both primary

and secondary inhumations along with at least seven

clearly defined cremation burials (TABLE 3). In six

instances we found primary inhumations that could

be associated with some form of secondary burial

practice, including skull removals and disturbance of

parts of primary inhumations by placing new

interments in the same locations. This resulted in

the displacement of cranial and postcranial skeletal

elements of older burials; the disturbed bones of older

burials were sometimes burnt either in situ or in

nearby oval pits (Boric 2010; Boric et al. 2009). In one

instance, there is evidence that the removed skull was

reburied in a structured manner (a child skull from

burial H21 [FIG. 10] probably related to articulated

burial H153). In several instances disturbed cranial or

postcranial bones were placed within the same

location either in the fill of a new interment in no

particular order, or were piled on the side of the same

burial place.

There were two main zones of human burials in the

area excavated at Vlasac from 2006 to 2009. The first

zone is characterized by exclusively Late Mesolithic,

mid-7th millennium B.C. burials in Trenches 3/2007

and 1/2008 in the western part of the excavated area

(FIG. 4). Five primary burials (H244, H254, H267,

H317, and H326) were distributed over this area

largely following the same position and orientation,

that is, they were placed parallel to the Danube with

their heads pointing downstream. In addition, burial

H2 was found in this general area in front of the

eroded riverbank section at the level of the beach

gravel (Boric 2006). This burial was, at the time of the

discovery, partly damaged and exposed by river

erosion. It dates to 6775–6470 CAL B.C. (OxA-16541)

(at 95% confidence) after the correction for the

aquatic reservoir effect (TABLE 1). The burial included

642 perforated, unmodified, and fragmented phar-

yngeal carp teeth once attached to some sort of cloak

placed on the back of the deceased. There were also

32 Cyclope neritea marine gastropod beads, 15 of

which were part of a closely knit line of beads found

lying beneath the upper femurs of burial H2 (Cristiani

and Boric 2012). There was also a large stone block

placed over the lower legs of this individual. The

dating of this burial, the range and quantity of

ornaments and the pattern of their distribution in the

burial as well as the placement of a large stone block

over the lower legs are all strikingly similar to child

burial H297 found in the second burial concentration

in Trench 3/2006 (FIG. 10). These suggest standardized

Late Mesolithic burial customs.

While the other five burials in this part of the site

have not been dated directly, their general orientation

and positions (in some cases with stone construc-

tions) as well as their range of ornaments suggest that

they might also be dated to the Late Mesolithic of the

7th millennium B.C. For instance, a concentration of

251 carp teeth ornaments was found in burial H267

(FIG. 11). In nearby burial H244, the torso and

mandible were disturbed by a later intrusion, with

possible burning of the disturbed bones, which left

only one fragment of a carbonized right humerus in

situ, while most of the other disturbed and likely

burnt bones were removed. Possibly connected with

this exhumation and burning is a cremation pit,

Feature 23 (context 242), (TABLE 3) found in the

vicinity (FIG. 4). Apart from burnt bones found in this

cremation pit, there were 10 carbonized Cyclope

neritea beads, suggesting that the fragments of burnt

bone and ornaments relate to the disturbed torso of

burial H244 (Boric et al. 2009). A few Late Mesolithic

cremations also contained broken and burnt projec-

tile points, which might have been comingled and

burnt intentionally with disarticulated and fragmen-

ted pieces of human bone. Cremation associated with

the practice of disturbing parts of older burials is

what characterizes mortuary rites at Vlasac during

the Late Mesolithic (Boric et al. 2009). It seems that

this practice also remained vital and relevant for the

inhabitants of Vlasac throughout the Mesolithic-

Neolithic transition as suggested by similar cremation

events in the burial sequence in Trench 3/2006 (see

below).

The second zone of burials at Vlasac is found in

Trench 3/2006. There burials from the Mesolithic-

Neolithic transition are superimposed on Late

Mesolithic ones (FIG. 10). This represents the first

unequivocal evidence for the existence of this transi-

tional phase at Vlasac, significantly contributing to

our understanding of the influence of the earliest

farming and stock breeding Neolithic groups from

the surrounding areas of the Balkans of indigenous

foragers at the end of the 7th millennium B.C. The

sequence of interments in this zone started upon the



Figure 10 Composite drawing with the sequence of overlapping burials excavated in Trench 3/2006 at Vlasac and associated

AMS dates.




abandonment of a dwelling. It seems that this

location was first used in the first centuries of the

7th millennium B.C., followed by the construction of a

floor area. This floor area was abandoned by

depositing a layer of sterile soil over it. Among the

first burials found on the same level in this location

were adult burial H136 and child burial H297

(FIG. 10), with the individual in burial H136 dated to

6774–6472 CAL B.C. (OxA-18865) (at 95% confidence)

after the correction for the aquatic reservoir effect

(TABLE 1). Undisturbed one year old child burial

H297 was associated with 701 perforated, unmodified

and fragmented pieces of carp (Cyprinidae sp.)

pharyngeal teeth and 22 beads made of Cyclope

neritea marine gastropod shells, most likely originally

on some kind of burial cloak (Cristiani and Boric

2012). Also in child burial H297, there was a large

intentionally fashioned stone block placed over the

lower legs of this individual, similar to the one found

in burial H2 in the burial zone in the western part of

the excavated area (see above).

Probably somewhat later was an adult inhumation,

H232, found in the southern part of the burial area in

Trench 3/2006 (FIGS. 10, 12A). In contrast to burial

H297, only 27 carp teeth ornaments were found in

this inhumation (TABLE 3). The date of 6636–6476

CAL B.C. (OxA-20702) (at 95% confidence) (TABLE 1)

provides a terminus post quem for this inhumation.

The AMS sample was from a charred cornelian

cherry, Cornus mas, pit (Allue et al. in press; Filipovic

et al. 2010) found in the fill of the cremation pit,

Feature 26 (context 249), which was directly beneath

burial H232 and which contained large amounts of

charcoal, burnt human bones, and bone projectile

points (FIG. 12B). The cremation event and the

interment of H232 might have been related, occurring

one after the other. Some of these burnt human bones

might have come from disturbed burial H136 (Boric

et al. 2009). A large part of H136 might have ended

up in one or more cremation pits made at this

location; only the feet and partly preserved lower legs

of this individual were found in primary articulation.

This disturbance of older burials and the subsequent

fragmentation and burning of bones seems to have

been a recurrent practice at Vlasac as stratigraphi-

cally later burials in this location exhibit the same

pattern of manipulation and secondary deposition of

bones from earlier burials (Boric 2010). The described

cremation event(s) happened prior to the interment of

burial H81, dated to 6639–6440 CAL B.C. (OxA-20762)

(at 95% confidence) (TABLE 1). Primary inhumation

burial H81 is found slightly displaced to the south

and the west of H136 and at a higher level, but along

the same axis and with the same orientation and

position as H136 (FIG. 10). This more complete

Figure 11 A) Extended burial H267; B) Numerous carp

(Cyprinidae sp.) pharyngeal teeth ornaments found primarily

in the chest area of this individual.

Figure 12 A) Extended burial H232 placed above a crema-

tion pit (Feature 26); B) cremation pit containing charred

human bones, bone projectile points, and numerous

Cornelian cherry Cornus mas pits. One of these pits was

AMS-dated to 6636–6476 CAL B.C. (OxA-20702) (at 95%

confidence).





inhumation was clearly disturbed by the placement of

primary burial H63, which was placed along the same

axis following the same position and orientation of

burial H81. Furthermore, in the fill of H63 one finds

several disarticulated bones of H81 placed alongside

burial H63 (FIG. 10). However, on the basis of the

radiocarbon date for burial H81 and the date of

burial H63 with the range 6232–6018 CAL B.C. (OxA-

16542) (at 95% confidence) (TABLE 1), it seems that

these two interment events are at least three centuries

apart. Disarticulated and fragmented bones of Late

Mesolithic burial H81 were placed along the legs and

in the fill of burial H63 which was later.

Such continuity in the use of the same location

and characterized by the same mortuary practice

(extended burial, oriented parallel to the Danube and

with the head pointing downstream) is typical of the

Late Mesolithic mortuary canon, which also refer-

ences the position of older burials, suggesting the

longevity of social memory, possibly related to claims

made by particular lineages to older burials. It also

indicates the stability of mortuary rites over long

periods of time at the site and across the Danube

Gorges region as a whole in the course of the

Mesolithic, or at the very least an intentional attempt

to reference ‘‘the old ways’’ (Boric 2003a, 2010; Boric

et al. 2009). On the other hand, there are also clear

deviations from the typical Late Mesolithic mortuary

practice starting at the level of burial H63. These

changes mainly relate to burial furnishings and body

decoration. For instance, two fashioned flat stone

plaques were found placed over the lower legs of this

individual (FIG. 10); the lower legs remained undis-

turbed by later exhumation events and interments. It

must be said that this practice of covering the lower

legs of the deceased with stone has its roots in the

Late Mesolithic at Vlasac where one finds several

burials (H2, H297 and H326) (Cristiani and Boric

2012) with large, mainly unmodified stones placed

over the legs of these individuals. Yet, in the case of

burial H63 and later burials in this location,

fashioned stone plaques rather than unmodified large

stones were used for covering parts of the body of the

deceased upon burial. It has been suggested that

the practice of placing heavy stones over the legs of

the deceased might have been related to attempts to

restrict the movement of the dead body and its

possible intentions to harm. Other practices evi-

denced at Vlasac including wrapping/tying the body,

and subsequently exhuming, fragmenting, and burn-

ing the remains of the dead, might have been

motivated by the same concerns (Boric et al. 2009).

The clearest indications of both continuities and

dramatic changes starting at this time, ca. 6200 CAL

B.C., in the Danube Gorges region come from the style

of body decoration. Associated with the individual in

burial H63, on both sides of the neck and below the

shoulder blades were 178 carp teeth ornaments

(FIG. 13), most of which were perforated in order to

be sewed onto a cloak or headdress. As previously

mentioned, this type of ornamentation was abun-

dantly used during the course of the Late Mesolithic

at Vlasac and at Schela Cladovei (Bonsall 2008;

Cristiani and Boric 2012). Yet, with burial H63, for

the first time comes evidence of the use of these

ornaments in relation to the head of the deceased.

Since no major disturbance characterizes these

ornaments and the neck bones, it is possible that

the head was removed upon the decomposition of

soft tissues. On the left side of the neck of the

individual in burial H63, within the concentration of

carp teeth ornaments, there was an ovoid shaped

Spondylus bead (FIGS. 13B, 14: 7). This bead, clearly

associated with the body decoration worn at the time

of the burial, is possibly the earliest securely dated

item made from Spondylus in southeastern Europe.

Moreover, not only is the new exotic marine material

(completely replacing previously used exotic materi-

als such as Cyclope neritea or Columbella rustica,

marine gastropods) used for the production of this

bead, but it is also the morphology of the bead and

other similar beads (FIG. 14: 7–9) that signifies foreign

Figure 13 A) Perforated carp teeth appliques found on both

sides of the neck and beneath the shoulders of the headless

adult female in burial H63; B) In situ Spondylus bead (larger

than carp teeth beads) found next to the neck.




cultural influence. Hence, the combination of differ-

ent cultural elements within the same burial feature

illustrates the contact between the foragers in the

Danube Gorges area with the expanding network of

Early Neolithic communities in the north central

Balkans during the last two centuries of the 7th

millennium B.C.

There were several other inhumations that prob-

ably soon followed the interment of the individual in

H63 in the same location. Two juvenile/subadult

individuals (H60 and H153) (TABLE 3) were placed

directly atop H63. Further, digging into the same

location at a later date and removing the left pelvis,

femur and forearm of H63, which were all kept for

later use, and damaging the articulated limbs of the

2–3 year old child in burial H153 (FIG. 15) placed over

H63, two neonates (H62 and H69) were interred one

on top of the other, possibly as part of the same

burial event. At some point, the skulls of individuals

in burials H60, H63, and H153 were removed. While

the skull of the child in burial H153 was kept for later

use, skulls from H60 and H63 and a large number of

the postcranial bones from H60 were burnt atop

these burials, creating a cremation zone with in situ

fire that also partly affected the undisturbed upper

torso of the juvenile in burial H60, which was lying

directly atop the torso of the adult in burial H63. The

burning of likely ‘‘dry’’ bones of these individuals was

followed (perhaps as part of the same burial

ceremony) by the interment of an old woman (burial

H53), the last inhumation in this burial place. While

in the same position as the other burials and

paralleling the Danube, H53 is different from all

other burials in this burial place as the woman was

oriented with her head pointing upstream, not

downstream. The disarticulated left femur from

Figure 15 A) In situ limestone reddish and whitish discoid

beads found next to the damaged femur in child burial H153;

B) Detail of H153 with the beads.

Figure 14 Types of beads found at Vlasac in 2006–2009.

Provenance information (context no., x-find no.) of each

artifact is indicated. 1) Unmodified carp tooth used as a bead

(burial H297); 2) Perforated carp tooth used as a bead (burial

H297); 3, 4) Cyclope neritea appliques (burial H297); 5)

Columbella rustica bead (228.627); 6) Columbella rustica

bead (314.614); 7) Ovoid Spondylus bead (burial H63.618);

8) Ovoid Spondylus bead (16); 9) Ovoid Spondylus bead (44.

62); 10) Discoid red limestone bead (burial H63, 64.650); 11)

Discoid green stone bead (8). Photographs by Emanuela

Cristiani.





burial H63 that must have been kept in the burial

area for some time, was now placed along the axis of

the extended body in H53 between her legs (FIG. 10),

with a likely intention of producing the appearance of

an erect penis. The left pelvic bone and several other

disarticulated bones from H63 were also placed over

the lower legs of H53. Next to the right hip of this

individual a flat stone plaque was inserted vertically,

and, on the side of this plaque, two ulnae and a radius

coming from older burials H63 and H81 were stacked

up together. The pelvis and the head of H53 were

then covered by two flat stone plaques. These stone

plaques were similar to the ones that were used to

cover the lower parts of the legs of the individual in

burial H63. A red deer skull was placed atop the

stone plaque covering the pelvis in burial H53. This

red deer skull is dated to between 6006–5838 CAL B.C.

(OxA-16544) (at 95% confidence) (TABLE 1), repre-

senting a terminus ante quem for the interment of

burial H53. The red deer skull comes from a young

animal that was likely caught between mid-summer

and winter, based on the fact that antlers are present,

and that red deer usually shed their antlers from

March through May and they begin growing again in

spring. There were cuts on the frontal and parietal

bones, suggesting some sort of skull manipulation.

It is likely that the deposition of the body in burial

H53 and the red deer skull might have been part of

the same burial event, also possibly related to the

burning of earlier burials at this location. When

compared to the date of H63 that acts as a terminus

post quem for the interments of H53, H60, H62, H69,

and H153, the maximum span of time in which these

five interments took place was not longer than

300 years and likely much shorter. At the same level

where the red deer skull was found, but 80 cm south

of it and aligned with a large stone block placed on

the same level, an isolated child skull, H21, was

deposited as a secondary burial (FIG. 10). Based on an

estimate of this skull’s age, there is the likelihood that

it comes from burial H153 (primary inhumation)

found atop H63. The whole burial zone, which likely

acted as a burial cairn for some time, was covered by

large blocks of stone, some of red color, in an

intentional act of closing the burial place of a

particular social group in a structured manner.

In the burials dated to the Mesolithic-Neolithic

transition phase, there were also other specimens of

Spondylus beads as well as a new type of discoid

shaped red and white beads (FIGS. 14: 10, 15). Both

Spondylus and limestone discoid beads were scattered

within the fill of the various burials described above

but they were largely disturbed from their primary

locations adorning the bodies of the deceased. Only

in the undisturbed portion of child burial H153, next

to the femur, were several beads found in their likely

primary locations (FIG. 15); they are possibly related

to the wrist of the child, suggesting that these beads

might have come from a bracelet that the child was

wearing at the time of the burial. The morphology of

these discoid beads (FIG. 14: 10–11) is another new

element of material culture in the Danube Gorges

area, appearing here for the first time in this period

with analogies in various Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites

of southwestern Asia (Lichter 2007). Closer to home,

at the neighboring site of Lepenski Vir, identical

discoid beads from the same material were found in

Burials 54e, 87a-b and 93 (Srejovic 1981; Srejovic and

Babovic 1982), all three dated to Lepenski Vir I-II,

which is contemporaneous with the Mesolithic-

Neolithic transition phase at Vlasac.

Summary and DiscussionThere was little change in the character of burial

customs at Vlasac from the Late Mesolithic into the

Mesolithic-Neolithic transition period in the region

from around 6200 to 5900 CAL B.C. New excavations at

the site enabled us for the first time to follow in situ

changes in mortuary practices within a single well

documented and now well dated stratigraphic sequence.

In the course of the Late Mesolithic, i.e., for the largest

part of the 7th millennium B.C., the bodies of the

deceased were placed in extended supine positions

parallel to the River Danube and with the heads largely

pointing in an eastern direction, downstream. This

particular position has also been documented at many

other Late Mesolithic sites in the region, and it has

previously been suggested that it may indicate the

importance of animistic or totemic links between

the dead and the river, in particular in connection

with migratory sturgeon that used to come into this

region up the river in their annual spawning cycles

(Radovanovic 1997; Boric 2005). These burial customs

remained unchanged in the period after 6200 CAL B.C.

when these communities came into more intense

contact with the Early Neolithic groups in the adjacent

regions of the Balkans. The only exception to this

general rule is the placement of the last inhumation,

H53, in the burial sequence from Trench 3/2006 at

Vlasac. This last burial in the burial ‘‘cairn’’ was

placed along the same axis as earlier burials in this

place but with its head pointing in the opposite,

western, upstream direction of the river course.

However, such inversions in the orientation of burials

probably should not be read as being related to the

changing historical context at this time and have also

been documented in several other Late Mesolithic

burials from the site of Hajducka Vodenica (Boric and

Miracle 2004). Another characteristic of burial cus-

toms is the use of stone in encasing the bodies of the

deceased or covering particular parts of the body as in

Late Mesolithic burials H2, H297, and H317. Rather



large, occasionally modified blocks of stone were in all

these cases exactly placed over the lower legs of the

deceased. While this practice of encasing and partially

covering the dead with a stone construction continues

into the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition period, it is

notable that in the burial sequence from Trench 3/

2006, instead of stone blocks, fashioned thin stone

plaques were used for the direct covering of the dead.

The possibility that some of the buried individuals

were also tightly bound indicates that this kind of

practice might have been related to particular beliefs

about the dead and such practices might have been

attempts at constraining their undesirable ‘‘move-

ments.’’ Furthermore, the practice of exhuming cranial

and postcranial elements of already decomposed

bodies, their additional fragmentation in some

instances and burning in nearby pits could also suggest

that such practices might have represented intentional

acts of disarticulating bodies that might have been seen

as potentially dangerous. At the same time, disarticu-

lated bones of older burials were frequently kept in the

confines of a particular burial place used for multiple

burials, possibly being recognized as ancestral and

important. In addition, it seems that occasionally such

disarticulated skeletal elements might have been used

creatively during particular rituals.

New excavations at Vlasac have also furnished the

clearest evidence for the structured ritualistic deposi-

tion of a red deer skull with antlers in a burial; it was

placed over the pelvis of the deceased along with the

likely intentional arrangement of old bones on the

dead body of an older woman (H53) in a possible

attempt to create an erect penis. One can only

speculate if this was a statement about the (sexual)

potency of both the male sex and the red deer,

perhaps with magical significance, which might have

been related to problems faced by a particular lineage

that used this location for burial continuously from

the Late Mesolithic into the Mesolithic-Neolithic

transition phase after 6200 CAL B.C. It seems that such

ritual acts were firmly rooted in older local Mesolithic

deathways.

The most clearly observable change in the course of

this period at Vlasac (and similarly in contempora-

neous burials at Lepenski Vir) relates to the only type

of imperishable material culture one finds here

associated with the dead-body adornment, i.e., the

types of beads found associated with the deceased.

This can be most clearly seen in the vertical burial

sequence found in Trench 3/2006 with diachronic

changes in the types of ornaments used.

In the burial sequence in Trench 3/2006 there are

no preserved burial remains that date to the period

between ca. 6500 and 6200 CAL B.C., the latest phase

of the Late Mesolithic. The first burial that strati-

graphically follows mid-7th millennium B.C. burials

with carp teeth ornaments is H63, which is dated to

the period after 6200 CAL B.C. While the head or

garment on the back side of this female individual

was ornamented with carp teeth appliques, here for

the first time one also finds ornaments of Spondylus

shell, which were made with distinctively new techno-

morphological traits, along with white and red

discoid limestone beads, which were clear examples

of new forms that come from a different (Neolithic-

looking) cultural repertoire. It should be noted that

ornaments found in Vlasac burials after ca. 6200 CAL

B.C. could be seen as the first signs of changes in

materials adopted by local foragers who were affected

by contacts with Early Neolithic communities (Boric

2007a, 2011).

The Spondylus network might have replaced the

previous network of social interactions across the

Balkans that was involved in the acquisition of other

desirable exotic marine gastropods, such as Cyclope

neritea and Columbella rustica during the Late Meso-

lithic (Boric 2007b). The appearance of Spondylus in

burial H63 at Vlasac may suggest that here one finds

the earliest example of the spread of the Spondylus

exchange network in Europe. As the later distribution

of Spondylus finds along the Danube (Willms 1985;

Muller 1997), indicates, new social networks seem

to have been created during the Early Neolithic

population spread in the Balkans; the river carried

people as well as materials.

Early/Middle Neolithic Starcevo CeramicsEarly/Middle Neolithic Starcevo ceramics were found

at Vlasac. Interestingly, the largest number of pot-

sherds came from Trench 3/2006 and were vertically

stratified above the burial place described above.

Potsherds were found in the layer that was covering

the large stone blocks that sealed the burial place, with

the center of the ceramic concentration in square 96/

98, but ceramics were also found in adjacent quad-

rants, including one almost complete vessel (Boric

2007a: fig. 3.6). Also found associated with this level

was one green discoid stone bead (FIG. 14: 11). Thanks

to their stratigraphic superposition, it is possible to

provide a terminus post quem for the pottery at the site

on the basis of the dated red deer skull that was

deposited upon the closing of the burial space between

6006 and 5838 CAL B.C. (OxA-16544) (at 95 %

confidence) (TABLE 1); Early Neolithic ceramics might

not have reached Vlasac before ca. 6000 CAL B.C.

There is some evidence at the neighboring site of

Lepenski Vir that ceramics were associated with the

occupation/use of some trapezoidal buildings also in

the period between ca. 6200 and 6000 CAL B.C. (Boric

1999; Garasanin and Radovanovic 2001). Moreover,

Starcevo ceramics were found in the course of the

1970–1971 excavations at Vlasac in the upper levels



of the colluvial sequence and unequally distributed

over the area covered by excavations (Srejovic and

Letica 1978). Hence a date for one particular context

at Vlasac excavated in 2006, at present, should be

taken only as a temporary guideline for the timing of

the introduction of the ceramics to the site. Yet, it is

significant that not a single ceramic fragment occurs

in the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition phase burials,

suggesting that even if during this period ceramics

were obtained through contacts with farming groups,

similar to ornaments, and incorporated into the

fabric of everyday life and social practice, they were

in no way abundant or common.

Conclusions: Vlasac in Its Regional ContextThe discovery in 2006 of intact archaeological levels

at Vlasac offered the opportunity to learn more about

the Mesolithic and the earliest Neolithic sequences in

the Danube Gorges area. Not only did the new work

at the site provide more archaeological detail due to

the application of modern methods of archaeological

excavation and recording, but we were fortunate to

acquire new evidence about Late Mesolithic death-

ways and their relationship with those in the period

that is defined as the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition

(ca. 6200–6000/5900 CAL B.C.). New cultural elements,

namely Spondylus shells and discoid beads were

introduced at Vlasac by the earliest Neolithic groups

from the adjacent regions, mixing with the existing

modes of decoration typical of the Late Mesolithic

period in the region (carp teeth beads). Burial canons

that had for centuries defined forager deathways in

this region, including the position and orientation of

burials and their other furnishings and aspects of

secondary mortuary rites, were unaffected.

There was a gap in the occupation of neighboring

Lepenski Vir during the course of the regional Late

Mesolithic, from ca. 7300 to 6200 CAL B.C. (Boric and

Dimitrijevic 2007, 2009; Bonsall et al. 2008). While

Lepenski Vir must be considered paradigms for the

Mesolithic-Neolithic transition phase in the region, the

intensity of human activity and creative expression

seen at Vlasac and at Schela Cladovei (Bonsall 2008)

appropriately casts these two sites as paradigmatic of

the Mesolithic period. The ‘‘Lepenski Vir culture’’ as a

label to describe the Mesolithic of the Danube Gorges

region should now be replaced with the more

appropriate ‘‘Vlasac-Schela Cladovei culture.’’

Admittedly, we have been able to say more about

deathways than about lifeways on the basis of our

new work at Vlasac. This applies not only to the

Mesolithic-Neolithic transition phase but also to the

whole of the 7th millennium B.C. Yet, based on the

early 7th millennium B.C. dates for the likely domestic

features, only small parts of which were still pre-

served in the two zones of the site, we are able to

suggest that this southern area of the site saw a range

of everyday ‘‘industrial’’ practices (flintknapping,

osseous tool manufacturing, woodworking, plant

processing using ground stone tools, etc.). With the

abandonment of these domestic zones, burials mark

the use of this part of the site in the succeeding

centuries (towards the mid-7th millennium B.C.); in

Trench 3/2006 there is intentional clustering of

interments in the preserved back part of a dwelling

dugout. Accompanying the primary burials are

secondary mortuary loci. Most of the Vlasac settle-

ment, judging also by the distribution of radiocarbon

dates from the area excavated in 1970–1971, was

abandoned by ca. 6300/6200 CAL B.C. In the period

after ca. 6200 CAL B.C., the interment of the individual

in burial H63 took place at the same location as prior

burials in the concentration in Trench 3/2006.

Targeting this particular location for burial was

deliberate and may indicate that this burial zone was

in some way marked and remembered for several

centuries between ca. 6500 and 6200 CAL B.C., or even

longer. We can only speculate that at the time when

the first Neolithic groups penetrated the region, a

kinship group used this location subscribing to the

potency of an ‘‘ancestral’’ place (‘‘real’’ or reinvented)

(Boric 2003a, 2010) as well as to older burial rite

traditions at the abandoned cemetery site. Exotic

elements of body decoration suggest the high social

standing of this group, which might have even been

connected to the population that inhabited neighbor-

ing Lepenski Vir at this time. Several deaths that this

(kin?) group experienced and which were related to the

young—two neonates, a two year old child, and a

teenager—may be indications of the predicaments

concerning health and society that they faced. This

particular sequence is a rare window into individual

destinies at a time of change.

Over the last two decades, the evidence from the

Danube Gorges area has taken its rightful place in

discussions about the nature of early Holocene

adaptations in southeastern Europe and the nature

of the forager-farmer transition. This is due to new

scientific scrutiny applied to collections of materials

excavated during the initial rescue projects in the

1960s and 1970s as well as to new field research at

Schela Cladovei and Vlasac. Yet, for some (e.g.,

Thorpe 1996: 27), the evidence from this region is the

exception rather than the rule when discussing the

arrival of the Neolithic way of life in southeastern

Europe and the nature of social change. We believe

that the evidence from the new excavations at Vlasac

not only shows the different uses of settlement space

but also the nature of social and cultural change as

reflected in different material culture correlates.

These are not only indicative of the ways forager

groups reacted to the appearance of Neolithic



communities in southeastern Europe, but go beyond

this regional context to show the types of processes

and transformations that have occurred worldwide at

many different times when heterogeneous cultures

meet and mingle.

AcknowledgmentsWe would like to acknowledge the funding received

for the archaeological excavations at the site of

Vlasac: British Academy grants SG-42170 and LRG-

45589 from 2006 to 2009; McDonald Institute for

Archaeological Research (University of Cambridge)

grants from 2006 to 2008; and, the Leverhulme

Research Programme, ‘‘Changing Beliefs of the

Human Body: Comparative Social Perspective’’

(University of Cambridge) financial support in

2006. Writing of this paper took place partially while

holding the Hunt Fellowship of the Wenner Gren

Foundation (DB for 2010) and a Wenner Gren

postdoctoral fellowship (EC for 2011). The first

author would like to thank the following close

colleagues and students who made the work on this

project fun and enjoyable (in alphabetical order): Ben

Davenport, Miroslav Kocic, Nenad Lazarevic, Jelena

Raicevic, Andrej Starovicn, and Ivana Zivaljevic. A

number of other colleagues and students took part in

the fieldwork phase of the project from 2006 to 2009

(in alphabetical order): Dana Aleksic, Miljana

Botunjac, Gordana Ciric, Tamara Dogandzic,

Branka Ðuknic, Vojislav Filipovic, Brandon Green,

Milica Jovanovic, Tigran Jovanovic, Aleksandar

Kapuran, Marija Kreckovic Arsenije Lazic, Milica

Lopicic, Jelena Martinovic, Bogdana Milic, Stefan

Milosevic, Milos Nesovic, Vladimir Nikolic, Marija

Obradovic, Jugoslav Pendic, Kristina Penezic, Ivana

Popadic, Katharina Rebay, Igor Starovic, Milena

Vasic, Milica Veselicic, Romana Vujasinovic, Sonja

Vukovic, Mihajlo Vuletic, Minja Zdravkovic, and

Monika Zorko. Members of the local community in

the village of Boljetin and the town of Donji

Milanovac made us feel welcome in the Danube

Gorges area over the years. Finally, this paper is

dedicated to the memory of the first researchers of

this region and their enduring legacy.

Dusan Boric (Ph.D. 2003, University of Cambridge) is

Lecturer in Archaeology at Cardiff University, U.K.

His research focuses on forager and early farmer

communities of southeastern Europe and the eastern

Mediterranean and archaeological theory.

Charles A. I. French (Ph.D. 1983, University of London)

is Professor of Geoarchaeology at the University of

Cambridge and Director of the McBurney Geoar-

chaeology Laboratory at the University of Cambridge,

U.K. He is currently involved in field projects in the

Chanel Islands, Bosnia, Chile, and India.

Sofija Stefanovic (Ph.D. 2006, University of Belgrade)

is Associate Professor of Physical Anthropology at the

Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Philosophy,

Belgrade University, Belgrade, Serbia and the Director

of the ‘‘Bioarchaeology of Ancient Europe: People,

Animals and Plants at the Territory of Serbia During

Prehistory’’ project funded by the Serbian Ministry of

Science. Among other things, her research focuses on

traces of activities on human bones and the health of past

populations in the Balkans.

Vesna Dimitrijevic (Ph.D. 1995, University of

Belgrade) is Professor of Zooarchaeology at the

Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Philosophy,

Belgrade University, Belgrade, Serbia. Her research

focuses on faunal material from early prehistoric and

palaeontological sites in the Balkans.

Emanuela Cristiani (Ph.D. 2010, University of Rome

‘‘La Sapienza’’) is Marie Curie Postdoctoral Fellow at

the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research,

University of Cambridge, U.K. She is a specialist in the

technology and use-wear of tools and ornaments. Her

research focuses on the Upper Palaeolithic and

Mesolithic societies of northern Italy and the Balkans.

Maria Gurova (Ph.D. 1989, Institute of Archaeology,

Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg) is

Senior Research Fellow (Prehistory Department) at

the National Institute of Archaeology and Museum,

Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria. Her

primary research focuses on prehistoric flint assem-

blages from Bulgaria and the adjacent regions includ-

ing use wear and flint sourcing in the Balkans.

Dragana Antonovic (Ph.D. 1998, University of

Belgrade) is Research Associate at the Institute of

Archaeology, Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences,

Belgrade, Serbia. Her primary research interests are

ground stone tools and early copper mining and

metallurgy in the Balkans.

Ethel Allue (Ph.D. 2002, Universitat Rovira i Virgili at

Tarragona) is Researcher at the Institute of Human

Paleoecology and Social Evolution (IPHES) at the

Archaeobotany Unit and Associated Lecturer at the

Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Spain. Her research focuses

on charcoal remains in order to study the past vegetation

and the use of firewood among prehistoric hunter-

gatherers and early farmers. She is currently working on

projects in the Iberian Peninsula, the Balkans and the

Caucasus.

Dragana Filipovic (Ph.D. 2013, University of Oxford)

is an archaeobotanist and her Ph.D. research focused

on macrobotanical remains from the Neolithic site of

Catalhoyuk in central Anatolia. She has analyzed

botanical remains from various prehistoric sites in



Serbia, including the Late Neolithic site of Vinca-Belo

Brdo.

ReferencesAllue, E., D. Filipovic, and D. Boric. in press. ‘‘Archaeobotanical

Record from the Site of Vlasac in the Danube Gorges(Serbia),’’ in P. Arias, ed., Proceedings of the 10th Conferenceon the Mesolithic in Europe. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Antonovic, D. 2006. Stone Tools from Lepenski Vir. Beograd:Arheoloski Institute.

Becker, S. 2010. ‘‘Canine Conundrums at Vlasac: Using StableIsotope Analysis to Reconstruct Dogs’ Diet and Status in theIron Gates Mesolithic/Early Neolithic.’’ Unpublished M.A.thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge,Cambridge.

Beldiman, C. 2005. ‘‘Paleotechnology of Antler Working in theMesolithic of the Iron Gates, Romania,’’ in H. Luik, A. M.Choyke, C. E. Batey, and L. Lougas, eds., From Hooves toHorns, From Mollusc to Mammoth. Manufacture and Use ofBone Artifacts from Prehistoric Times to the Present. MuinasajaTeadus 15. Tallinn: Arheoloogiakeskus, 33–46.

Biagi, P., and E. Starnini. 2010. ‘‘The Early Neolithic ChippedStone Assemblages of the Carpathian Basin: Typology andRaw Material Circulation,’’ in J. K. Kozłowski and P. Raczky,eds., Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: NorthernmostDistribution of the Starcevo/Koros Culture. Krakow-Budapest:Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Institute forArchaeological Science of Eotvos Lorand University, 119–136.

Bocquet-Appel, J.-P., S. Naji, M. Vander-Linden, and J. K.Kozłowski. 2009. ‘‘Detection of Diffusion and Contact Zonesof Early Farming in Europe from the Space-Time Distributionof 14C Dates,’’ Journal of Archaeological Science 36: 807–820.

Bokonyi, S. 1970. ‘‘Animal Remains from Lepenski Vir,’’ Science167: 1702–1704.

Bokonyi, S. 1975. ‘‘Vlasac: An Early Site of Dog Domestication,’’in A. T. Classon, ed., Archaeological Studies. Papers of theArchaeozoological Conference 1974, Groningen. Amsterdam-Oxford-New York: North Holland and American Elsevier,167–178.

Bokonyi, S. 1978. ‘‘The Vertebrate Fauna of Vlasac,’’ in M.Garasanin, ed., Vlasac–mezolitsko naselje u Ðerdapu (Vlasac.A Mesolithic Settlement in the Iron Gates) II. Beograd: Srpskaakademija nauka i umetnosti, 35–65.

Bonsall, C. 2008. ‘‘The Mesolithic of the Iron Gates,’’ in G. N.Bailey, and P. Spikins, eds., Mesolithic Europe. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 238–279.

Bonsall, C., R. Lennon, K. McSweeney, C. Stewart, D. Harkness,V. Boroneant, L. Bartosiewicz, R. Payton, and J. Chapman.1997. ‘‘Mesolithic and Early Neolithic in the Iron Gates: APalaeodietary Perspective,’’ Journal of European Archaeology5: 50–92.

Bonsall, C., I. Radovanovic, M. Roksandic, G. Cook, T. Higham,and C. Pickard. 2008. ‘‘Dating Burial Practices andArchitecture at Lepenski Vir,’’ in C. Bonsall, V. Boroneantand I. Radovanovic, eds., The Iron Gates in Prehistory: NewPerspectives. BAR International Series 1893. Oxford:Archaeopress, 175–204.

Boric, D. 1999. ‘‘Places that Created Time in the Danube Gorgesand Beyond, c. 9000–5500 BC,’’ Documenta Praehistorica 26:41–70.

Boric, D. 2002a. ‘‘The Lepenski Vir Conundrum: Reinterpretationof the Mesolithic and Neolithic Sequences in the DanubeGorges,’’ Antiquity 76: 1026–1039.

Boric, D. 2002b. ‘‘Apotropaism and the Temporality of Colours:Colorful Mesolithic-Neolithic Seasons in the Danube Gorges,’’in A. Jones and G. MacGregor, eds., Colouring the Past: TheSignificance of Colour in Archaeological Research. Oxford:Berg, 23–43.

Boric, D. 2003a. ‘‘‘Deep Time’ Metaphor: Mnemonic andApotropaic Practices at Lepenski Vir,’’ Journal of SocialArchaeology 3: 46–74.

Boric, D. 2003b. Seasons, Life Cycles and Memory in the DanubeGorges, c. 10,000–5500 BC. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,University of Cambridge, Cambridge.

Boric, D. 2005. ‘‘Body Metamorphosis and Animality: VolatileBodies and Boulder Artworks from Lepenski Vir,’’ CambridgeArchaeological Journal 15: 35–69.

Boric, D. 2006. ‘‘New Discoveries at the Mesolithic-Early NeolithicSite of Vlasac: Preliminary Notes,’’ Mesolithic Miscellany18(1): 7–14.

Boric, D. 2007a. ‘‘Mesolithic-Neolithic Interactions in the DanubeGorges,’’ in J. K. Kozłowski and M. Nowak, eds., Mesolithic-Neolithic Interactions in the Danube Basin. BAR InternationalSeries 1726. Oxford: Archaeopress, 31–45.

Boric, D. 2007b. ‘‘The House Between Grand Narratives andMicrohistories: A House Society in the Balkans,’’ in R. A.Beck, Jr., ed., The Durable House: House Society Models inArchaeology. Center for Archaeological Investigations Occasio-nal Paper 35. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, 97–129.

Boric, D. 2010. ‘‘Happy Forgetting? Remembering andDismembering Dead Bodies at Vlasac,’’ in D. Boric, ed.,Archaeology and Memory. Oxford: Oxbow, 48–67.

Boric, D. 2011. ‘‘Adaptations and Transformations of the DanubeGorges Foragers (c. 13,000–5500 cal. B.C.): An Overview,’’ inR. Krauß, ed., Beginnings–New Research in the Appearance ofthe Neolithic Between Northwest Anatolia and the CarpathianBasin. Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf Gmbh, 157–203.

Boric, D., and E. Cristiani. in press. ‘‘A Hybrid Cultural World:The Turn of the 7th to the 6th Millennium B.C. in the CentralBalkans,’’ in P. F. Biehl and E. Rosenstock, eds., 6,000 BC–Transformations and Change in the Near East and Europe.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Boric, D., and V. Dimitrijevic. 2005. ‘‘Continuity of ForagingStrategies in Mesolithic-Neolithic Transformations: DatingFaunal Patterns at Lepenski Vir (Serbia),’’ Atti della Societaper la preistoria e protostoria della regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia15(2004–2005): 33–107.

Boric, D., and V. Dimitrijevic. 2007. ‘‘When Did the ‘NeolithicPackage’ Reach Lepenski Vir? Radiocarbon and FaunalEvidence,’’ Documenta Praehistorica 34: 53–72.

Boric, D. and V. Dimitrijevic. 2009. ‘‘Apsolutne hronologija istratigrafija Lepenskog Vira (Absolute Chronology andStratigraphy of Lepenski Vir),’’ Starinar 57/2007: 9–55.

Boric, D., C. A. I. French, and V. Dimitrijevic. 2008. ‘‘VlasacRevisited: Formation Processes, Stratigraphy and Dating,’’Documenta Praehistorica 35: 293–320.

Boric, D., G. Grupe, J. Peters and Z. Mikic. 2004. ‘‘Is theMesolithic-Neolithic Subsistence Dichotomy Real? New StableIsotope Evidence from the Danube Gorges,’’ European Journalof Archaeology 7: 221–248.

Boric, D., and M. Jevtic. 2008. ‘‘Istrazivanja arheoloskog lokalitetaPecina iznad Trajanove table (Investigations of theArchaeological Site of Tabula Traian Cave),’’ Arheoloskipregled 4(2006): 11–15.

Boric, D., and P. Miracle. 2004. ‘‘Mesolithic and Neolithic(Dis)Continuities in the Danube Gorges: New AMS Datesfrom Padina and Hajducka Vodenica (Serbia),’’ OxfordJournal of Archaeology 23: 341–371.

Boric, D., J. Raicevic, and S. Stefanovic. 2009. ‘‘MesolithicCremations as Elements of Secondary Mortuary Rites atVlasac (Serbia),’’ Documenta Praehistorica 36: 247–282.

Boric, D., and A. Starovic. 2008. ‘‘Neolitski lokalitet Aria babi uzaled–u Ðerdapa (Neolithic Site of Aria Babi in the Hinterlandsof the Danube Gorges),’’ Arheoloski pregled 4(2006): 35–38.

Boroneant, V. 2000. Paleolithique superieur et epipaleolithique dansla zone des Portes de Fer. Bucuresti: Silex.

Boroneant, V., C. Bonsall, K. McSweeney, R. Payton, andM. Macklin. 1999. ‘‘A Mesolithic Burial Area at SchelaCladovei, Romania,’’ in A. Thevenin, ed., L’Europe desderniers chasseurs, Epipaleolithique et Mesolithique. Paris:Editions du CTHS, 385–390.

Boroneant, V. and D. Nicolaescu-Plopsor. 1990. ‘‘Lesions trauma-tiques violentes datant de l’Epipaleolithique tardif du sud-ouestde la Roumanie,’’ L’Anthropologie (Brno) 28(1): 55–65.

Bronk Ramsey, C. 1995. ‘‘Radiocarbon Calibration and Analysisof Stratigraphy: The OxCal Program,’’ Radiocarbon 37: 425–430.

Bronk Ramsey, C. 2001. ‘‘Development of the RadiocarbonProgram OxCal,’’ Radiocarbon 43: 355–363.

Carciumaru, M. 1978. ‘‘L’analyse pollinique des coprolithes de lastation archeologique de Vlasac,’’ in M. Garasanin, ed.,Vlasac, A Mesolithic Settlement in the Iron Gates II: Geology,Biology, Anthropology. Beograd: Srpska akademija nauka iumetnosti, 31–34.

Chapman, J., R. Shiel, and S. Batovic. 1996. The Changing Face ofDalmatia: Archaeological and Ecological Studies in a



Mediterranean Landscape. London: Leicester University andthe Society of Antiquaries.

Cherry, J. F., and W. A. Parkinson. 2003. ‘‘Lithic Artifacts fromSurveys: A Comparative Evaluation of Recent Evidence fromthe Southern Aegean,’’ in P. N. Kardulias and R. W. Yerkes,eds., Written in Stone: The Multiple Dimensions of LithicAnalysis. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 35–57.

Clarke, D. 1976. Mesolithic Europe: The Economic Basis. London:Duckworth.

Clason, A. 1980. ‘‘Padina and Starcevo: Game, Fish and Cattle,’’Palaeohistoria 22: 142–173.

Cook, G., C. Bonsall, R. E. M. Hedges, K. McSweeney,V. Boroneant, L. Bartosiewicz, and P. B. Pettitt. 2002.‘‘Problems of Dating Human Bones from the Iron Gates,’’Antiquity 76: 77–85.

Cook, G., C. Bonsall, C. Pickard, K. McSweeney, L. Bartosiewicz,and A. Boroneant. 2009. ‘‘The Mesolithic-Neolithic Transitionin the Iron Gates, Southeast Europe: Calibration and DietaryIssues,’’ in Ph. Crombe, M. Van Strydonck, J. Sergant,M. Boudin, and M. Bats, eds., Chronology and EvolutionWithin the Mesolithic of North-west Europe. Newcastle uponTyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 497–515.

Cristiani, E., and D. Boric. 2012. ‘‘8500-Year-Old Late MesolithicGarment Embroidery from Vlasac (Serbia): Technological,Use-Wear and Residue Analyses,’’ Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 39: 3450–3469.

Cristiani, E., and D. Boric. in press. ‘‘Technology of OsseousArtifacts in the Mesolithic Danube Gorges: The Evidence fromVlasac (Serbia),’’ in P. Arias, ed., Proceedings of the 10thConference on the Mesolithic in Europe. Oxford: Oxbow.

Cullen, T. 1995. ‘‘Mesolithic Mortuary Ritual at Franchthi Cave,Greece,’’ Antiquity 69: 270–289.

David, E. 2003. ‘‘The Contribution of the Technological Study ofBone and Antler Industry for the Definition of the EarlyMaglemose Culture,’’ in L. Larsson, H. Kindgren,K. Knutsson, D. Loeffler, and A. Akerlund, eds., Mesolithicon the Move. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 649–657.

David, E. 2009. ‘‘Show Me How You Make Your HuntingEquipment and I Will Tell You Where You Come From:Technical Traditions, An Efficient Means of CharacterizingCultural Identities,’’ in S. B. McCartan, P. Woodman,R. Schulting and G. Warren, eds., Mesolithic Horizons.Oxford and Oakville, CT: Oxbow Books, 362–367.

Dimitrijevic, V. 2000. ‘‘The Lepenski Vir Fauna: Bones in Housesand Between Houses,’’ Documenta Praehistorica 27: 101–117.

Dimitrijevic, V. 2008. ‘‘Lepenski Vir Animal Bones: What WasLeft in the Houses?’’ in C. Bonsall, V. Boroneant, andI. Radovanovic, eds., The Iron Gates in Prehistory: NewPerspectives. BAR International Series 1893. Oxford:Archaeopress, 117–130.

Dimitrijevic, V., and S. Vukovic. 2013. ‘‘Was the Dog LocallyDomesticated in the Danube Gorges? Morphometric Study ofDog Cranial Remains from Four Mesolithic-Early NeolithicArchaeological Sites by Comparison with ContemporaryWolves,’’ International Journal of Osteoarchaeology. DOI:10.1002/oa.2260.

Dinu, A., A. Soficaru, and D. Miritoiu. 2007. ‘‘Mesolithic at theDanube’s Iron Gates: New Radiocarbon Dates and OldStratigraphies,’’ Documenta Praehistorica 34: 31–52.

Eichmann, W. J., R. Kertesz, and T. Marton. 2010. ‘‘Mesolithic inthe LBK Heartland of Transdanubia, Western Hungary,’’ inD. Gronnenborn and J. Petrasch, eds., The Spread of theNeolithic to Central Europe. Mainz: Romisch-GermanischenZentralmuseums Mainz.

Filipovic, D., E. Allue, and D. Boric. 2010. ‘‘IntegratedCarpological and Antracological Analysis of the PlantRecord from the Mesolithic Site of Vlasac, Serbia,’’ Journalof the Serbian Archaeological Society 26: 145–161.

Galanidou, N. 1996. ‘‘‘So Far Away, So Close:’ Historical andTheoretical Perspectives on Palaeolithic and MesolithicResearch in Greece,’’ Ariadne (Scientific Bulletin of theSchool of Philosophy, University of Crete) 8: 7–29.

Galanidou, N. 2011. ‘‘Mesolithic Cave Use in Greece and theMosaic of Human Communities,’’ Journal of MediterraneanArchaeology 24: 219–242.

Galanidou, N., and C. Perles, eds. 2003. The Greek Mesolithic:Problems and Perspectives. London: British School at Athens.

Garasanin, M., and I. Radovanovic. 2001. ‘‘A Pot in House 54 atLepenski Vir I,’’ Antiquity 75: 118–125.

Gaspari, A., ed. 2006. Zalog Near Verd: Stone Age Hunters’ Campat the Western Edge of the Ljubljansko Barje. Ljubljana:Zalozba ZRC.

Gkiasta, M., T. Russell, S. Shennan, and J. Steele. 2003. ‘‘NeolithicTransition in Europe: The Radiocarbon Record Re-visited,’’Antiquity 77: 45–62.

Gurova. M. 2012. ‘‘‘Balkan Flint’–Fiction and/or Trajectory toNeolithization: Evidence from Bulgaria,’’ Bulgarian e-Journalof Archaeology 2(1): 15–49.

Hansen, J. M. 1991. The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave.Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Heffley, S. 1981. ‘‘The Relationship Between NorthernAthapaskan Settlement Patterns and Resource Distribution:An Application of Horn’s Model,’’ in B. Winterhalder andE. A. Smith, eds., Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Strategies:Ethnographic and Archaeological Analyses. Chicago: Univer-sity of Chicago Press, 126–147.

Jancic, R. 1990. Lekovite biljke. Beograd: Naucna knjiga.Jovanovic, B. 2008. ‘‘Micro-regions of the Lepenski Vir Culture:

Padina in the Upper Gorge and Hajducka Vodenica in theLower Gorge of the Danube,’’ Documenta Praehistorica 35:289–324.

Komso, D. 2006. ‘‘The Mesolithic in Croatia,’’ OpusculaArchaeologica 35: 55–92.

Kozłowski, J. K., and S. K. Kozłowski. 1982. ‘‘Lithic Industriesfrom the Multi-Layer Mesolithic Site, Vlasac, in Yugoslavia,’’in J. K. Kozłowski, ed., Origin of the Chipped Stone Industriesof the Early Farming Cultures in the Balkans. Prace arche-ologiczne 33. Warszawa-Krakow: Panstwowe WydawnictwoNaukowe, 11–109.

Lichter, C., ed. 2007. Vor 12000 Jahren in Anatolien. Die altestenMonumente der Menschheit (Gebundene Ausgabe). Karlsruhe:Theiss.

Markovic-Marjanovic, J. 1978. ‘‘Geologija i stratigrafija (Geologyand Stratigraphy),’’ in M. Garasanin, ed., Vlasac–mezolitskonaselje u Djerdapu (Vlasac: A Mesolithic Settlement in the IronGates) Vol. II. Beograd: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti,11–27.

Mason, S., V. Boroneant, and C. Bonsall. 1996. ‘‘Plant Remainsfrom Schela Cladovei, Romania: A Preliminary Note,’’Mesolithic Miscellany 17(2): 11–14.

Miracle, P. T. 1997. ‘‘Early Holocene Foragers in the Karst ofNorthern Istria,’’ Porocilo o raziskovanju paleolita, neolita ineneolita v Sloveniji 24: 43–61.

Miracle, P. T. 2001. ‘‘Feast or Famine? Epipalaeolithic Subsistencein the Northern Adriatic Basin,’’ Documenta Archaeologica 28:173–196.

Miracle, P., N. Galanidou, and S. Forenbaher. 2000. ‘‘Pioneers inthe Hills: Early Mesolithic Foragers at Sebrn Abri (Istria,Croatia),’’ European Journal of Archaeology 3: 293–329.

Mlekuz, D., M. Budja, R. Payton, C. Bonsall, and A. Z. Gasparic.2008. ‘‘Reassessing the Mesolithic/Neolithic ‘Gap’ in SoutheastEuropean Cave Sequences,’’ Documenta Praehistorica 35: 237–251.

Muller, J. 1997. ‘‘Neolithische und chalkolithische Spondylus-Artefakte. Anmerkungen zu Verbreitung, Tauschgebiet, undsozialer Funktion,’’ in C. Becker, M. L. Dunkelmann,C. Metzner-Nebelsick, H. Peter-Rochner, M. Roeder, andB. Terzan, eds., Xrovos. Beitrage zur prahistorischenArchaeologie zwischen Nord- und Sudosteuropa. Festschrift furBernard Hansel. Espelkamp: Verlag Marie Leidorf Gmbh, 91–106.

Nandris, J. 1971. ‘‘Europe’s First Monumental Sculpture: NewDiscoveries at Lepenski Vir. Reviews,’’ Proceedings of thePrehistoric Society 38: 426–429.

Nehlich, O., D. Boric, S. Stefanovic, and M. P. Richards. 2010.‘‘Sulphur Isotope Evidence for Freshwater Fish Consumption:A Case Study from the Danube Gorges, SE Europe,’’ Journalof Archaeological Science 37: 1131–1139.

Nemeskeri, J. 1978. ‘‘Demographic Structure of the VlasacEpipalaeolithic Population,’’ in M. Garasanin, ed., Vlasac–mezolitsko naselje u Ðerdapu II. Beograd: Srpska akademijanauka i umetnosti, 97–133.

Paunescu, Al. 1970. ‘‘Epipaleoliticul de la Cuina Turcului-Dubova,’’ Studii si Cercetari Istorie Veche si Archeologice21(1): 3–29.

Perles, C., and M. Vanhaeren. 2010. ‘‘Black Cyclope neritea MarineShell Ornaments in the Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic ofFranchthi Cave, Greece: Arguments for Intentional HeatTreatment,’’ Journal of Field Archaeology 35: 298–309.



Petrovic, M. 1941. Ðerdapski ribolovi u proslosti i u sadasnjosti.Beograd: Srpska Kraljevska Akademija.

Radovanovic, I. 1996. The Iron Gates Mesolithic. ArchaeologicalSeries 11. Ann Arbor: International Monographs inPrehistory.

Radovanovic, I. 1997. ‘‘The Lepenski Vir Culture: A Contributionto Interpretation of its Ideological Aspects,’’ in M. Lazic, ed.,Antidoron Dragoslavo Srejovic completis LXV annis ab amicis,collegis, discipulis oblatum. Beograd: Centar za arheoloskaistrazivanja, Filozofski fakultet, 85–93.

Roksandic, M. 1999. Transition from Mesolithic to Neolithic in theIron Gates Gorge: Physical Anthropology Perspective.Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Simon Fraser University,Vancouver, Canada.

Roksandic, M. 2000. ‘‘Between Foragers and Farmers in the IronGates Gorge: Physical Anthropology Perspective. DjerdapPopulation in Transition from Mesolithic to Neolithic,’’Documenta Praehistorica 27: 1–100.

Roksandic, M. 2004. ‘‘Contextualizing the Evidence of ViolentDeath in the Mesolithic: Burials Associated with Victims ofViolence in the Iron Gates Gorge,’’ in M. Roksandic, ed.,Evidence and Meaning of Violent Interactions in MesolithicEurope. Oxford: Archaeopress, 53–74.

Runnels, C., M. Korkuti, M. L. Galaty, M. E. Timpson, J. C.Whittaker, S. R. Stocker, J. L. Davis, L. Bejko, and S. Mucaj.2004. ‘‘The Palaeolithic and Mesolithic of Albania: Survey andExcavation at the Site of Kryegjata B (Fier District),’’ Journalof Mediterranean Archaeology 17: 3–29.

Runnels, C., M. Korkuti, M. L. Galaty, M. E. Timpson, J. C.Whittaker, S. R. Stocker, J. L. Davis, L. Bejko, and S. Mucaj.2009. ‘‘Early Prehistoric Landscape and Landuse in the FierRegion of Albania,’’ Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 22:151–182.

Runnels. C., E. Panagopoulou, P. Murray, G. Tsartsidou, S. Allen,K. Mullen, and E. Tourloukis. 2005. ‘‘A Mesolithic Landscapein Greece: Testing a Site-Location Model in the Argolid atKandia,’’ Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 18: 259–285.

Runnels, C., and T. H. van Andel. 2003. ‘‘The Early Stone Age ofthe Nomos of Preveza: Landscape and Settlement,’’ inJ. Wiseman and K. Zachos, eds., Landscape Archaeology in

Southern Epirus, Greece Vol. I. Princeton, NJ: AmericanSchool of Classical Studies at Athens, 47–134.

Sampson, A., ed. 2007. The Cave of the Cyclops: Mesolithic andNeolithic Networks in the Northern Aegean, Greece, Vol. I:Intra-Site Analysis, Local Industries, and Regional SiteDistribution. Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press.

Sampson, A., ed. 2010. The Cave of the Cyclops: Mesolithic andNeolithic Networks in the Northern Aegean, Greece, Vol. II.Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press.

Srejovic, D. 1972. Europe’s First Monumental Sculpture: NewDiscoveries at Lepenski Vir. London: Thames and Hudson.

Srejovic, D. 1981. Lepenski Vir: Menschenbilder einer fruheneuropaischen Kultur. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern.

Srejovic, D., and Lj. Babovic. 1982. Umetnost Lepenskog Vira.Beograd: Jugoslavija.

Srejovic, D., and Z. Letica. 1978. Vlasac. Mezolitsko naselje uDjerdapu (I arheologija) (Vlasac. A Mesolithic Settlement in theIron Gates I). Beograd: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti.

Stefanovic, S., and D. Boric. 2008. ‘‘The Newborn Infant Burialsfrom Lepenski Vir: In Pursuit of Contextual Meanings,’’ inC. Bonsall, V. Boroneant and I. Radovanovic, eds., The IronGates in Prehistory: New Perspectives. BAR International Series1893. Oxford: Archaeopress, 131–169.

Thorpe, I. J. 1996. The Origins of Agriculture in Europe. Londonand New York: Routledge.

Tringham, R. 2000. ‘‘Southeastern Europe in the Transition toAgriculture in Europe: Bridge, Buffer or Mosaic,’’ in T. D.Price, ed., Europe’s First Farmers. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 19–56.

Vulcanescu, R., ed., 1972. The Iron Gate Complex Atlas. Bucharest:The Academy of the Socialist Republic of Romania.

Whallon, R. 2006. ‘‘Social Networks and Information: Non-‘Utilitarian’ Mobility Among Hunter-Gatherers,’’ Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 25: 259–270.

Willms, C. 1985. ‘‘Neolithischer Spondylus schmuck. HundertJahre Forschung,’’ Germania 65: 331–343.

Wiltshire, E. J. P. 1995. ‘‘The Effect of Food Processing on thePalatability of Wild Fruits with High Tannin Content,’’ inH. Kroll and R. Pasternak, eds., Res Archaeobotanicae. Kiel:Oetker Voges Verlag, 385–397.



Late Mesolithic lifeways and deathways at Vlasac (Serbia)

Documents

Transcript of Late Mesolithic lifeways and deathways at Vlasac (Serbia)