BRAȘOV COUNTY HISTORY MUSEUM

MUSEUM OF BRĂILA

The Thracians and their Neighbors in

the Bronze and Iron Ages

PROCEEDINGS OF THE 12TH

INTERNATIONAL

CONGRESS OF THRACOLOGY

TÂRGOVIȘTE

10TH

-14TH

SEPTEMBER 2013

“Necropolises, Cult places, Religion, Mythology” - Volume II -

Editorial Board

Valeriu Sîrbu and Radu Ștefănescu

MUZEUL BRĂILEI EDITURA ISTROS

BRAȘOV

2013

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE BORDERS BETWEEN

THE BRONZE AGE CULTURAL GROUPS IN THE REGION

OF THE WEST MORAVA VALLEY, CENTRAL SERBIA

Katarina Dmitrović (Čačak – Serbia),

Marija Ljuština (Belgrade – Serbia)

Key words: Early Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age, Central Serbia, Western Serbia,

transitional area, achaeological cultures, funerary practice.

Abstract: The region of the West Morava valley, central Serbia, is of particular interest for the research of the

Bronze Age cultural phenomena. Results of archaeological research of a number of sites indicated that this

region represented the transitional territory between already defined cultural groups which existed in the wider

territory of Serbia to the south of the rivers Sava and Danube. Many of these groups are mainly known thanks to

the well preserved remains of burials in contrast to the poorly investigated settlements. Determination of the

cultural groups was based on the main characteristics which usually refer to the cemetery type (mounds vs. flat

necropolises), shape of the grave construction, treatment of bodily remains of the deceased (inhumation vs.

cremation), stylistic and typological analysis as well as distribution of grave goods.

Introduction

Archaeological excavations of the Central Balkans provided a solid basis for

determination of several cultural groups which developed on the territory of Serbia during the

Bronze Age, despite uneven number of explored settlements and necropolises. Speaking in

terms of cultural groups, we follow the concept stating that political territories were marked

not only by differences in pottery styles, but in funerary practices, reflecting political entities

generally extending in a diameter of 100-200 km (cf. Kristiansen and Larsson 2005, p. 125).

Respecting traditional Serbian nomenclature for prehistory (cf. Гарашанин 1973; Garašanin

1983a; Garašanin 1983b; Garašanin 1983c), we kept the term cultural group to some extent,

although in most of the cases it is the synonym for archaeological culture, i.e. it is not

subordinated to any larger cultural entity.

Concept of archaeological culture has been the scene of conflict between different

theoretical regimes in the history of archaeology and anthropology. Historically speaking,

such debates are indicators of vital and polemical strength of the disciplines. They have often

been placed in the frames of conceptual strategy of opposites, and during the years a number

of systems and theoretical frameworks have been created (Jones 2004; Kristiansen 1998, Fig.

14; Kristiansen 2004, p. 259-278). If an assemblage of items of various types, which are

tightly associated and which cover whole range of human activities, consistently repeats

inside limited area and given period (i.e. if it has limited distribution in space and time), it can

be defined as a culture and taken as characteristic for certain human society (cf. Bray and

Trump 1982, p. 25; Renfrew and Bahn 2004, p. 118). Such a wide definition of culture,

postulated as early as 1920s by V. G. Childe, implies that in that case immaterial

characteristics of a culture are equally important as material ones, even though only material

testimony can be archaeologically re-established. W. Bray and D. Trump (Bray and Trump

1982, p. 25, 70) describe prehistory as a building whose construction elements are prehistoric

cultures. It must be admitted that the elements are not as solid as we want them to be.

Examples from historic times or ethnography show that equalisation of culture with society is

not perfect, although it is the best archaeologists can gain without help from other disciplines.

Battles over nature of material culture were connected with cyclical changes in dominant

154

theoretical frames of archaeology. With time it became clear that pairs of notions used in

opposites (e.g. idealism vs. materialism, normative ideas vs. social function, active thinking

vs. passive symbols...) probably referred to complementary properties of culture and society.

During 1990s and at the turn of the century such a comprehension led to increased interest to

cope with the central property of archaeological testimony – material culture (Kristiansen

2004, p. 259-260).

The premise that there is a difference in ceramic style, both in the sense of separation

of one culture from the others and inside one cultural entity (regional variants and/or

chronological categories), is binding: style has to be defined. Style is a complex concept used

in a number of disciplines and it is difficult to be defined. This term is most frequently used

in art and literature, where it has two primary meanings: means of expression (unlike the

content or expressed ideas), and diversity, originality and character of the expression. Still, in

archaeology and anthropology, specially in pottery studies, this separation of content and

production (or technique) in definitions of style is not preserved (Rice 2005, p. 244).

Archaeologists and anthropologists define “stylistic zones” as spatial units represented by

common ways of production and decoration of artefacts (Renfrew and Bahn 2004, p. 586). It

is obvious that archaeologists and anthropologists use the term style in the sense of decorative

style, with meaning of surface treatment and embellishment of an object. Other elements of

style, such as production techniques, are important, too, but they still have not been

systematically researched in pottery studies. As P. Rice correctly noticed (Rice 2005, p. 245),

styles, specially pottery styles, have for archaeologists long been important for reconstruction

of historical and cultural relations of the people settling archaeological sites.

In the case of western Serbia, many of the Bronze Age cultural groups are mainly

known thanks to the well preserved remains of burials in contrast to the poorly investigated

settlements. Determination of the cultural groups was based on the main characteristics which

usually refer to the cemetery type (mounds vs. flat necropolises), shape of the grave

construction, treatment of bodily remains of the deceased (inhumation vs. cremation),

stylistic and typological analysis as well as distribution of grave goods, among which analysis

of pottery plays a significant role.

In this sense, the Čačak region draws our special attention. The Čačak region is

situated between two important geo-morphological units of the Central Balkans: the low hilly

region of Šumadija and the mountainous region belonging to the Dinara massive. The

connective zone between these two units is made by the valley with the river West Morava

running through it. This low, wide and fertile valley, surrounded by hills and mountains,

connect the Dinara massive of the Western Balkans to the main transversal of the Central

Balkans – the Morava-Vardar valley (Ljuština and Dmitrović 2009, p. 92). Despite

continuous archaeological excavations for more than a half of a century, registered and

explored necropolises dominate when compared with settlements. Having in mind this fact as

well as the fact that the situation is similar in the wider territory of Western Serbia, we

focused on the analysis of the Bronze Age burial customs.

Some chronological remarks

Thanks to the solid chronology based on series of calibrated radio-carbon and

dendrochronological data, new chronological systems have been established for the Bronze

Age. Despite it, K. Kristiansen and T. Larsson (Kristiansen and Larsson 2005, p. 116) laid

particular stress on the fact that there were too few data, particularly from Eastern Europe and

Eastern Mediterranean. Fortunately, there are series of consistent data from Central Europe,

Western Europe, Northern Europe and Western Mediterranean (Kristiansen 1998, Fig. 13;

Kristiansen, Larsson 2005, p. 116).

Since there is no reliable series of radio-carbon or dendrochronological data for any of

the Bronze Age phases in the West Morava valley, we have to look for help in the regions

155

nearby, starting from South Pannonia. As for central Serbia, the site Ljuljaci, Milića Brdo,

near the town Kragujevac, one of the very few sites in Serbia with radio-carbon data,

provided us with data from only five Bronze Age samples out of which M. Bogdanović

(Богдановић 1986, p. 70) finds only three of them reliable – one for the earlier Ljuljaci I

horizon (around 1950 BC) and two for the later Ljuljaci II horizon (between 1730 and

1690BC)(Богдановић 1986, p. 70). On the other hand, F. Gogâltan cites data from four

samples from Ljuljaci: 3480±100BP, 3460±100BP, 3425±95BP and 3370±100BP (Gogâltan

1999, p. 308, Pl. 16), all of them being representative for the Middle Bronze Age, since he

placed the whole development of the Vatin culture, to which the horizons from Ljuljaci are

connected, in the mentioned period (cf. Gogâltan 2004).

Data given for the Early Bronze Age of the Hungarian part of the Carpathian Basin

(Bóna 1994; Ecsedy 1994) differ from the traditional absolute chronology, because they are

based on the calibrated radio-carbon data, indicating that the end of the Eneolithic should be

dated a couple of hundreds of years earlier than it was previously presumed. Consequently,

the development which led to the emergence of the Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin also

started earlier, surely in the second half of the 3rd

millennium BC. The transition from the

Bronze to Iron Age is also presumed to be in the 9th

-8th

century BC, suggesting that the

Bronze Age might have lasted half a millennium longer then it had been thought. Duration of

each of the phases (early, middle, late) and diagnostic characteristics for chronological

determination are still problematic. Therefore T. Kovács (Kovács 1994, p. 22) introduced a

test assumption that in the Carpathian Basin the middle, developed phase of the Bronze Age

started around the 19-18th

century BC. His opinion seems plausible for our territory, but until

the solid confirmation by some series of exact data, we can only speak in terms of early,

middle (developed, florescent) and late phase of the development of the Bronze Age.

A brief review of the Bronze Age cultural phenomena in the West Morava valley

The Early Bronze Age

During the Early Bronze Age in the territory surrounding the Čačak region, according

to the synthetic and still relevant and unrevised literature (Garašanin 1983a; Garašanin

1983b), the Belotić–Bela Crkva culture developed on the west and Bubanj–Hum III culture

on the east. Specific features of the Belotić–Bela Crkva culture, which developed in Western

Serbia, are on the first place represented by burying exclusively under mounds (Fig.1)(middle

size objects of ca. 15m in diameter), as well as by existence of a central grave with either an

inhumed deceased in crouched position or an incinerated one, and rare and mostly poor grave

goods, which mainly consisted of ceramic ware. In certain mounds stone constructions were

excavated as a part of the mound architecture or in the grave function (Garašanin 1983a).

The Central Balkans are characterized by development of the Bubanj–Hum III

culture, which is marked, in contrast to the Belotić–Bela Crkva culture, exclusively by

explored settlements and so far not a single grave (Булатовић and Станковски 2012, p. 279;

Garašanin 1983b). What characterises most this group are ceramic forms, especially the

beaker with slightly rounded profile with two handles that tie up the rim and the belly

(Garašanin 1983b, p. 721)(Fig. 2/4-6). This horizon, after M. Stojić (Stojić 1996, p. 248-250;

Стојић and Чађеновић 2006, p. 28-29), is named the horizon of the beakers with two

handles, which, obviously, represent the most frequent and widely spread ceramic form. In

our opinion, this concept is outdated (cf. Bóna 1975 with “kantharos cultures”) and hence

shoul be avoided.

As it was mentioned, the Belotić–Bela Crkva culture extended in Western Serbia,

where it comprised several micro-regions. One of them, after M. Garašanin (Garašanin

1983a, p. 706), is Dragačevo and its surroundings, which belong to the mountainous part of

the Čačak region. One must have in mind that, when the monograph „Praistorija

156

jugoslavenskih zemalja“ was written, a huge number of results of the excavated mounds was

not known to the author to the extent of our present knowledge. In this zone, out of 38

excavated mounds, 18 mounds with 19 graves, along with three cenotaphs without any trace

of bodily remains of the deceased belong to the Early Bronze Age. The burial rite includes

mounds exclusively, both inhumation and incineration of the deceased, who were always

(only one exception) placed in the center of the mound (Dmitrović 2013, in print). The most

frequent grave construction, registered in 9 tumuli, is coffin-like construction (sarcophagus)

made of stone slabs for inhumed and incinerated deceased, as well as for cenotaphs (Fig. 2/1).

Other constructions usually represent particular examples without possibility to establish

some firm regularities (incinerated bones covered with earth, earth and stones, lying inside an

urn, or covered with a stone construction) (Dmitrović 2013, in print). Regarding the grave

goods, as it was already stated for Belotić-Bela Crkva culture, they were usually poor and

mostly consisted of ceramic ware. Rarely were there some stone objects. Pottery is dominated

by the beaker with two handles, long cylindrical neck and spherically shaped belly (Fig. 2/2,

3). So far, there are five beakers of the kind, always associated with the sarcophagi graves. If

broader area of Western Serbia is observed, it must be emphasized that the largest

concentration of these burial features is confirmed in the Čačak region. It certainly highly

accentuates this area in comparison with the neighbouring regions.

Despite the fact that mounds are spread all over the Čačak region, they were not

simultaneously established and do not reveal the same ritual model, as the following research

is going to confirm. Minding the previously described examples from the mountainous parts

(Dragačevo and Kablar), an interesting fact appeared that the only Early Bronze Age mound

from the West Morava valley originated from the site Ade in Prijevor, not far from the

mountain Kablar slopes. At the site, the registered burial ritual was significantly different.

Namely, the usual central place was reserved for the group of vessels probably in function of

grave offering, while burnt bodily remains were lying on the mound periphery (Fig. 3).

Characteristics of this grave deposit have strong parallels with the ceramic production of the

Bubanj–Hum III culture (Никитовић 2000, p. 10). On the other side, ceramic shapes from

the graves from Dragačevo and Kablar, as in the necropolises further to the west and north

are closely tied with at least partially contemporaneous south Pannonian cultures (Makó,

Vinkovci, Somogyvár,…)(Garašanin 1983a).

The Middle Bronze Age

Territory to the south from the rivers Sava and Danube in the middle phase of the

Bronze Age is marked by development of the so called Western Serbian variant of the Vatin

culture in the west and north–west, and the Paraćin I culture in central Serbia (Fig. 4).

Mounds as burial constructions can be found in funerary practice in Western Serbia, with the

upper course of the West Morava within its borders. According to M. Garašanin (cf.

Garašanin 1983d), this cultural phenomenon was named and widely accepted as Western

Serbian variant of the Vatin culture. It is important to emphasize that M. Garašanin did not

recognize the Vatin culture – which is essentially a south Pannonian culture - in central

Serbia. In Garašanin’s opinion, the Vatin culture did not penetrate the Balkans deeper to the

south than the Danube valley, where on the right bank of the Danube he found some of the

elements of the culture, as in the case of the site Vinča-Belo brdo (cf. Jovanović 1961; Васић

1936). In contrast, the Paraćin culture developed further to the south, while the elements

which can be connected with the Vatin culture occur in the area only sporadically, as

extremely rare phenomena (Гарашанин 1973, p. 321).

When dealing with regional specificities inside the Vatin culture, D. Garašanin

(Гарашанин 1972, p. 18) stated, being guided by the ideas by Z. Vinski (Vinski 1958, p. 23)

about regional grouping of finds in the zone of Syrmia and eastern Slavonia (regional sub-

group of the Pannonian pottery or the Lovas type), that the Vatin culture spread its territory to

157

Syrmia, where it was represented by a special variant. Already in 1972, D. Garašanin treats

separately the co called Western Serbian variant of the Vatin culture. The variant, despite

closely connected with the Vatin culture, should be given somewhat different ethnical

interpretation because of its specific funerary practice – burials under tumuli (Гарашанин

1972, p. 18; Гарашанин 1975, p. 47-48). However, the credit for separation and definition of

the Western Serbian variant of the Vatin culture went to M. Garašanin (Гарашанин 1973;

Garašanin 1983d). M. Garašanin’s choice to separate the sites from west and central Serbia

not as a group or phase of the Vatin culture, but as a variant (the term variant is rarely in use

in Serbian archaeology), testifies about his intention to imply that it was a separate cultural

entity. Such a concept was much later explicitly stated by F. Gogâltan (Gogâltan 2004, p. 85-

86). What remains open is the question about the lowest common denominator in the material

culture (most obviously in pottery style), the existence of which would keep the “variant”

inside the frames of the Vatin culture.

As it was already mentioned, in central Serbia and thus in the lower Morava course

are excavated only the flat necropolises belonging to the Paraćin I culture, which is known

from necropolises and settlements (Fig.4). These necropolises belong to the type known as

flat necropolises with urns, where some graves were under specific stone constructions. The

deceased were incinerated and burnt bones were placed in ceramic urns (Garašanin 1983c;

Peković 2007)(Fig. 5). The grave inventory usually consisted of ceramic ware and very rare

metal objects, significantly fewer in number in comparison with the necropolises from

Western Serbia.

In the Čačak region at that time tumuli remained the main characteristic of the burial

customs. The necropolises are explored or registered in the same zones – Dragačevo and

Kablar range on the one, and the river valley on the other side. If we compare the situation

from the Early Bronze Age, there is notably higher number of investigated graves and

mounds originating from the Middle Bronze Age horizon. 59 grave units buried in 19

mounds belong to this period (Dmitrović 2010a, p. 187). Burial customs in regard to

treatment of bodily remains are dual: incineration and inhumation of the deceased.

Inhumation was practiced only in the Dragačevo region and Kablar range, but still there has

not been registered any inhumation from the West Morava valley (Dmitrović 2010a, p. 189).

The inhumed deceased are usually placed on the right or left side, in crouched position, and

often along with grave goods and various stone constructions almost always covered with

stone (Dmitrović 2010a, p. 189-190). Incineration prevails among the Middle Bronze Age

graves in the whole area. The burnt bones are usually placed in a recipient – a ceramic urn,

and often protected with different kinds of the grave constructions (Dmitrović 2010a, p. 190-

192). The grave inventory usually consisted of parts of the costume and bronze jewelry,

sometimes burnt along with the deceased, rarely ceramic vessels and weapons (Dmitrović

2010, p. 193)(Fig.6).

In accordance with these facts, it can be emphasized that the necropolises from the

upper part of the West Morava valley, which geographically belong to the Čačak region,

show some particular features. Namely, the graves from this area were buried exclusively

under mounds. On the multilayered necropolis under mounds on the site Lugovi-Bent in

Mojsinje, the graves with incinerated deceased which were placed in the ceramic urns along

with the grave offerings that mostly consisted of ceramics, belonged to the Bronze Age

(Nikitović, Stojić, Vasić 2002)(Fig. 7/6-9). Stylistic and typological characteristics of the

ceramic ware show parallels with the contemporary cultures from the Danube basin – Belegiš

I (Тасић 2002, p. 171-172) as well as do the ceramic forms from the other mound

necropolises from west Serbian territory. On the other side, certain details and forms are

connected with synchronous Paraćin I culture (Nikitović, Stojić, Vasić 2002, p. 110). The

other characteristic of these graves, in comparison with the graves from the west, is extremely

158

small number of metal objects, while ceramics richly prevail. Some 20km down the river

course, a flat necropolis was excavated on the site Gorelo Polje in Miločaj, not far from the

town Kraljevo. It is a flat necropolis with incinerated graves with urns placed on the stone

slabs and covered with roughly made pots and pythoi of greater dimensions. The grave

inventory consisted exclusively of ceramic ware. Fragmented urns show some parallels with

the shapes and decoration typical for Hügelgräberkultur and the Belegiš horizon, which had

certain influence on the ceramic production in the Western Serbia (Дмитровић 2010b, p. 34;

Тасић 2002, p. 172). The other pottery shapes have parallels in the material from the nearby

settlements and necropolises from the lower river course, and belong to the Paraćin cultural

circle (Дмитровић 2010b, p. 34-36). Similar situation is registered on the mound necropolis

in Dobrača in Šumadija region, where analogous mixture of the Danubian and central Serbian

elements in the pottery production was noticed (Fig. 7/1-5). Similarly to the Mojsinje and

Miločaj necropolises, the absence of metal objects is noticed in contrast to the abundant

presence of pottery in function of grave offerings (Garašanin M. and Garašanin D. 1958;

Peković 2007, p. 55-56; Стојић 1998, p. 136-137). On the other side, M. Stojić sees the

ceramic shapes from Dobrača as a part of a particular horizon named Mojsinje–Dobrača,

being the final (fourth) phase of the Vatin culture on the territory to the south from the

Danube and Sava rivers. This author also considers chronological sequence starting from

Mojsinje, while Dobrača is slightly younger. Cultural successor of the horizon Mojsinje-

Dobrača is, after Stojić, the Paraćin culture (Стојић 1998).

Speaking about M. Stojić’s views of the Serbian Bronze Age, we find it extremely

difficult, almost impossible, to establish vertical stratigraphy and consequently so called

cultural stratigraphy on the basis of single-layer sites. The fact that there is no single site

illustrating the division of the Vatin culture in six evolution stages makes it impossible to

sort, with certainty, the mentioned single-layer sites in a continuous chronological sequence.

M. Peković (Peković 2007, p. 54) also criticises this methodological approach introduced by

Stojić. Another thing is that the Middle Bronze Age is definitely not the period of great

cultural complexes, but rather of small political entities archaeologically recognized as

certain cultures or cultural groups (Ljuština 2011, p. 109-110). Therefore we should perceive

the Vatin culture as a south Pannonian cultural phenomenon, having no potential to reach as

far as the central and southern Serbia, as proposed by M. Stojić (cf. Стојић 2004, p.193-215).

A. Bulatović and J. Stankovski share our opinion in their recent work. They warn that, since

only sporadic finds attributed to the developed phase of the Vatin culture were found in the

Morava valley (mostly in its northern part), they are not sufficient to claim existence of the

Vatin culture in the Morava valley. If one takes into consideration the specific ornamental

style of the Vatin culture to the north of the Sava and Danube, the presence of which was not

registered in any case in the South Morava basin (Булатовић and Станковски 2012, p. 343),

the previous warning becomes even more important.

The Late Bronze Age

The period of the Late Bronze Age is marked by not so many excavated graves as it

was the case with the preceding phases (Fig. 8). This horizon is characterised by development

of the Urnfield phenomenon in Western Serbia and the Paraćin II culture in the central part of

the country. Despite the small number of sites and findings in comparison with the previous

phases, there were enough elements to establish that in Western Serbia at the time main

cultural impetus came from the Urnfield cultural complex from the north, which was

reflected in the forms and decoration of the ceramic ware and metal findings (Garašanin

1983e). Still, it seems that that traditional sepulchral form – mound burial - remained in use

even during this period. It points to the strong influences or symbiosis of the two strong

cultural elements (Garašanin 1983e). In central Serbia during the same period the Paraćin II

culture developed, representing the sequence of the Paraćin I culture (Fig. 9/1-3). The

159

changes, which are noticed mainly on the ceramics, show influences from the Danube basin

(Peković 2007, p. 59-64).

The findings from the site Katovac in Baluga near Čačak show again the same

characteristics as the above mentioned archaeological sites from the river valley (Fig. 9/4-7).

The presumed grave deposit from Baluga consisted of seven vessels (one fragmented). The

stylistic-typological characteristics show parallels both in the contemporary mid-Danubian

Belegiš II culture, and in the Paraćin II culture in the east and south-east. A mound near the

location of this finding might indicate a grave under the mound from which the pottery

deposit came from, since this is the main attribute of the burial practice in the region over the

last millennia BC. Another characteristic of the Late Bronze Age is an increasing number of

settlements, mostly hillforts.

Conclusion

Our research revealed that the West Morava valley, in its northern course belonging to

the Čačak region, played an important role as a transitional territory during the Bronze Age.

Distribution of the necropolises of the Early Bronze Age clearly shows concentration

of the mounds in the zones to the west from the river West Morava, while the only exception

represents the mound on the site Ade in Prijevor. Further to the east, there are neither

registered nor excavated necropolises. In Kablar and especially Dragačevo region significant

concentration of graves in stone coffins, often along with the double handled beakers, is

noticed. It elevates this region on the dominant position in Serbia and even wider (Dmitrović

2013). Burying under mounds makes a part of autochthonous tradition, while some changes

in the ritual patterns and ceramics forms represent adoption of foreign style and not the result

of ethnical movements (Никитовић 2000, p. 11). On the other hand, now it is doubtless that

the northern part of the West Morava valley within the Čačak region makes a border zone

between two bigger cultural manifestations of the Early Bronze Age in the Central Balkans -

Belotić–Bela Crkva and Bubanj–Hum III.

During the Middle Bronze Age it appears that the West Morava valley and its

surroundings played the same role. As it was indicated by the analyzed material from

Mojsinje, Miločaj and Dobrača necropolises, it was possible to establish a certain zone with

mixed material, characteristic for the so called Western Serbian variant of the Vatin culture

on the one side (western Serbia) and the Paraćin I culture on the other (central, eastern and

southern Serbia).

The Late Bronze Age represents a period with not as many investigated sites as the

previous ones, but even operating with smaller numbers, there was a possibility to establish a

basic picture. A strong influence from the Danube cultural circle (Urnfield complex) is

notable on the material. It is most obvious in use of the fluted ornament and polishing of the

pottery. As in the previous phases, it is the strong cultural influence on the autochthonous

base, which strongly kept its funerary models. It means that even during the Late Bronze

Age, the same part of the West Morava valley can be marked as transitional, having various

characteristics in the material reflecting strong influences from nearby cultural centers.

Sharply defined borders between different cultural groups are rarely testified in

prehistoric archaeology. In most of the cases the so called transitional zones exist, where

different influences meet and mix to some extent, thereby creating the specific feature

integrating various elements. It is obvious that the West Morava valley downstream from the

Ovčar-Kablar gorge to the Kraljevo narrowing represents indeed transitional territory

between already defined cultural groups which existed in the wider territory of Serbia to the

south of the rivers Sava and Danube. It can be comprehended as a contact zone between

cultural groups during the entire development of the Bronze Age. Particular significance of

this region lasts even during the next millennia. Regarding burial customs, the same role of

this region is noticed during the Iron Age (Dmitrović and Ljuština 2008). After D. Srejović

160

(Срејовић 1979, p. 83), the funerary customs were the basis for determining the border

between Palaeo-Balkanic tribes Dardanians and Triballoi along the line Western – Southern

Morava. This concept is generally followed in the recent works by R. Vasić (cf. Vasić 2004a;

Vasić 2004b), at least to the extent of shaping territorial spread of the mentioned Palaeo-

Balkanic ethnic groups.

Bibliography

Богдановић, М. 1986. Љуљаци. Насеље протоватинске и ватинске културе. Народни

музеј, Крагујевац.

Bóna, I. 1975. Die mittlere Bronzezeit Ungarns und ihre südöstliche Beziehungen.

Archaeologia Hungarica, series nova IL. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.

Bóna, I. 1994. Les cultures des tells de l'age du bronze en Hongrie, p. 9-41. In: La bel age du

bronze en Hongrie (Eds. J.-P. Guillaumet, J.-P. Thevenot). Centre Europeen d’Archeologie,

Mont Beuvray, Dijon.

Bray, W., Trump, D. 1982. The Penguin Dictionary of Archaeology. Penguin Books,

London.

Булатовић, А., Станковски, Ј. 2012. Бронзано доба у басену Јужне Мораве и у долини

Пчиње. Археолошки инстутут, Н.У. Музеј, Београд, Куманово.

Dmitrović, K. 2010a. Burial customs during the Middle Bronze Age in the Northern Part of

West Morava Valley, Serbia, p. 187-196. In: The Thracians and Their Neigbours in Antiquity.

Studia in honorem Valerii Sîrbu (Ed. I.Căndea). Muzeul Brăilei, Editura Istros, Brăila.

Дмитровић, К. 2010b. Некропола из бронзаног доба на локалитету Горело Поље у

селу Милочај код Краљева, Наша прошлост (Краљево) 11, p. 31-40.

Dmitrović, K. 2013. Burial customs during the Early Bronze Age in the Čačak region, West

Serbia, Istros XIX - In print.

Dmitrović, K., Ljuština, M. 2008. Funerary practices in the region of Čačak during the

Iron Age, p. 85-108. In: Funerary practices in central and Eastern Europe (10th

c.B.C. – 3rd

c.A.D) (Ed. V. Sîrbu and R. Ştefănescu), Proceedings of the 10th

International Colloquium of

Funerary Archaeology in Tulcea. Brăila – Braşov.

Ecsedy, I. 1994. The Emergence of the Bronze Age in Hungary, p. 17-21. In: Treasures of the

Hungarian Bronze Age: Catalogue to the Temporary Exhibition of the Hungarian National

Museum, September 20–December 31, 1994 (Ed. T. Kovács). Hungarian National Museum,

Budapest.

Гарашанин, Д. 1972. Бронзано доба Србије. Народни музеј Београд, Београд.

Гарашанин, Д. 1975. Бронзано доба и прелаз у гвоздено доба у источном делу

Југославије, Зборник Народног музеја (Београд) VII, p. 43-53.

Гарашанин, М. 1973. Праисторија на тлу СР Србије. Српска књижевна задруга,

Београд.

Garašanin, M. 1983a. Grupa Belotić-Bela Crkva, p. 705-718. In: Praistorija jugoslavenskih

zemalja IV. Bronzano doba (Ed. A. Benac). Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i

Hercegovine, Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, Sarajevo.

Garašanin, M. 1983b. Grupa Bubanj–Hum III, p. 719-722. In: Praistorija jugoslavenskih

zemalja IV. Bronzano doba (Ed. A. Benac). Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i

Hercegovine, Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, Sarajevo.

Garašanin, M. 1983c. Paraćinska grupa, p. 727-735. In: Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja

IV. Bronzano doba (Ed. A. Benac). Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine,

Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, Sarajevo.

161

Garašanin, M. 1983d. Zapadnosrpska varijanta vatinske grupe, p. 736-753. In: Praistorija

jugoslavenskih zemalja IV. Bronzano doba (Ed. A. Benac). Akademija nauka i umjetnosti

Bosne i Hercegovine, Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, Sarajevo.

Garašanin, M. 1983e. Period polja sa urnama u zapadnoj Srbiji, p. 779-785. In: Praistorija

jugoslavenskih zemalja IV. Bronzano doba (Ed. A. Benac). Akademija nauka i umjetnosti

Bosne i Hercegovine, Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, Sarajevo.

Garašanin M., Garašanin D. 1958. Sépulcres de l’âge des metaux en Serbie. Inventaria

Archaeologica, Jugoslavija, Fascicule 2. Rudolf Habelt Verlag, Bonn.

Gogâltan, F. 1999. Bronzul timpuriu şi mijlociu în Banatul românesc şi pe cursul inferior al

Mureşului. Cronologia şi descoperirile de metal. Editura Orizonturi Universitare, Timişoara.

Gogâltan, F. 2004. Bronzul mijlociu în Banat. Opinii priving grupul Corneşti-Crvenka, p.

79-153. In: Festschrift für Florin Medeleţ zum 60. Geburstag. Bibliotheca Historica et

Archaeologica Banatica XXXII (Eds. P. Rogozea, V. Cedica). Editura Mirton, Timişoara.

Jones, A. 2004. Archaeological Theory and Scientific Practice. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

Jovanović, B. 1961. Pojava keramike vatinskog tipa na vinčanskom naselju. Vesnik

muzejsko-konzervatorskog društva (Beograd) 1-2, p. 5-14.

Kovács, T. 1994. The Middle Bronze Age: Florescence, p. 22-29. In: Treasures of the

Hungarian Bronze Age: Catalogue to the Temporary Exhibition of the Hungarian National

Museum, September 20–December 31, 1994 (Ed. T. Kovács). Hungarian National Museum,

Budapest.

Kristiansen, K. 1998. Europe before History. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kristiansen, K. 2004. An Essay on Material Culture - Some Concluding Reflections, p. 259-

278. In: Material Culture and Other Things. Post-disciplinary Studies in the 21st Century

(Eds. F. Fahlander, T. Oestigaard). Department of Archaeology, University of Gothenburg,

Göteborg.

Kristiansen, K., Larsson, T. B. 2005. The Rise of Bronze Age Society: Travels,

Transmissions and Transformations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Ljuština, M. 2011. Well Defined or Taken for Granted - the Bronze Age Vatin Culture a

Century after, p. 103-113. In: Archaeology: making of and practice. Studies in honor of

Mircea Babeş at his 70th anniversary (eds. D. Măgureanu, D. Măndescu, S. Matei). Institutul

de Arheologie "Vasile Pârvan" Bucureşti, Editura Ordessos Muzeul Judeţean Argeş, Piteşti.

Ljuština, M., Dmitrović, K. 2009. Landmarks of Memory – Notes on Iron Age Tumuli

Topography in Čačak Region, Serbia, p. 91-101. In: Mousaios IX - the Necropolises and the

Environment (1st mill. BC)(Eds. V. Sîrbu, D. Ciobanu). Proceedings of the 11th International

Colloquium of Funerary Archaeology, Buzău – Romania 2009, Buzău – Brăila.

Никитовић, Л., 2000. Праисторијска хумка на локалитету Аде у селу Пријевору,

Зборник радова Народног музеја (Чачак) XXX, p. 5-14.

Nikitović, L., Stojić, M., Vasić, R. 2002. Mojsinje – a Bronze and Iron Age Mound

Necropolis. National Museum Čačak, Archaeological Institute Belgrade, Čačak.

Peković, M. 2007. Paraćinska kulturna grupa. Zadužbina Andrejević. Beograd.

Renfrew, C., Bahn, P. 2004. Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice. Thames and

Hudson, London.

Rice, P. M. 2005. Pottery Analysis – a Sourcebook. The University of Chicago Press,

Chicago, London.

Срејовић, Д. 1979. Пoкушај етничког и територијалног разграничења

старобалканских племена на основу начина сахрањивања, p. 79-83. In: Сахрањивање

код Илира (Ed. М. Гарашанин), Научни скуп, Златибор (10-12. 5. 1976.), Београд.

162

Stojić, M. 1996. Le Bassin de la Morava a l'age de bronze et a la periode de transition de

l'age de bronze a celui de fer, p. 133-146. In: The Yugoslav Danube Basin and the

Neighbouring Regions in the 2nd Millennium B. C. (Ed. N. Tasić). Serbian Academy of

Sciences and Arts, Institute for Balkan Studies, Belgrade, Vršac.

Стојић, М, 1998. Културни хоризонт ватинске културне групе у Србији јужно од Саве

и Дунава: Мојсиње – Добрача, p.133-146. In: Рад Драгослава Срејовића на

истраживању праисторије централног Балкана (Ed. Н. Тасић). Научни скуп одржан у

Крагујевцу 27.-29. новембра 1997, Крагујевац.

Стојић, М. 2004. Нови налази са праисторијских локалитета у околини Лесковца,

Старинар, н. с., LIII-LIV (Београд), p. 193-215.

Тасић, Н. 2002. Некропола у Белегишу и проблем белегишке културе, p. 168-184. In:

Вранић, С. Белегиш Стојића гумно – некропола спаљених покојника. Музеј града

Београда, Београд.

Васић, М. 1936. Преисториска Винча IV. Издање и штампа Државне штампарије

Краљевине Југославије, Београд.

Vasić, R. 2004a. Die Eisenzeit im Zentralbalkan – chronologische und ethnische Fragen, p.

11-32. In: Silber der Illyrer und Kelten in Zentralbalkan (Ed. T. Bader). Keltenmuseum

Hochdor/Enz, Eberdingen.

Vasić, R. 2004b. Gli Autariati, la tribù illirica più grande e più forte, nella storia e

nell’archeologia, p. 11-29. In: Convegno Internazionale di Studi: Gli Illiri e L’Italia (ed. M.

Buora). Fondazione Cassamarca Treviso, 16 ottobre 2004, Treviso.

Vinski, Z. 1958. Brončanodobne ostave Lovas i Vukovar, Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u

Zagrebu 1, p.1-34.

Katarina Dmitrović

National Museum

Cara Dušana 1, 32000 Čačak, Serbia

E-mail: katarina.dmitrovic@gmail.com

Marija Ljuština

University of Belgrade, Faculty of Philosophy, Department of Archaeology

Čika-Ljubina 18-20, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia

E-mail: mljustin@f.bg.ac.rs

Figure 1 – Map of Serbia with the Early Bronze Age necropolises in central Serbia Tumular necropolises are marked by semicircles.1 – Kozjak; 2 - Tolisavac; 3, 4 – Belotić (sites Šumar and Bandera); 5 – Žabari; 6 – Ribaševina; 7 – Vranjani; 8 - Drežnik; 9, 10 – Jančići (sites Veliko Polje and Dubac); 11 – Prijevor; 12 – Pilatovići; 13 – Negrišori; 14 - Krstac; 15 – Donja Kravarica; 16-19 – Guča (sites Grotnica, Ornica, Ošljevac and Rajića brdo) ; 20, 21 – Lučani (sites Suva Česma and Kruševlje); 22 Mrčajevci; 23, 24 – Poblaćnica river valley.

163

Figure 2 - Early Bronze Age in the West Morava valley1-3 - Dučalovići, site Ruja (photo-documentation: National Museum Čačak): Belotić – Bela Crkva culture.4-6 - Novo Selo, site Bubanj (after Гарашанин, Ђурић 1983): Bubanj Hum III culture.

164

Figure 3 - Early Bronze Age: cultural manifestations with mixed characteristics, from West Morava valley

1 - Prijevor, site Ade (after Nikitović 2000)

2, 3 - Prijevor, site Ade, ceramic vessels from the center of the mound (photo-documentation: National Museum

Čačak).

165

Figure 4 – Map of Serbia with the Middle Bronze Age necropolises in central SerbiaTumular necropolises are marked by semicircles, flat necropolises – by horizontal lines.1 – Kozjak; 2 – Joševa; 3 – Lipnica; 4 – Slatina; 5 – Brezovica; 6 - Jovin Breg; 7, 8 - Belotić (sites Šumar and Bandera); 9 – Klinci; 10 - Zarube; 11 – Robaje; 12 – Bukovačko Polje; 13 – Višesava; 14 – Gubin Do; 15 – Duškovci; 16 – Vranjani; 17 – Duškovac; 18, 19 – Jančići (sites Veliko Polje, Dubac and Ravnine); 20 – Prijevor; 21 – Arilje; 22 – Višovina; 23 - Pilatovići; 24 – Lučani (Suva Česma and Kruševlje); 25 – Dučalovići; 26 – Guča (sites Grotnica and Ošljevac); 27 – Donja Kravarica; 28. - Krstac; 29 - Kotraža; 30 – Drenova; 31 – Sedobro; 32 – Mojsinje; 33 – Dobrača; 34 – Miločaj; 35 – Makrešani; 36 – Niš; 37 – Rutevac; 38 – Stalać; 39 – Obrež; 40, 41 – Paraćin (sites Gloždak and Striža); 42,43 – Despotovac (sites Plažane and Dvorište); 44 – Rajkinac.

166

Figure 5 - Middle Bronze Age: Paraćin culture1, 3, 4 – Ceramic vessels from Obrež (after Стојић and Чађеновић 2006);2, 5, 6 – Ceramic vessels from Maćija (after Стојић and Чађеновић 2006).

167

Figure 6 - Middle Bronze Age: Western Serbian variant of Vatin culture1-5 - Jančići, site Dubac: 1 - grave 10 from mound 1 in situ; 2 - urn from grave 10; 3-5 - typical metal findings from the graves. 6. Guča, site Grotnica: bronze bracelets (photo-documentation: National Museum Čačak).

168

Figure 7 - Middle Bronze Age: cultural manifestations with mixed characteristics1-5 - Dobrača, site Umke (after Garašanin M. and Garašanin D. 1958).6-9 - Mojsinje, site Lugovi, Bent (after Nikitović, Stojić and Vasić 2002).

169

Figure 8 – Map of Serbia with the Late Bronze Age necropolises in central SerbiaTumular necropolises are marked by semicircles, flat necropolises – by horizontal lines.1 – Brezovica; 2 – Belotić; 3 – Bastav; 4 – Mrčići; 5 - Barice; 6 – Turica; 7 – Kotraža; 8 – Baluga; 9 – Rutevac; 10 – Paraćin; 11 – Ćuprija; 12 – Rajkinac; 13 – Donje Štiplje.

170

Figure 9 - Late Bronze Age in the West Morava valley1-3 - Paraćin, site Gloždak (after Garašanin 1983c): ceramic shapes belonging to the Paraćin II culture4-7 - Baluga, site Katovac: material with mixed characteristics, from West Morava valley (photo-documentation: National Museum Čačak).

171