Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

ISBN: 978-86-920553-2-4 Edited by: Vesna Vučković Vojislav Filipović Branislav Stojanović Roberto Risch Publisher: Regional museum of Paraćin, Tome Živanovića 17, Paraćin Editorial Board: Branislav Stojanović, Vesna Vučković,Vojislav Filipović, Martina Blečić Kavur, Rastko Vasić, Roberto Risch Editors: Vesna Vučković, Vojislav Filipović, Branislav Stojanović, Roberto Risch Cover design by: José Antonio Soldevilla Graphic design by: Stefan Jovičić Printed by: Tercija Bor ISBN: 978-86-920553-2-4 This monograph is published thanks to the financial support of the Ministry of Culture and Information of the Republic of Serbia. The monograph is the result of the Crafter project - Crafting Europe in the Bronze Age and Today 2 5 4 6 Introduction Vojislav Filipović 9 El Argar ceramics: preliminary results of an interdisciplinary approach Carla Garrido-García, Elena Molina Muñoz, Carlos Velasco Felipe, Bárbara Bonora, Eva Celdrán Beltrán, Mª Inés Fregiero, David Gómez-Gras, Claudia Molero, Adrià Moreno, Antoni Rosell Melé, Roberto Risch 33 On the Current State of Knowledge of Únětice /Aunjetitz in central Germany Bettina Stoll-Tucker 49 The Middle Bronze Age Füzesabony pottery style of the Carpathian Basin Vajk Szeverényi, Attila Kreiter, János Dani, László Gucsi, Viktória Kiss, Gabriella Kulcsár, Péter Skoda, Ildikó Szathmári 71 Vatin pottery: a petrographical approach David Gómez-Gras, Roberto Risch, Jovan Mitrović, Vojislav Đorđević, Vesna Vučković 101 Vatin culture pottery in settlements and necropoles of Northeastern Serbia Kapuran Aleksandar, Petar Milojević 121 Beakers with trapezoidal mouth as one of the most specific type of Middle Bronze Age vessel in the Central Balkans Aleksandar Bulatović 149 Vatinska kultura u zapadnoj Srbiji: tradicionalne postavke i činjenice u XXI veku (Vatin culture in Western Serbia: traditional settings and facts in XXI c.) Katarina Dmitrović, Marija Ljuština 5 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Introduction The proceedings before us, comprised of seven papers, are inspired by the subject of the almost completed CRAFTER programme Creative Europe project. The full title of the project is Crafting Europe in the Bronze Age and Today, and in brief, the idea was to draw inspiration from Europe’s Bronze Age pottery to help revive modern-day artisanship. The project targets the appreciation of Europe's cultural heritage as a shared resource and the reinforcement of a sense of belonging to a common European space. In particular, it hopes to make cultural heritage a source of inspiration for contemporary creation and innovation and strengthen the interaction between this sector and other cultural and creative sectors. The main framework of the project was the idea that four potters from Spain, Germany, Hungary, and Serbia will draw on their skills to (re)create ceramic vessels representative of some of the most outstanding Bronze Age cultures of Europe: El Argar (southeast Spain), Únětice (Central Europe), Füzesabony (eastern Hungary) and Vatin (Serbia). The papers published within these proceedings are not strictly related to the project itself, but the problems of Bronze Age pottery in Europe in general. The problems discussed in the presented papers and the inspirations are drawn from the CRAFTER project. The original idea was to delve into the content of the pottery and define its composition and quality. These are, in fact, the elements responsible for the final appearance of the ceramic vessel and its function. Considering that out of four editors, two have presented papers within the proceedings, I have been honored to write this short introduction on their significance and essence. The thread that connects all of the papers, although their concepts do not seem similar at the first glance, since some of the papers are dwelling on interdisciplinarity while others deal with certain chronological and cultural-historical problems, is that the primary analytical material in all of the papers is Bronze Age pottery, from beyond the Pyrenees, across Central Europe, to the Balkans, which is not unexpected considering that a Serbian institution was credited for publishing. The positive aspect is that the pottery is 6 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project discussed in a manner uncommon for archaeology, while on the other hand pottery studies have been more and more neglected in the past few decades, as such subjects are considered as passé in archaeology. The ever-rising number of specializations and specialists have pushed the pottery and potters into an undeserved corner, even though without such a set of analytic work the past can not be completely and adequately perceived. The pottery is “slow-moving”. It changes, circulates, and exchanges at a slow pace and it enables the perception of the beginning, development, decadence, and the end of a certain society. The pottery has regional character and reflects the primary contacts, esthetics of a community, and the inspiration of the artist. Certainly, this implies to prehistoric pottery and communities which do not function within centralized social systems, such as the Bronze Age beyond Mediterranean Europe, which is indeed in the focus of these proceedings. With the appearance of the potter’s wheel, the production and distribution of pottery merge with industry and economy, and at that moment a puzzle of a small man from the past loses a piece. A piece without which we are unable to perceive small communities through such an important, fruitful, and data-rich object such as pottery and which we often tend to neglect as a discipline. In order to identify the contacts, exchange, and trade or reconstruct the communication routes in past, we often reach to the so-called luxurious artifacts: metals, amber, glass, and artisan objects… Likewise, pottery could narrate a story of one meal, one house, one potter, one village, or one community in the past, which is, like it or not, a fact that will make the interdisciplinary and diverse analyses of prehistoric pottery one of the primary archaeological methods. Vojislav Filipović Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade 7 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project. Chalice-shaped vessel from grave 882 of El Argar (Antas, Almería) (photo: J. A. Soldevilla, ASOME-UAB) 8 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project El Argar ceramics: preliminary results of an interdisciplinary approach Carla Garrido-García, Elena Molina Muñoz, Carlos Velasco Felipe, Bárbara Bonora Soriano, Eva Celdrán Beltrán, Mª Inés Fregeiro Morador, David Gómez-Gras, Claudia Molero Alonso, Adrià Moreno Gil, Antoni Rosell-Melé, Roberto Risch Abstract: In the Argaric society, developed during the Early Bronze Age (c. 2200–1550 BC) in the south-east of the Iberian Peninsula, a ruling class emerged, which controlled the land and the basic means of production. In view of the available evidence concerning the centralisation of cereal surplus as well as other products in certain settlements and buildings, we hypothesize that a group of highly standardized ceramic repertoire of classical El Argar (c. 1900–1550 cal BC), distributed in 8 basic shapes, was produced by specialised potters and fulfilled specific functions in the storage, distribution and transformation of subsistence goods. In this research we have studied an important assemblage of vessels from the El Argar coastal areas of Murcia and Almería (Spain) focusing on its production and use, through petrographic, organic residues, volumetric capacity, and use-wear analyses. This interdisciplinary analytical approach to pottery is surprisingly rare in pottery studies but seems crucial in order to better understand the social, political and economic dimension of the El Argar pottery. Keywords: El Argar, Early Bronze Age, archaeometry, pottery Archaeological background El Argar refers to an Early Bronze Age society, which spread over south-east Iberia between 2200–1550 BC. It developed over c. 650 years into one of the first states in Europe, organised mainly through a network of well-protected hilltop settlements. At the height of its political and military expansion, it controlled a territory of c. 35,000 km2, equivalent to present day Belgium. The economy of El Argar was mainly based on extensive dry-land farming and the storage and distribution of barley in large hilltop 9 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project settlements (1 to 5 ha). Another feature of these settlements is a highly normative intramural burial practice. Specific grave offerings of pottery and metals where used to differentiate individuals according to their sex, age, and social class. Social inequality and political domination reached its peak around 1650 BC. El Argar collapsed a century later, probably due to social upheaval (Lull et al. 2011, 2013). One of the most diagnostic features of the El Argar territory is a well burnished and undecorated pottery, in marked contrast with the ‘Symbolic’ and Bell Beaker pottery of the previous Copper Age. The Siret brothers already distinguished in their pioneer work eight main pottery types (Siret & Siret 1890, 170 - 180; Cuadrado 1949), which remain the basis of present-day classification systems (Lull 1983; Aranda 2001; Schuhmacher and Schubart 2003). The basic pottery shapes are open or closed bowls (form 1 and 2), globular vases (form 3), S-shaped oval to globular pots (form 4), carinated cups with open rims (form 5), closed biconical vessels (form 6), chalices (form 7), and cylindrical cups (form 8) (Fig. 1b). These ceramics were used both in settlement contexts and as offerings in intramural burials. Here they appear indistinctively in male or female, as well as in child burials, although by far the most common ceramic grave-goods are the carinated cups of form 5. Regarding their sizes, apart from the rather rare, middle sized, and technically complex type 6, all other forms were manufactured as small size pots with capacities ranging between 0,25-3 litres, Shapes 1, and specially, 2 and 3 were also produced as middle-sized pots. While the open bowls reach about 7 litres, the other two forms were shaped as pots of up to 30 litres. Shapes 4 and to a certain extend also 5, became the preferred form for large sized storage vessels. During the c. 650 years of El Argar, the pottery typology underwent changes. During early El Argar (c. 2200-2000 BC), forms 1-5 seem to develop out of previous Copper Age ceramic repertoire, generally achieving more rounded and harmonious profiles (Lull et al. 2015). Another novelty is the manufacture of pots, specially of form 5, with a low foot (Fig. 1a, 13). After c. 1800 cal BC these feet will be combined, mostly with Form 2 bowls and become more stylized, resulting in the chalice known as form 7b (Fig. 1b, 12 and 13). A further trait of the early El Argar is a decorative pattern made by a series of incised triangles filled 10 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Fig. 1 Main pottery types of the Argaric period: a (left column). Early El Argar (c. 2200–2000 cal BC). Gatas: 4, 10, 16, 18–19; Fuente Álamo: 8–9, 11–13; La Bastida: 20; Lugarico Viejo: 1–2, 5–7, 14–15, 17 (modified after Lull et al. 2015, Fig. 12b); b. (right column) Classical El Argar (c. 2000–1550 cal BC). All types are from La Bastida. 11 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project with dots or, less frequently, with lines, reminiscent of Late Copper Age motives and which disappears after c. 2050 cal BC (Fig. 1a, 17). The carinated but lenticular medium-sized form 6 was an uncommon production, very rare in domestic contexts, and mainly associated with elite burials after c. 2000 BC. One aspect which has frequently been highlighted with regards to “classical” El Argar pottery production is its high level of standardization (Lull, 1983; Castro et al. 1999; Aranda 2010; Lull et al. 2005, 2011; Santacreu y Aranda 2014). Whatever provincial museum one visits from Alicante to Jaén or Granada, the high quality pottery dated between c. 2000–1550 cal BC, recovered throughout the vast El Argar territory looks surprisingly similar (Fig. 2). Except for form 8, all the pieces develop from form 1, which already suggests the existence of a basic "matrix form". For example, types 2 and 3 would be a form 1 with an inward upper wall; and forms 5 and 6 would be a form 1 to which a separately modelled upper body was added, etc. (Fig. 3). The absence of pottery workshops in the known El Argar settlements prevents from identifying the economic and even political forces behind this highly normative production. 12 Fig. 2 Set of ceramics from the Argaric apogee period (photo: Marcello Peres y Nicola Tagliabue). Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Fig. 3. Classical El Argar set of ceramics (forms 2 to 7) with the "matrix form” (form 1) highlighted in grey. Different mechanisms and social relations may have led to such a formal and technical uniformity: a) a highly specialised production in a limited number of workshops, from where pots were circulated throughout the El Argar territory; b) itinerant potters, producing vessels demanded by different communities; c) the association of the eight forms to specific functions; d) the adjustment of (certain) ceramic vessels to standard capacities, as demanded for the centralization as well as redistribution of cereal in the central Argaric settlements and storage buildings; e) the ideological and symbolic connotations assigned to pottery production and use. Surprisingly, these driving factors have not been tested until recently through archaeometric approaches, such as petrographic and technological analyses of pottery production, the identification of organic residues inside the pots, the volumetric standardization or use-wear analysis. Part of these questions and approaches have been addressed during the last years in the frame of the ‘La Bastida Project’. In the present study we will try to show and combine the first results of this interdisciplinary research carried out in the settlements of La Bastida, Tira del Lienzo and La Almoloya, located in the present-day province of Murcia, in order to address the political and economical organization of pottery manufacture and use. Although the ceramic evidence from other settlements of the core area of El Argar has not been studied in this integrated way, it still provides additional information on the social life of pots. 13 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Manufacture of the standard El Argar ceramics in the light of petrographic analysis The characterization of El Argar pottery fabric is carried out through petrographic methods such as microscopic observation of thin sections and XRD. Along its mineral and chemical composition, the size and morphology of temper and the porosity of the fabric has been recorded systematically (see Risch & Gómez-Gras 2003 for a detailed description of the method used). So far, several hundreds of vessels have been analysed though microscopic loupe, thin sectioning and XRD in the frame of the La Bastida Project. During early El Argar times two clearly pottery manufacturing technologies coexisted in La Bastida. About half of the vessels of La Bastida Phase 1 (c. 2200–2000 cal BC) were modelled with carbonate clays – mainly marine marls of Miocene age – containing sedimentary and low-grade metamorphic rock fragments, as well as grog. The diversity of natural and added temper shows that a variety of sources was used and points towards decentralized, rather small-scale production. An oxidizing, low temperature firing resulted in yellowish-orange surfaces, mostly of small to medium size. This technology already existed during the Copper Age, but became marginal after 2000 cal BC in La Bastida, as well as Tira del Lienzo (Garrido 2017). Instead, the dominant pottery technology of El Argar used non-carbonate clays, rich in iron oxides, of Permian and Triassic formations, which were mixed with a high percentage of low to middle-grade metamorphic rock fragments, such as slate, schist, psammitic schist, quartz-feldspar schist, usually containing abundant quartz, muscovite and biotite. According to its angular and subangular shape and mineral composition, this temper was prepared by crushing metamorphic rocks and selecting specific fractions of the resulting grit. Firing temperatures where usually low, but the combination of reducing and oxidizing conditions allowed the manufacture of dark coloured, usually small size pots, as well as reddish, predominantly medium to large size vessels. These metamorphic rocks and non-carbonated clays have a much more restricted geographical distribution than the Miocene marls. El Argar potters increasingly specialised on the use of these raw materials to manufacture the whole range of pottery shapes. It is important to note, that the same type of metamorphic temper has been observed in 14 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Fig. 4 Thin section of pottery fragment under polarised light. Qtz: quartz; Esq.mosc.: muscovite schist. Grt: garnet; Mosc.: muscovite mica; Tur: tourmaline. Arcilla: Non-carbonate clay matrix. Graphic scale: 0,2 mm. settlements of the Western (Contreras et al., 1987–1988; Albrero and Aranda 2014) as well as in the Eastern part of the El Argar territory (Seva Román 1995). As such metamorphic rocks and non-carbonate clays are rare or absent in the interior regions of Southeast Iberia as well as in Alicante, the distribution of classic El Argar pottery is indicative of the circulation either of pots, or of raw materials, or of itinerant potters, transporting their own clays and temper. While on-going petrographic and mineralogical research will allow to further define these networks, the technical and economic requirements of the standard El Argar pottery production are unlikely to have been met in typical small-scale, household type contexts and rather point towards specialised potters and workshops. This sharing of a particular technological know-how among specialists, possibly over the whole of the El Argar territory, provides a first hint of the social and economic relations behind the limited range of Argaric pottery shapes, their high morphometric standardization and their limited temporal and geographic variability. 15 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Pottery use according to organic residues analysis The organic residues have been analysed through the extraction of lipids from pottery samples of about 2 g (see Fig. 5), following the methodology proposed by Evershed et al., (1990) and modified by Molina (Molina, 2015). Before the extraction of ceramic powder, any possible contamination due to handling and contact with plastic was removed from the inner surface of the pottery with a manual modelling drill (Spiteri-Debono, 2012). Samples were then screened looking for the presence of lipids in the residue organic extract using a gas chromatograph. Next, samples where lipids occurrence had been confirmed were characterized further by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry to identify biomarkers. Finally, if enough fatty acids were preserved in the ceramic matrix, isotopic ratios of stearic (C18:0) and palmitic (C16:0) fatty acids were measured with a stable isotope mass spectrometer, hyphenated to a gas chromatograph via a combustion interface (Fig. 5). Fig. 5 Flowchart for the extraction and analytical methods applied in this study of organic residues in Argaric pottery (modified after Molina 2015, Fig. 4.16) 16 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project So far, over 85 pottery vessels recovered from 4 archaeological Argaric sites have been analyzed: La Bastida and Tira del Lienzo (Totana, Murcia), La Almoloya (Pliego, Murcia) and Gatas (Turre, Almería). From the 104 extracted powder samples, 41 provided reliable data regarding their uses and allowed to gain a better insight into the diet and subsistence practices of these Argaric communities (Molina 2015). To date it has been possible to detect lipids from the following sources: rumiant and non - rumiant (pig) fats beeswax sparto grass wax1 pine resin2 higher plants Although it was not possible to draw any specific correlation between ceramic type and the organic residues detected inside, some trends were observed (Fig. 6). Beeswax, which can be an indirect evidence of honey, is the most frequently identified residue, and is particularly abundant in forms F7 and F2. These results confirm the importance of beekeeping and honey processing by certain Argaric communities (Ache et al., 2017). Fig. 6 Relationship between Argaric forms and the type of organic content. (modified after Molina 2015, fig.7.23) 1 Identified in a small Form 5, of 5,5 cm high, from La Bastida (Molina 2015, annex VII-76,BA-H54-174) 2 This substance is widely used in the production of ointments as well as in the preparation of resined wine. In the case of El Argar pottery, it is expected that it was also used as a waterproofing substance for the inner surfaces of closed pottery vessels (Molina 2015: 460). 17 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Different vessels were definitely used to prepare, serve or store food. Moreover, thermo-alterations only detected on the inner side of the base where often observed in pots containing beeswax and animal fats, which are flammable solid substances. This suggests that certain ceramics could have also been used as lighting devices. This combination of traces and residues has been detected in 4 out of 6 Form 2 samples analysed, one of which belongs to a multi-footed vessel, as well as in 4 out of 7 Form 7 samples. A wick of string, cord or, even, wood would need to be inserted in the wax or fat. Interestingly, undefined vegetal residues, which could derive from such wicks, were identified in one form 2 and one form 7.The formal characteristics of most of these vessels also ensure their stability and suggest that they were portable objects, easily placed on flat surfaces. Bee’s products are absent or rare in forms 1, 4 and 5. Interestingly, these shapes have also provided a large number of negative results. Organic compounds associated with cereals or legumes are very unlikely to be identified with lipid analysis, unless they have been cooked or part of the leaves and stems preserved in the vessel (Maffei 1996, 53–54; Molina 2015, 542, 544, 576). These products were most likely preserved in large forms 4 and 5 jars, as has often been confirmed through the botanical analysis of sediments recovered from these vessels. However, this function does not explain the absence of residues in many small bowls of type 1.Volumetric and use-wear analyses provide a possible clue to the functional relationship between these shapes and sizes. Outcomes of the volumetric capacity estimations Regarding the study of the capacities of Argaric vessels, a study carried out on 80 containers from the site of Gatas (Turre, Almeria) suggested, for the first time, a patterned distribution of volumetric capacities3 (Colomer 1995: 336354; Lull and Risch 1995: 105). This contribution was the first hint of a possible system of weights and measures designed to control the storage and distribution of production, mainly of agricultural-cereal origin. In order to continue with this line of research and given the impossibility to make direct measurements of capacities, especially on broken or incomplete vessels, a digital calculation method was devised using 2D drawings of ceramics by means of the 360º revolution of the inner profile and its 18 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project physical properties, both tools available in AutoCAD® (Velasco and Celdrán 2019). This method has also been proven to be reliable after being checked against direct measurements with both handmade and wheel-made complete vessels (Fig. 7). Fig. 7 Steps involved in the generation of a three-dimensional model of a vessel (BA-40-9) from a 2D design using AutoCAD® (Velasco and Celdrán 2019: fig 3). Based on this method, on-going studies of ceramics from the Argaric sites of La Bastida and Tira del Lienzo (Totana, Murcia) have provided support to a standardized pattern of capacities (Velasco 2012). 3 This, according to the analysis, would be determined by a constant division factor of 4.2 in the case of vessels smaller than 35 liters. From this volume, in addition, the containers would increase their capacity approximately one and a half times, up to approximately 53 liters and, finally, they would triple it from that value, until reaching 105 liters. 19 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Form 5 vessels have proven to be the most versatile pots, both in terms of the diversity of contents (Fig. 6) and capacities. Up to five volumetric groups have been suggested: the large containers, with a volume of c. 30 litres could be used both to store and to process food; the next group, between 1 and 1.5 litres, seems to represent vessels for cooking; finally, the smallest ones, ranging from 75 to 250 cm3, could be employed to keep special or concentrated substances such as esparto wax (Molina 2015, 401). Residues were absent in three out of eight, large as well as small Form 5 pots. Regarding the large pithoi (form 4), 43% of the analysed samples did not present any organic residues (Fig. 6). In terms of capacity measurements, they show a marked trend towards large sizes and high capacities, from 100 up to 300 litres, with few exceptions of higher capacity. Therefore, all the available information suggests that these vessels served as static containers for long-term storage. In historical terms, these larger pithoi have to be viewed in relation to the ending of the Neolithic and Copper Age tradition of underground pits -silos- and, hence, to a change in the organization of staple food storage (Delgado & Risch 2015). Although silos can hold larger volumes over long periods of time, they must remain sealed until the cereal is distributed and consumed in a relatively short period of time. Instead, the Argaric pithoi involve a much larger replacement rate. Consequently, from c. 1950 cal BC onwards, just when the Argaric potters were technically ready to produce those large containers massively, pithoi started to be used to organize and control the everyday storage and distribution of staple food (Lull et al. 2015, 382) and increasingly (re)used, also, as funerary urns for single or double burials (Lull et al. 2005). But, how to guarantee a correct accounting record and distribution of this surplus? The answer may be found in a specific group of bowls of form 1 and 2. They show considerably uniform metric attributes and significant volumetric clusters, specially between 300 and 400 cm3, which suggests the existence of either standard vessels for a highly normalised individual food consumption or of ration bowls, i.e. units of measurement. This latter option would also explain the absence of organic residues in many bowls, especially regarding form 1 (42,8%). As already mentioned, unprocessed food such as cereals or water leaves no residues in the pots. 20 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Spatial associations and use-wear traces Some finds of stacked bowls in settlement contexts such as El Argar (Antas, Almeria) or La Bastida (Totana, Murcia) reinforce the suggestion that most of the vessels would have been manufactured in series and following metric patterns (Fig. 8). The use of such units of measurement make sense in centrally organised redistributive systems, where standard amounts of cereal, pulses, etc. are distributed to the community according to age, sex, class and tasks performed by each individual (Dolce and Zaccagnini 1998). The existence of such a system in El Argar is further supported by the presence of fine striations on the outer surfaces, running downwards from the rim or on the maximum diameter on many bowls of form1 and 2 (Fig. 9; Velasco, 2012: 40; Delgado-Raack and Risch, 2013, 29). These usewear traces were already noticed by the Siret brothers, who related them to scooping out movements of products stored in large pithoi, such as liquids or dry food (Siret and Siret, 1890: 172). Fig. 8 Stacked vessels of form 1 found in El Argar site, on the left (Siret & Siret 1990; Fig. XVII, 8), and La Bastida, on the right (Lull et al. 2015a, 106; photo J.A. Soldevilla). 21 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project On-going studies are correlating the volumetric clusters of those bowls with these use-wear traces, suggesting again the existence of a very clear pattern which seems to have been shared among several settlements, placed at considerable distances from each other. According to the data recorded so far on complete or nearly complete vessels, the main group of small bowls with marked striations running down from the rim (form 1) or placed at the maximum diameter (form 2) have a capacity range between 340-400 cm3. As can be expected, the height and maximum diameter of these bowls is also highly uniform. Conclusions The combination of petrographic, chemical, volumetric and use-wear analyses over an important collection of argaric vessels from the areas of Murcia and Almería provides a deep insight into the organisation and the socio-economic role of pottery crafting for the El Argar society. Neither the manufacturing process nor the use of a substantial part of the Argaric pottery fits the common traits of domestic pottery production (e.g., Leeuw 1993). The standardisation of the El Argar pottery over centuries is clearly not related to a specialised use of the different shapes, as the residue analysis has shown. Even outstanding vessels, such as the chalice form 7, contained a variety of products and were used in different ways, even as lighting lamps. Clearly, the monotony of El Argar pottery over more than six centuries and a territory of up to 35.000 km2 cannot just be explained in strictly functional terms, but in the realm of the socio-economic and ideological fabric of this Bronze Age society. Making use of a concept proposed by Ignacio Ramonet to define the present day hegemonic and uniform world view imposed on society, we could think of Argaric pottery as an expression of a “pensée unique”, through which specific social, economic and political practices became fixed in space and time, suppressing diversity and creativity4. The uniformity of a considerable group of pottery vessels, at least in the studied areas of Almería and Murcia, appears to have been achieved through specialised pottery workshops or itinerant potters, using specific raw materials coming from metamorphic deposits of Permian and Triassic age. The standardisation of raw materials, shapes and sizes, as well as the very limited changes observed in manufacture over 650 years would be difficult to achieve 22 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project without relatively few and interconnected specialists. A major change was the gradual disappearance of large, open and often shallow bowls and dishes after 2000 BC. These vessels were replaced by smaller and generally also deeper bowls (forms 1 and 2), which points towards a shift from communal to individual consumption (Lull et al. 2015: 382). Moreover, the identification of a volumetric cluster among these bowls around 300–400 cm3 and the presence of use-wear traces related to a repeated scooping activity, strongly support their use as measurement and re-distribution devices. Simultaneously, the production of large containers (form 4 and, to a certain extent, form 5) increased, indicating an intensification of storage practices after c. 1950 BC. Large pithoi must have been manufactured massively, as is suggested not only by the large number of funerary vessels but also by their abundance in settlement contexts. As indicated by use wear analysis, both developments seem to have been functionally and economically related: an specific group of form 1 and 2 bowls are likely to have served to scoop and measure standard units of goods –mainly barley– extracted from the large containers. Acknowledgement We wish to thank Cristina Rihuete Herrada and Rafael Micó for their comments on a preliminary version of the manuscript. This research was financially supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (grant number HAR2017-85962-P), the Catalan Direcció General de Recerca (grant number AGAUR 2017SGR1044), and the ICREA Academia program. 4 We take this idea from the permanent exhibition on El Argar Montserrat Menasanch created in the the Archaeological Museum of Catalonia, Barcelona. 23 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project References: • • • • • • • • 24 Ache, M., Delgado-Raack, S., Molina, E., Risch, R., Rosell-Melé, A. 2017. Evidence of bee products processing: A functional definition of a specialized type of macrolithic tool. Journal of archaeological science: reports, 14, 638-650. doi. org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.06.025 Albero Santacreu, D. and Aranda Jiménez, G. 2014. Elección tecnológica y expresión social: Análisis arqueométrico de cerámicas funerarias argáricas del Cerro de San Cristóbal (Ogíjares, Granada). Complutum, 25, 109-127. Aranda Jiménez, G. 2001. El análisis de la relación forma-contenido de los conjuntos cerámicos del yacimiento arqueológico del Cerro de la Encina (Granada, España). British Archaeological Reports. Internacional Series 927. Oxford. Aranda, G. 2010. Entre la tradición y la innovación: el proceso de especialización en la producción de la cerámica argárica. Menga, Revista de Prehistoria de Andalucía, 77-252. Contreras Cortés, F., Capel Martínez, J., de la Torre Peña, F., Molina González, F.R., Esquivel Guerrero, J.A. 1987-1988. Los ajuares cerámicos de la necrópolis argárica de la Cuesta del Negro (Purullena, Granada): Avance al estudio analítico y estadístico, Cuadernos de prehistoria y arqueología de la Universidad de Granada, Nº 12-13, 135-155. Cuadrado Ruiz, J., 1949, Una visita al Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Almería. Avance al catálogo definitivo de sus fondos y colecciones. Almería: Imprenta Caparrós. Debono Spiteri, C. 2012. Pottery use at the transition to agriculture in the western Mediterranean: evidence from biomolecular and isotopic characterisation of organic residues in Impressed/Cardial Ware vessels, PhD thesis, University of York. Delgado-Raack, S.; Lull, V.; Martin, K.; Micó, R.; Rihuete, C.; Risch, R.2015. The silversmith workshop of Tira del Lienzo (Totana, Murcia) in the context of the Iberian Bronze Age metallurgy. Archaeometry. 57. • • • • • • • • Delgado-Raack, S. and Risch, R. 2015. Social change and subsistence production on the Iberian peninsula during the 3rd and 2nd millennia BCE, en Kneisel, J., dal Corso, M., Kirleis, W., Scholz, H., Taylor, N. y Tiedtke, V. (Eds.), The Third Food Revolution? Setting the Bronze Age table: common trends in economic and subsistence strategies in Bronze Age Europe. Verlag Dr. Rudolph Habel GmbH, Bonn, 21-46 - ISBN: 9978-3-7749-4003-1. Dolce, R. and Zaccagnini, C.1989 (eds.). Il Pane del Re: accumulo e distribuzione dei cereali nell’Oriente Antico, Clueb, Bologna. Evershed, R.P., Herona,C., Goada,L.J. 1990. Effects of migration of soil lipids on organic residues associated with buried potsherds, JAS 18, 641-659. Garrido-García, C. 2017. Análisis petrográfico de las cerámicas del yacimiento argárico de Tira del Lienzo (Totana, Murcia), Master Thesis, Unpublished work, Autonomous University of Barcelona. Leeuw, S. van der. 1993. Giving the potter a choice: conceptual aspects of pottery techniques, en Lemonnier, P. (ed.), Technological Choices. Transformations in material cultures since the Neolithic, London: Routledge,238-288. Lull, V. 1983. La “Cultura” del Argar. Un modelo para el estudio de las formaciones económico-sociales prehistóricas, Madrid: Akal. Lull, V., Micó, R., Rihuete, C., Risch, R. 2011. Property Relations in the Bronze Age of South-western Europe: an archaeological analysis of infant burials from El Argar (Almeria, Spain) , In Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 71, 247-268. Lull, V., Micó, R., Rihuete, C., Risch, R. 2011. ElArgarandtheBeginningof Class Society in the Western Mediterranean, en: Hansen, S. y Müller, J. (eds.). Sozialarchäologische Perspektiven: Gesellschaftlicher Wandel 5000-1500 v.Chr. zwischen Atlantik und Kaukasus. Berlin: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Von Zabern, 381-414. Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project • • • • • • • Lull, V., Micó, R., Rihuete-Herrada, C., Risch, R. 2013. Political collapse and social change at the end of El Argar, in: H. Meller / F. Bertemes / H.-R. Bork / H. Meller / R. Risch (eds.). 1600 Cultural change in the shadow of the Thera-Eruption?. Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte 9, Halle, 283-302. Lull, V., Micó, R., Rihuete, C., Risch, R. 2015. Transition and conflict at the end of the 3rd millennium BC in south Iberia, in: Harald MELLER, Helge W. ARZ, Reinhard JUNG y Roberto RISCH (eds.), 2200 BC. A climatic breakdown as a cause for the collapse of the old world? Tagungen des Landesmuseum fur Vorgeschichte von Sachsen-Anhalt, Halle , nº 12 (1), 365-407. ISBN: 978-3-944507-29-3. Lull, V., Micó, R., Rihuete, C., Risch, R. 2015. La Bastida - Tira del Lienzo (Totana, Murcia), Ruta Argárica. Guías Arqueológicas, 1. (ed.). Integral, Sociedad Para el Desarrollo Rural. Bullas (Murcia). Molina Muñoz, E. 2015. La producción cerámica en el sudeste de la península ibérica durante el III y II milenio ane (2200-1950 cal ANE): integración del análisis de residuos orgánicos en la caracterización funcional de los recipientes argáricos, Doctoral Thesis, Departamento de Prehistoria, Autonomous University of Barcelona. Risch, R. 2002. Recursos naturales, medios de producción y explotación social. Un análisis económico de la industria lítica de Fuente Álamo (Almería), 2250-1400 ANE, P. von Zabern, Mainz. Risch, R. 2008. From production traces to social organisation: towards an epistemology of Functional Analysis, in: L. Longo y N. Skakun (eds.).“Prehistoric Technology” 40 years later: Functional Studies and the Russian Legacy. Proceedings of the International Congress, Verona (20th-23rdApril 2005), B.A.R., IS 1783, Oxford: Archeopress, 513-521. Risch, R., Gómez-Gras, D. 2003. La producción alfarera en época talayótica, in: Castro , P., Escoriza, T. y Sanahuja, Mª.E. (eds.), Mujeres y hombres en espacios domésticos . BAR, Int. Ser. 1162, Oxford: Archeopress, 190-216. • • • • • Seva Román, R. 1995. Caracterización cerámica y relaciones culturales en la Prehistoria Reciente de Alicante, Tesis Doctoral, Universidad de Alicante. Siret, E., Siret, L. 1890. Las primeras edades del metal en el Sudeste de España. Resultados obtenidos en las excavaciones hechas por los autores de 1881 a 1887, Barcelona. Schuhmacher, T.X.; Schubart, H. 2003. FuenteÁlamo. Die Siedlungskeramik der Grabungen 1985-1991. Untersuchungen zur Chronologie und zum Siedlungsschema der ElArgar-Kultur. Stratigraphisch geordnete Keramik der ElArgar-Zeit aus den Grabungen 1977 bis 1982. Iberia Archaeologica 4, Mainz. Velasco Felipe, C. 2012. Valoración y viabilidad de la estandarización de las capacidades volumétricas argáricas a partir de los contextos cerámicos de los yacimientos de la Bastida y la Tira del Lienzo (Totana, Murcia), Master Thesis, Unpublished work, University of Barcelona. Velasco Felipe, C., Celdrán Beltrán, E. 2019. Towards an optimal method for estimating vessel capacity in large samples, in: Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 27. 101966. 25 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Carla Garrido-García Doctoral Researcher Department of Prehistory Autonomous University of Barcelona 08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Spain E-mail: [email protected] Carla Garrido-García graduated in Archaeology at the Complutense University of Madrid and the University of Granada. She achieved her MA degree in Prehistoric Archaeology at Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB). Since 2019 she is a Ph.D. researcher at the Department of Prehistory (UAB), focusing on petrographic analysis of El Argaric pottery contexts from three different archaeological sites: La Bastida, La Almoloya, and Tira del Lienzo, all of them located in the region of Murcia (Spain). The main goals of her research are the detection of different pottery productions from those sites through the analysis of the raw materials, as well as the identification of the main clay sources, in order to understand the variability between settlements and chronological phases. Elena Molina Muñoz Postdoctoral researcher. Department of Prehistory, UAB Barcelona Edifici B, 08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Spain E-mail: [email protected] Elena Molina Muñoz was born in Granada, and obtained her PhD in 2015 at the Prehistory Department, Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB). Focusing her research in the application of biochemical techniques for functional characterization of ceramic vessels and lithic artifacts in archaeological contexts. She has also specialized in the study of bronze age complex argaric societies of southeastern Spain. Throughout her professional career, she has worked as head of the archaeological analysis service of the Autonomous University of Barcelona in the area of organic residues analysis, where she has collaborated with both national and international institutions such as the Universities of Granada or Girona, the Archaeological Museum of Alicante (Spain) and the Halle State Museum of Prehistory (Germany) Finally, her postdoctoral work has been carried out in institutions such as the Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology (UAB) and the University of Sassari (Italy). Currently she combines her work as a researcher with teaching. 26 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Carlos Velasco Felipe Doctoral Researcher Department of Prehistory Autonomous University of Barcelona 08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Spain E-mail: [email protected] Carlos Velasco Felipe currently works at the research group Social ArcheoEcology of the Mediterranean (ASOME), Prehistory Department, Autonomous University of Barcelona (Spain). His research focusses on the Early Bronze Age and the origins of complex societies. His main field of study revolves around the political, social and economic aspects of the ceramic contexts of Argaric society. He obtained his BA in History in 2002, and his MA in Archeology in 2012, both at the University of Barcelona. He has more than 20 years of experience in both terrestrial and underwater excavations. He has written numerous publications both in books and specialized magazines. He is also President of the Association of Friends of the Archaeological Site of La Bastida (ASBA), that led the CRAFTER project, supported by the Creative Europe initiative between 2018 and 2019. Bárbara Bonora Soriano Doctoral Researcher Department of Prehistory Autonomous University of Barcelona 08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Spain E-mail: [email protected] Bárbara Bonora Soriano is currently a PhD researcher at the Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB). Her main interests are funerary archaeology, the microspatial study of graves, and the application of statistical methods in archaeology. Her research revolves around the Late Prehistory of Southeast Iberia, and specifically the Early Bronze Age group of El Argar. Her PhD project investigates the archaeological materials found in funerary contexts in the archaeological site of El Argar. Her study of the funerary world focuses on the still relatively unexplored spatial dimension of graves. A specific methodology, encompassing microspatial and statistical analysis, aims at a detailed spatial study of graves, their skeletal remains, and the funerary materials they contain. Since 2013, she collaborates with the research group Social Archeo-Ecology of the Mediterranean (ASOME) and the projects developed by this group: The Rise of Militarized Warfare, Political power and violence in the society of El Argar and the Economy and ideology of the first European power centers. In this context, she has participated in archaeological excavations at the Argaric sites of La Almoloya (Pliego), La Bastida (Totana), and El Morrón (Moratalla), and at the Talayotic site of Son Fornés (Montuïri). 27 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Eva Celdrán Beltrán Doctoral Researcher Department of Prehistory Autonomous University of Barcelona 08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Spain E-mail: [email protected] Eva Celdrán Beltrán is currently a doctoral researcher of the ASOME (Social Archeo-Ecology of the Mediterranean) research group, at the Department of Prehistory of the Autonomous University of Barcelona. She earned her BA (Licenciatura) in History (with specialisation in Prehistory, Ancient History and Archaeology) at the University of Murcia. She directed several excavations and surveys in the Region of Murcia (Spain) and participated in various national and international archaeological projects. Since 2008, she is a member of the “Bastida Project” (Autonomous University of Barcelona), which is devoted to the investigation of the Bronze Age El Argar society of south-east Iberia. She is also a field co-director of the excavations at the archaeological sites of La Bastida (Totana) and La Almoloya (Pliego) since 2013. Her main field of research is the architecture and urbanism of El Argar and her publications include several book chapters and specialised journal articles. Maria Inés Fregeiro Morador Archaeologist, Anthropologist Department of Prehistory Autonomous University of Barcelona 08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Spain E-mail: [email protected] María Inés Fregeiro Morador graduated in Anthropological Sciences, specializing in Archeology, at the University of the Republic (Uruguay) (1996). In 1998, she got an AECI scholarship, granted by the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and completed her studies obtaining a MA degree in Prehistoric Archeology at the Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB) in 2000. The same year, she also obtained a MA degree in Social Archeology of Ibero-America from the International University of Andalusia. Since 2009 she is a member of the research team of the “Bastida Project” (UAB), in which she has specialized in the excavation of argaric funerary contexts. Her research focuses on the significance of death in the argaric society, one of the most dynamic archaeological entities of Later European Prehistory. She is also co-founder of initiative ASBA (Murcia), devoted to the public promotion of the “Bastida Project”. Since 2013, she is a member of its coordinating board of the project. 28 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project David Gómez-Gras Full-time professor Department of Geology, Facultat de Ciències, Autonomous University of Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Spain E-mail: [email protected] David Gómez-Gras is professor of Sedimentary Petrology at the Autonomous University of Barcelona. His research interests are mainly focused on Sedimentary Petrology. He is currently working on provenance analysis of clastics as a powerful method for verifying models concerning tectonic setting, temporal and spatial evolution of uplifted source regions, sediment routing and volumes of sediment delivered to basins. He is also currently working on characterization and provenance of pottery specially focused in Bronze Age cultures. Claudia Molero Alonso Head of the Conservation/Restoration Department (Bastida Project) Department of Prehistory Autonomous University of Barcelona 08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Spain E-mail: [email protected] Claudia Molero Alonso has a degree in Fine Arts, specializing in Restoration of Works of Art from the University of Seville (2009). She completed her studies in conservation and restoration of archaeological materials at L’Accademia di Belle Arti di Roma (Erasmus grant, 2007-2008), and the University of Barcelona (Seneca grant, 2008-2009). Between 2009 and 2010, she got a grant as a research support assistant from the Autonomous University of Barcelona, developing conservation and restoration works on archaeological materials from the Argaric sites of La Bastida and La Tira del Lienzo (Totana), in the frame of “Bastida Project” Since 2011 onwards, she has been carrying out monitoring, management, conservation, and restoration work on archaeological materials from those sites and also from La Almoloya (Pliego), since 2013. Finally, she has participated in the design and preparation of different archaeological exhibitions and also in projects such as CRAFTER, supported by the initiative Creative Europe. 29 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Adrià Moreno Gil Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology; Martin Luther University Halle Wittenberg. Advokatenweg 36, 06114 Halle Germany E-mail: [email protected] .de Adrià Moreno Gil is a PhD researcher of the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology and of the Martin Luther University, Halle. His main research interests are spatial and landscape archaeology using GIS in order to study borders and frontier regions in prehistoric societies. His research focuses on Later Prehistory, more specifically on the Early Bronze Age of Southeast Iberia and the archaeological group of El Argar. His PhD project investigates the prehistoric frontier of El Argar, and aims at reconstructing the historical dynamic of a prehistoric border at a spatial and socio-political level. As part of his PhD project he directed an extensive archaeological survey of the northern Murcia and Granada, and in southern Albacete. Since 2013 he collaborates with the ASOME research group of the Autonomous University of Barcelona. He participated at several excavation campaigns conducted by the ASOME laboratory as a field technician on the Argaric sites of La Almoloya, La Bastida and El Morrón (Murcia, Spain), and on the Talaoitic site of Son Fornés (Mallorca, Spain). He also participated in the day to dayactivities of the research centre of La Bastida, that included the study and inventory of archaeological materials recovered in the excavations. Antoni Rosell Melé ICREA Research Professor ICREA and ICTA-UAB, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Edifici Z, Campus de la UAB, 08193, (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Spain E-mail: [email protected] Born in Barcelona, moved to England in 1990 to earn a PhD in the School of Chemistry at the University of Bristol (completed in 1994). In 1994 he joined the group of J. Maxwell as a post-doctoral researcher also in the School of Chemistry of Bristol. In 1996 he moved as a NERC fellow to the University of Newcastle, England. In 1999 he became a lecturer in the Department of Geography at Durham University, England, until 2001, when he moved back to Barcelona as an ICREA Research Professor. The main focus of his work is the study of Earth’s climate natural variability. Applying an organic geochemical techniques that allow the quantitative reconstruction of past climates. His work develops in three main areas i) the development of novel biomarker methods of climate reconstruction; ii) their application to reconstruct the dynamics and role of the ocean on climate over the last 5 million years; and iii) the use of such information to validate and constrain the sensitivity of climate models. A second area of research is the study of the impacts of anthropogenic activities in natural environments. Applied environmental forensics approach to study the origin and fate of organic pollutants in remote environments, like the deep sea or the Amazonian rainforests. A third area of research is the study of organic matter in an archaeological context, mainly to reconstruct palaeodiets of ancient cultures and the use or function of archaeological artifacts. 30 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Roberto Risch Full-time professor Departament de Prehistòria Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Edifici B, 08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Spain E-mail: [email protected] Roberto Risch is professor of Prehistoric Archaeology at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, and ICREA Acadèmia Research Fellow. He has been a visiting scholar at numerous European institutions including U. of Cambridge, U. di Padova, U. Freiburg and, recently, the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History (Jena). His research is mainly concerned with the economy and ecology of Prehistoric societies. In his more than 20 years of experience, he has investigated several prehistoric sites in Spain, Germany and India, and conducted ethnoarchaeological fieldwork in Ghana and Mali. The introduction of new approaches to the study of archaeological artefacts has been an indispensable part of his investigation of prehistoric economies. 31 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Classic Únětice cups from Bottendorf (Thuringia) J. Lipták, LDA Szász-Anhalt Classic Únětice cups from Bottendorf (Thuringia) (photo: J. Lipták, LDA Szász-Anhalt) 30 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project On the Current State of Knowledge of Únětice /Aunjetitz in central Germany Bettina Stoll-Tucker Abstract: Since the discovery of the Nebra Sky Disc in 1999 much research has been undertaken in central Germany concerning the early Bronze Age Únětice or Aunjetitz culture. This first phase of the Bronze Age from 2200 to 1575 BC marks the transition from the Neolithic to the Metal Ages. This article provides a brief overview on domestic settlement and social order with particular emphasis on the pottery. Keywords: Aunjetitz – Únětice – Nebra Sky Disc – Poemmelte – pottery – type forms Introduction to the archaeological entity (“culture”) With the discovery of the Nebra Sky Disc in 1999 on the Mittelberg hill above the Unstrut Valley in southern Saxony-Anhalt, a large part of the archaeological research in the German state of Saxony-Anhalt was redirected to the Early Bronze Age. Particularly since 2002, when the hoard of bronze and gold (in addition to the disc it consists of two swords, two axes, one chisel, and two arm spirals - see Fig. 1) went on show in the State Museum of Prehistory in Halle (Saale), the Early Bronze Age has been a thematic priority in all relevant research areas on hoarding and burial practices, anthropology and genetics, metallurgy, settlement and architecture, nutrition, social welfare and society, through to environment and trade in raw materials. In the past 20 years, a great number of new insights have been gained and older ones deepened or rejected. The Nebra Sky Disc dates from the first half of the 2nd millennium BC. Its deposition in the ground can be determined – on the basis of the more or less newly manufactured swords – 33 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Fig. 1 Nebra hoard with Sky Disc, swords, axes, chisel, and arm spirals; (photo: Juraj Lipták) to the time around 1600 BC. Since the five phases which can be recognised within the image on the disc represent a quite significant change in content information (from the image of the night sky to the narration of the sun’s course), the origin of the artefact is likely to be several generations older. The duration of this unique work of art coincides with a large part of the Early Bronze Age Únětice (in German “Aunjetitz”) culture. The burial of the Nebra hoard marks the end of this era. In central Europe, the “Únětice culture” lasts from 2200 to 1575 BC and represents the transition from the Neolithic to the Metal Ages. Since 1975 BC it is characterised by a highly hierarchical society, which is reflected in the grave inventories. From around 2200 BC, something completely new emerged in Middle Germany and neighbouring areas through the amalgamation of the two most important population groups based in the region (Corded Ware and Bell Beaker cultures). Local elites are formed, who are closely interlinked suggesting they had very similar traditions. The decoration on pottery vessels disappears almost overnight, and the dead are laid to rest in burial grounds according to a strictly uniform, gender-independent rite. The bodies of the deceased are buried in earthen graves, in some instances also in stone cists, still in the Neolithic tradition of a crouched position, aligned north–south (head in south), lying on their right side and thus facing towards the rising sun. Exceptions are the burials of chiefs or “princes” in huge burial mounds, where the corpse lies supine looking upwards towards the sky. 34 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Fig. 2 Distribution map of Únětice culture (orange areas) in central Europe with outline of Saxony-Anhalt; (illustration Nora Seeländer) The Únětice culture is named after the site of two cemeteries that were excavated in 1879 by the local district physician and early archaeologist Čeněk Ryzner and published in an exemplary manner in 1880: Únětice / Aunjetitz, northwest of Prague in Bohemia (Ryzner 1880). On the basis of the publication, comparable discoveries could be quickly assigned and a definition of the culture developed. The main criteria were, and still are, the burial rites, the types of pottery, and the bronze grave goods and hoards. Typical objects made of copper and early bronze are short triangular dagger blades, eyelet needles, awls, wire spirals, “Noppenringe” (spirally folded lock rings), armlets and, mostly in hoards, flanged axes and halberd blades. There are also necklaces made from amber beads and small spiral coils, as well as rod-shaped rings, which, due to their size and weight, may also have served as ingots or proto-money rings. In “princely” tombs are found rings and pins made of gold, and the gold finds from Dieskau (Fig. 3) even include an axe of this rare precious metal. 35 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Based on the number and the type of grave goods (pottery vessels, one or two bronze pins, dagger, Noppenrings, armlet, gold regalia), at least five social ranks can be distinguished (Schwarz 2014, Fig. 1 a + b) (Fig. 4). The so-called “princes” occupy the highest position with a rich repertoire of grave goods including standardised gold insignia in the form of pins, hair rings, and one armlet. They were each buried in a tent-like timber structure with a stone covering under large mounds of earth. These giant artificial hills were visible from afar and dominated the landscape. They may have marked the domain and power of leading families who owed their wealth to the excellent arable soils, the salt springs, and the trade in copper, tin, and amber, possibly defended with the help of early “armies” (Meller 2015). Large finds of axe blades (weapon hoards) indicate the latter. With the help of imports and exports, trade routes can be identified that extend across Europe from Cornwall to the Mediterranean region or even the Near East. Knowledge and handicraft techniques are also likely to have spread along these routes. The predominantly peasant society needed arable and pasture land for their livelihood, as well as forests to supply timber and wild game for food supplements. The Únětice people sited their unfortified settlements in floodfree areas, but always near flowing water. We know of individual farmsteads, hamlets, and small villages (for instance Schloßvippach, Thuringia, with 13 house plans: Küßner/Walter 2019, 51–56). However, the hierarchical stratification of the population that can be seen in the burials is not apparent in the settlements. Due to large-scale excavations within the state of Saxony-Anhalt over the last twenty years we can now create a better picture of the Early Bronze Age (EBA) settlement landscape. More than 50 complete ground plans of houses of the Únětice culture have been excavated so far and provide the measurements and plan of an EBA standard longhouse for our region (Fig. 5): two-aisled, erected as a post frame construction with wattle and daub walls, orientated more or less east-west. The long sides measure up to 36 m, the narrow sides between 5 and 7 m. The western narrow end has the shape of a rounded apsis, probably with a hip roof, whereas the eastern end provided a sheltered open anteroom for an entrance. Further entrances can be found along the sides. These longhouses represent the core of the settlements. Other features are water wells, waste pits, and 36 Fig. 3 Dieskau, Saalekreis, golden hoard, discovered 1874; (photo: Juraj Lipták) princely graves Fürsten Gräber burials with mit goldenen golden hair rings Schläfenringen burials with weapons Gräber mit Waffenbeigabe burials bronzes Gräber mitwith Bronzebeigaben burials ceramics Gräber mitwith Keramikbeigaben burials without grave goods Beigabenlose Gräber Society of the Únětice Culture of Central Germany Fig. 4 Social organisation in the Mittelelbe-Unstrut group of the Únětice culture; (graphic: Ralf Schwarz) Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project sometimes even parts of wooden boardwalks. One especially fine example of an EBA longhouse was discovered at Benzingerode, Harz district, of which a digital model was created – see Fig. 5. Within the ground plan the domestic and probably also the stabling area could be identified. Activities which could be evidenced are related to everyday life, for instance: processing of cereals and meat (grinding stones, cut and slit marks on animal bones), storage (pits and silos), weaving (loom weights), saltmaking (briquetage), metal working (clay tuyeres), feeding livestock (watering places and “pot wells”). So far hardly ever attested are fireplaces, hearths, ovens, and, surprisingly, any defensive structures, such as earthen ramparts, fences, or palisades. Tracks of a standard width of 1.10 m (Meller/Schunke 2016, 449f) and general observations suggest the use of traction in the form of cattle teams pulling carts and wagons for transport. We even know of impressive ritual sites at Poemmelte-Zackmuende and Schoenebeck, both Salzland district, in Saxony-Anhalt. N 4931 5007 2350 0 5m Fig. 5 Benzingerode, Harz district. A 2005 reconstruction of building BR_01 with a hip roof in the west, two entrances in the south and a gable end flanked by antae in the east; illustration Jens Brauer 2005 and CAD plan of the Benzingerode house BR_01; (graphic: Jens Brauer and Udo Ewers) 37 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project The Poemmelte henge monument, built from earthen banks and palisades made of thousands of wooden posts in six concentric circles in immediate proximity to an EBA settlement comprising several longhouses (Fig. 6), was excavated by archaeologists from Halle University and dates to about 2350–2050 BC. It was begun by Bell Beaker people and continued into Únětice times. Today it is reconstructed on the original site and is the latest addition to the touristic “Sky Paths” route (Himmelswege http:// www.himmelswege.de/index.php?id=136) in Saxony-Anhalt (Fig. 7). Pottery forms/types The structure of the Aunjetitz culture (AK) is based primarily on its (grave) pottery (Zich 1996; Schwarz 2015 and forthcoming). The typical guiding forms are cups, jars, bowls, jugs or pitchers, lugged and eared beakers, and storage vessels (Fig. 8). These generic terms are generally understandable and therefore require no further explanation. Fig. 7 Poemmelte, Salzlandkreis. Aerial view of the circular ditched complex in 2018; (drone photo: Olaf Schröder) 38 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project N Fig. 6 Poemmelte, Salzlandkreis. House plans of the Bell Beaker culture (yellow) and Únětice culture (blue) settlement south of the ring sanctuary. In the western area a Bell Beaker and Únětice culture cemetery was uncovered. Overview at end of excavation campaign 2019; (graphic: Matthias Zirm) Ralf Schwarz (Schwarz 2015 and forthcoming) uses the position of the handle on cups to define a total of eight phases plus one proto-Aunjetitz stage within the late Bell Beaker culture (Glockenbecherkultur - GBK 3) with a rim-attached handle (GBK 3, AK 1a, AK 1b, AK 2a, AK 2b, AK 3a, AK 3b, AK 4, AK 5). Through time, the handles slowly sink from the rim across the shoulder to the point of maximum girth (Fig. 9). Classic, shoulderless cups with a sharply profiled body and those with a rudimentary shoulder belong to stage AK 3, where handles sit low on the carination. With the beginning of the Únětice culture, almost all decoration on pottery ceased abruptly. Only rarely sparse embellishments are found in the form of fine lines of scoring as fringes, zigzag bands, and chevrons, and on the slim, tall storage vessels finger strokes enliven the rough slurry coating. An essential design element are, however, grips in the form of strap or beaded handles, lugs, moulding, knobs and tangs, sometimes decorated with fingertip dabbing or notches. In addition to knobs, storage vessels also have applied strip cordons, decorated with dabs of fingertips or notches, which separate the neck from the body of the vessel (Fig. 10). 39 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Fig. 8 Type forms of Únětice pottery in Saxony-Anhalt (not to scale): 1 – 5 cups, 6 – 10 large cups, 11 – 12 jugs, 13 – 15 jars, 16 eared beaker, 17 eyelet beaker, 18 lugged beaker, 19 beaker, 20 small bowl, 21 bowl, 22 lugged bowl; (drawings: Lutz Kaudelka) 40 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Fig. 9 Pottery phase division according to Ralf Schwarz; (graphic: Ralf Schwarz) 41 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Raw materials and technology To date, very little has been published on pottery manufacturing technology in the EBA in Germany. As far as analyses have taken place (see below), local clays were used for Únětice pottery. Tempering is predominantly mineral and consists of grus, mica, quartz, but sometimes also some vegetal elements are recognisable. Apart from a smooth rim, the storage vessels usually have a slurry coating with granite grus temper, while the thin-walled fine wares have very well smoothed surfaces. Classic cups are often polished to a high glossy sheen. All pottery is built by hand (slab or coil technique), the potter’s wheel is still unknown. The handles and grips are either plugged into the wall of the vessel or applied. Fabric colour ranges between grey-brown and dark grey, some classic cups appear metallic black (Fig. 11). Pottery ovens have not yet been identified, which suggests that the firing probably took place in pits or as an open bonfire with temperatures up to 800° C. Both surface oxidizing (light brown) and reducing (black) firing can be postulated. At the henge and settlement site Poemmelte (Spatzier 2017), Corded Ware ceramics were predominantly sand tempered, whereas Bell Beaker and proto-Únětice wares were tempered with lithic particles. Surfaces are coarse but even, sometimes polished. The colour of the sherd fabric is dark (95% dark grey to black) and only rarely grey or red. At the Únětice cemetery of Wanzleben (Saxony-Anhalt) (Schmidt 2009) the following properties were recorded: all 20 vessels were tempered with mineral material (mica, quartz, iron ore, sand, or a combination thereof), the majority of the vessels (13) have a polished surface, the fabric is dark grey and only two are reddish in colour. The exterior shows red and black hues from irregular firing. It is assumed that all 20 vessels were specially produced for the burials as no signs of use or wear could be detected. At the large Early Bronze Age settlement of Zwenkau (Saxony) (Schunke 2009, 278) analysis of sherd fabrics revealed that 90% of the ceramics were intentionally tempered with granite grit. The dominating felspar as well as biotite and muscovite inclusions („mica“) point to the use of local material from the Elster gravel terraces. The fabric colour of the fine wares shows a range of grey-browns 42 Fig. 10 Únětice storage vessel with strip cordon and warty slip with finger strokes, Salzmuende, Saalekreis district, feature 4084 (it had been dug into the ground next to the southern wall inside house SM_01), pottery scale 1:4; (drawing: K. Walter) Fig. 11 Classic cup of the Únětice culture, from Uftrungen, Mansfeld-Suedharz district; (photo: Juraj Lipták) Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project whereas the rough wares show a decidedly pinkish hue of grey-brown, especially on the interior of the vessel. Typical are slipped rough wares with oblique finger strokes and a warty quality of the slip. In addition to the characteristic everyday and grave pottery, briquetage should be mentioned as technical ceramics which are repeatedly found in settlements in the form of tubs. Salt production is clearly attributable to housekeeping; no large, and thus perhaps transregionally important, brine boiling plants have been identified. Social uses of pottery Fig. 12 Ceramic grave ensemble from Obermoellern, Burgenlandkreis, consisting of jug, cup, beaker, jar, and bowl; (photo: Juraj Lipták) The most complete vessels of the Únětice culture come from grave contexts, on the basis of which the pottery typology could be established. Many of these wares appear to be so fresh from the potter that they probably were only finished shortly before burial. Obviously ceramic grave goods were an essential part of the funeral custom. In the early phases of the Únětice culture whole sets of crockery consisting of jug/pitcher, cup/jar, beaker, and large bowl were placed in the grave (Fig. 12). Later the burial ritual changed to the offering of a single cup or one small bowl, or offerings of ceramic vessels were even dispensed with entirely. With few exceptions, no storage vessels were placed in graves. They formed the characteristic settlement commodity. This changed around 1775 BC when a new burial custom arose, in which the dead were buried in round pits, the filling of which, among other things, was interspersed with shattered settlement ceramics (and are therefore incorrectly referred to as settlement burials). It can be assumed that cups and mugs were used for drinking and scooping and large or small bowls for serving food, while jugs were used for storing and pouring liquids. Some of the surprising results regarding the use of certain types of pottery have been brought about by recent settlement excavations in Saxony-Anhalt. They supplied all sorts of ceramic forms, but predominately storage, scooping, and collecting vessels - amongst them also classic cups. They were found both in and around houses as well as in various workplaces and even in wooden box wells (lost scoops). (Deffner et. al. 2019, 37 Fig. 30 and Schunke 2019, 145, Fig. 17). 43 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Lipid analyses were carried out on some vessels from Merseburg-Beuna (ME), Saalekreis and Esperstedt-Obhausen (ES), Saalekreis (Schüler et al. 2019). It turned out that the classic cup ME 19-5 apparently served as a container for lard, while traces of a milk product plus a mixture of different animal fats could be detected in the larger storage container ES 19-2. Thus, storage vessels were apparently not only used for storing dry goods, but also for finished dishes (soup, stew, porridge) or possibly also as cookware. A similar example was recorded in Poland, where traces of milk fat (milk, buttermilk, or cottage cheese), vegetables, and meat could be found in a classic cup from a “prince’s grave” (Pokutta 2014, 147–148). Storage vessels of larger sizes (rim diameter up to 30 cm) were sometimes discovered directly inside or outside the long sidewalls of houses and sometimes still partially buried in the temperature-balancing soil, which would favour longer storage (Merseburg-Beuna, Saalekreis feature 103 and 105, Schüler et al. 2019, Fig. 3b). At Güsten (Salzlandkreis) (Schunke 2019, 145f), some vessels without bases were found in situ in a damp place. Shortly after being unearthed, they filled with clear water and that probably indicates their original purpose: to collect drinking water (Fig. 13). Such pot wells in damp depressions could have served as cattle troughs for sheep or goats, but also for humans. The stepping stones that are also present at the Güsten site may indicate the latter. Fig. 13 Guesten, Salzlandkreis. The vessel whose base had been struck off filled up with water even during the excavation; (photo: Kathrin Ulrich) Summary All in all, the examination of Únětice ceramics provides a composite picture of domestic and social purposes. In addition to being used as a grave good, the vessels are deployed multifunctionally in the home and at workplaces, both as containers and as appliances (i.e. briquetage, pot wells). While they form the ideal basis for a chronological structure of the Únětice/Aunjetitz culture, the hierarchy of Early Bronze Age society which is clearly visible in the graves cannot be reproduced on the basis of the pottery (Fig. 14). 44 Fig. 14 Compilation of Únětice ceramic vessels from various sites (models for the CRAFTER ensemble); (photo: Andrea Hörentrup) Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project • Acknowledgement The author would particularly like to thank her colleague Ralf Schwarz for his support and generous sharing of knowledge on ceramic type forms and chronology. All figures ©LDA Sachsen-Anhalt. References • • • • • Deffner, A., Peters, E., Raczkowska-Jones, M., Schmidt, H. 2019. Die urgeschichtlichen Brunnen von Güsten und Ilberstedt. In: H. Meller/V. Dresely/S. Friederich (eds.), Archäologie an der B 6n im Salzlandkreis – Vom Steinzeithaus zur Zuckerfabrik. Archäologie in Sachsen-Anhalt, Sonderband 23, Halle (Saale), 27–43. Küßner, M. und Walter, D. 2019. Siedlung und Besiedlung Thüringens im Endneolithikum und der frühen Bronzezeit zwischen 2500 und 1500 v. Chr. In: H. Meller/S. Friederich/M. Küßner/H. Stäuble/R. Risch (eds.), Siedlungsarchäologie des Endneolithikums und der frühen Bronzezeit. 11. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 18. bis 20. Oktober 2018 in Halle (Saale), Tagungen der Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle, Band 20, Halle (Saale), 33–78. Meller, H. 2015. Armeen in der Frühbronzezeit? In: H. Meller/M. Schefzik (eds.), Krieg – eine archäologische Spurensuche. Begleitband zur Sonderausstellung im Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte Halle (Saale), Halle (Saale), 243–252. Meller, H. und Schunke, T. 2016. Die Wiederentdeckung des Bornhöck – Ein neuer frühbronzezeitlicher “Fürstengrabhügel” bei Raßnitz, Saalekreis. Erster Vorbericht. In: H. Meller/H. P. Hahn/R. Jung/R. Risch (eds.), Arm und Reich – Zur Ressourcenverteilung in prähistorischen Gesellschaften. 8. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 22. bis 24. Oktober 2015 in Halle (Saale), Tagungen der Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle, Band 14/II, Halle (Saale), 427–466. Pokutta, D. A. 2014. Food and Cooking in the Únétice Culture. APULUM Archaeologica et Anthropologica 51, 2014, 135–159. • • • • Ryzner, Č. 1880. Řadové hroby blíž Únětic. Památky archaeologické a Místopisné. Organ Archaeologického sboru Musea království Českého a Historického spolku v Praze, Volume 11, 1878–1881, Issue 7. 289–336 (15.01.1880) http://www.digitalniknihovna.cz/mzk/view/ uuid:083164f0-e875-11e4-a794-5ef3fc9bb22f?page=uuid:8c1e3e80-e908-11e4-a5115ef 3fc9ae867 (24.05.2020). Schmidt, C. 2009. Das Gräberfeld der Aunjetitzer Kultur von Wanzleben, Lkr. Börde. Jahresschrift für mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte Band 91, Halle (Saale), 103–200. Schunke, T. 2009. Die frühbronzezeitliche Siedlung von Zwenkau, Ldkr. Leipziger Land. Untersuchungen zur Chronologie und Beobachtungen zur Wirtschaftsweise und sozialen Differenzierung anhand der keramischen Funde. In: M. Bartelheim/H. Stäuble, (eds.), Die wirtschaftlichen Grundlagen der Bronzezeit Europas. Forschungen zur Archäometrie und Altertumswissenschaft, Band 4, Rahden/Westf., 273–319. Schunke, T. 2019. Siedlungen und Landschaft der Aunjetitzer Kultur in Sachsen-Anhalt - die Siedlungselemente, ihre Strukturierung und Lage. In: H. Meller/S. Friederich/M. Küßner/H. Stäuble/R. Risch (eds.), Siedlungsarchäologie des Endneolithikums und der frühen Bronzezeit. 11. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 18. bis 20. Oktober 2018 in Halle (Saale), Tagungen der Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle, Band 20, Halle (Saale) 2019, 127–207. Schüler, J., Eichentopf, J., Molina, E., Planert, M., Friederich, S. 2019. Frühbronzezeitliche Häuser ohne Hausgrundriss-Strukturen? Merseburg-Beuna und Esperstedt-Obhausen, beide Saalekreis. In: H. Meller/S. Friederich/M. Küßner/H. Stäuble/R. Risch (eds.), Siedlungsarchäologie des Endneolithikums und der frühen Bronzezeit. 11. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 18. bis 20. Oktober 2018 in Halle (Saale), Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle, Band 20, Halle (Saale), 475–489. 45 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project • • • • • 46 Schwarz, R. 2014. Goldene Schläfen- und Lockenringe – Herrschaftsinsignien in bronzezeitlichen Ranggesellschaften Mitteldeutschlands. Überlegungen zur Gesellschaft der Aunjetitzer Kultur. In: H. Meller/R. Risch/E. Pernicka (eds.), Metalle der Macht – Frühes Gold und Silber. 6. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 17. bis 19. Oktober 2013 in Halle (Saale), Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle, Band 11, Halle (Saale), 717-742. Schwarz, R. 2015. Kultureller Umbruch oder Kontinuität? - Mitteldeutschland im 23. Jh. v. Chr. In: H. Meller/H. W. Arz/R. Jung/R. Risch (eds.), 2200 BC – Ein Klimasturz als Ursache für den Zerfall der Alten Welt? 7. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 23. bis 26. Oktober 2014 in Halle (Saale), Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle, Band 12, Halle (Saale), 671–713. Schwarz, R. 2018. Typentafeln zur Chronologie in Mitteldeutschland – Die Aunjetitzer Kultur. Forschungsberichte des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle (Halle [Saale] in Vorb.). in press. Spatzier, A. 2017. Das endneolithisch-frühbronzezeitliche Rondell von Pömmelte-Zackmünde, Salzlandkreis, und das Rondell-Phänomen des 4.–1. Jt. v. Chr. in Mitteleuropa. Forschungsberichte des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle 10. Halle (Saale). Zich, B. 1996. Studien zur regionalen und chronologischen Gliederung der nördlichen Aunjetitzer Kultur (= Vorgeschichtliche Forschungen, Band 20). Berlin. Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Bettina Stoll-Tucker Head of Department “State Museum” at the State Office for Heritage Management and Archaeology Saxony-Anhalt, -State Museum of PrehistoryLandesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt -Landesmuseum für VorgeschichteRichard-Wagner-Straße 9, 06114 Halle (Saale), Germany E-mail: [email protected] She is a graduate of Erlangen University (1986 MA Dissertation: Early Bronze Age settlement, Beilngries, Bavaria; 1994 PhD Dissertation: Human use of caves, Pegnitz, Bavaria) and a German prehistorian with expertise in excavation, surface survey, and finds management practiced mostly in Germany and on projects in England, Iraq, Jordan, and Turkmenistan. Since 1993 employed at the State Office for Heritage Management and Archaeology Saxony-Anhalt, starting as curator of the collections and since 2015 Head of Department of the State Museum (Halle, Germany). Current interests: cultural resource management and communication, and the long-term accessibility of the archaeological record. 47 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Richly decorated pedestalled handled jug (site: Polgár-Kenderföld, Majoros-tanya MBA cemetery) (photo: I. Czinegéné Kiss, Déri Museum, Debrecen) 46 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project The Middle Bronze Age Füzesabony pottery style of the Carpathian Basin Vajk Szeverényi, Attila Kreiter, János Dani, László Gucsi, Viktória Kiss, Gabriella Kulcsár, Péter Skoda, Ildikó Szathmári Abstract: The present paper is a short review of Middle Bronze Age Füzesabony style pottery from the northeastern part of the Carpathian Basin. We briefly sketch research history, main cultural features, vessel forms, decorative motifs and manufacturing technology through petrographic analysis. Füzesabony pottery is identified as one of the most flamboyantly decorated and formed ceramic style of the Bronze Age in Europe. Even though vessel shapes and decorations show high skill and elaboration, the raw materials of these vessels do not seem to be standardised. Raw materials show high variability and there is no correlation between vessel types/forms and choices in particular raw materials. In the light of this, there seems to be no centralisation in the organisation of ceramic production and even the most elaborately decorated and burnished vessels were manufactured locally by skilled, most probably specialised potters both for everyday purposes and special occasions. Keywords: Middle Bronze Age, Carpathian Basin, pottery, ceramic technology The ‘Otomani-Füzesabony Cultural Complex’ The label Füzesabony (after the town of Füzesabony, NE Hungary) refers to a specific ceramic style: a combination of unique vessel forms, very rich ornamentation and a specific manufacturing technique, used in the northeastern part of the Carpathian Basin from c. 1950/1900 to 1500/1450 BC (Fig. 1). The eponymous site, Füzesabony-Öregdomb (HU) is a multilayered tell settlement, excavated first in the 1930s by Ferenc Tompa. After further archaeological research on Middle Bronze Age communities in eastern Hungary and western Romania, and mainly the first excavations of the Otomani-Cetăţuie (Hung. Ottomány-Várhegy) and Otomani-Cetatea de pământ (Hung. Ottomány-Földvár) (RO) tell sites in the late 1920s by Márton Roska (Roska 49 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project 1926-28; 1930; 1942, 215), the ceramic style was referred Fig. 1 Distribution of Middle Bronze Age to as Otomani culture (Nestor 1932 [1933]). Nowadays, pottery styles in the Carpathian Basin (after P. Fischl et al. 2013, Fig. 2) most Hungarian, Slovakian, Romanian and Polish scholars call the whole stylistic group ‘Otomani-Füzesabony Cultural Complex’, covering a vast territory from the hilly Lesser Poland to the plain Bihar/Bihor and Körös/Criş regions in eastern Hungary and northwestern Romania (Bader 1998; Gancarski 1999; 2002; P. Fischl and Kienlin 2019) (Fig. 2). Otomani-Füzesabony type material is known from an abundance of settlement and burial sites. These communities founded the most extended cemeteries in the Middle Bronze Age Carpathian Basin. The first burials with Füzesabony type material were excavated in the downtown of Egyek (sites Bodajcs-oldal and Rókahát) in 1903 by Tivadar Lehoczky, founder of the collection of the Munkács (Mukačevo) Museum (Lehoczky 1912, 20-22) (Fig. 3), and a few years later, in 1906 at the same site by Lajos Zoltai, the first curator of the City Museum of Debrecen (Fig. 4). The largest and richest burial places, such as Nižná Myšľa in eastern Slovakia (Olexa and Nováček 2013; 2015; 2017) and, most recently, Encs in northeastern Hungary (Mengyán and Dávid 2019), may have over 1,200 graves. Other significant cemeteries include Hernádkak (Schalk 1992), Tiszafüred (Kovács 1992) and Megyaszó (Schalk 50 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Fig. 2 Overall distribution of the sites of the ‘Otomani-Füzesabony Cultural Complex’ (after P. Fischl and Kienlin 2019) 51 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project 1994) in northeastern Hungary. The burials are characterized by a very strict, gender specific inhumation ritual: everyone was placed in a crouched position, men on their right side, with their head to S/SW, while women the opposite way, on their left side, oriented to N/NE (Bóna 1975; Schalk 1992; Thomas 2008). Cremated burials appeared in the late, so-called Streda nad Bodrogom/Bodrogszerdahely Phase (Koszider Period, c. 1600–1450 BC), and became more frequent over time (e.g. Polla 1960; Kőszegi 1968; Pfannenschmidt 1999– 2000). The cemeteries associated with contemporaneous trade routes (mainly river valleys) often include extremely rich burials accompanied by gold or amber jewels and bronze tools and weapons (Dani et al. 2016). The largest settlements of the ‘Otomani-Füzesabony Cultural Complex’ were the so-called tells: multilayer settlements created by a special, intensive, sedentary way of life, where houses were regularly burnt – for profane or ritual reasons (Szeverényi 2013) – and then rebuilt in the same location, thereby creating many layers of debris, often many meters thick (Gogâltan 2002). Tell settlements situated at the choke points of trade routes have a fortified, stratified inner core (enclosed by simple or multiple walls and ditches), often surrounded by an extensive, single-layer settlement part. Larger fortified settlements (e.g. Trzcinica – the most intensively researched site: Gancarski 2009 – or Trepcza and Maszkowice in the Polish part of the Western Carpathians) were identified in the higher, mountainous areas (Jaeger 2018, Fig. 1). Even stone defensive walls have been attested at two sites: Spišský Štvrtok (SK) (Vladár 1973; 1975; but comp. Jaeger 2014) and Maszkowice (PL) (Przybyła 2016; Jędrysik and Przybyła 2019). Houses were usually timber-framed structures with wattleand-daub walls. In most cases, the cemeteries were located within 1 km from the tell settlements, but always outside the fortified residential area, and sometimes separated by natural landmarks (e.g. a brook) (Dani et al. 2019, 860862, Fig. 12-13). At many sites, the Füzesabony occupation levels overlay earlier tells of the so-called Hatvan culture (e.g. Kienlin et al. 2018). 52 Fig. 3 Füzesabony style bowl from EgyekBodajcs-oldal collected by T. Lehoczky (after Kobály 2004, 71, Nr. 169) Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Fig. 4 Füzesabony style vessels from the cemetery of Egyek-Bodajcs-oldal excavated by L. Zoltai in 1911 (original drawing: L. Zoltai, Déri Museum, Debrecen) Füzesabony shapes and decorative motifs Fig. 5 Füzesabony style bowl with channelled and smoothed decoration and pointed knobs from Polgár-Kenderföld, Majoros-tanya (photo: I. Czinegéné Kiss, Déri Museum, Debrecen) 53 The most characteristic feature of Füzesabony style pottery is the use of plastic, often organic, channelled or smoothed1 ornamental motifs, and pointed knobs (Fig. 5). Due to the large variability of ornaments and forms, and the hand-made technique, we find identical vessels only in exceptional cases within the Füzesabony style. Elaborate forms and decorations are indicative of highly skilled potters, but the variability most probably also shows that many local individuals made these vessels. This assumption is also attested by the high variability in raw materials of vessels within a site (see below). The shapes and decorative motifs of Füzesabony style pottery went through some observable changes throughout the almost half millennium while it was in use, and the style may be divided typologically into roughly three major phases within the Middle Bronze Age (Bóna 1975; Kovács 1982; 1984; Schalk 1992; Thomas 2008). Vessel forms of the early phase include larger storage vessels with tunnel-shaped neck, large belly, decorated with 1 We use the term ‘smoothed’ instead of ‘incised’. On Füzesabony style pottery, the lines are created with the help of a tool with a rounded point, held at an obtuse angle. The potters seem to have taken special care not to leave a barb along the edge of the lines, as opposed to other periods (e.g. Neolithic or Copper Age), where incisions are made with a sharp, pointed tool that left a barb along the edges of the lines. Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Fig. 6 Füzesabony style bowl with fluted knobs and running spirals from Polgár-Kenderföld, Majoros-tanya (photo: I. Czinegéné Kiss, Déri Museum, Debrecen) smoothed zigzag lines, similar to the preceding Hatvan style in northern Hungary, or simple barrel-shaped vessels with finger-impressed rims. A series of vessels, such as ‘Swedish helmet’ type bowls and jugs with funnel-shaped neck, either straight or everted rim and wide strap handle also have their ancestry in the Hatvan style. Spherical vessels with strongly everted rim and two handles on the shoulder, shallow bowls with inward turning rim, and deep, jar-like bowls can be traced back to the Košťany style of eastern Slovakia. Characteristic decorations include smoothed or impressed garlands, running spirals and half spirals, small knobs surrounded with channelling and hatched triangles (Fig. 6). Short incisions between parallel smoothed lines, impressed or smoothed zigzag lines and horizontal rows of impressed dots on the shoulder or belly of vessels are also common. The developed phase of the pottery style is characterized by very similar vessel forms; the main changes can be observed in the decoration. Forms include amphorae with cylindrical or funnel-shaped neck and 2-4 handles on their shoulder, flowerpot and barrel-shaped vessels, and bowls with inverted rim or with arched neck and strongly everted rim. Jugs and cups have long, funnel-shaped neck, everted rim, and wide strap handles connecting the rim and the shoulder. The strap handles of barrel-shaped, one-handled cups also start from the rim. A unique form is the cylindrical, one-handled jug (Fig. 7). Decoration becomes even more diverse, with numerous new combinations of the known decorative motifs. 54 Fig. 7 Füzesabony style cylindrical, one-handled jug (a so-called ‘beer mug’) from Polgár-Kenderföld, Majoros-tanya (photo: I. Czinegéné Kiss, Déri Museum, Debrecen) Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Fig. 8 Richly decorated, late Füzesabony style bowl from Egyek; left: original drawing after Zoltai 1908, 36; right: (photo: I. Czinegéné Kiss, Déri Museum, Debrecen) Fig. 9 Füzesabony style one-handled jugs from the Koszider Period from Polgár-Kenderföld, Majoros-tanya (photo: I. Czinegéné Kiss, Déri Museum, Debrecen) The number of spirals and garlands increases. Knobs with multiple fluting surrounding them and horizontal and oblique channelling become more frequent. Previously, horizontal fluting covered the whole shoulder of jugs and cups, now it serves more as a separator of fields on the vessels. In the final phase, two major trends become visible throughout the Carpathian Basin, not just in the distribution area of the ‘Otomani-Füzesabony Cultural Complex’. One is the adoption of a series of vessel forms throughout the entire area of the basin, decreasing the differences between final Middle Bronze Age pottery styles. The other is the increasingly flamboyant decoration of vessels everywhere, especially with fluting and knobs (Fig. 8). One-handled jugs with short, arched neck on a ring foot or a short pedestal become quite common (Fig. 9). Most earlier forms continue with very slight variations. With regard to decoration, smoothed line bundles become frequent, just like horizontal cordons, small knobs surrounded by fluting and a circle of impressed dots (‘rosette’), a row of dots running around the neck, or impressed wide lines. Bowls have strongly everted rim, two or four handles, and larger, pointed knobs with multiple fluting. Horizontal fluting on the neck of jugs continue. Mention should also be made of special vessels made for cooking purposes, such as portable ovens, cooking pots, 55 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project baking plates, ‘fish-frying pans’, ember covers and strainers, which are present in all phases of the pottery style. Generally, the outstanding designs of Füzesabony style pottery are still mesmerizing for the modern beholder as well. The well-balanced proportions and clear contours of the forms, the wide range of decorations and their harmony and elaboration with surface treatment and the light-shadow effect on the best vessels reflect a highly sophisticated aesthetic that could have been attained only by skilled artisans with professional technological knowledge. Raw materials and technologies Füzesabony style pottery was made by hand from locally available clays, with slab and coil building techniques. Fine pottery is always a highly polished, dark ware (fired under reducing conditions). The clay for such jugs, cups and ornamental bowls was tempered with grog (finely ground pottery fragments) and/or different size ranges of sand. Coarse ware (e.g. cooking pots, amphorae or deep bowls) are never polished. They are manufactured from clay also tempered with grog and/or different size ranges of sand. Petrographic analysis of a larger series of Füzesabony style pottery sherds has recently taken place within the framework of a larger project aimed at the complex study of the social, economic and political organization and social strategies of Bronze Age communities in Hungary (Momentum Mobility Research Group of the Institute of Archaeology of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences) (Kiss 2016). As part of this project, ceramic technology at a number of sites has been investigated through the petrographic analysis of pottery finds. One of the investigated sites is Füzesabony-Öregdomb, one of the eponymous sites of the ‘Otomani-Füzesabony Cultural Complex’ (Stanczik 1978; Szathmári 1990; 1992; Szathmári et al. 2019). We analysed the ceramic technology of Füzesabony-Öregdomb all through the five construction episodes (layers) of the tell. Ceramics were analysed by microscopic fabric analysis of conventional thin sections. 313 ceramics were chosen for thin section analysis including 51 cups, 15 jars, 102 bowls, 3 mugs, 56 amphorae/storage vessels, 69 pots, 4 so called fermenting vessels, 2 spouts, 5 portable ovens, 1 pedestalled bowl and 5 clay discs. The aim of microscopic thin section analysis was to understand how ceramic technology changed through 56 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project the construction episodes of the tell, and whether there was specialisation in the production of certain vessel types, in particular in table wares in terms of their raw materials and tempers. The analysed ceramics were divided into 16 fabric groups but within some of the fabrics, subgroups could also be distinguished. As a result, altogether 41 subgroups could be distinguished indicating that a wide variety of local raw materials were used for potting. Even though vessel forms and decoration show high skill and labour input, at this stage of research, the variability in raw materials does not show centralised organisation in ceramic production, not even within the elaborately decorated and highly burnished table wares. Thus, the majority of the analysed vessels do not show correlation with a particular raw material or tempering practice. Even though a representative number of samples were analysed from Füzesabony, including all major vessel forms, vessels do not seem to have been made by centrally organised specialists. Rather, the variability in raw materials suggest production on a household level by highly skilled potters. It must be noted that earlier analyses of Bronze Age ceramics also showed only few samples that would indicate increased organisation in ceramic production. These vessels had very fine, well-sorted, dense fabrics. It must be noted that technological signs, such as well-sorted raw materials, indicating increased organisation in ceramic production, are very scarce in the Bronze Age (Kreiter 2009; Earle et al. 2011). So far, when we observed well-sorted raw materials, they always appear in table wares. Some of the analysed vessels from Füzesabony did not show tempering, while other vessels were tempered with different size ranges of sand, but rarely grog tempering was also observed. Previous analyses of Bronze Age household vessels (squat shaped vessels and amphorae) showed that grog tempering was the most common, in particular it was used in very little amounts (Kreiter 2007a). In the vessels at Füzesabony also little amounts of grog were used in the majority of cases, however grog was used less often than at other previously analysed Bronze Age sites (Kreiter and Viktorik 2016; Kreiter and Skoda 2017a; Kreiter and Skoda 2017b; Kreiter et al. 2020). The majority of the analysed vessels from Füzesabony represent table wares and it seems that grog was not commonly used for table wares, at least at this site. 57 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Concerning changes in potting traditions, according to the construction episodes of the Füzesabony tell, towards the younger periods more and more types, or differently tempered raw materials were used. The ceramic technology of Nagyrév and Vatya style vessels at Százhalombatta, central Hungary also showed a similar pattern in that the earliest ceramic technology of the tell showed the least variability in raw materials/tempers (Kreiter 2007b, 127, Table 19). At Füzesabony, table wares show more variability in their raw materials; it seems that they were more prone to change than other ceramic products. In particular, bowls and cups show the highest variability in their raw materials. It must be noted that even the most elaborately decorated and highly burnished bowls were made from medium to coarse raw materials all through the existence of the tell. The use of such coarse raw materials for fine table wares must have been challenging for potters because the coarse inclusions hindered the process of elaborate decoration and high burnishing. For cups, jugs and mugs very fine to fine, even untempered raw materials were also used, but these vessels also appear with medium/coarse tempering similarly to bowls. Our figures (Figs. 10-13) show the two ends of the used raw material spectrum for cups and bowls from very fine to coarse raw materials. The high variability in raw materials most probably indicates increased ceramic production when vessels were made by several local potters. Based on these analyses, the pottery at Füzesabony was manufactured locally, from a number of different clay sources. This indicates that vessels were not made in specialized workshops, but rather by numerous highly skilled potters at the domestic level. Nevertheless, the complexity in vessel forms and elaborate decorations indicate that these vessels were most probably made by several non-centrally organised specialists. Quite possibly this is one of the reasons for the formal and decorative richness of the pottery style and the extreme variability in raw materials. The results somewhat contradict our preliminary preconceptions, as in the case of such high quality pottery we expected the existence of specialized workshops. The results also indicate that the society of these communities was not as strongly stuctured as we supposed, at least from the point of view of pottery production, because it did not have a specialized pottery manufacture under central control. But rather, the results show that there were no strong cultural regulations in place determining the recipes for pottery manufacture, 58 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Fig. 10 Very fine fabric of a cup from Füzesabony-Öregdomb (HNM Inv. No. 82.5.2059) (40x, XN) (photo: A. Kreiter, Hungarian National Museum, Budapest) Fig. 11 Medium/coarse fabric of a cup from Füzesabony-Öregdomb (HNM Inv. No. 83.951.141) (40x, XN) (photo: A. Kreiter, Hungarian National Museum, Budapest) 59 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Fig. 12 Very fine fabric of a bowl from Füzesabony-Öregdomb (HNM Inv. Nr. 82.5.1663) (40x, XN) (photo: A. Kreiter, Hungarian National Museum, Budapest) Fig. 13 Medium/coarse fabric of a cup from Füzesabony-Öregdomb (HNM Inv. Nr. 56.15.864) (40x, XN) (photo: A. Kreiter, Hungarian National Museum, Budapest) 60 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project and potters had an opportunity to explore new methods and used fairly wide range of available technological choices. The social uses of Füzesabony pottery Fig. 14 Ceramic wagon model from the fortified tell settlement of Pocsaj-Leányvár (photo: Á. Vágó, Déri Museum, Debrecen) Füzesabony style pottery is used in a series of contexts other than everyday household utensils. Beyond the daily purposes (such as storage, preparation, presentation or food consumption), such vessels, especially the richly decorated tableware, must have been used at special occasions for feasting, as well. We suggest that assemblages, such as the hoard of jugs discovered in the debris of a house at Nižná Myšľa (Gašaj 2002, 28, Photo 12), or the special set of vessels from a house from Level 2 at the settlement of Túrkeve-Terehalom (belonging to the southern, Otomani branch of the ‘Otomani-Füzesabony Cultural Complex’: Csányi and Tárnoki 2013), represent feasting equipment, that were either deposited after the event or left in a house to be burnt down. Special uses of Füzesabony ware also include special ceramic vessels, such as clay wagon models. Such wagons appear in increasing numbers during the Middle Bronze Age throughout the Carpathian Basin, and specifically in the distribution area of Füzesabony style pottery as well (e.g. Füzesabony and Tiszafüred: Kovács 1984, 240241; Nižná Myšľa: Gašaj 2002, 50, Photo 55; or PocsajLeányvár [from the south]: Fig. 14). Finally, a series of vessels were formed in the shape of birds. These symbolic vessels include bird-shaped askoi and bird-shaped rattles (Kovács 1989-90; 1990). They might have played a role in various rituals (some involving blood sacrifice, as indicated by blood remains in one of them: Szathmári 2003) and may have formed part of a more general cosmological mythology about the functioning of the world (Guba and Szeverényi 2007). Acknowledgements This article was prepared within the framework of the ‘CRAFTER – Crafting Europe in the Bronze Age and Today’ project, funded by the Creative Europe Programme, Culture Sub-programme. The ceramic petrographic analyses were carried out through the Lendület/Momentum Mobility Research Project of the Institute of Archaeology of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. 61 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project References • • • • • • • 62 Bader, T. 1998. Bemerkungen zur Bronzezeit im Karpatenbecken. Otomani/Füzesabony-Komplex. Überblick und Fragestellung. Jahresschrift für mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 80, 43-108. Bóna, I. 1975. Die mittlere Bronzezeit Ungarns und ihre südöstlichen Beziehungen. Archaeologia Hungarica 49. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Csányi, M. and Tárnoki, J. 2013. A Dinner Set from a Bronze Age House in Level 2 of the Túrkeve-Terehalom Settlement, in: Anders, A. and Kulcsár, G. (eds.) Moments in Time. Papers Presented to Pál Raczky on His 60th Birthday. Ősrégészeti Tanulmányok/Prehistoric Studies 1. Budapest: L’Harmattan, 707-724. Dani, J., P. Fischl, K., Kulcsár, G., Szeverényi, V. and Kiss, V. 2016. Visible and invisible inequality: changing patterns of wealth consumption in Early and Middle Bronze Age Hungary, in: Meller, H., Hahn, H.-P., Jung, R. and Risch, R. (eds.) Arm und Reich – Zur Resourcenverteilung in prähistorischen Gesellschaften. Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle 14. Haale (Saale): Landsamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt, Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte, 219-241. Dani, J., P. Fischl, K., Kiss, V., Kulcsár, G. and Szeverényi, V. 2019. Dividing space, dividing society: fortified settlements in the Carpathian Basin (c. 2300–1500 BC), in: Meller, H., Friederich, S., Küßner, M., Stäuble, H. and Risch, R. (Hrsg.) Siedlungsarchäologie des Endneolithikums und der frühen Bronzezeit/Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Settlement Archaeology. 11. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 18. bis 20. Oktober 2118 in Halle (Saale)/11th Archaeological Conference of Central Germany October 18–20, 2018 in Halle (Saale). Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle 20. Halle (Saale): Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt, Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte, 851-868. Earle, T.K., Kreiter, A., Klehm, C., Ferguson, J. and Vicze, M. 2011. Bronze Age ceramic economy: the Benta valley, Hungary. European Journal of Archaeology 14/3. 419-440. • • • • • • • P. Fischl, K. and Kertész G.N. 2013. Bronzkori szimbólumok és megnyilvánulásaik, avagy mit mesél nekünk egy bronzkori település szerkezete [Bronze Age symbols and their manifestations, or what does the structure of a Bronze Age settlement tell us]. Gesta 12, 10-19. P. Fischl, K. and Kienlin, T. 2019. (eds.) Beyond Divides – The Otomani-Füzesabony Phenomenon. Current Approaches to Settlement and Burial in the North-eastern Carpathian Basin and Adjacent Areas. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 345. Bonn: Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH. Gancarski, J. (Hrsg.) 1999. Kultúra Otomani-Füzesabony – rozwój, chronologia, gospodarka. Materialy z konferencji archeologicznej, Dukla, 27-28.11.1997/Die Otomani-Füzesabony-Kultur – Entwicklung, Chronologie, Wirtschaft. Materialen der archäologischen Konferenz, Dukla, 27-28.11.1997. Krosno: Muzeum Okręgowe w Krośnie. Gancarski, J. (ed.) 2002. Między Mykenami a Bałtykiem. Kultúra Otomani-Füzesabony/Between Mycenae and the Baltic Sea. The Otomani-Füzesabony Culture. Krosno & Warsaw: Muzeum Podkarpackie/Państwowe Muzeum Archeologiczne. Gašaj, D. 2002. Osady warowne i życie gospodarcze/Fortified settlements and their economic life, in: Gancarski, J. (ed.) Między Mykenami a Bałtykiem. Kultúra Otomani-Füzesabony/Between Mycenae and the Baltic Sea. The Otomani-Füzesabony Culture. Krosno & Warsaw: Muzeum Podkarpackie/Państwowe Muzeum Archeologiczne, 21-51. Gancarski, J. 2009. Trzcinica – Karpacka Troja. Krosno: Muzeum Podkarpackie w Krośnie. Gogâltan, F. 2002. Die Tells der Bronzezeit im Karpatenbecken. Terminologische Fragen, in: Rustoiu, A. and Ursuţiu, A. (Hrsg.) Interregionale und kulturelle Beziehungen im Karpatenraum (2. Jahrtausend v.Chr. – 1. Jahrtausend n.Chr.). Cluj-Napoca: Nereamia Napocae, 11-45. Guba, Sz. and Szeverényi, V. 2007. Bronze Age bird representations from the Carpathian Basin. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae 2007, 75-110. Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project • • • • • • • Jaeger, M. 2014. The stone fortifications of the settlement at Spišský Štvrtok. A contribution to the discussion on the long-distance contacts of the Otomani-Füzesabony culture. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 89 (2), 291-304. Jaeger, M. 2018. Fortified Settlements of the Early Bronze Age in Poland, in: Hansen, S. and Krause, R. (Hrsg.) Bronzezeitliche Burgen zwischen Taunus und Karpaten. Beiträge der Ersten Internationalen LOEWE-Konferenz vom 7. bis 9. Dezember 2016 in Frankfurt/M. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 319. Bonn: Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, 265-296. Jędrysik, J and Przybyła, M.S. 2019. Bronze Age Fortified Settlement on Zyndram’s Hill at Maszkowicw (Polish Carpathians), in: P. Fischl, K. and Kienlin, T. (eds.) Beyond Divides – The Otomani-Füzesabony Phenomenon. Current Approaches to Settlement and Burial in the North-eastern Carpathian Basin and Adjacent Areas. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 345. Bonn: Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, 1331. Kienlin, T., P. Fischl, K. and Pusztai, T. 2018. Borsod Region Bronze Age Settlement (BORBAS). Catalogue of the Early to Middle Bronze Age Tell Sites Covered by Magnetometry and Surface Survey. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 317. Bonn: Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH. Kiss, V. 2016. From bones, bronzes and sites to society: Multidisciplinary analysis of human mobility and social changes in Bronze Age Hungary (2500–1500 BC). The European Archaeologist 48 (spring), 18-21. Kobály, J. 2004. Magyarországi régészeti emlékek ukrajnai közgyűjteményekben. Ungvár: Kárpátaljai Magyar Kulturális Szövetség. Kovács, T. 1982. Einige neue Angaben zur Ausbildung und inneren Gliederung der Füzesabony-Kultur. in: Hänsel, B. (Hrsg.) Südosteuropa zwischen 1600 und 1000 v.Chr. Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 1. Berlin: Moreland, 287-307. • • • • • • • • Kovács, T. 1984. Füzesabony-Kultur, in: Tasić, N. (Hrsg.) Kulturen der Frühbronzezeit des Karpatenbeckens und Nordbalkans. Balcano-Pannonica, Sonderausgabe 22. Beograd: Balkanološki Institut SANU, 235-255. Kovács, T. 1989-90. Menschen- und Tierdarstellungen an der bronzezeitlichen Siedlung von Füzesabony-Öregdomb. Agria 25-26, 31-51. Kovács, T. 1990. Eine bronzezeitliche Rarität: Askos mit menschlichem Gesicht von Tiszafüred und seine südöstlichen Beziehungen. Folia Archaeologica 41, 9-27. Kovács, T. 1992. Bestattungssitten der Füzesabony-Kultur und das Gräberfeld von Tiszafüred-Majoroshalom, in: Meier-Arendt, W. (Hrsg.) Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss. Frankfurt a.M.: Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte – Archäologisches Museum – Pytheas, 96-98. Kőszegi, F. 1968. Mittelbronzezeitliches Gräberfeld in Pusztaszikszó. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 20, 101-141. Kreiter, A. 2007a. Kerámia technológiai tradíció és az idő koncepciója a bronzkorban – Ceramic technological tradition and the concept of time in the Bronze Age. Ősrégészeti Levelek – Prehistoric Newsletters 8-9, 146-166. Kreiter, A. 2007b. Technological choices and material meanings in Early and Middle Bronze Age Hungary: understanding the active role of material culture through ceramic analysis. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1604. Oxford: Archaeopress. Kreiter, A. 2009. Bronzkori kerámiák petrográfiai vizsgálata Bia-Öreg-hegy 1/4 (9965), BiaPap-réti-dűlő 1/26 (9987), Százhalombatta(Érd) Külső Újföldek 9/3 (10270), Százhalombatta(Érd) Belső Újföldek 9/4 (10271), Sóskút-Barátház 26/4 (11438), Százhalombatta-Százhalom 27/1 (11472), Százhalombatta-Sánc-hegy 27/2 (11473), Százhalombatta-Dunafüred (27/14) és Tárnok-Szőlő-hegy 31/1 (11814) lelőhelyekről. Unpublished report (Archaeology Database Hungarian National Museum, http://archeodatabase. hnm.hu/hu/node/77078, 15 September 2020). 63 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project • • • • • • • • 64 Kreiter, A., Máté, L. and Viktorik, O. 2020. Érd, Hosszú-földek alja és Diósd, Sas-hegy lelőhelyekről származó kora bronzkori (Makó és harangedényes) kerámiák petrográfiai vizsgálata. Unpublished report (Archaeology Database Hungarian National Museum, https://archeodatabase. hnm.hu/en/node/3261, 15 September 2020) Kreiter, A. and Skoda, P. 2017a. Petrographic analysis of Bronze Age ceramics from Kakucs-Turján mögött. Unpublished report (Archaeology Database Hungarian National Museum, https://archeodatabase.hnm.hu/hu/node/60900, 15 September, 2020). Kreiter, A. and Skoda, P. 2017b. Nagycenk – Kövesmező és Nagycenk – Lapos-rét bronzkori kerámiáinak petrográfiai vizsgálata. Unpublished report (Archaeology Database Hungarian National Museum, https://archeodatabase.hnm. hu/hu/node/13205, 15 September, 2020.) Kreiter, A. and Viktorik, O. 2016. ÉrdHosszúföldek bronzkori (Vatya) kerámiáinak petrográfiai vizsgálata. Unpublished report (Archaeology Database Hungarian National Museum, https://archeodatabase.hnm.hu/hu/ node/3542, 15 September, 2020). Lehoczky, T. 1912. Adatok hazánk archaeologiájához, különös tekintettel Beregmegyére és környékére. II. kötet: Az őskortól a magyarok bejöveteléig. Munkács: Grünstein Mór Könyvnyomdája .Mengyán, Á. and Dávid, Á. 2019. Preliminary Report from a Middle Bronze Age Cemetery at Encs (North-eastern Hungary), in: P. Fischl, K. and Kienlin, T. (eds.) Beyond Divides – The Otomani-Füzesabony Phenomenon. Current Approaches to Settlement and Burial in the North-eastern Carpathian Basin and Adjacent Areas. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 345. Bonn: Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, 159-164. Nestor, I. 1932 [1933]. Der Stand der Vorgeschichtsforschung in Rumänien. Berichte der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 22, 11-181. Olexa, L. and Nováček, T. 2013. Pohrebisko zo staršej doby bronzovej v Nižnej Myšli. Katalóg I (hroby 1–310). Archaeologica Slovaca Monographiae, Catalogi 14. Nitra: Archeologiczký ústav SAV. • • • • • • • • • • Olexa, L. and Nováček, T. 2015. Pohrebisko zo staršej doby bronzovej v Nižnej Myšli. Katalóg I (hroby 311–499). Archaeologica Slovaca Monographiae, Catalogi 15. Nitra: Archeologiczký ústav SAV. Olexa, L. and Nováček, T. 2017. Pohrebisko zo staršej doby bronzovej v Nižnej Myšli. Katalóg I (hroby 500–792). Archaeologica Slovaca Monographiae, Catalogi 18. Nitra: Archeologiczký ústav SAV. Pfannenschmidt, E. 1999-2000. Urnengräber aus Kontext der Füzesabony-Kultur und die Frage der Kremation bei bronzezeitlichen Tell- und Urnenfelderkulturen. Acta Archaeologica Carpatica 35, 49-60. Polla, B. 1960. Birituelle Füzesabonyer Begräbnisstätte in Streda nad Bodrogom, in: Chropovský, B., Dušek, M. and Polla, B., Pohrebiská zo staršej doby bronzovej na Slovensku I./ Gräberfelder aus der älteren Bronzezeit in der Slowakei I. Archaeologica Slovaca Fontes 3. Bratislava: Vydavateľstvo Slovenskej Akademie Vied, 293-386. Przybyła, M.S. 2016. Early Bronze Age stone architecture discovered in Polish Carpathians. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 46, 291308. Roska, M. 1926-28. Cercetări la Cetăţuia de la Otomani. Anuarul Comisiunii Monumentelor Istorice Secţia pentru Transilvania 192-205. Roska, M. 1930. Ásatások az ottományi Várhegyen és Földvárban (Grabungen am Várhegy und Földvár von Ottomány, Komitat Bihar). Dolgozatok a m. kir. Ferencz József-Tudományegyetem Archaeologiai Intézetéből 6, 163-177. Roska, M. 1942. Erdély régészeti repertóriuma I. Őskor. Cluj/Kolozsvár: Erdélyi Tudományos Intézet. Schalk, E. 1992. Das Gräberfeld von Hernádkak. Studien zum Beginn der Frühbronzezeit im nordöstlichen Karpatenbecken.Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 9. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH. Schalk, E. 1994. Das Gräberfeld der frühbronzezeitlichen Füzesabony-Kultur bei Megyaszó, Nordost-Ungarn. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 69, 152-174. Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project • • • • • • • • Stanczik, I. 1978. Vorbericht über die Ausgrabung der bronzezeitlichen Ansiedlung von Füzesabony-Öregdomb. Folia Archaeologica 29, 93-102. Szathmári, I. 1990. A Füzesabony-Öregdombi bronzkori tell-telep [The Bronze Age tell settlement of Füzesabony-Öregdomb]. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Budapest. Szathmári, I. 1992. Füzesabony-Öregdomb, in: Meier-Arendt, W. (Hrsg.) Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss. Frankfurt a.M.: Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte – Archäologisches Museum – Pytheas, 134-140. Szathmári, I. 2003. Beiträge zu den Vogeldarstellungen der bronzezeitlichen Tell-Kulturen, in: Jerem, E. and Raczky, P. (Hrsg.) Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frühe Etappen der Menschheitsgeschichte in Mittel- und Südosteuropa. Festschrift für Nándor Kalicz zum 75. Geburtstag. Archaeolingua 15. Budapest: Archaeolingua Alapítvány, 513-523. Szathmári, I., Guba, Sz., Kulcsár, G., Serlegi, G., Vágvölgyi, B. and Kiss, V. 2019. Füzesabony-Öregdomb Bronze Age Tell Settlement – New Insights on the Settlement Structure, in: P. Fischl, K. and Kienlin, T. (eds.) Beyond Divides – The Otomani-Füzesabony Phenomenon. Current Approaches to Settlement and Burial in the North-eastern Carpathian Basin and Adjacent Areas. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 345. Bonn: Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, 295-315. Szeverényi, V. 2013. Bronzkori „háztűznéző”: Szándékos házégetés és anyagi metaforák a Kárpát-medence kora és középső bronzkorában (Deliberate house-burning and material metaphors in the Early and Middle Bronze Age of the Carpathian Basin). Ősrégészeti Levelek/Prehistoric Newsletter 13, 215-232. Thomas, M. 2008. Studien zu Chronologie und Totenritual der Otomani-Füzesabony-Kultur. Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 86. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt Verlag GmbH. Vladár, J. 1973. Osteuropäische und mediterrane Einflüsse im Gebiet der Slowakei während der Bronzezeit. Slovenska Archeológia 21, 253-357. • • Vladár, J. 1975. Mykenische Einflüsse im Karpatengebiet. Die urgeschichtliche Siedlung Spišský Štvrtok. Das Altertum 21, 92-97. Zoltai, L. 1908. Jelentés Debreczen sz. kir. város múzeuma 1907. évi állapotáról. Debrecen. 65 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Vajk Szeverényi (1) Archaeologist-Museologist Déri Museum, 4026 Debrecen, Déri tér 1. [email protected] (2)Postdoctoral Scholar Institute of Archaeology Research Centre for the Humanities 1097 Budapest, Tóth Kálmán u. 4. E-mail: [email protected] Vajk Szeverényi is an archaeologist specialising in the study of the European Bronze Age. He is currently an archaeologist at the Déri Museum, Debrecen and a Postdoctoral scholar at the Institute of Archaeology, Research Centre for the Humanities, Budapest. His main interests include the study of settlement and society in the Bronze Age of the Carpathian Basin, interregional interaction and social change in the Bronze Age, the study of human remains from settlements during the Bronze Age, prehistoric foodways, and archaeological theory. Attila Kreiter Head of Laboratory Laboratory for Applied Research, Hungarian National Museum 1088 Budapest, Múzeum körút 14-16. E-mail: [email protected] Attila Kreiter is an archaeologist and ceramic specialist, and Head of the Laboratory for Applied Research at the Hungarian National Museum. His research interests include utilization of interdisciplinary analysis in archaeological interpretation and the combination of interdisciplinary research with archaeological theory, the origins and transmission of ceramic technologies, continuity and change in ceramic technologies and the social meaning/application of these processes. Apart from ceramic petrography he employs a broad range of analytical techniques to gather data including X-ray Diffraction (XRD), X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF), Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA), Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and Laser Ablation (LA-ICP-MS, LA-ICP-AES). He mainly conducts research in Hungary analysing ceramics from the Neolithic to the Middle Ages. 66 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project János Dani Deputy Director Déri Museum, 4026 Debrecen, Déri tér 1. E-mail: [email protected] János Dani is an archaeologist specialising in the study of Central and South-East European Bronze Age. He is Senior Researcher and Deputy Director of the Déri Museum responsible for archaeology. Since completing his PhD thesis on the Early Bronze Age of the Upper Tisza region in 2006, he has focused his research mostly on special interdisciplinary fields, such as bioarchaeology, archaeometry, and metallurgy. He has organized several smaller and larger archaeological exhibitions, and edited several exhibition catalogues and conference volumes on the prehistory of the Carpathian Basin. Recently he has been working in an international interdisciplinary research project ‘The Yamnaya Impact on Prehistoric Europe (YMPACT)’, funded by the European Research Council. László Gucsi Restaurator, potter Budapest E-mail: [email protected] László Gucsi is a true artisan who first became interested in pottery and replicating ancient pots at the young age of 12, when he discovered his first archaeological pottery sherds and took them to his local museum at Dunaújváros. László is a primarily self-taught potter, archaeological technician, drawer and conservator-restorer. He has participated at dozens of excavations and made approximately 1,500 vessels by now – mainly replicas of Bronze Age pottery found in Hungary. Being part of CRAFTER Project has allowed him not only to recreate some visually and historically important pieces, but it has also allowed him to study each original more closely and focus on the techniques involved in the making process. His statement as a creative artist: let’s leave the shapes, motives, surfaces and atmospheres prevail instead of words. Through his artwork, he intermediates between the legacy of Bronze Age people and contemporary society. 67 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Viktória Kiss Senior Research Fellow Institute of Archaeology, Research Centre for the Humanities 1097 Budapest, Tóth Kálmán u. 4. E-mail: [email protected] Viktória Kiss is an archaeologist specialising in Central European Bronze Age. After completing her PhD in 2003, she became a senior research fellow of the Institute of Archaeology, Research Centre for the Humanities of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. She has written a book about Middle Bronze Age Encrusted Pottery in Western Hungary, and edited several other volumes concerning the Bronze Age archaeology of the region. In recent years she has worked on pottery, metal production, bioarchaeology and mobility, as the PI of the Momentum Mobility Research Group granted by the Momentum Programme of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Gabriella Kulcsár Head of Department of Prehistory, Senior Research Fellow Institute of Archaeology, Research Centre for the Humanities 1097 Budapest, Tóth Kálmán u. 4. E-mail: [email protected] Gabriella Kulcsár is an archaeologist specialising in Central European Bronze Age. She is senior research fellow and head of the Department of Prehistory of the Institute of Archaeology, Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences Centre of Excellence. After completing her PhD in 2003 she has published a book about ’The Beginnings of the Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin’, and edited several other volumes concerning the Bronze Age archaeology of the region. In recent years she has worked on landscape archaeology, bioarchaeology and mobility in several projects. 68 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Péter Skoda geologist Laboratory for Applied Research, Hungarian National Museum 1088 Budapest, Múzeum körút 14-16. E-mail: [email protected] Péter Skoda is a former geologist in the Laboratory for Applied Research at the Hungarian National Museum. He specialized in petrographic analysis of ceramics and stone artefacts. He uses technological assessment and petrographic analysis to examine production technology and raw material sources of ceramics. He is particularly interested in the provenance of ceramic and stone raw materials. Apart from ceramic petrography he employs a broad range of analytical techniques to gather data including X-ray Diffraction (XRD), X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF), Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA), Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and Laser Ablation (LA-ICP-MS, LA-ICPAES). Ildikó Szathmári archaeologist-museologist Hungarian National Museum, 1088 Budapest, Múzeum körút 14-16. E-mail: [email protected] Ildikó Szathmári is an archaeologist, senior museologist of the Hungarian National Museum. Her main research interests are the study of the social and economical organisation and material culture of Bronze Age tell settlements in the Carpathian Basin. In her PhD thesis in 1990 she processed the material of the tell settlement of the eponymous site from 1976, and she is currently working on the analysis of the finds from the excavations in the 1930s. 69 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Small two-handled kantharos, site of Omoljica. It served as models for the potter (photo: N. Borić, Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade) 67 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Vatin pottery: a petrographical approach David Gómez-Gras, Roberto Risch, Jovan Mitrović, Vojislav Đorđević, Vesna Vučković Abstract: Vatin pottery is a symbol of Vatin society (2000 – 1500 cal BCE), which can be regarded as a highly rated work of art due to its quality, shapes and decorations. So far, it was mainly approached by archaeology from a chronological and cultural perspective, while an examination of a technology is still missing. In this study, the first results of a petrographical analysis of the clays used by Vatin potters are presented. Five pots from the settlements of Zlatica, near the modern village of Omoljica, and another five from Najeva Ciglana, near the town of Pančevo, both located on the northern side of the Danube, near Belgrade, have been studied in terms of temper and clay composition. The petrographic analyses show that clays were prepared in slightly different ways in each settlement, but that all shapes, including coarse as well as fine ware vessels, were manufactured with fine-grained non-carbonate clays of local origin. Keywords: Early and Middle Bronze Age, Vatin culture, pottery, petrographical analysis, ceramic technology Introduction Vatin culture (2000 – 1500 cal BC) occupied the southern part of the Pannonian Plain (Vojvodina), including the area along the lower Sava river and south of the Danube. It was identified at the beginning of the 20th century by F. Milleker, and later defined as one of the main Middle Bronze Age cultures of southeast Europe (Garašanin, 1983a; Garašanin, 1983b; Tasić, 1974; Тасић, 1983; Tasić, 1984a; Ljuština, 2017). The communities of the Vatin culture lived in an environment of deciduous forests (with evergreen trees at higher elevations), grassy plains and swampy lowlands. The broad alluvial plains surrounding the 1–3 ha large tell settlements enabled a rich agriculture and husbandry. It is assumed that 71 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project this society was organised according to some sort of social hierarchy. A network of fortified tell type settlements controlled this strategic region, which lies on the main route from central Europe to the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. Metal finds are found in some abundance, while intensive contacts with the Aegean world between 1750–1500 BC indicate a strong economy and circulation of goods and people (Bankoff 2010). Pottery represents a symbol of Vatin society, due to its quality, shapes and decoration. The common shapes can be classified as handled or handless beakers (kantharoi, jugs and beaker-cup), bowls, small amphorae, pots, pithoi, amphorae, double vessels and elliptical boat-shaped vessels (cf. Ljuština 2012). Based on regional pottery styles, Vatin is normally divided into three regions (fig.1). The pottery of Bubanj-Hum IV is similar to the Vatin pottery, but its adscription to Vatin or to an independent culture is still a matter of debate (Bulatović, Stankovski 2012, 337-347). So far, Vatin pottery has only been approached from a typological perspective in order to establish chronological and cultural adscriptions. The excavations have not provided any information about pottery technology, while scientific analyses are still missing. Modest data on the temper suggest that various technological approaches were known. Beakers, as the most recognisable type of this culture, were mainly made of fine-tempered clay, bowls were fine as well as rough-tempered, while pithoi, amphorae were mainly coarse-tempered (Ljuština 2012). The aim of this study is to offer a first petrographical analysis of the clays used by Vatin potters as well as of the probable origin of the raw materials. We have analysed five pottery fragments from the settlements of Zlatica, near the modern village of Omoljica, and another five fragments of Najeva Ciglana, near the town of Pančevo (Fig. 1; table 1). Both settlements lay only c. 15 km apart from each other, on the northern side of the Danube, close to the modern city of Belgrade. Moreover, we visited the surrounding of both settlements and took clay samples at four different locations. Thin sections and XRD were carried out in the Laboratory of Geology of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Thin sections of both clay sediments and pottery fragments were prepared and stained using Na‐cobaltinitrite (Chayes, 1952) for suitable identification of feldspar, and Alizarine red‐S staining for distinction of carbonate composition, such as dolomite, ankerite and calcite. Observations were made under a Nikon 72 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Eclipse E400 polarizing microscope. In order to establish the mineralogy of clay sediments, XRD analyses were carried out using a PANalytical X’Pert Powder X-Ray diffraction device equipped with a Cu-anode and X’Celerator detector, operating at 1.5406 Å, 45 kV, and 40 mA. The X-ray diagrams were processed and interpreted using the PDF#2 del ICDD (PDF-2, 2013) and the program X’PertHighscore Plus (version 2.2b (2.2.2) 2006, PANalytical). Archaeological context and materials Zlatica, Omoljica Zlatica is the eponymous site of the Pančevo-Omoljica phase (c. 1960-1760 cal BC) (Gogaltan 1999) and a regional group of the Vatin culture. It is located in the southern Banat, on the left bank of the Nadela river, in the village of Omoljica, and 15 km away from Pančevo. It occupies a low forest plateau, which represents a bank of the unregulated course of the Danube river. The settlement controlled the entire wetland between the sites of Omoljica and Vinča, on the right bank of the Danube. However, it was damaged heavily by the construction of a drainage channel, which might have destroyed possible traces of fortification (Ljuština 2012, 67–68; idem 2015, 75–79). Karapandžić (1888–1963), curator of the National Museum in Belgrade, was the first who conducted excavations in 1922. This site has been excavated again in 1959 – 1960 by the Institute of Archaeology (Trbuhović 2012, 67; Radojčić 2013, 1–5; Трбуховић 1968a, 175–176; Трбуховић 1968b, 94, 111; Marinković 1996, 21; Mitrović 2013, 321–330)1. Seven tranches of various sizes have been excavated so far. However, the data on trench size has been omitted and the exact extension of the explored surface cannot be determined2. A field dairy from this campaign contains scarce information, while the pottery was partly published in Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum3 and the monography Vojvodina I (Vulić, Grbić 1937, 5, 7; Pl. 20-23; Grbić 1939, 4760) provided some evidence of the archaeological contexts detected during the first excavations4. The cultural layers of 1 m thickness, yielded remains of three houses, seven 73 1 The finds are stored in the National Museum in Belgrade and in the National Museum in Pančevo. 2 The field dairy suggested that the trenches A-B were 15 m long and 1 m wide. Based on these data, we believe that the other five trenches were of similar in the size. The assumption is based on the evidence that Karapandžić used the same excavation methodology at the site of Zók near Pécs, 1920 (cf. J.Mitrović). 3 The finds are referred to style B, which is characterized by two-handle small pots/ beakers, with cannelures, garlands and stem (Vulić, Grbić 1937, 5, 7). Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Fig. 1 Map of the Vatin culture and its regional division and position of the sites: 1. Najeva Ciglana, Pančevo; 2. Zlatica, Ooljica; cf. Ljuština 2012: 148 – 157. 74 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project pits and two deposits with discarded pottery5. According to these results it can be suggested that Zlatica was a large Bronze Age settlement. The pottery recording suggests a dominance of monochrome pottery at the site of Zlatica. Horizontal cannelures are common and can be combined with plastic cone ornaments. Such decorative elements are detected on biconical cups, with rounded handles above a rim. The rims are mainly flat, rarely everted and rhombical. Decoration has been omitt on deep, oval or conical bowls, one handled, rounded or conical cups, as well as on boat-shaped vessels (Ljuština 2012, 67–68). Incised spiral, volute, and garlands appear on the biconical beakers with ansa lunata handles, which are typical Pančevo-Omoljca phase. Such beakers may have a rhombical, everted rim, and oblique cannelures. Biconical amphorae with a ring-shaped rim and plastic cones positioned between conuses are also numerous. Larger coarse-tempered vessels such as ovoid pots with two handles and vessel-trivets complement a repertoire. Miniature vessels repeat usually the shapes and decoration of normal-sized objects (idem 2012, 68-69). The analysed material was found in 1922 and includes five fragments: a large pithoi, probably a vessel, with a pitted, everted rim and a pitted plastic stripe on the funnelled Fig. 2 Pottery sampled from settlement of Zlatica. . 1. SER-5; 2. SER-3; 3. SER-1, 4. SER-4; 5. SER-2. (drawings: Vesna Vučković, Stefan Jovičić) 4 D. Đ. Karapandžić left the National Museum in Belgrede in the winter of 1922, due to professional (and personal) disagreements with new director of the Museum Dr Vladimir Petković (1874–1956). This can be the main reason why Karapandžić has never published the material. 5 1920, Field diary (Excavations in Omoljica), D. Dj. Karapandžić, Archive of the National Mueum in Belgrade (АNМ), Document without number, Box N° 18. 75 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project ted, everted rim and a pitted plastic stripe on the funnelled neck (Fig. 2/1; Fig. 7: SER-5), one bowl with an averted rim and two horizontal cannelures (Fig. 2/3; Fig. 4: SER1), two finely decorated beakers, one of which is a biconical recipient, with a tongue-like handle and incised curved ornaments below it (Fig. 2/4, 5; Fig. 6: SER-4; Fig. 8: SER2), and the small pot with a horizontal rim (Fig. 2/2; Fig. 5: SER-3). Only the beakers and the bowl have a finely burnished surface. All samples come from ditch G and belong to a layer where the remains of a house were identified. The finds such as fragments of vessels, spindle whorls, stone tools and animal bones were found at a relative depth of 0.60 m6 . Najeva Ciglana, Pančevo The site of Najeva Ciglana is located in the western periphery of the town of Pančevo, c. 500 m west of the road from Pančevo - Starčevo, and c. 1,5 km to the east of the confluence of the Tamiš river and the Danube river (Fig. 1/2). It occupied an area of c. 500 x 500 m in a former industrial brickyard, on the high bank of a swamp Topola, one of the backwaters of the Tamiš river. This river outlet surrounds and separates the site from the wetland in north-east direction. Most of the site was destroyed by the work of the brick factory. The site was discovered in the second half of the 19th century. Excavations were carried out by the National Museum in Belgrade (Mano-Zisi, Ljubinković, Garašanin, Kovačević) and the National Museum in Pančevo (Veselinović) in 1947. The cultural layers produced different horizons, from the Bronze Age to the modern period (Мано-Зиси, Љубинковић, Гарашанин, Ковачевић и Веселиновић 1948: 53–95). In 2003-2004 an area of 300x150 m between the swamp Topola and the industrial railway of a factory for nitrogen fertilizers was explored by the National Museum in Pančevo (V. Đorđević) and the Faculty of Philosophy in Belgrade (D. Radičević). This excavation confirmed a presence of layers from different periods, including a Bronze Age horizon. It produced 2 pits, 26 round or oval storage pits, one hearth and a part of a deep trench (Ђорђевић 2007, 50–54; Ђорђевић et al. 2008, 88–90). They belong to the Pančevo-Omoljica phase of Vatin culture (c. 1960-1760 cal BC). The analysed fragments, which correspond to three pots (Fig. 3/1, 3, 4; Fig. 11: SER-8; Fig. 10: SER-7; Fig. 12, 13: 6 1920, 19–21th of August, Field diary (Excavations in Omoljica), D. Dj. Karapandžić, АNМ, Document without number, Kbr. 18. 76 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Fig. 3 Pottery sampled from settlement of Najeva ciglana. 1. SER-10, 2. SER-9, 3. SER-7, 4. SER-8, 5. SER-6. (drawings: Vesna Vučković, Stefan Jovičić) SER-10), one bowl (Fig. 3/2; Fig. 9: SER-6) and one small pot/beaker (Fig. 3/5; Fig. 12: SER-9) were found within structures 8 and 10, detected in trench I during campaign 2003. The rounded structure 8 was detected at the relative depth of 1.45 m. It had been dug partly into sterile soil. A flat bottom of this cylindrical structure is 1.7 m in diameter and was detected on the relative depth of 2.08 m. Four fragments from this structure have been analysed (Fig. 3/6, 8, 10; Fig. 9: SER-6; Fig. 11: SER-8; Fig. 12: SER-9; Fig. 12, 13: SER-10). The partially dug in structure 10 was detected at the relative depth of 1.44 m. The flat, circular-oval bottom of the feature is 1,3 m in diameter and was detected at the relative depth of 2.07 m7. Only analysed fragment 3/7 (Fig. 10: SER-7) has been detected within this feature. Clay samples from the river Tamiš and the Danube In order to compare the Vatin pottery with the clays available in the surrounding of the prehistoric settlements a total of four samples were taken from different locations. The first two should represent clays derived from the river Tamiš, while the other two samples characterise clays from the Danube. Sample 1: River Tamiš, near Pančevo, c. 300 m South of the last bridge which crosses the river Tamiš before it joins 7 A documentation of the National Museum in Pančevo. 77 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project the Danube. Coordinates 44.8522-20.6345. Sample 2: River Tamiš, near Pančevo, c. 100 m North of the same bridge, at the beginning of a dam. Coordinates: 44.8547-20.6339. Sample 3: River Danube, left bank, near Ivanovo (Skela I.-Ritopek). Coordinates: 44.7444.20.659. Sample 4: North of the river Danube, a mechanically exposed ditch next to the road from Ivanovo to Stračevo. Coordinates: 44.742-20.7193. Results Pottery from Zlatica, Omoljica (Fig. 2; Fig. 4: SER-1; Fig. 5: SER-3; Fig. 6: SER-4; Fig. 7: SER-5; Fig. 8: SER-2) In general, the Vatin pottery from Zlatica is made up of a clay matrix (57-67%), temper of mixed composition (2240%), with carbonatic and siliciclastic grains, and 2-10% of porosity (table 1). The size of the temper varies depending on its composition. The largest chamotte grains usually measure 0.15-1.5 mm and they are usually angular to subangular in roundness. Bioclasts can also be large because they are fragments of bivalve and gastropod shells. On the contrary, the siliciclastic grains and the non-bioclastic carbonate grains show sub-rounded shapes and much smaller sizes, ranging from 0.01 to 0.8 mm, being the mode 0.3 mm. Compositionally, the matrix of Zlatica potters is a non-carbonate clay matrix, made up of minerals from the clay group (essentially phyllosilicates) although it also contains silt-sized quartz and feldspar grains. The temper is widely represented by siliciclastic grains in all the samples. Carbonate grains and chamotte also occur in a large number of them (table 1). The siliciclastic grains (5-35%) are frequently quartz (classified as mono and polycrystalline), feldspars (both k-feldspar and plagioclase), and micas (biotite and muscovite). Rock fragments as quartzites and granites are also observed in SER-2 (5%). Epidote and tourmaline also often appear as accessory minerals (<1%). Apatite occurs but it is difficult to distinguish from quartz and to assess its proportion because their optical properties are very similar. Carbonate grains (5-10%) are predominantly micritic grains (fragments of micritic limestones, 78 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project sometimes showing bioclasts) and shell fragments of bivalves and gastropods. Two types of chamotte (0-20%) have been recognized: the brown fragments would have compositional and textural characteristics very similar to ceramics SER-1, 3, 4, 5 and 6, while the black fragments would be very similar to the sample SER-2. Based on the set of textural and compositional characteristics described, two types can be distinguished in Zlatica. Type 1, represented by SER-1, 3, 4 and 5 potters (Fig. 4, 5-7), has brown to dark brown colors and generally consist of siliciclastic grains (quartz and feldspars), carbonate grains (bioclasts and micritic limestones), and chamotte (brown and black). The black colored SER-2 sample (Fig. 8) constitutes the type 2 and does not contain carbonate grains, or brown chamotte. It consists of quartz and feldspars grains, some black chamotte and it is the only potter sample where rock fragments of quartzites and granites are easily observable. Pottery from Najeva Ciglana, Pančevo (Fig. 3; table 2; Fig. 9: SER-6; Fig. 10: SER-7; Fig. 11: SER-8; Fig. 12: SER-9; Fig. 12, 13: SER-10) Najeva Ciglana ceramic consists of 65-72% clay matrix, 25-32% mixed composition temper, including carbonatic and siliciclastic grains, and 1-3% of porosity, which is lower than in Zlatica (table 2). Temper sizes depend on their composition; chamotte usually has the largest size, between 0.15 and 1.5 mm, showing angular to subangular shapes. Bioclasts consist of large bivalve and gastropod shell fragments, although they only appear in two of the samples studied (SER-6 and 9; Fig. 9; Fig. 12). In contrast, the size of the siliciclastic temper and the non-bioclastic carbonate grains is much smaller and range between 0.01 and 0.7 mm. Both grain types show sub-rounded shapes and their mode is 0.1 mm. The matrix of the Najeva Ciglana pottery is compositionally a non-carbonate clay matrix, essentially made up of phyllosilicates, although silt-sized quartz and feldspar grains are also present. The temper is generally finer than at Zlatica and it consists of grains of siliciclastic composition (mono- and polycrystalline quartz, k-feldspar, plagioclase and muscovite), carbonate grains (bioclasts and fragments of micritic limestone, only in SER-6 and 9), and also brown and black chamotte, except in SER-9 (table 2). Epidote and biotite may also appear as accessory minerals (<1%). 79 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Apatite also appears, although it is difficult to assess its percentage because it has optical properties very similar to those of quartz. The described textural and compositional characteristics allow us to infer that the potter samples of Najeva Ciglana are all very similar and only show small differences in the proportion of their components (table 2), presenting many similarities with type 1 of Zlatica. In this sense, the SER-6 (fig. 9) sample could be included in Zlatica type 1 pottery. It should be noted that none of the analyzed ceramics from Najeva Ciglana contain fragments of quartzite and granite rocks, while the muscovite content is clearly higher than at Zlatica. Table 1: Mineral composition of the pottery of the settlement of Zlatica. Lm: limestone rock fragments. Bioc: bioclasts (mainly bivalve shells); Cham: chamotte fragments; Q: quartz; Fld: feldspar; Ms: muscovite; Ep: epidote; To: tourmaline; Bi: biotite; Ap: apatite; Gr: granite rock fragment; Qzt: quartzite rock fragment; Acc min: accessory minerals. Table 2: Mineral composition of the pottery of the settlement of Najeva Ciglana. Lm: limestone rock fragments. Bioc: bioclasts (mainly bivalve shells); Cham: chamotte fragments; Q: quartz; Fld: feldspar; Ms: muscovite; Bi: biotite; Ep: epidote; Ap: apatite; Acc min: accessory minerals. 80 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project P A Clay P Q Q Lms Q Clay P Ch P B Clay P Q Q Lms Clay P Ch Fig. 4 Optical photomicrographs of sample SER-1 corresponding to type 1 matrix from Zlatica. It is noted the high content of silt- clay-sized matrix versus temper and porosity. A) General view of sample SER-1 (plane polarized, PPL): Porosity (P); micritic limestone fragment (Lms); quartz (Q); brown chamotte (Ch); clay matrix (Clay). B) Cross-polarized (XPL) view stands up the larger limestone fragment. The scale bar is 0.5 mm. 81 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project A P Clay Clay Ch Q Ch Q Clay Q P Lms Ch Clay Ch B P Clay Clay Ch Q Ch Q Clay Q P Lms Ch Clay Ch Fig. 5 Optical photomicrographs of sample SER-3 corresponding to type 1 matrix from Zlatica. It is noted the high content of silt- clay-sized matrix versus temper and porosity. A) General view of sample SER-3 (plane polarized, PPL): Porosity (P); micritic limestone fragment (Lms); quartz (Q); brown and black colored chamotte (Ch); clay matrix (Clay). B) Cross-polarized (XPL) view stands up the limestone and chamotte fragments. The scale bar is 0.5 mm. 82 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project A Clay Q Q Bio Q Clay Lms Clay P Ch P A Clay Q Q Bio Clay Clay Lms P Ch P Fig. 6 Optical photomicrographs of sample SER-4 corresponding to type 1 matrix from Zlatica. It is noted the high content of silt- clay-sized matrix versus temper and porosity. A) General view of sample SER-4 (plane polarized, PPL): Porosity (P); micritic limestone fragment (Lms); quartz (Q); brown chamotte (Ch); clay matrix (Clay). B) Cross-polarized (XPL) view stands up chamotte, micritic limestone and bivalve shell fragment versus the finer siliciclastic grains. The scale bar is 0.5 mm. 83 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project A P Bio Clay Clay Q Q Ch Ch Clay Q B P Bio Clay Clay Q Q Ch Ch Clay Q Fig. 7 Optical photomicrographs of sample SER-5 corresponding to type 1 matrix from Zlatica. It is noted the high content of silt- clay-sized matrix versus temper and porosity. A) General view of sample SER-5 (plane polarized, PPL): Porosity (P); bioclast (Bio); quartz (Q); brown and black colored chamotte (Ch); clay matrix (Clay). B) Cross-polarized (XPL) view stands up the larger chamotte and bivalve fragments over the siliciclastic temper grains. The scale bar is 1 mm. 84 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project A Pl P Q Q Clay Qz Gr Gr F Q F Clay Pl Q Q Clay B Pl P Q Q Clay Qz Gr Gr Q F F Clay Pl Q Q Clay Fig. 8 Optical photomicrographs of sample SER-2 corresponding to type 2 matrix from Zlatica. It is noted the largest size of siliciclastic temper and the scarce porosity. A) General view of sample SER-2 (plane polarized, PPL): Porosity (P); quartz mono- and poly-crystalline (Q); k-feldspar (F); plagioclase (Pl); quartzite rock fragment (Qz); granite rock fragment (Gr); clay matrix (Clay). B) Cross-polarized (XPL) view stands up the coarse quartz and granite fragments showing subrounded shapes. The scale bar is 0.5 mm. 85 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project A Q Bio P Clay P Q Ch Ch P Lms Ch Ch Clay Clay Ch B Q Bio P Clay P Q Ch Ch P Lms Ch Ch Clay Clay Ch Fig. 9 Optical photomicrographs of sample SER-6 from Najeva Ciglana. The high content of the silt-clay-sized matrix versus temper and porosity should be noted. A) General view of sample SER6 (plane polarized, PPL): Porosity (P); bioclast (Bio); quartz (Q); brown and black colored chamotte (Ch); clay matrix (Clay). B) Cross-polarized (XPL) view: the larger chamotte and bivalve fragments stands up over the finer-grained siliciclastic temper grains. The scale bar is 1 mm. 86 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project A Clay Clay Ch P F Q Clay P Clay B Clay Clay Ch P F Q Clay P Clay Fig. 10 Optical photomicrographs of sample SER-7 corresponding to potters from Najeva Ciglana. The high content of silt- clay-sized matrix versus temper and porosity should be noted. A) General view of sample SER-7 (plane polarized, PPL): Porosity (P); quartz (Q); K-feldspar (F); brown chamotte (Ch); clay matrix (Clay). B) Cross-polarized (XPL) view: the larger chamotte fragment, the finer-grained siliciclastic temper grains, and the phyllosilicate-rich clay matrix are clearly visible. The scale bar is 1 mm. 87 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project A Q Ch Clay Ch P Q Ch Clay Q P B Q Ch Clay Ch P Q Ch Clay Q P Fig. 11 Optical photomicrographs of sample SER-8 from Najeva Ciglana. The high content of silt- clay-sized matrix versus temper and porosity should be noted. A) General view of sample SER8 (plane polarized, PPL): Porosity (P); quartz (Q); brown and black colored chamotte (Ch); clay matrix (Clay). B) Cross-polarized (XPL) view stands up the larger chamotte fragments and the siliciclastic temper grains. The scale bar is 0.5 mm. 88 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project A P Lms Q Q P F Clay Lms P Clay Bio Q Clay B P Q Lms Q P F Clay Lms P Clay Bio Q Clay Fig. 12 Optical photomicrographs of sample SER-9 corresponding to potters from Najeva Ciglana. It is noted the high content of silt- clay-sized matrix versus temper and porosity. A) General view of sample SER-9 (plane polarized, PPL): Porosity (P); quartz (Q); K-feldspar (F); bioclast (Bio); micritic limestone fragments (Lms); clay matrix (Clay). B) Cross-polarized (XPL) view stands up the large bivalve shell fragment and the siliciclastic temper grains. The scale bar is 0.5 mm. 89 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project A P Clay Q Q Ch Ch Clay Q P Ch A P Clay Q Q Ch Ch Clay P Q Ch Fig. 13 Optical photomicrographs of sample SER-10 corresponding to potters from Najeva Ciglana. It is noted the high content of silt- clay-sized matrix versus temper and porosity. A) General view of sample SER-10 (plane polarized, PPL): Porosity (P); quartz (Q); brown and black colored chamotte (Ch); clay matrix (Clay). B) Cross-polarized (XPL) view stands up the larger chamotte fragments and the siliciclastic temper grains. The scale bar is 1 mm. 90 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Clay sediments from the Tamiš and Danube rivers The Tamiš river mud samples 1 and 2 and those from the Danube (samples 3 and 4) correspond to mud-sized sediments transported by both rivers and deposited on the terraces of their floodplains. Under the optical microscope, the matrix of samples 2, 3 and 4 are characterized by a predominantly phyllosilicatic composition. In contrast, the sample 1 is much more marly and it is made up of a mixture of phyllosilicates and carbonates (micrite). Analyzing these clays by Rx diffraction it can be inferred that the composition of phyllosilicatic clay matrix mainly correspond to muscovite group minerals while the composition of sample 1 is enriched in carbonates (mainly calcite) (table 3). This compositional difference is probably related to the fact that the sedimentation took place in a lagoon environment, which would produce the deposition of more marly muds. Table 3: XRD mineral composition data of clay sediments from the Tamiš and Danube rivers. Other main components of these muds are silt-sized to medium sand sub-rounded grains. Compositionally, siliciclastic grains are common, such as mono-crystalline quartz, which dominates over poly-crystalline type, K-feldspar, plagioclase, muscovite, apatite and some epidote (table 3). All of them could derive from granite source areas, although fragments of micritic limestone and dolostones are also present. Considering the set of textural and compositional characteristics analyzed in sediment samples 2, 3 and 4 collected on the terraces of the Danube and Tamiš rivers, it can beasserted that they are similar to those used by the Omoljica and Najeva Ciglana potters. According to the obtained data, sample 2 shows the most suitable composition because it is the richest in phyllosilicates (48%) and the least carbonatic (2%). Consequently, both Vatin settlements could have used these clay muds as raw materials to manufacture their 91 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Fig. 15 Rx diffractograms of samples 1 and 2 corresponding to sediments from Tamiš river. 92 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Fig. 16 Rx diffractograms of samples 3 and 4 corresponding to sediments from Danube river. 93 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project pottery, which would logically present some variations in the proportion of their components, depending on the place of extraction. pottery, which would logically present some variations in the proportion of their components, depending on the place of extraction. Conclusion The Vatin potters of Zlatica and Najeva Ciglana used non-carbonate clays, which can be found in the surroundings of both settlements. The main natural temper of these clays is fine-grained quartz and feldspar grains (sand- to silt-sized), and a limited amount of mica, mainly muscovite. Small fragments of micritic limestone are another natural component present in most of the samples, particularly at Zlatica. The plasticity of this clay was usually corrected through a limited amount (2-20%) of finely ground chamotte. The origin of the shell and bivalve fragments identified in most of the samples is uncertain. However, their larger size, their sub-angular roundness and their absence in the natural clay samples suggest that this was also an intentionally added component. Although both settlements used the same types of clay and temper, some minor differences can be observed. At Zlatica the clay composition is very similar in four of the five samples and contains siliciclastic and carbonate grains, as well as bioclasts and chamotte. Only one fragment (SER-2; Fig. 8) is different, as it contains granite rock fragments and no chamotte, limestone, nor bioclasts. As this sample belongs to a very well modelled and finely decorated beaker (Fig. 2/5), it is possible that we are dealing with the product of a specific, more specialized workshop using a slightly different clay source. The ceramic from Najeva Ciglana seems to have been more variable, and temper is generally more fine-grained. Limestone fragments or shells are only present in two of the three samples (SER-6, 9; fig.9; Fig. 12). Chamotte is also missing in one case (SER-9; Fig. 12) and granite fragments are absent in all five vessels analysed so far. The higher amount of muscovite in Najeva Ciglana also supports the idea that each settlement produced its own pottery. So far, only one pot (SER-6; Fig. 3/2) might be a product from Zlatica used in Najeva Ciglana. The presence and good preservation of small carbonatic components in both settlements allows concluding that firing temperatures were below 800º C (Hoard et al. 1995; Cultrone et al. 2001; Risch, Gómez-Gras, 2003). Summarizing both neighbour94 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project ing communities used the same sort of raw materials and firing strategies, but tended to produce its own pots. The same clay types were used for different pottery shapes and sizes. It can be noted however, that fine and well burnished pottery, fired under oxidising atmosphere, tend to present larger amounts of quartz, feldspar and/or granite fragments (SER-2, 6 and 9; Fig. 8; Fig. 9; Fig. 12), than most of the coarse ware vessels. These differences in temper and firing conditions are further hints, that the fine Vatin pottery was produced not only with slightly different clays but also by different potters than the coarse ware. In comparison to other Bronze Age pottery technologies of the first half of the 2nd millennium BC, Vatin distinguishes itself in terms of the fineness of the used clays, containing relatively little and fine natural and added temper. In contrast, the pottery of El Argar or Unetice, for example, contains a high quantity, often 50%, of coarse-grained natural and added temper, composed of quartz, feldspar and mica. The finer clays used by the Vatin potters seem to be more adequate for the manufacture of a larger variety of shapes and, particularly, to allow their prolific decoration. Acknowledgments Roberto Risch wishes to thank Jovan Čekić for his support during the geo-archaeological survey along the banks of the rivers Tamiš and Danube. This research has been supported by the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (HAR201785962-P), and by the ICREA Academia and the AGAUR (2017SGR1044) programmes of the Generalitat de Catalunya. 95 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project References: • • • • • • • • • • 96 Bankoff, A. 2004. The Early and Middle Bronze Age of Southeastern Europe. in Ancient Europe 8000 B.C.–A.D., in Bogucki, P. and Crabtree. P (eds.). 1000: Encyclopedia of the Barbarian World Vol. I and II. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Chayes, F. 1952. Notes of the staining of potash feldspar with sodium cobaltonitrite in thin section. American Mineralogist 37, 337-340. Cultrone, G., Rodrígues-Navarro, C., Sebastian, E., Cazalla, O., de la Torre, M.J. 2001. Carbonate and silicate phase reactions during ceramic firing. European Journal of Mineralogy 13, 621634. Garašanin, M. 1983a. Vatinska grupa, in: Benac A. (ed.). Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja IV. Bron-zano doba. Sarajevo, 504-519. Garašanin, M. 1983b. Zapadnosrpska varijanta vatinske grupe, in Benac, A. (ed.) Praistorija jugo-slavenskih zemalja IV. Bronzano doba. Sarajevo, 736-753. Gogâltan, F. 2017. The Bronze age multilayered settlements in the Carpathian Basin (CCA. 2500 – 1600/1500 BC). An old catalogue and some chronological problems. Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology 4.3., 28-62. Hoard, R.J., O’Brian, M.J., Ghazavy, M., Gopalaratnam, V.S. 1995. A materials-science approach to understanding Limestone-tempered Pottery from the Midwestern United States. Journal of Archaeological Science 22, 823-832. Ђорђевић, В. 2017. Налази из периода Сеобе народа са локалитета Доњоварошка (Најева) циглана у Панчеву. Гласник музеја Баната 19, 6-23. Грбић, M. 1939. Војводина I, Од најстаријих времена до Велике сеобе. Нови Сад: Историско друштво у Новом Саду, 47–60. Ljuština, M. 2012. Stratigraphy of settlemtns and periodisation of the Vatin culture in Vojvodina. University of Belgrade, Faculty of Philosophy, Unpublished PhD thesis. • • • • • • • • • • • Ljuština, M. 2015. The Danube Connects: Middle Bronze Age Settlements at Omoljica-Zlatica and Pančevo-Najeva Ciglana vs. their Neighbours from Vinča-Belo Brdo, North Serbia, Istros XXI, Muzeul Brăilei ‘’Carol I’’. Brăila, 57107. Ljuština, M. 2017. Vatin culture in scientific opus of Miodrag Grbić, in: M.Vujović (ed.). Ante portam auream: studia in Honorem Professoris Aleksandar Jovanović, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Philosophy, 23- 44. Маринковић, С. 1996. Керамика раног бронзаног доба из Музеја у Зрењанину. Гласник музеја Банатa 7. Панчево, 21-27. Митровић, Ј. 2013. Допринос Душана Карапанџића српској археологији на почетку XX века Зборник Народног музеја 21–1, Београд, 321-330. Радојчић, Н. 2013. Златица у Омољици и Најева Циглана у Војловици код Панчева: керамички налази бронзаног доба, Београд. Risch, R., Gómez-Gras, D. 2003. La producción alfarera en época talayótica. Estudio petrográfico y paleotecnológico de los materiales de Son Ferragut (Sineu, Mallorca), in: P. Castro, T. Escoriza y M.-E. Sanahuja (eds.). Mujeres y hombres en espacios domésticos: trabajo y vida social en la Prehistoria de Mallorca (c. 700-500 cal ANE), B.A.R., Oxford, 190-216. Tasić, N. 1974. Bronzano doba, in: B. Brukner, B. Jovanović, N. Tasić (eds). PraistorijaVojvodine, Novi Sad, 185-256. Тасић, Н. 1983. Југословенско Подунавље од индоевропске сеобе до продора Скита. Нови Сад, Београд. Tasić, N. 1984. Die Vatin-Kultur, u Kulturen der Frühbronzezeit das Karpatenbeckens und Nordbalkans. Beograd, 59-81. Трбуховић В. 1968а. Проблеми порекла и датовања бронзаног доба Србије. Археолошки институт Београд, књига 6, Београд, 59-70. Трбуховић, В. 1968 б. Нека разматрања о стратиграфији на насељима бронзаног доба у Војводини. Старинар XVIII. Београд, 175180. Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project • • PDF-2, Powder Diffraction File. 2013. International Centre for Diffraction Data (ICDD). 12 Campus Boulevard., Newton Square, Pennsylvania 19073-3273, USA. http://www.icdd.com. Vulić, N., Grbić, M. 1937. Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum Yougoslavie, fasc. 3. Beograd, 5, 7, Pl. 20-23. 97 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project David Gómez-Gras Full-time professor Department of Geology, Facultat de Ciències, Autonomous University of Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Spain E-mail: [email protected] David Gómez-Gras is professor of Sedimentary Petrology at the Autonomous University of Barcelona. His research interests are mainly focused on Sedimentary Petrology. He is currently working on provenance analysis of clastics as a powerful method for verifying models concerning tectonic setting, temporal and spatial evolution of uplifted source regions, sediment routing and volumes of sediment delivered to basins. He is also currently working on characterization and provenance of pottery specially focused in Bronze Age cultures. Roberto Risch Full-time professor Departament de Prehistòria Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Edifici B, 08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Spain E-mail: [email protected] Roberto Risch is professor of Prehistoric Archaeology at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, and ICREA Acadèmia Research Fellow. He has been a visiting scholar at numerous European institutions including U. of Cambridge, U. di Padova, U. Freiburg and, recently, the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History (Jena). His research is mainly concerned with the economy and ecology of Prehistoric societies. In his more than 20 years of experience, he has investigated several prehistoric sites in Spain, Germany and India, and conducted ethnoarchaeological fieldwork in Ghana and Mali. The introduction of new approaches to the study of archaeological artefacts has been an indispensable part of his investigation of prehistoric economies. 98 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Jovan D. Mitrović National Museum, Trg Republike 1a, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia E-mail: [email protected] He is an experienced archaeologist with substantial curatorial knowledge and extensive field work experience. He is also a Phd student (2018) at University of Primorska, Faculty of Humanities, Koper, Slovenia. His primary research interests include museum collection and curation, (Early) Bronze Age ceramic and metal analyses, archaeological field methods, history of the Balkan archaeology, general archaeology of the Metal Ages and Hellenistic era in the Central Balkans. He is currently working on the analysis of the archaeological finds from the excavations (Zók and Gradina- Bosut sites) in the 1920s and 1970/1980s. Vojislav Đorđević National Museum, Trg kralja Petra I, 7, 26101, Pančevo, Serbia E-mail: [email protected] He is an archaeologist, senior curator of the National Museum Pančevo, with extensive field work experience. He completed postgraduate studies on the topic of medieval archeology in southern Banat. His primary research interests include general archeology and chronology of the ancient, Great migration and the early medieval period in the region of Banat, and wider in the Carpathian Basin. He is currently working on systematic and extensive archaeological research of the ancient and medieval settlement and necropolis in Dolovo near Pančevo (since 2013) and on the development of an archaeological map and systematic field survey within the project „Archaeological Topography of Banat” (since 2007), funded by Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Serbia. Vesna Vučković Senior Custodian Regional Museum Paraćin, Tome Živanovića, 17, 35250, Paraćin, Serbia E-mail: [email protected] She is senior custodian- archaeologist at the Regional Museum of Paraćin and a Postdoctoral scholar at the Zinman Institute of Archaeology, Haifa, Israel. She presented her MA thesis “Neolithic macro-lithic tools of the Middle Morava Valley” at the University of Belgrade. She has recently finished her PhD thesis on “Neolithic economy and macro-lithic tools of the Central Balkans” at Autonomous University of Barcelona. 99 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Small two-handled kantharos, site of Omoljica. It served as models for the potter (photo: N. Borić, Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade) 97 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Vatin culture pottery in settlements and necropolises of Northeastern Serbia Aleksandar Kapuran, Petar Milojević Abstract: Almost five decades following the pioneering research of Bronze Age sites in Northeastern Serbia (Timočka Krajina), several dozens of settlements and solely five necropolises with incinerated deceased burials have been recorded. Without the support of absolute dates, those finds have been attributed with different cultural and chronological determination in the archaeological literature. Relying on stylistic and typological characteristics of ceramic production, forms and manners of decoration of finds in question are characteristic for Middle Bronze Age Vatin and Verbicioara cultures, as well as Paraćin culture which has been dated to the Late Bronze Age. B. Jovanović attributed the researched sites and necropolises to Paraćin culture, while on the other hand D. Srejović and M. Lazić defined a new cultural manifestation based on burial rituals, the Gamzigrad group. The systematic research in the vicinity of Bor, which sought to investigate the problem of Bronze Age copper metallurgy, has resulted in a vast amount of pottery finds characteristic for Vatin and Verbicioara cultures, while a considerable portion of pottery had the characteristics of Paraćin culture. The paper aims to identify some of the crucial cultural attributions of Middle Bronze Age communities in Northeastern Serbia based on new finds and absolute dates. Keywords: Northeastern Serbia, Middle Bronze Age, Proto Vatin, Vatin Culture, Verbicioara Culture, Paraćin Culture, pottery, metallurgy. The Bronze Age of Northeastern Serbia has been in focus of archaeological research since the 80s of the 20th century when a cooperation between the Museum of Mining and Metallurgy in Bor and the Institute of archaeology in Belgrade resulted in systematic archaeological excavations of a settlement and necropolis at the site of Trnjane near Brestovačка Banja, 10 km west of Bor (Jovanović and Janković, 1986 – 1990; Jovanović and Janković, 1996; 101 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Jovanović 1999; Капуран et al. 2014). Since the excavations have determined a quite simple stratigraphic sequence at the site: a shallow cultural layer devastated by intensive plowing and erosion, the focus of the research was directed towards the necropolis with incinerated deceased which was recorded directly next to the settlement. A set of previously unusual burial rituals were recorded on that occasion, including urns with incinerated deceased which were laid within the burial structures comprised of circular stone constructions (Jovanović and Janković 1987-1990; Jovanović 1999). In their first detailed analysis of the necropolis, B. Jovanović and I. Janković have concluded that both the settlement and the necropolis are heavily influenced by Vatin culture (Jovanović and Janković 1996). Later, based on the burial ritual which included exclusively incinerated deceased whose remains were stored in shallowly buried ceramic vessels, B. Jovanović altered his opinion, as he attributed the population buried at Trnjane necropolis to the early period of the Urnfield Culture (Urnenfelderkultur) and Paraćin cultural group (Jovanović 1999), an opinion recently accepted by one of the authors of this paper (Kапуран et al. 2013; Kapuran et al. 2017). During the late 20th and the beginning of the 21st century, the research on Bronze Age in the vicinity of Bor was limited to a necropolis at Bor Lake (Borsko jezero) (Лазић 2004, 113; Капуран и Миладиновић-Радмиловић 2011; Капуран et al. 2014) and a previously unknown necropolis was recorded at the site of Hajdučka Česma. Finally, a renewed cooperation between the Museum of Mining and Metallurgy in Bor and the Institute of archaeology in Belgrade was launched during 2011, and resulted in archaeological excavations of three new sites and one necropolis: archaeometallurgical sites Ružana 1 and 2 in Banjsko Polje, sites Kot 1 and 2 in Metovnica and the Kriveljski Kamen – Bunar necropolis north of Bor (Kapuran and Jovanović 2013; Капуран et al. 2013; Kapuran et al. 2016; Капуран и Јовановић 2013). The next phase of research marked a new partnership between the mentioned institutions and the OREA Institute of Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna during 2017. To this day, the latest phase of research included a reexamination of Trnjane and Čoka Njica settlements and new archaeological excavations at the Hajdučka Česma necropolis, all located in the vicinity of Brestovačka Banja. Thanks to Austrian partners, especially Dr. Mario Gavranović, a series of absolute dates are acquired, which 102 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project now define a chronological framework for metallurgical communities of the Bronze Age in the Timok Eruptive Area (Bor Region). Southern of Bor Region, on the right bank of Crni Timok River and its tributaries, systematic archaeological excavations of hilltop settlement at the site of Banjska Stena (Срејовић и Лазић 1997; Лазић 1998; Лазић 2010; Lazić 2016), at the site of Miletov Bunar (Sladić i Ružić 2001) and the site at the entrance to Zvezdan (Капуран 2009) were conducted during the 80s and 90s of the 20th century. During the same period, excavations were also conducted at the necropolis with incinerated deceased at Magura Hill and two graves were recorded within the Felix Romuliana palace itself (Срејовић 1983; Васић 1993; Срејовић и Лазић 1997; Лазић 2010; Lazić 2016). The research cooperation between the Archaeological Institute in Belgrade and Free University in Berlin (Freie Universität) in 2007 and 2008, has conducted a new survey of the Seliški Potok Valley and pointed out to the existence of several dozens of Bronze Age sites in the close surroundings of Felix Romuliana palace (Капуран и Шкундрић 2009; Kapuran 2014). In the region of Zaječar municipality, rescue archaeological excavations at the site of Kotare-Ilino were conducted in 2019 and yielded the remains of a settlement concurrent with the one in the vicinity of Zaječar (forthcoming). Based on the stylistic and typological characteristics of urns and burial ritual from the necropolis of Magura, D. Srejović and M. Lazić have concluded that a unique cultural manifestation named the Gamzigrad group is formed in the area of Crni Timok Basin (Срејовић и Лазић 1997; Лазић 1998; Лазић 2010; Lazić 2016). In the Knjaževac Region, systematic archaeological excavations at the site of Kadijski Krst were conducted during 2003. The excavations have determined a cultural layer with Bronze Age pottery and concurrent metal finds (Пековић и Јевтић 2006). Surveys of the upstream of Beli Timok River, as well as the confluence area of Trgoviški and Svrljiški Timok rivers, were conducted in 2010 when several Bronze Age sites were recorded (Капуран и Булатовић 2012). Between 2011 and 2013, systematic archaeological research was conducted in the Timočka Krajina Region, at the site of Mokranjske Stene – Potkapina near the village of Mokranje. Remains of almost all of the late prehistoric horizons common for the Central Balkans were registered at this multilayered site, including several potsherds which 103 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Fig. 1 1-11,13, Bowls from sites in vicinity of Bor and Zaječar; 12.Hajdučka Česma necropolis; 14 Trnjane necropolis; 15. Banjska stena hill fort. Thanks to A. Rakezić 104 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project can be attributed to Verbicioara culture. (Капуран и Јањић 2015). The aforementioned brief history of research of Bronze Age settlements and necropolises in Northeastern Serbia points out to a relatively well-researched area that provides sufficient material for a discussion on different cultural influences that have left traces on the material culture of prehistoric communities from the first half of the 2nd millennium BC (Map 1). A decade ago, A. Kapuran has published finds which represent the results of the systematic survey in the area of Roman Imperial palace of Felix Romuliana (Капуран 2010). The same author concluded that the influence of Vatin and Verbicioara cultures is quire apparent and easily distinguished on local pottery production, which is once again confirmed by a new phase of archaeological research of several sites in the vicinity of Bor. A considerable problem for a detailed discussion on cultural attribution of populations that inhabited the Crni Timok Basin and the vicinity of Bor are extensive and yet unpublished excavations of settlement at the site of Banjska Stena and Magura necropolis near Zaječar. Save for the lecture held at an international conference in Čačak in 2015, M. Lazić has not provided new evidence on the presumed independent cultural manifestation, defined as Gamzigrad group by him and D. Srejović (Срејовић и Лазић 1997; Лазић 1998; Lazić 2016). The task of this paper is to collect ceramic finds from earlier excavations as well as from excavations recently conducted on new and published sites and to present one vessel currently in private property, that originates from the site of Banjska Stena. That does not represent a difficult endeavor considering that pottery with characteristic decorative techniques of Vatin and Verbicioara cultures is easily discerned from other utilitarian pottery of the Bronze Age in the Central Balkans. The typology of vessels with elements of Vatin culture starts with a presentation of bowls which represent the most common ceramic form at the sites in the Timočka Krajina Region. Bowls are most often conical or semi-globular (Fig. 1/2, 11, 12), while a large number of bowls possesses a T-profiled shape (Fig. 1/1, 2, 7, 11). The rim is decorated with either triangular (one or coupled) (Fig. 1/1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12) or trapezoid extensions (Fig. 1/4, 13). Bowl with one handle which served as a lid of the urn from grave 1 at the site of Hajdučka Česma possesses four triangular 105 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Fig. 2 1. Banjska stena hill fort; 2-4, 8-11, 16. Sites Ružana 1 and 2; 5-6., 12. Trnjane settlement; 7. Šarbanovac: 13-15. Mokranjske stene: 17. Trnjane necrolois. 106 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project extensions distributed solely on one half of the rim (Fig. 1/12). Less common form are S-profiled bowls with everted rim, with a handle below the rim and triangular extensions on the rim. This type of bowl has been recorded at Trnjane necropolis (Jovanović and Janković 1996, Abb. 9a/4) (Fig. 1/14) and settlement (Fig. 1/1, 3) (forthcoming). New find of a bowl from the site of Banjska Stena1, black polished with tunneled handles and incised decoration represents the best example of Verbicioara influence on the Bronze Age ceramic production in Northeastern Serbia (Fig. 1/15). The next type of vessel that indicates the influence of Vatin and Verbicioara cultures are beakers with rarely one and more often two handles (Fig. 2/16, 17). Such beakers are usually biconical, although there are certain examples with the globular belly (Fig. 2/17). Rarely, beakers are decorated with incisions forming doubled volutes, as is the case with the beaker recorded at the Banjska Stena hill fort (Fig. 2/1) which represents an example of classical phase of Vatin culture in Banat (Срејовић и Лазић 1997; Радојчић 2013, 51/117; Ljuština 2012, Fig. 51/12). Handles of such beakers are usually represented by wide ribbons with an indentation in the middle, either circularly bent or ansa lunata and surpass the rim of the beaker. Beakers originating from sites in Northeastern Serbia posses Buckel decoration on the belly (Fig. 2/2, 3, 4, 10, 13), and some examples are decorated with puncturing (Fig. 2/6,7), which is characteristic for Bubanj Hum IV – Ljuljaci phase according to A. Bulatović and J. Stankovski (Булатовић и Станковски 2012, 241, Tab. 9 i 14). Similar to the bowls, the rims are decorated with one triangular (Fig. 2/1-4) or trapezoid extensions (Fig. 2/5, 7, 10). Peculiar are examples of globular beakers with extremely thin walls which have been recorded at the site of Mokranjske Stene – Potkapina, with decoration typical for Verbicioara cultural domain (Fig. 2/13-15). Beakers with one handle are represented by an example recorded next to the metallurgical kiln at the site of Ružana 1 (Fig. 2/16) and a beaker with one ansa lunata handle recorded in grave 14 at Trnjane necropolis (Jovanović i Janković 1996, Abb. 8a). 1 The bowl was found by Aleksandar Rakezić from Pančevo, owner of a weekend cottage near Banjska Stena. The bowl was scattered around a hole made by metal-deectors on the foothill of the site. A. Rakezić collected the pieces and reconstucted the bowl. The drawing was produced by the author of this paper A. Kapuran, by courtesy of A. Rakezić, whom we thank on this occasion. 107 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project The final type of pottery analyzed in this paper are pots, which could save for the storage function (Fig. 3/5, 6), utilize the function of urns in burial rituals (Fig. 1-4, 8). Potsare recorded in various forms such as bell-shaped (Fig. 3/1), pear-shaped (Fig 3/5), biconical (Fig. 2, 3, 8), or with an accentuated (broad) body (Fig. 3/4, 6, 7). Fig. 3 1-11, 13. Bowls from sites in vicinity of Bor and Zaječar; 12. Hajdučka Česma necropolis; 14. Trnjane necropolis; 15. Banjska stena hill fort. 108 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Handles are knee-shaped (Fig. 3/1, 3) or wide ribbon-like (Fig. 3/2, 6, 7). In certain cases handles are horizontally positioned in the middle of the belly (Fig. 3/2, 4, 8). The decoration is represented with finger impressions (Fig. 3/5) or applied modeled band (Fig. 3/4, 8). Most of the pots are undecorated and possess an extremely burnished surface (Fig. 3/6, 7). Besides M. Garašanin, during the last century, the idea of influences of Vatin culture on Bronze Age cultures south of Sava and Danube intrigued colleagues M. Bogdanović and M. Stojić, while the greatest contribution on the subject following 2000 was provided in a monograph by A. Bulatović and J. Stankovski (Булатовић и Станковски 2012). Their contribution is provided by a collection of all relevant Vatin culture finds in the Južna Morava and Pčinja regions, and the attributing of Bronze Age settlements and necropolises in Northeastern Serbia to Bubanj Hum IV – Ljuljaci phase (Булатовић и Станковски 2012, 345). However, the greatest contribution in the research of Vatin culture in the territory of the Central Balkans was provided by materials collected in the course of systematic research of the site of Ljuljaci near Kragujevac (Богдановић 1986). Three stratigraphically different horizons have been recorded at this prehistoric settlement, which provided a basis for the classification of recorded ceramic finds (phases Ljuljaci I-III). In that book, M. Bogdanović also provides two absolute dates which position phase Ljuljaci I to 1950 BC and phase Ljuljaci II between 1730 and 1690 BC (Богдановић 1986, 70). The beakers represent one of the most suitable forms for comparative analysis in our paper. Parallels between the pottery at the site of Ljuljaci with the pottery which points to influences of Vatin culture in Northeastern Serbia are numerous. The beaker from the Banjska Stena hill fort is quite analogous to finds from phase Ljuljaci III according to M. Bogdanović (Богдановић 1986,33/38) and displays similar stylistic and typological characteristics with beaker from Vinča, originating from a horizon dated by N. Tasić to 1600 BC (Jovanović 1961, sl. 1/1; Тасић 1984, 83). Beakers with trapezoid extensions on the rim from Podgorac, Trnjane, and Kamenica, would without a doubt belong to phase Ljuljaci I (Богдановић 1986, 34/22-24), similar to finds of Vatin culture beakers from the sites of Sokolica in Ostra near Čačak (Стојић 2000, сл.1; Ljuština 2011, Fig. 3/1), Sarina međa near Jagodina (Стојић 1992, сл.7), 109 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Orašje near Kruševac (Тасић 2001), Gloždak in Paraćin (Стојић 1992, сл. 12), and the site of Lazarev Grad in Kruševac (Стојић и Чађеновић 2006). In the area of Južna Morava Basin, A. Bulatović and J. Stankovski classify beakers with trapezoid extensions to Type VI which corresponds to Bubanj Hum IV – Ljuljaci phase of the Middle Bronze Age (Булатовић и Станковски 2012, 241, Tab. 3/ VI i Tab. 14). The closest analogies are found in beakers from the site of Bubanj in Novo Selo near Niš (Стојић и Јоцић 2006, Т. LXXIV/190 – 192) and the site of Vitkovac (Стојић и Јоцић 2006, T.X). Beaker with one handle recorded next to the metallurgical kiln at the site of Ružana 1 (Kapuran et al. 2016, T. 2/7) displays close parallels with certain Early Bronze Age finds, as it is similar to beakers from Belotić – Bela Crkva necropolises in Western Serbia (Гарашанин 1973, 264, T. 44) and Vinkovci culture beakers from the site of Bosut-Gradina (Tasić 1984, Taf. IV/12; Поповић и Радојчић 1996, к 22). An absolute date was acquired from the mentioned kiln, which falls between 1876 and 1765 cal BC (forthcoming). The other beaker with one handle was recorded in grave 14 at Trnjane necropolis (Jovanović and Janković 1996, Abb. 8a), and closest analogies are found in Pančevo-Omoljica phase of Vatin culture (Tasić 1974, 213/123; Радојчић 2013, 31/51, 57/133). Besides the dwelling horizons in settlements, the bowls were also recorded within the context of burial ritual, and in several cases those represented lids for urns with the remains of cremated deceased, as is the case with grave 33 at Trnjane necropolis (Jovanović i Janković 1996 Abb. 9a) or grave 1 at Hajdučka Česma (forthcoming). For example, S-profiled bowl with a triangular extension on the rim from grave 33 at Trnjane necropolis is identical in form and decoration with bowl from Vinča (Tasić 1984, Taf. XV/3) or bowl recorded at the site of Novačka Ćuprija (Крстић e al 1986, T. XII/3,4). The similar form can be noted on the bowl from Slatina near Drenovac (Стојић 1992, сл. 14). Semi-globular bowls with T-shaped cross-section have analogies with finds of Pančevo-Omoljica phase of Vatin culture (Радојчић 2013, 38/75). The finest example represents a bowl which originates from the foothill of Banjska Stena. Based on form and decoration, this example is typical for Verbicioara culture, which is also the case with a fragment of globular pot from the site of Mokranjske Stene, a lid from the site of Ružana 1 (Fig. 3/11) and a decorated vessel belly from the same site (Fig. 3/10). 110 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project As previously noted, pots bearing characteristics of Vatin culture on Bronze Age sites in Northeastern Serbia originate from two contexts. First context refers to necropolises and the second context belongs to the material culture from habitation horizons in settlements. A pot shaped like an inverted bell with two knee-shaped handles, used as an urn for the remains of incinerated deceased was recorded in grave 21 at Trnjane necropolis (Jovanović and Janković 1996, Abb. 9a1). Urn covered with a bowl described in the previous chapter was recorded in grave 1 at Hajdučka Česma necropolis. The neck of the urn was decorated with an applied modeled triangle motif (Fig. 3/4), identical to decoration recorded on pots from Donja Varoš in Pančevo (Grčki-Stanimirov 1996, T. IV/5). In tiple grave 5 at the same necropolis, a vessel with two vertical ribbon-like, two horizontal tunneled handles and a trapezoid extension on the rim was utilized as an urn (forthcoming) (Fig. 3/2). The other urn from the same grave is also biconical and possesses four knee-shaped handles and a triangular extension on the rim (forthcoming) (Fig. 3/4). The other type of pot which is common for settlement in Northeastern Serbia possesses a biconical form with emphasized laterals, and based on narrow neck and rim could represent an amphora. Similar examples are known from Knjaževac and Kadijski Krst (Fig. 3/6, 7). The closest analogies are found in pots recorded at the sites of Feudvar (Grčki-Stanimirov 1991, 113, Taf. 28/3) and Ljuljaci (Богдановић 1986, 47, sl. 69). Pot-urn from grave 63 at Magura necropolis is almost identical to a pot from the site of Vatin (Tasić 1974, sl. 151). Conclusion The joint results of excavations on several sites in the vicinity of Bor: Ružana 1 and 2, Trnjane and Hajdučka Česma, as well as newly acquired absolute dates from enclosed contexts, provide us sufficient data to claim that the chronological frame of settling during the Bronze Age in the vicinity of Bor falls within the time interval between the 19th and the 17th century BC (Bulаtović at al 2020 forthcoming). This data certainly disprove B. Jovanović’s opinion that Trnjane necropolis originates from the Late Bronze Age, meaning Paraćin culture (Jovanović 1999). Likewise, the presented chronological frame does not support the opinion of M. Lazić that Trnjane necropolis was utilized in a period between 1700/1600 BC and 1300 BC (Лазић 111 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project 2004, 123). At the moment, the most likely scenario is that the prehistoric populations that exploited copper ore in the vicinity of Bor are slightly older that communities concentrated near Banjska Stena and Magura necropolis near Zaječar. Bor are slightly older that communities concentrated near Banjska Stena and Magura necropolis near Zaječar. The presented ceramic finds, which display elements of Vatin and Verbicioara cultures, as well as absolute dates, reveal a distinct chronological connection between Protovatin cultures from the fringe of the Carpathian Basin and populations which inhabited the region of Timočka Krajina. A find of Cyprian type of pin at the site of Kadijski Krst also confirms the Early Bronze Age influences from the Northern Balkans on Bronze Age communities in Northeastern Serbia. But, this is not solely the case in Northeastern Serbia, as seen from sites located in adjacent regions such as southern banks of Danube in front of the Iron Gates, numerous sites surrounding Požarevac (Стојић и Јацановић 2008)2, Viminacium (Bulatović et al. 2019; Kapuran et al. 2019) and Novačka ćuprija (Kрстић at al 1986) and valleys of Velika and Zapadna Morava with sites Gloždak, Lešje, Drenovac, Majur and Sarina Međa (Стојић 1992; Стојић 1986), Blagotin (Николић и Капуран 2001), Sokolica in Ostra (Стојић 2000), Orašje and Lazarev Grad in Kruševac (Тасић 2001; Стојић и Чађеновић 2006) (Map 2). Sites with finds attributed to Protovatin culture have also been registered in Južna Morava and Nišava valleys, such as Školska Gradina in Rutevac (Стојић и Чађеновић 2006), Bubanj-Novo Selo and Velika Humska Čuka near Niš (Стојић и Јоцић 2006; Булатовић и Станковски 2012), Vitkovac, Vrtište, Kamenica and Striža (Стојић и Јоцић 2006) (Map 2). The insight into the distribution of sites with elements of Vatin culture south of Serbian part of the Danube Basin, which has been thoroughly complemented since M. Stojić dedicated a number of papers to the subject (Стојић 1986; Стојић 1992; Стојић 1995; Stojić 1998), indicates that the area of influence of Protovatin culture had shifted far to the south compared to the territory of Vojvodina with Pančevo-Omoljica, Corneşti-Crvenka and Syrmia-Slavonia groups (surroundings of the confluence of Tisa and Tamiš). Middle Bronze Age communities from the north of the Balkan Peninsula had to be connected with metallurgic 2 Sites Trnjane kod groblja, Klenovi, Usje-Grad, Živinarska farma in Požarevac, Batovac, Bratinac, Drmno-Lugovi, Drmno-Nad lugom, Ušće Tumanske reke, Kličevac, Kličevac-kod zadružnog doma, Kravlji do-Izvor, Kurjače and Sestroljin in Poljana. 112 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project communities in the Timok Region of Northeastern bia, especially due to the high demand for copper, which was essential for bronze production. We may or may not agreewith the claim that the material culture on Middle Bronze Age settlements south of Danube is of Vatin origin, although modest in terms of decoration compared to the pottery attributed to the classical style of Vatin culture, developed in the southern part of the Carpathian Basin. If it is not influenced by classical Vatin culture, then we are dealing with some sort of Protovatin, according to the absolute dates and according to A. Bulatović. In the case of Magura necropolis, based on the burial ritual and characteristic handles on urns, D. Srejović, and M. Lazić define a unique manifestation - Gamzigrad group (Срејовић и developed in the southern part of the Carpathian Basin. If it is not influenced by classical Vatin culture, then we are dealing with some sort of Protovatin, according to the absolute dates and according to A. Bulatović. In the case of Magura necropolis, based on the burial ritual and characteristic handles on urns, D. Srejović, and M. Lazić define a unique manifestation - Gamzigrad group (Срејовић и Лазић 1997), yet urn from the grave 63 still displays almost the same style and decoration as a pot from Vatin (Tasić 1974, sl. 151). Therefore, it seems logical to claim that each region possesses certain local characteristics, yet the opinion that the Middle Bronze Age should not be considered as a period of vast cultural complexes, as claimed by M. Ljuština, does not stand (Ljuština 2012, 187). Pottery bearing characteristic of Verbicioara culture is represented in far fewer numbers on sites in Northeastern Serbia, but its presence should not be neglected. Besides on the sites mentioned in this paper, finds with characteristics of Verbicioara culture in Northeastern Serbia are known solely from the site of Manastir in Đerdap George near Gospođin Vir (Brukner 1969) and the site of Velika Humska Čuka near Niš (Булатовић и Милановић 2014). N. Tasić could not provide an answer on the question of possible coexistence of Vatin and Verbicioara cultures in southern Banat, near Vršac and Vatin region (Тасић 1983, 68). The same author considered that the cultures in question most likely originated from the same cultural core, judging by the characteristics represented on pottery and metal finds of Vučedol and Vinkovci culture on one side and Transylvania, Mureş and Tisa valleys on the other (Тасић 1983, 68). According to the division proposed by E Nica, the elements 113 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project of Verbicioara culture that occur on vessels in Northeastern Serbia, as well as beakers that resemble the ones from Vatin culture, would belong to phase Verbicioara II of Middle Bronze Age (Nica 1996). Based on the manner of decoration common for our territory, the stylistic and typological elements have analogies in vessels recorded at the site of Curmătura-Măgura (Nica 1996, T. 7/9). Bearing in mind that Crvenka - Corneşti (early phase of Vatin culture) and Verbicioara cultures coexisted in southern Banat, it does not come as a surprise that the same stylistic and typological elements occur on finds in Northeastern Serbia, though not in the same proportion. Map 1: 1. Manastir-Gospođin Vir, 2. Kriveljski Kamen-Bunar, 3. Čoka Njica, 4. Hajdučka Česma, 5. Borsko jezero, 6. Trnjane, 7. Ružana 1 i 2, 8. Magura, 9. Banjska Stena, 10. Site on the entrance of Zvezdan, 11. Mokranjske stene, 12. Kadijski Krst, 13. Kamenica. 114 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Map 2: 1. Požarevac i Viminacijum, 2. Vinča, 3. Novačka Ćuprija, 4. Glodak, 5. Lešje, 6. Drenovac, 7. Sarina Međa, 8. Vecina mala, 9. Blagotin, 10. Sokolica-Ostra, 11. Orašje, 12. Lazarev Grad, 13. Školska gradina-Rutevac, 14. Bubanj, 15. Humska Čuka, 16. Vitkovac, 17. Vrtište, 18. Kamenica, 19. Striža. 115 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project References: • • • • • • • • • Богдановић, М. 1986. Љуљаци: Насеље протоватинске и ватинске културе. Крагујевац: Народни музеј Brukner, B. 1969. Manastir, Gospođin vir - praistorijsko naselje. Arheološki pregled 11, 136139. Булатовић, А. и Милановић, Д. 2012. Велика Хумска чука, истраживања 2009. године – прилог проучавању стратиграфије енеолита и бронзаног доба у југоисточној Србији. Гласник Српског археолошког друштва 30, 163-188. Bulatović, A., Jovičić, M., Milovanović, B. 2019. Horizont ranog bronaznog doba na lokalitetu Rit, u Kapuran at al. (eds.) Viminacijum u praistoriji, iskopavanja 2005-2015. Beograd: Arheološki institut, 57-78. Bulatović, A. Kapuran, A. Gavranović, M.. New absolute dates for the Middle and Late Bronze Ages in central Balkans and some indications or the local metallurgy and workshops, in: Jung, R. and Popov, H. (eds.), Searching for Gold - Resources and Networks in the Bronze Age of the Eastern Balkans. Vienna: OREA in press. Булатовић, А. и Станковски, J. 2012. Бронзано доба у басену Јужне Мораве и у долини Пчиње. Београд: Археолошки институт. Гарашанин, М. 1973. Праисторија на тлу СР Србије, Београд: Српска књижевна задруга. Grčki-Stanimirov, S. 1991. Eine bronzezeitliche Vorratsgrube, in: Hänsel, B. and Medović, P. (eds.) Vorbericht über die jugoslawisch-deutschen Ausgrabungen in der Sied- lung Feudvar bei Mošorin (Gem. Titel, Vojvodina) von. 1986-1990: Bronzezeit-Vorrömische Eisenzeit. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission, Band 72. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 110-116. Grčki-Stanimirov, S. 1996. Pančevo – „Donja varoš“ – Horizont der ersten siedlungen der frühen Bronzezeit im südlichen Banat. in: Tasić, N. (ed.), The Yugoslav Danube Basin and the Neighbouring Regions in the 2nd Millenium B. C. Belgrade: Serbian Academy of Science and Arts, Institute for Balkan Studies, 69-80. 116 • • • • • • • • • Jovanović, B. 1961. Pojava keramike vatinskog tipa na vinčanskom naselju. Vesnik muzejsko-konzervatorskog društva 1-2, 5-14. Jovanović, B. 1999. Funerary Rites and Tomb Constructions in Necropoles of the Paraćin and Donja Brnjica Cultures. in: Petrova, E. (ed.), Macedonia and the neighbouring regions from 3rd to 1st milenium B.C.: papers presented at the International symposium in Struga 1997, Skopje: Museum of Macedonia, 67-72. Jovanović, B. and Janković, N. 1987-1990. Nekropola paraćinske grupe u Trnjanima kod Brestovačke banje. Zbornik radova Muzeja rudarstva i metalurgije u Boru 5/6, 1-12. Jovanović, B. Janković, I. 1996. Die Keramik der Nekropole der Paraćin-kultur-Trnjane bei Bor, in: Tasić, N. (ed.), The Yugoslav Danube Basin and the Neighbouring Regions in the 2nd Millenium B. C. (ur. N. Tasić). Belgrade: Serbian Academy of Science and Arts, Institute for Balkan Studies, 185-200. Капуран, А. и Шкундрић, Ј. 2009. Резултати систематских рекогносцирања локалитета Ромулијана 2008/9 године. Саопштења XLI, 245-263. Капуран, А. 2010. О утицајима Ватина и Вербичоаре на налазима гамзиградске културе. Старинар LXI, 53-70. Капуран, А. и Миладиновић – Радмиловић, Н. 2011. Некропола на Борском језеру, нови прилози о сахрањивању у бронзаном добу. Старинар LXI, 141-153. Капуран, А. и Булатовић, А. 2012. Праисторијски локалитети у долинама Сврљишког, Трговишког и Белог Тимока. Гласник Српског археолошког друштва 28: 107-132. Капуран, А. и Јовановић, И. 2013. Археолошка истраживања праисторијских локалитета у околини Бора у 2012. и 2013. години. Зборник радова Музеја рударства и металургије у Бору 13/15, 1-16. Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project • • • • • • • • Kapuran, A. and Jovanović, I. 2013. Ružana-new Bronze Age Metallurgical Center in North Eastern Serbia, in: Štrbac, N., Živković, D. and Nestorović, S. (eds.), Poroceedings of 45th International October Conference on Mining and Metallurgy, 16-19 October on Bor Lake. Belgrade: University of Belgrade; Bor: Technical Faculty in Bor and Mining and Metallurgical Institute in Bor, 831-834 Капуран, А., Булатовић, А., Јовановић, И. 2014. Бор и Мајданпек, културна стратиграфија праисторијских локалитета између Ђердапа и Црног Тимока. Београд: Археолошки институт; Бор: Музеј рударства и металургије. Kapuran, A. 2014. Praistorijski lokaliteti u sevroistočnoj Srbiji od neolita do dolaska rimljana. Beograd: Arheološki institut. Kапуран, А., Миладиновић-Радмиловић, Н. и Јовановић, И. 2013. Криваљски Камен – Бунар, Hекропола Урненфелдер Културе у околини Бора. Зборник Народног Музеја у Београду 21/1, 145-156. Kapuran, A., Živković, D. and Štrbac, N. 2016. New Evidence for Prehistoric Copper Metallurgy in the Vicinity of Bor. Старинар LXVI, 173-191. Капуран, А. и Јањић, Г. 2015. Стратиграфија археолошког комплекса Мокрањске стене, у: Капуран, А. и Булатовић, А. (ур.) Мокрањске стене, културна баштина Неготинске Крајине. Неготин: Музеј Крајине, 9-22. Kapuran, A., Miladinović-Radmilović, N. and Vuković, N. 2017. Funerary Traditions of the Bronze Age Metallurgical Communities in the Iron Gates Hinterland, in: Ložnjak-Dizdar, D. (ed.) Late Urnfeld Culture Between the Southern Alps and the Danube, International Conference November 7-8, Zagreb. Zagreb: Institute of Archaeology, 131-141. Kapuran, A. Bulatović, A. i Danković, I. 2019. Horizonti bronzanog doba na lokalitetu Nad Klepečkom, u: Kapuran A., Bulatović, A., Filipović, V., Golubović, S. (ur.), Viminacium u praistoriji, iskopavanja 2005-2015. Beograd: Arheološki institut, 79-142. • • • • • • • • • Крстић Д., Bankoff A., Вукмановић М., Winter F. 1986. Праисторијски локалитет. Новачка ћуприја. Зборник Народног музеја XII–1, 17-63. Лазић, М. 1998. Гaмзиградска култура – последње откриће Драгослава Срејовића, у: Тасић, Н. (ур.), Рад Драгослава Срејовића на истраживању праисторије централног Балкана. Београд: Центар за научна истраживања Српске Академије наука и уметности; Београд: Универзитета у Крагујевцу, 147-158. Лазић, М. 2004. Бор и околина у бронзнаом добу, у: Лазић, М. (ур.) Бор и околина у праисторији, антици и средњем веку, Бор: Музеј рударства и металургије; Београд: Центар за археолошка истраживања Филозофског факултета, 102-128. Лазић, М. 2010. Праисторијска насеља и некрополе у Гамзиграду и његовој околини, у: Поповић, И. (ур.), Felix Romuliana – Гамзиград. Београд: Археолошки институт, 21-28. Ljuština, M. 2011. Well Defined or Taken for Granted - the Bronze Age Vatin Culture a Century after, In: Magureanu, D., Măndescu, D. and Matei, S. (eds.) Archeology: making of and practice, studies in Honour of Mircea Babeş at his 70th anniversary. Bucureşti: Institutul de Arheologie “Vasile Pârvan”; Piteşti: Vasil Parvan & Editura Odrdessos, 103-113. Ljuština, M. 2012. Stratigrafija naselja i periodizacija vatinske kulture u Vojvodini, PhD thessis, unpublish. Beograd: Filozofski fakultet, Univerzitet u Beogradu. Nica, M. 1996. Date noi privire la geneza şi evoluţia culturii Verbicioara. Drobeta VII. 1834. Николић, Д. и Капуран, А. 2001. Слој енеолита и раног бронзаног доба на Благотину, у: Тасић, Н. и Радуловић, Е. (ур.), Археолошка налазишта Крушевца и околине. Крушевац: Народни музеј Крушевац; Београд: Балканолошки институт Српске академије наука и уметности, 159-173. Пековић, М. и Јевтић, М. 2006. Сондажна археолошка истраживања налазишта Кадијски Крст код Књажевца. Гласник српског археолошког друштва 22, 111-122. 117 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project • • • • • • • • • • • Поповић, Д. и Радојчић, Н. 1996. Градина на Босуту. Шид: Галерија “Сава Шумановић” Радојчић, Н. 2013. Златица у Омољици и Најева Циглана у Војловици код Панчева : керамички налази бронзаног доба. Београд: Народни музеј. Срејовић, Д. 1983. Гамзиград у праисторији, у: Срејовић, Д. (ур.) Гамзиград: касноантички царски дворац. Београд: Галерија Српске академије наука и уметности, 18-21. Срејовић, Д. Лазић, М. 1997. Насеља и некрополе у Тимочкој Крајини, у: Лазић, М. (ур.) Археологија источне Србије. Београд: Филозофски факултет, Центар за археолошка истраживања, 225-248. Стојић, М. 1986. Праисторијско насеље Вецина мала у Мајуру код Светозарева. Старинар XXXVI, 145-152. Стојић, М. 1992. Налазишта ватинске културне групе у среднјем подунављу. Зборник Народног музеја XIV -1, 213-220. Стојић, М. 1995. Однос Поморавља и српског подунавља у бронзано и гвоздено доба, Зборник Народног музеја (Чачак) XXIV, 19-27. Stojić, M. 1998. Lieux de trouvaille de la céramique de type Vatin en Serbie au sud de la Save et du Danube. in: Schuster, C. (ed.), Die Kulturen der Bronzezeit in dem Gebiet des Eisernen Tores – Kolloquium in Drobeta-Turnu Severin (November 1997). Bukarest: Rumänisches Institut für Thrakologie, 81-104. Стојић, M. 2000. Праисторијска керамика са локалитета Соколица у Остри. Зборник радова Народног музеја (Чачак) XXX, 15-20. Стојић, М. и Чађеновић, Г. 2006. Крушевац, културна стратиграфија праисторијских локалитета у зони састава Западне Мораве и Јужне Мораве. Београд: Археолошки институт; Крушевац: Народни музеј. Стојић, М. и Јоцић, М. 2006. Ниш, културна стартиграфија праисторијских локалитета у нишкој регији. Београд: Археолошки институт; Ниш: Народни музеј. 118 • • • • • • • • Стојић, М. и Јацановић, Д. 2008. Пожаревац, културна стратиграфија праисторијских локалитета u Браничеву. Београд: Археолошки институт; Пожаревац: Народни музеј. Tasić, N. 1974. Bronzano doba. u: Brukner, B., Jovanović, B. i Tasić, N. (ur.), Praistorija Vojvodine. Novi Sad: Institut za izučavanje istorije Vojvodine i Savez arheoloških društava Jugoslavije, 185-256. Тасић, Н. 1983. Југословенско Подунавље од индоевропске сеобе до продора Скита. Нови Сад: Матица српска, Одељење за друштвене науке; Београд: Балканолошки институт САНУ. Тасић, Н. 1984. Насеље ватинске културе, у: Ћелић, С. (ур.), Винча у праисторији и Тасић, Н. 1984. Насеље ватинске културе, у: Ћелић, С. (ур.), Винча у праисторији и средњем веку. Београд: Српска академија наука и уметности, 76-83. Tasić, N. 1984a. Die Vatin-Kultur, in: Tasić, N. (ed.), Kulturen der Frühbronzezeit das Karpatenbeckens und Nordbalkans. Beograd: Balkanološki institut Srpske akademije nauka i umetnosti, 59-81. Tasić, N. 1984b. Die Verbicioara-Kultur. in: Tasić, N. (ed.), Kulturen der Frühbronzezeit das Karpatenbeckens und Nordbalkans. Beograd: Balkanološki institut Srpske akademije nauka i umetnosti, 83-92 Тасић, Н. 2001. Праисторијске културе и налазишта на подручју Крушевца, у: Тасић, Н. и Радуловић, Е. (ур.), Археолошка налазишта Крушевца и околине. Крушевац: Народни музеј Крушевац; Београд: Балканолошки институт Српске академије наука и уметности, 7-20. Васић, Ч. 1993. Царски маузолеји и консеркветивни споменици на локалитету Магура (Караула), у: Серјовић, Д. (ур.) Римски царски градови и палате, Београд: Српска академија наука и уметности, 148163. Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Aleksandar Kapuran senior research Prehistory Department Institute of Archaeology, Knez Mihajlova 35/IV, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia E-mail: [email protected] His scientific interest is focused on Bronze Age copper metallurgy in Northeastern Serbia. Except this, he was a member of the team on an exploration of a couple of multilayer Metal Ages sites on the territory of Central Balkans. He collaborated with OREA Institute of Austrian Academy of Science on prehistoric mining and metallurgy issues on the territory of Serbia. Petar Milojević Research associate PrehistoryDepartment Institute of Archaeology, Knez Mihajlova 35/IV, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia E-mail: [email protected] He researches paleoeconomy, settlement patterns and material culture during the Bronze and Iron Ages of the central Balkans. He participated in various archaeological projects in the study of prehistory in southeastern Serbia, where he also cooperates with regional museums. He is the author of four books and several scientific articles. 119 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project. Beakers with trapezoidal mouth as one of the most specific type of Middle Bronze Age vessel in the Central Balkans Aleksandar Bulatović Institute of archaeology, Belgrade Two-handled kantharos, site of Omoljica. It served as models for the potter. (photo: N. Borić, Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade.) 116 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Beakers with trapezoidal mouth as one of the most specific type of Middle Bronze Age vessel in the Central Balkans Aleksandar Bulatović I dedicate this article to my dear friend and collaborator Jovica Stankovski, a long time archeologist and the director of Kumanovo Museum, North Macedonia, who recently passed away. Abstract: The paper analyses the distribution, typology, and chronology of beakers with trapezoidal mouth. Besides this characteristic type of vessel that appeared during the Bronze Age in the Central Balkans, vessels of similar stylistic and typological characteristics appear simultaneously, indicating a particular cultural group, which the author of this study has already defined a few years ago as Bubanj-Hum IV - Ljuljaci group. The group was established according to the absolute dates and the distribution of these beakers and other finds. The group existed in the area of Zapadna Morava, Velika Morava and Južna Morava basins, Šumadija and partially Timočka Krajina in the period from the 19/18th century BC to the 15/14th century BC, when Brnjica and Paraćina groups were formed on its bases in this area. Key words: Beakers with trapezoidal mouth, Central Balkans, 19/18th-15/14th century BC, Pannonian plain, the Middle Bronze Age, Bubanj-Hum IV – Ljuljaci group. Introduction There were numerous types of vessels made of baked clay that found their specific place in the everyday life of prehistoric populations in the Balkans. Some of them served for drinking, cooking, production of dairy products, as well as storing food or other kitchen or household activities. On the other hand, due to certain characteristics, some of the vessels were not suitable for the aforementioned purposes, and rather represented a part of certain rituals or other unknown activities. The first group of vessels is easily distinguished both by its specific context and other characteristics (shape, temper, size, coating, etc.), unlike the second group whose characteristics usually do not fit within the mentioned purposes. Such vessels have usually been defined as “ritual” or “cult” vessels. 121 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project The vessels in the focus of this study belong to the second group of pottery, represented by two-handled biconical or globular beakers of different proportions, color, decoration, and other production characteristics. The only common element for those beakers, besides two handles, are two modeled trapezoidal extensions positioned on the opposite sides of the rim, between handles (figs. 2 and 3). Those extensions are mainly shaped as inverted trapezoids with concave lateral sides and their base is connected to the rim. They may vary in size and modulation as well as in angle relative to the neck of the beaker. Also, the contexts in which such beakers are recorded are different, ranging from graves to settlements and waste pits. Such beakers have been determined as an indicative and distinguishable element of pottery production several decades ago by M. Bogdanović, who defined them as proto-Vatin pottery (Bogdanović 1986), while M. Stojić suggested that such vessels belong to Vatin culture (Stojić 1998). Recently, Bulatović and Stankovski shared a thesis that such pottery represents one of the most characteristic elements of the Middle Bronze Age in the Central Balkans (Bulatović 2011; Bulatović and Stankovski 2012), which will be further discussed together with other aspects of these beakers. Even though such beakers represent a distinguished type of pottery feature, easily recognizable and suitable for a more detailed study, comprehensive studies on this specific problem are still lacking. This article will not discuss the purpose of these vessels, but rather their distribution, chronological determination, and possible cultural attribution. The paper follows the catalogue of all sites where beakers with trapezoidal mouth have been registered, except the site of Pákozdvár. Catalogue of sites1 1. Szoreg, Szeged A large necropolis was discovered in Szoreg quart of Szeged, Hungary, after which an eponymous group of Perjámos culture was named (Tompa 1934/35, Taf. 28/1, 2; Bona 1975, 94). In the skeletal graves 95, 115, 116, 165, 183 and 215 of the necropolis (Bona 1975, Taf. 112/2, 3, 6, 10-12) a total of six two-handled beakers with trapezoidal mouth were recorded. The beakers from the necropolis are of the globular body and short neck with a distinctly 1 Numbers of sites in the catalogue correspond to the numbers of sites on the map (fig. 1). 122 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project modeled trapezoidal mouth (Fig. 3/b). The handles are concave profiled, the so-called ansa lunata type in literature, and the ornaments are mainly comprised of horizontal or vertical incised broad lines, shallowly grooved lines and warty thickening on the belly. In both graves 95 and 215, pairs of pins with a horizontal head made of twisted wire were found besides beakers (Bona 1975, Taf. 126/1, 3). This type of pin is dated to Br A2a phase (Kiss et al. 2015) or Br A period according to R. Vasić (2003, Taf. 70). The graves in witch these beakers were found belong to the socalled “baroque” phase 4 of the Szöreg group (Perjámos culture), which corresponds to layer XIII in Pecica (Pecica C), phase 4 in Deszk A necropolis or phase B1 of Vatin culture. Pecica C is dated into the period 1750-1600 cal BC (OʼShea et al. 2011, Tab. 1), which is the advanced phase of the Middle Bronze Age according to the Serbian chronology. 2. Deszk A, Szeged Necropolis of inhumed deceased is situated in the southeastern periphery of Szeged, east of Szoreg necropolis (Bona 1975, 85-86). Besides many different grave goods, two-handled beakers with trapezoidal opening were recorded in three graves (22, 43 and 71) (Bona 1975, Taf. 90/13, 18, 20). Beakers are very similar to the examples from Szoreg, with oval or globular belly and short neck, with ansa lunata handles, and bellies ornamented with incised lines or plastic thickenings (Fig. 3/a). Interestingly, graves with those beakers are situated on the brim of the necropolis (Bona 1975, Plan 19). These graves are dated to the same period as graves at Szoreg. 3. Pecica (Pécska), Arad The famous Bronze Age tell in the lower Mureș region which has been excavated since the early 20th century provides the basic chronological frame of the regional Bronze Age. Besides many different types of vessels that were found at this multilayered site, a beaker with trapezoidal mouth was found in layer XIII (Gimbutas 1965, Fig. 120/ XIII). Both the shape and handles of the beaker are very similar to the previously mentioned beakers from Szoreg and Deszk A, although this one has more creative ornaments such as circular imprints in combination with zigzag incised lines (Fig. 3/c). This layer is dated by numerous 123 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project absolute dates to a period of 1750-1650 cal BC (Bona 1975, 92; OʼShea et al. 2011, Tab. 1). 4. Čoka, Senta A beaker with trapezoidal mouth and two ansa lunata handles was found in a waste pit filled with ash at the site of Ciglana na Dašinoj zemlji in Čoka (Girić 1958, 125, sl. 1). It was decorated similarly as other beakers in the Pannonian plain. The beaker was dated to the Early Bronze Age (Bronzano doba Srbije 1972, cat. no. 22). 5. Židovar, Vršac On the multilayered site of Židovar near Vršac, in the southeastern region of the Pannonian plain, a two-handled beaker was recorded as well (Lazić 1997, sl. 10). The exact context of the find remains unknown. Although found in Pannonian plain, in its southeastern periphery, it distinctly differs from other Pannonian beakers in terms of its shape, handles, and ornaments. It is shorter, biconical and with two handles oval in cross-section. Its mouth is not as intensively modeled in trapezoidal shapes as is the case with other Pannonian beakers, and it has no ornaments, except for the slight thickening on the belly. The beaker was defined as the inventory of the late stage of Vatin culture (Lazić 1997, 26-27). 6. Omoljica, Pančevo A beaker very similar to the example from Židovar was found at the site of Zlata in Omoljica near Pančevo (Radojčić 2013, cat. no. 9) (Fig. 2/c). Several authors attribute this site as well as the earliest phase of Vatin culture (Pančevo-Omoljica phase) in Br A2-B1 period, which is the end of the Early and the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age (Garašanin 1983, 512; Hansel 1968, 134-135). The site of Zlata was dated by the radiocarbon method in 3530±60 BP (Gogaltan 1999, 224, Pl. 16) that is 1960-1760 cal BC in calibrated values with the probability of 68.2%. 7. Moldova Veche At the site of Ostrov in Moldova Veche on the southeastern border of Banat, a two-handled beaker with trapezoidal mouth was registered together with vessels characteristic for Vatin culture (Guma 1997, 121-122, Pl. XLVIII/2). It has a biconical shape, stands on a short foot and has two handles with a plastic button-shaped extension on the top 124 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project (Fig. 2/f). It is both very rare and the northernmost specimen of this type of beaker with extensions on the top of the handles. 8. Požarevac A two-handled beaker with trapezoidal mouth originates from the site of Živinarska Farma in Požarevac (Stojić, Jacanović 2008, T. LXXXVI/1, sl. 39), which is very similar to beakers from Židovar and Omoljica, but with slightly concaved top of the handles (the so-called pseudo ansa lunata). The beaker is a chance find, with no precise data on the context of origin. 9. Ljuljaci, Kragujevac Eight two-handled beakers with trapezoidal mouth were found during the excavations at the site of Milića Brdo in Ljuljaci, Central Serbia (Bogdanović 1986, cat.no. 131138). The beakers were registered in all three cultural layers which are attributed to a period from the end of the Early Bronze Age to the end of the Middle Bronze Age. They are slightly biconical, very similar to each other, with two handles oval in cross-section. Ornaments are represented with thickenings on the belly, and a button-shaped extension is evidenced on top of the handles. One of them is different in many ways. It is slimmer than the others, has a globular body, low foot and handles which highly surpass the rim (Fig. 2/h). The earliest layer in Ljuljaci is dated to 3480±100 BP (Gogaltan 1999, 224, Pl. 16), which is in calibrated values 1940-1680 cal BC, while the second layer is dated to 3370±100 BP, or 1770-1520 in calibrated values (with the probability of 64.6%). 10. Svetozarevo (nowadays Jagodina) Two-handled beaker with trapezoidal mouth was registered as a chance find from an unknown site in Majur, Svetozarevo (Stojić 1980, cat. no. 39). The beaker is biconical with a higher upper cone and has no ornaments. 11. Gornja Gorevnica, Čačak Аt multilayered site of Slatina in Gornja Gorevnica near Čačak, Central Serbia, besides other, the Early/Middle Bronze Age pottery, a two-handled beaker with trapezoidal mouth was recorded (Dmitrović 2009, 7-8, T. 2/1). It has a biconical shape, with handles oval in cross-section and thickening on the belly. 125 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project 12. Ostra, Čačak Two beakers with trapezoidal mouth were revealed on the hilltop site of Sokolica in Ostra near Čačak (Dmitrović, Ljuština 2007, 11-12, T. III/1, 2). Both are biconical with two handles oval in cross-section and thickenings on their bellies. The other pottery indicates that the site belongs to the end of the Early or the Middle Bronze Age. 13. Paraćin Museum in Paraćin possesses three two-handled beakers with trapezoidal mouth which are thought to originate from the site of Gloždak in Paraćin2. Two beakers have globular form and short neck and two handles of oval cross-section (Stojić 1998, 85, Pl. V/2, 6). The third one is sharply biconical, ornamented with two incised horizontal lines on the belly, with two parallel rows of pricked dots in between (Stojić 1998, Pl. V/2, 6) (Fig. 2/b). The site of Gloždak is a necropolis of the Late Bronze Age, so if the beakers originate from that site, they would represent the youngest finds of this type of vessel at all. 14. Lešje, Paraćin A two-handled beaker with trapezoidal mouth originates from the site of Baba in Lešje eastern of Paraćin (Stojić 1998, 85, Pl. V/7). The beaker is globular, with a short neck. It is a chance find with no other information on its context. 15. Podgorac, Bor At the site of Strmljeno in Podgorac near Bor, Eastern Serbia, a biconical two-handled beaker was found as a chance find (Kapuran 2014, 110, T. 15/11). It is decorated with two parallel rows of pricks on its belly. 16. Trnjane, Bor A two-handled beaker with trapezoidal mouth was found in grave 32 during the excavation of the Bronze Age necropolis of cremated deceased in Trnjane near Bor (Jovanović, Janković 1996, Abb. 9a/2). The beaker has a biconical form and two handles of a strip cross-section. Other pottery from the necropolis bears the characteristics of Vatin culture, as well as Paraćin and Brnjica groups of the Late Bronze Age in the Central Balkans (Jovanović, Janković 1996, 196197). New absolute dates show that the necropolis belongs to the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age (Kapuran et al. forthcoming). 2 The information was obtained from Vesna Vučković, curator of the Hometown museum in Paraćin. 126 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project 17. Kučajna, Bor A two-handled biconical beaker with trapezoidal mouth originates from the site of Kučajna in southwestern periphery of Bor (Stojić 1998, Pl. V/11; Kapuran 2014, T. 15/10). 18. Orašje, Kruševac A two-handled beaker with trapezoidal mouth was found during the plowing in the village of Orašje near Kruševac (Stojić 1998, Pl. V/1; Čađenović 2000, 167, sl. 2/3). The handles are slightly concave in cross-section. Save for the beaker, a large urn, a small cup and a considerable portion of ash were all recorded, but the finder saved only the beaker and the cup. 19. Poljna, Kruševac In 2000, G. Čađenović published a two-handled slightly biconical beaker with trapezoidal mouth decorated with two rows of pricks filled with white paste on its belly and stated the site of Lazarev Grad in Kruševac as its place of origin (Čađenović 2000, 163-164, sl. 2/2). A few years after, the village of Poljna was named as the original site for the same beaker (Stojić, Čađenović 2006, sl. 54). So it remains unclear where exactly the beaker originates from, but in both cases, it is connected with the area of Kruševac. 20. Lazarev grad, Kruševac During the rescue excavations of the multilayered site of Lazarev Grad in Kruševac, besides the numerous pottery from the Early/Middle Bronze Age, a two-handled sharply biconical beaker(s) with trapezoidal mouth was recorded (Stojić, Čađenović 2006, sl. 12)3. The beaker is decorated with two parallel rows of pricks filled with white paste at the bottom of the upper cone and with four pricks in several spots distributed above the rows. 21. Vitkovac, Aleksinac From the unknown site in Vitkovac near Aleksinac originates a sharply biconical beaker (cup) with one handle and a single trapezoidal extension on the rim (Praistorijske kulture 1971, cat. no. 225; Stojić, Jocić 2006, T. X/1, sl. 86). The bottom of the upper cone is decorated with groups of two pricked rows framed with two incised parallel lines (Fig. 2/d). 3 It could be two beakers if one of them does not originate from Poljna. 127 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project 22. Velika Humska Čuka, Niš During the excavations of the multilayered site of Velika Humska Čuka near Niš, in feature 8/09, a pair of two-handled slightly biconical beakers with trapezoidal mouth were found, together with a flat bronze axe with thickened rims (Randleistenbeil type) and other characteristic pottery for the Middle Bronze Age (Bulatović, Milanović 2015, 170-171, T. III/58-60). The handles of one of the beakers possessed button-shaped plastic extensions (Fig. 2/e). According to the type of the axe (Popov Salaš, Trućevac) (Tasić 1984, 68, Abb. 7; Garašanin 1954, 1, T. IV), the feature 8/09 belongs to the Middle Bronze Age. 23. Bubanj, Niš Three biconical two-handled beakers with trapezoidal mouth and a beaker (cup) with one handle and one trapezoidal plastic extension on its rim were found at the site of Bubanj in Niš. The contexts and relative vertical stratigraphy of the finds are uncertain (Garašanin, Đurić 1983, cat. no. 167; Stojić, Jocić 2006, T. LXXIV/190-192). Oršić, Slavetić stated that two of them were found 30 cm beneath the surface (Oršić Slavetić 1940, 11, Abb. 6/2, 4), in a mixed layer together with the Early Copper Age pottery. 24. Medijana, Niš At the site of Motel within the antique site of Medijana in Niš, a fragment of a biconical beaker with trapezoidal mouth was registered together with other pottery typical for the Middle Bronze Age (Jevtić 1975, T. XIV/8). The beaker has a plastic button-shaped extension on the top of the handle and a plastic thickening on its belly. 25. Kaštavar, Leskovac A two-handled sharply biconical beaker with trapezoidal mouth originates from the site of Kaštavar near Leskovac (Stojić 1998, Pl. VI/4). The context of the find is unknown. 26. Štulac, Lebane During the systematic excavations at the site of Svinjarička Čuka in Štulac near Lebane three two-handled sharply biconical beakers with trapezoidal mouth were recorded4. The beakers were found next to a disturbed feature 1016 from the Middle/Late Bronze Age (Horejs et al. 2019, 164166), which was dated to 1743-1688 cal BC (68.4% prob4 The excavations, started in 2018, are carried out by the OREA Institute in Vienna and the Institute of Archaeology in Belgrade. 128 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project bility), which corresponds to a general dating of such beakers. One of the beakers was completely preserved and the other was fragmented with almost all pieces in place, which could indicate that they originate from feature 1016. In 2019 fragments of similar beakers were found in a huge pit together with pottery from the Middle Bronze Age. Absolute dates from the pit are expected. Discussion It has been noted that this type of vessel is distributed throughout the vast territory from Pannonian Plain to the mountainous area of the southern part of the Central Balkans, and from the Timok Basin to the Zapadna Morava Basin. This territory measures ca 75000 km2, although it does not represent a compact area since an “empty space”, without any finds of these particular vessels, has been registered between the Sava and Danube confluence and Cental Panonia (Fig. 1). Interestingly, the northernmost find of such beaker is in Pákozdvár near Balaton Lake in the Pannonian Plain (Tompa 1934/35, Taf. 29/2; Bona 1975, Taf. 131/13), some 150 km far from the area in which these beakers were registered in a considerable number (the Mureş and Tisa confluence) (Fig. 1/1-3). This find is one of a kind in this area and its characteristics differ from all other beakers with trapezoidal mouth. It is sharply biconical with a longer neck and a short foot (Fig. 3). Still, it is ornamented with incised or grooved horizontal and vertical lines and has ansa lunata type of handles, similar to the other Pannonian beakers. The beaker is attributed to the Middle Bronze Age, phase Bz 3 (Bona 1975, 115). Besides the lonely beaker from Pákozdvár and a certain number of such beakers in the area of Mureş and Tisa confluence, this type of vessels are numerous in the Central Balkans, especially in the Južna Morava Basin, the Timok Basin and the area between Zapadna Morava and Velika Morava rivers. Considering all of the characteristics of such beakers, such as shape, type of handle, modeling of mouth, decoration and other, they can be classified into two basic types – Central Balkan type and Pannonian type, with various subtypes and variants. The first type, marked as Central Balkan, includes beakers from Timok Basin, Zapadna, Južna and Velika Morava basins, as well as beakers from sites in southern Banat (Fig. 1/5-26). This type of beakers 129 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project with handles which slightly surpass the rim or stand in line with the rim and mouth discreetly modeled in the shape of two trapezoidal extensions (Fig. 2). The decoration is uncommon for this type and comes down to modeled thickening on the belly (Fig. 2/c), or quite rarely, two horizontal rows of punctuated dotted pricks on the lower portion of the upper cone, which are occasionally filled with white incrustation (Vitkovac, Podgorac, Lazarev Grad) (Fig. 2/b, d). Button-shaped extensions on top of the handles are also quite rare (Velika Humska Čuka, Ljuljaci, Medijana, Moldova Veche) (Fig. 2/e, f). Based on certain characteristics within this type, two subtypes can be distinguished: the socalled southern subtype (identical form, mostly undecorated except for the button-shaped extensions on top of the handles) (Fig. 2/a, e) and the Danube subtype (Moldova Veche) (Fig. 2/f), characterized by elements of both Central Balkan (proportions, form, extensions on handles) and Pannonian type (short foot, emphasized modeling of the mouth). The southern subtype encompasses examples from the sites of Bubanj, Medijana, Velika Humska Čuka, Kaštavar, and Svinjarička Čuka. It should be noted that save for two-handled beakers, a variant with one handle (a cup) and modeled trapezoidal mouth on one side is also recorded (Bubanj and Vitkovac) (Fig. 2/d). Likewise, some of the beakers in the Danube Region (southern Banat) differ from typical Central Balkan type, since those possess a profiled base which resembles a foot and the decoration represented by modeled triangular thickening on the belly (Židovar, Požarevac) (Fig. 2/g), similar to the beakers of Pannonian type. It seems as such differentiation could rather be explained by their younger chronological attribution, rather than distribution, which will be discussed together with absolute dates. The other type, defined as Panonnian, possesses globular form, short neck and handles with a distinctly conical cross-section (ansa lunata type) (Fig. 3). The mouth is modeled in the shape of two distinctly trapezoidal extensions, and the beakers are mostly decorated with shallow vertical and horizontal grooves on the belly, which ofter form a triangle (Fig. 3/a, c, d). Some of the beakers are decorated with triangular of wart-like modeled thickenings on the belly (Fig. 3/b, d), or rarely with incised zigzag lines and stamps (Pecica) (Fig. 3/c). The example from Pákozdvár could be separated as a subtype due to extremely biconical belly, long neck, and short foot (Fig. 3/d). 130 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Fig. 1 Map of distribution of beakers with trapezoidal mouth (the background of the map is provided by the courtesy of Mihailo Milinković)1. Szoreg, Szeged; 2. Deszk A, Szeged; 3. Pecica, Arad; 4. Čoka, Senta; 5. Židovar, Vršac; 6.Omoljica, Pančevo; 7. Moldova Veche; 8. Požarevac; 9. Ljuljaci, Kragujevac; 10. Svetozarevo; 11. Gornja Gorevnica, Čačak; 12. Ostra, Čačak; 13. Paraćin; 14. Lešje, Paraćin; 15. Podgorac, Bor; 16. Trnjane, Bor; 17. Kučajna, Bor; 18. Orašje, Kruševac; 19. Poljna, Kruševac; 20. Lazarev grad, Kruševac; 21. Vitkovac, Aleksinac; 22. Velika Humska Čuka, Niš; 23. Bubanj, Niš; 24. Medijana, Niš; 25. Kaštavar, Leskovac; 26. Štulac, Lebane. 131 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Fig. 2 The examples of the Central Balkan type of beakers with trapezoidal mouth Although its shape clearly differs from other examples of Pannonian type, its handles, decoration, and mouth are similar to other examples of this type. It is quite interesting that the proposed types of beakers with trapezoidal mouth display a quite homogenous distribution in certain geographic areas, meaning that the Central Balkan type is characteristic solely for the Central Balkans and the Pannonian mostly for the Pannonian Plain and more precisely the confluence area of Tisa and Mureş rivers. The earliest dates for beakers with trapezoidal mouth originate from the sites of Ljuljaci, Omoljica and Trnjani necropolis. Classical beakers with trapezoidal mouth are distributed in the first and second horizon at the site of Ljuljaci, (Bogdanović 1986, 59-62, cat.no.131-136), while the example with foot and the example with button-shaped extensions on handles is recorded solely in the youngest, 132 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Fig. 3 The examples of the Pannonian type of beakers with trapezoidal mouth third horizon (Bogdanović 1986, 59-62, cat.no. 137, 138). The first horizon is dated to a period 1940-1680 cal BC (with the probability of 68.2%), and the second horizon to a period 1770-1520 cal BC (Gogaltan 1999, 224, Pl. 16) (Fig. 4). Based on the stylistic and typological characteristics of pottery, the last date would rather fit into the third horizon, which is not dated according to the author (Bogdanović 1986, 70). Grave 32 at Trnjane necropolis, in which a beaker with trapezoidal mouth is recorded, is not dated, but the necropolis itself is dated by samples from two graves to a period 2016-1627 (95.4%), meaning 1947-1664 calBC (68.2%) (Kapuran et al. forthcoming, Fig. 9/a, e, f) (Fig. 4). Taking into consideration the lowest date, the beaker certainly originates prior to the 17th century BC, most likely from the 19-18th century BC. 133 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project One of the higher dates that could date the beakers comes from Omoljica (Fig. 4). The date (2040-1690 cal BC, with the probability of 95.4%, meaning 1960-1760 cal BC, with the probability of 68.2%) (Gogaltan 1999, 224, Pl. 16) certainly corresponds to the earlier horizon at the site, or the so-called Pančevo-Omoljica phase of Vatin culture, to which the beaker with trapezoidal mouth belongs as well. These beakers have been indirectly dated at the site of Svinjarička Čuka near Lebane (Fig. 4). Namely, the beakers (one completely preserved, and one fragmented with all pieces in place) were found immediately next to a disturbed feature, dated to 1756-1643 cal BC (95.4%), meaning 1743-1688 cal BC (68.2%) (Horejs et al. 2019), which would correspond to their dating on other sites, especially the younger horizon at the site of Ljuljaci. According to the available absolute dates, the Pannonian type of beakers with trapezoidal mouth is slightly younger. All of the sites in which these beakers are registered correspond to the Pecica C layer which is dated to 1750-1600 cal BC (O’Shea et al. 2011, 69-70, Tab. 1), or more precisely its earlier phase attributed to 1750-1650 cal BC. According to all of the available absolute dates, this type of vessel appears in the territory of Central Balkans in a period between the end of the 20th and the beginning of the 17th century BC, and most likely in the 19-18th century BC. Regarding chronology, types, and variants of beakers, it has been noted that beakers with button-shaped extensions on handles, as well as slender beakers on a foot from the site of Ljuljaci, could be younger, especially considering that both variants were recorded within the youngest layer at the site of Ljuljaci, which could be dated between the 18th and the 16th century BC or slightly later. A beaker with button-shaped extensions, almost identical to the example from the site of Ljuljaci, was recorded at the site of Velika Humska Čuka (Fig. 2/e), in an feature together with a Randleistenbeil type of axe. The identical type of axe was recorded at the site of Popov Salaš, which is based on it and a bronze winged pin (Tasić 1983, sl. 24), dated to a Br B/C period according to Reinecke chronology (D. Garašanin 1983, 803; Vasić 2003, Taf. 70)5, even though the site has previously been attributed to the earlier phase of Vatin culture based on the axe and existing ceramic forms 5 This lower dating is also more consistent with the results of the analyses of chemical composition of metal objects from the site of Popov Salaš, as well as the axe from the site of Velika Humska Čuka. Namely, they were all made of tin bronze, indicating a developed Bronze Age of the Central Balkans (the analyses were conducted within the Jadar project, which is realised by the Brooklyn College, New York and the Institute of Archeology, Belgrade). 134 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project (according to M. Garašanin, to Pančevo-Omoljica phase, 1983, 513-514; according to N. Tasić, to an early phase, 1983, 61-62 ). Therefore, based on absolute dates, it seems as if this type of beaker originated in the area of Central Balkans and most likely in the central part of the Velika Morava Basin or Južna Morava Basin. This area is also indicated by the stylistic and typological elements registered on the pottery of the Bubanj-Hum III cultural group (Garašanin 1983b), that preceded the appearance of beakers with trapezoidal mouth. Save for beakers with two handles in line with the rim, this group is also characterized by variously profiled bowls, often decorated with modeled extensions on the rim, which possess a triangular, horn-like, trapezoidal or other profile. The earliest absolute dates for this group fall into the 25/24th century BC, from the site of Velika Humska Čuka (Fig. 4), where a group of pottery from the Early Bronze Age layer in trench 1/15 (6th-8th technical spits) has been dated. Save for pear-shaped two-handled beaker, the group of pottery contained a bowl with a modeled triangular extension on the rim (Fig. 5/1, 2). A similar combination was recorded some 150 km to the south at the site of Pelince, in a ritual pit Б28, in which a similar bowl dated to the 24/23rd century BC has been recorded (Bulatović et al. 2020) (Fig. 4). A bowl with modeled extension similar to the ones from beakers which are in the focus of this paper has been recorded in a pit next to the previous one (Fig. 5/10). A similar bowl has been recorded in a ritual pit containing Early Bronze Age pottery at the site of Davidovac near Vranje (Bulatović 2014, Pl. II/25-28, Pl. III/29, 30) (Fig. 5/16), as well within a ritual space at the site of Tatićev Kamen near Kumanovo (Bulatović 2014, Pl. III/32). In terms of chronology, the closest finds of similar bowls originate from a shallow pit (feature 1/08) at the site of Bubanj near Niš. This pit, which contained numerous bowls with trapezoidal, horn-like and triangular extensions on the rim (Bulatović, Stankovski 2012, T. IX, X), is dated to the 21/20th century BC (Bulatović, Vander Linden 2017) (Fig. 4). Two dates from two Early Bronze Age pits at the sites of Rit and Nad Klepečkom are quite interesting, especially since the sites are relatively close to the site in Omoljica, where a beaker with trapezoidal mouth has been recorded. The pits are dated to the 21/20th century BC, same as the sites of the Bubanj-Hum III group in the southern parts of 135 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project the Central Balkans, yet contained no vessels with modeled extensions (Fig. 4). The fact that besides numerous pottery this pits concurrent with feature 1 at the site of Bubanj did not contain modeled extensions on vessels, indicates that the development of Early Bronze Age in this part of the Danube Region was somewhat different, as there are no stylistic or typological ceramic elements which could evolve into beakers with trapezoidal mouth. Perhaps the finest example for the evolution of bowls with trapezoidal extensions into beakers with trapezoidal mouth is the example of a bowl from the site of Zvezdan near Zaječar in Eastern Serbia, where one part of the mouth is modeled almost identical as the beakers, and the portion of the rim above the handle is modeled in a manner typical for bowls of Bubanj-Hum III group (Kapuran 2009, T. X/7) (Fig. 5/15). Bowls with trapezoidal extension, similar to bowls from the sites of Davidovac, Pelince or Kokino Selo, were recorded together with it (Kapuran 2009, T. X/9, 10). The site is not dated, and based on the similar pottery at the site of Ružana 1 (Kapuran et al. 2016), which is dated to the 19/18th century BC (Bulatović et al. forthcoming) (Fig. 4), it most likely originates from the end of the Early and the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age. The relatively low date for pottery of similar stylistic and typological characteristics as the pottery registered at the sites of Bubanj, Pelince or Velika Humska Čuka, and which are attributed to Bubanj-Hum III group dated to the 25-20th century BC (Fig. 4), could indicate that such forms occur later in Timočka Krajina Region, maybe together with beakers with trapezoidal mouth. Concluding remarks Beakers with trapezoidal mouth have always attracted the attention of archaeologists and were mostly attributed to proto-Vatin or Vatin culture in the literature (Srejović 1997, 609-610; Bogdanović 1986; Stojić 1998). The first authors who singled out these finds into a unique group Ljuljaci I were N. Tasić and N.N. Tasić (2003, 98). Later, A. Bulatović and J. Stankovski have based on the results of the Early Bronze Age research in Južna Morava Basin defined a new cultural group of that period, Bubanj-Hum IV – Ljuljaci, whose most recognizable element are exactly those beakers, along with other pottery which will be further discussed (Bulatović, Stankovski 2012, 337-347). 136 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Fig. 4 Chronological table of beakers with trapezoidal mouth and previous cultural group (VHČ – Velika Humska Čuka, one date from a group of Bubanj-Hum III pottery in the Early Bronze Age layer; Pelince – one date from ritual pit Б28; NK – Nad Klepečkom, one date from feature 9, trench 77; Bubanj – one date from feature 1/08; Rit – one date from feature 1, trench 18; Ljulj. – Ljuljaci, dates from I and II horizons; Trnjane – two dates, graves 10 and 28; Omolj. – Omoljica, one date for the earlier horizon (Omoljica-Pančevo); Ruž. – Ružana 1; SČ – Svinjarička Čuka – one date from feature 1016; Pecica C – a group of dates from Pecica C layer). Grey zones in images represent the probability of sigma 2 range and darker zones the probability of sigma 1 range. Namely, based on the analysis of finds from enclosed objects and available absolute dates, the authors came to a similar conclusion that the ceramic inventory of the Middle Bronze Age in the Morava Region can not be defined within the Vatin culture, as some authors state (Stojić 1998, 8199), based solely on sporadic finds of Vatin elements and neglecting much more common pottery at the sites, whose stylistic and typological characteristics do not correspond to Vatin culture. Even earlier, D. Garašanin has noted the chronological gap between Early Bronze Age BubanjHum III culture and Late Bronze Age Paraćin group, and proposed a prolonged duration of Bubanj-Hum III group, based on the finds from the site of Ljuljaci and the territory of Kosovo (D. Garašanin 1983, 801), without even mentioning the possibility of of marking the Middle Bronze 137 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Age material culture in this area as Vatin. New finds of beakers with trapezoidal mouth, especially the examples from excavations, and the accompanying pottery as well as absolute dates acquired in the last several years, have actualized this subject and confirmed the necessity for the existence of a particular group, recently named as Bubanj-Hum IV-Ljuljaci group. Therefore, according to the absolute dates, it has been noted that the beakers with trapezoidal mouth have originated from the Central Balkans during the 19–18th century BC, before the appearance of “Vatin elements“ in the area. Such beakers are accompanied by pottery with similar stylistic and typological characteristics such as slightly biconical bowls or slightly S profiled bowls with or without ribbon-like handles (Bulatović, Stankovski 2012, T. XXI/1, 2; Bogdanović 1986, cat.no. 44-49; Stojić, Čađenović 2006, T. XLIII/63-66, Т. LXXXV/34), semi-globular cups with one handle which surpasses the rim (Bogdanović 1986, cat.no. 31-35), two-handled sharply biconical beakers with handles which slightly surpass the rim, sometimes decorated with horizontal rows of dotted pricks (Bulatović, Stankovski 2012, T. XXII/13; Stojić, Čađenović 2006, T. XXII/13, T. XLII/61, 62,T. LXXXI/1, T. LXXXV/29-32; Stojić, Jocić 2006, T. XV/43, T. LXXIV/188-194, T. LXXV/199-205; material from a pit at the site of Svinjarička Čuka6), pear-shaped two-handled beakers with handles in line with the rim or slightly surpassing the rim (Bogdanović 1986, cat.no. 27, 29; material from a pit at the site of Svinjarička Čuka; Stojić, Čađenović 2006, T. XXII/13), large pots with wide mouth decorated with modeled bands with notches or finger impressions, or finger impressions distributed in rows on the upper portion of the vessel or the belly (Bulatović, Stankovski 2012, Kapuran et al. 2014, T. 3 i 4; Bogdanović 1986, cat.no. 55-66; material from a pit at the site of Svinjarička Čuka). The stratigraphy at the site of Ljuljaci, in which Vatin pottery occurs in small numbers in horizon II and slightly more in horizon III, indicates that autochthonous forms occur in all of the horizons, while the so-called “Vatin pottery” is sporadic and younger than the beginning of habitation at the site in phase I. A similar situation has been registered in Timočka Krajina Region, where Verbicoara culture elements are mixed with autochthonous elements, which are based on the stylistic and typological charac6 The material from the Middle Bronze Age pit is unpublished. 138 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Fig. 5 Characteristic pottery of the Bubanj-Hum III group from which beakers with trapezoidal mouth probably evolved (1-2. Velika Humska Čuka, Trench 1/15, group of pottery from the Early Bronze Age layer; 3-8. Bubanj, feature 1/08; 9. Pelince, ritual pit Б28; 10. Pelince, ritual pit Г29; 11-13. Ružana 1; 1415. Zvezdan; 16. Davidovac) 139 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project teristics attributed to Bubanj-Hum IV-Ljuljaci group. It seems as if certain elements of the Bubanj-Hum IV – Ljuljaci group are younger and not concurrent with the beakers with trapezoidal mouth. Those are handles which imitate the ansa lunata type from the north, which occur in the horizon III at the site of Ljuljaci (Bogdanović 1986, cat.no. 39), and the button-shaped extensions on top of the handles, which are also common for the final horizon at the site of Ljuljaci, meaning the final phases of the Middle Bronze Age (Br B according to Reinecke). Such dating would correspond to the chronological attribution of feature 8/09 at the site of Velika Humska Čuka, in which a trapezoidal beaker with button-shaped extensions on handles was recorded. Interestingly, the imitations of ansa lunata handle rarely occur far in the south of the BubanjHum IV – Ljuljaci group territory, in southern Morava Region, while the button-shaped extensions on handles are quite common in the south and remain in use even during the Late Bronze Age, in Paraćin and Brnjica cultures. The presence of the so-called ansa lunata type of handles in the central Morava Region and Timočka Krajina Region is apparently the result of contacts between bearers of Bubanj-Hum IV-Ljuljaci group from this territory and Vatin group from Pannonia and the Danube Region. The interconnection is less observable in the southern Morava Region, where beakers with slightly concave handles, the imitations of ansa lunata type, occur sporadically (Bulatović, Stankovski 2012, T. IV/29, T. XX/1). However, it seems as if the button-shaped extensions on handles are likely the result of interactions between bearers of Bubanj-Hum IV-Ljuljaci group with the bearers of the same group in Timočka Krajina Region, where elements of Verbicioara group are quite common starting from the 19/18th century BC (Kapuran 2009; Kapuran et al. 2016, T. 2, T. 5/6, 7). Also, the influence of the Verbicioara group is to a lesser or greater degree present in most of the territory attributed to the Bubanj-Hum IV-Ljuljaci group, save for the southwestern periphery (the territory of Kosovo). Therefore, lids and handles with plastic decorations on top, ornamented with transversal notches or zigzag incision in the middle, appear in horizon III at the site of Ljuljaci, which is dated to a period after the 17/16th century BC (Bogdanović 1986, cat.no. 183, 206). Those are similar to examples of phase III of Verbicioara culture in Oltenia (Craciunescu 2004, 227, Pl. LII/2, LVII/2, 3), 140 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project though Verbicioara elements are common in Timočka Krajina Region even earlier. Numerous stylistic and typological elements of Verbicioara group are present on pottery from the site of Velika Humska Čuka, yet it seems from the end of the Middle and during the Late Bronze Age (Bulatović, Milanović 2015, 170-171, Т. IV/61-64, 80-81). The ornament of dotted pricks (Podgorac, Paraćin, Maskare, Marenovo, Globoder, etc.) (Fig. 2/b, d; Stojić, Jocić 2006, T. XXII/13, T. LXXXI/1), which are often filled with white incrustation (Lazarev Grad) (Stojić, Jocić 2006, sl. 12, 54) could be considered as chronologically relevant since it most likely originates as a consequence of contacts with populations from the Danube Region, where this represents a common ornament during the developed phase of the Middle Bronze Age (Br B), while such manner of ornamentation is unknown in the Central Balkans since the Late Eneolithic, meaning the BubanjHum II group. Anyway, it can be assumed that the core of the BubanjHum IV-Ljuljaci group territory encompassed the area of Central Balkans, expanding to the Danube Region, and Timočka Krajina Region. This group originated from the Bubanj-Hum III group, with almost no hiatus in between, which is indicated by dates from the sites of Bubanj and Ljuljaci and the similar stylistic and typological characteristics of pottery registered in both groups. Based on the stratigraphy, especially at the site of Ljuljaci, absolute dates and stylistic and typological characteristics of pottery, it is assumed that the groups lasted between the 19/18th century BC and the 15/14th century BC, (Bulatović et al. 2018). At the moment, the data on the housing of this group is available based on the excavations at the sites of Ljuljaci (Bogdanović 1986, 15-32) and Trnjani (Jovanović, Janković 1990, 1). The metal finds from this period in the territory of Bubanj-Hum IV-Ljuljlaci group are rare (Garašanin 1983, 799-801), which is interesting, having mind that traces of copper metallurgy have been registered on several sites in Timočka Krajina Region in past few years (Kapuran et al. 2016; Kapuran et al. forthcoming).Burial practice is known solely for the Timočka Krajina Region, where the deceased were cremated and buried beneath the circular stone structures (Srejović, Lazić 1997, 233) in specific urns, with horizontal cup-shaped handles. All of the noted elements characteristic only for this region 141 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project indicate the possibility that the group had a specific development in the geographically isolated region of Timočka Krajina (isolated from the Morava Region; orographically opened to Oltenia and Northwestern Bulgaria), which led Srejović and Lazić to define it as a separate, Gamzigrad culture (1997, 241). This question thoroughly argued in the literature (Kapuran 2009; Bulatović, Stankovski 2012), requires the full attention of researchers, and surpasses the extension of this paper. The early Vatin group, the so-called Pančevo-Omoljica phase (a beaker with trapezoidal mouth was recorded at the eponymous site of Omoljica) originated from similar traditions as Bubanj Hum IV-Ljuljaci group, from the Bubanj-Hum III traditions, although under a certain influence of Pannonian Early Bronze Age cultures, especially Mureş group. It is represented in forms of beakers of early Vatin group, which resemble the pottery from the sites of Rit and Nad Klepečkom in Viminacium (21/20th century BC) (Bulatović et al 2019, 63, T. 1/11, T. 2/12; Kapuran et al. 2019, 99, T. 4/14, T. 5/1-4, T. 7/18), where pottery with stylistic and typological characteristics of both BubanjHum III and Mureş groups have been recorded in enclosed features. A form similar to early Vatin beakers, with lowered and etage belly, often with four wart-like thickenings is registered within the Mureş group (Girić 1971, T. XXV/ gr. 82, T. LXXXVI/2), which points to the certain cultural basis for the formation of the early Vatin culture, which develops its recognizable character in the later phase, due to contacts with of encrusted pottery cultures, and trough keeping the form of beakers from the earlier phase. Numerous finds of beakers with trapezoidal mouth far to the north, in the territory of Mureş group, are quite interesting, considering that this territory and the Central Balkans are separated by a “gap” represented by lack of finds of such beakers. (Fig. 1). However, in terms of forms and ornaments, such beakers completely correspond to the Mureş group and resemble the ones from the Central Balkans solely in the modeling of mouth, although the ones from the north are of more emphasized modeling. The idea that the origin territory for those beakers is Pannonia was quickly discarded for several reasons, even though a total of eleven beakers have been registered within the relatively small area near Mureş and Tisa (Fig. 1). Firstly, during the preceding period in the territory of the Mureş group (approximately the 21-18th century BC, O’Shea 142 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project 1996, Tab. 3.1), there are no elements that would indicate an evolution towards those beakers, as is the case with the Central Balkans. This primarily refers to the idea of decoration with modeled extensions on the rim, which is completely unknown in the Mureş group, yet one of the most prominent characteristics of Bubanj-Hum III culture in the Central Balkans. Secondly, this type of beakers appears in the Central Balkans in the 19/18th century BC (possibly even earlier according to dating spans of Ljuljaci and Omoljica, Fig. 4), while the Pannonian examples are dated to late Mureş group or Pecica C phase, a period between 1750 and 1650/1600 BC, which negates the idea of their origin in Pannonia. However, it is interesting that during the earlier period, the Early Bronze Age, numerous finds of beakers of Bubanj (Bubanj-Hum III group type) have been registered in the same territories, including the same “gap” in finds between certain regions. (Bulatović, Stankovski 2012, 345 i nap. 516). Such data indicate certain connections, direct or indirect contacts (the process of cultural transmission) of populations that inhabited the Central Balkans and wider zone of Mureş and Tisa confluence during the Early and Middle Bronze Age, and whose intensity and character remain unclear. Conclusion The short analysis of beakers with trapezoid mouth and the accompanying pottery has indicated several important points for the research of the Middle Bronze Age of the Central Balkans. The distribution of such beakers has shown their representation mostly in Morava Region, Šumadija Region, and Timočka Krajina Region, and sporadically in southern Banat. The exceptions are numerous examples registered in the Mureş and Tisa confluence area, which are, as it seems, younger and represent the result of intensive contacts, processes of cultural transmission between the population of the Central Balkans and this part of Pannonia during the Middle Bronze Age. Through the analysis of absolute dates, stylistic and typological characteristics of beakers with trapezoidal mouth and the accompanying pottery, as well as their distribution, it has been concluded that those represent one of the most recognizable form of the material culture of the Middle Bronze Age in the Central Balkans, which is, in the lack 143 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project of a more appropriate term, marked as Bubanj-Hum IV – Ljuljaci according to the eponymous sites and the fact that it has evolved from the previous Bubanj-Hum III culture almost without a chronological hiatus. The earliest finds of beakers with trapezoidal mouth are registered in Šumadija, Morava Region and Timočka Krajina Region, and originate from the 19/18th century BC, and therefore, it can be assumed with a dose of the reserve, that the group was formed in the area of Šumadija, the upper course of Južna Morava River, central Morava Region, and (possibly) Timočka Krajina Region, and spread far to the Danube Region in the north. The development of the group in bordering regions was somewhat different due to the presence of elements of different cultures from the neighboring regions (Vatin, Verbicioara). It had an independent development from Vatin culture, although certain Vatin and Verbicioara elements formed through contacts of the group with populations in the Danube Region and eastern parts of the Central Balkans are recognized in its central territory during later phases. Bubanj-Hum IV – Ljuljaci group ceases to exist at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, during the 15/14th century BC, when it is replaced by younger cultures that originated from its traditions. Therefore, Paraćin group is formed in the wider area of the central Morava Region, and Brnjica culture in the territory of the Južna Morava Basin: both groups retain numerous stylistic and typological elements of pottery from the previous period and testify a certain cultural continuity in the Central Balkans during the entire Bronze Age. 144 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project References • • • • • • • • • • Богдановић, M. 1986. Љуљаци, насеље протоватинске и ватинске културе, Крагујевац. Bona, I. 1975. Die Mittlere Bronzezeit Ungarns und ihre Südöstlichen Beziehungen, Akadémia Kiadó, Budapest. Bronzano doba Srbije 1972. у: Коларић, М. (ур.), Бронзано доба Србије каталог изложбе, Народни музеј у Београду, Београд. Bulatović, A., 2011. Relations between Cultural Groups in the Early Bronze Age in Southeastern Serbia, Western Bulgaria and North-eastern Macedonia, Archaeologica Bulgarica, XV, 2, Sofia, 81-94. Bulatović, A. 2014. New Finds as a contribution to the study of the Early Bronze Age in the southern part of the Central Balkans, Starinar n.s. LXIV, Београд, 57-75. Bulatović, A., Gori, M., Vander Linden, M. 2018. New Absolute Dates As A Contribution To The Study Of The Late Bronze Age Chronology in The Central Balkans, Гласник САД 34, 121-132. Булатовић, А. и Милановић, Д. 2015. Велика хумска чука, истраживања 2009. године прилог проучавању стратиграфије енеолита и бронзаног доба у југоисточној Србији, Гласник Српског археолошког друштва 30, Београд, 163-188. Булатовић, А. и Станковски, Ј. 2012. Бронзано доба у басену Јужне Мораве и у долини Пчиње/ Бронзено време во басенот на Јужна Морава и долината на Пчиња, Археолошки институт Београд и НУ Музеј, Куманово. Bulatović, A., Vander Linden, M. 2017. Absolute Dating of Copper and Early Bronze Age Levels at the Eponymous Archaeological Site Bubanj (Southeastern Serbia), Radiocarbon 59/4, 1047– 1065. Bulatović, A., Jovičić, M., Milovanović, B. 2019, Horizont ranog bronzanog doba na lokalitetu Rit / Early Bronze Age horizon at the site of Rit, u/ in: Kapuran, A., Bulatović, A., Filipović, V., Golubović, S. (ur./eds). Viminacijum u praistoriji / Viminacium in Prehistory, Arheološki institut, Beograd, 57-79. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Bulatović, A., Gori, M., Vander Linden, M. 2020. Radiocarbon Dating the 3rd Millennium BC in the Central Balkans: a re-examination of the Early Bronze Age sequence, Radiocarbon vol. 62, Nr5, 1163-1191. Bulatović, A., Kapuran, A., Gavranović, M. forthcoming. New absolute dates for the Middle and Late Bronze Ages in the Central Balkans and some indications of the local bronze metallurgy and workshops, Searching for Gold, Proceedings of Conference held in Vienna, in June 9-10th. Crăciunescu, G. 2014, Cultura Verbicoara în jumătatea vestică a Olteniei, Craiova. Дмитровић, K. 2009. Бронзано доба у чачанском крају, необјављен магистарски рад одбрањен 2009. године на Одељењу за археологију Филозофског факултета у Београду. Дмитровић, К. и Љуштина, М. 2007. Керамика из бронзаног доба на локалитету Соколица у Остри код Чачка, Зборник Народног музеја XXXVII, Чачак, 11-34. Гарашанин Д. 1954. Каталог метала I, Narodni muzej, Beograd. Garašanin, D. 1983. Posebni nalazi na centralno-balkanskom području,u: A. Benac (ur.)Praistorija jugoslovenskih zemalja IV, Sarajevo, 799805. Garašanin, M. 1983a. Vatinska grupa i Dubovačko-Žutobrdska grupa. u: A. Benac (ur.) Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja IV, Sarajevo, 504-535. Garašanin, M. 1983b. Grupa Bubanj-Hum III, u: A. Benac (ur.) Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja IV, Sarajevo, 719-722. Гарашанин M. и Ђурић Н. 1983. Бубањ и Велика Хумска Чука, каталог изложбе, Ниш. Gimbutas, M. 1965. Bronze Age Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe, Hague. Гирић, М. 1958. Једна бронзанодопска посуда из Чоке, Рад војвођанских музеја 7, Нови Сад, 125-126. Girić, M. 1971. Mokrin – nekropola ranog bronzanog doba, Mokrin I, Beograd. Gogâltan, F. 1999. Bronzul timpurui şi mijlociu în Banatul Românesc şi pe cursul inferior al Mureşului, Chronologia şi descoperirile de metal, Timişoara. 145 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project • • • • • • • • • • • Gumă, M., 1997. Epoca bronzului în Banat – The Bronze Age in Banat, Timişoara. Hänsel, B. 1968. Beiträge zur Chronologie der mittleren Bronzezeit im Karpatenbecken I, Bonn. Horejs, B., Bulatović, A., Bulatović, J., Brandl, M., Burke, C., Filipović, D., Milić, B. 2019. New Insights into the Later Stage of the Neolithisation Process of the Central Balkans. First Excavations at Svinjarička Čuka 2018“Archaeologia Austriaca Band 103, Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien, 175-226. Jevtić, M. 1975. Trasa puta motel Medijana, Niška Banja – eneolitsko i bronzano doba, Arheološki pregled 17, 26–28. Jovanović, B. i Janković, I. 1990. Nekropola paraćinske grupe u Trnjanima kod Brestovačke banje, Zbornik radova muzeja rudarstva i metalurgije u Boru 5/6, 1-20. Jovanović, B. i Janković, I. 1996. Die Keramik der Nekropole der Paraćin-Kultur-Trnjane, in: N. Tasić (ed.). The Yugoslav Danube basin and the Neighbouring Regions in the 2 nd millennium B.C. Simpozijum održan u Vršcu, Belgrade-Vršac, 185-200. Капуран, А. 2009. О утицајима ватина и вербичоаре на налазима гамзиградске културне групе, Старинар н.с. LIX, Београд, 53-69. Kapuran, A. 2014. Praistorijski lokaliteti u severoistočnoj Srbiji, Arheološki institut, Beograd. Kapuran, A., Živković, D., Štrbac, N. 2016. New Evidence for Prehistoric Copper Metallurgy in the vicinity of Bor, Старинар LXVI, 173-191. Kapuran, A., Bulatović, A., Danković, I. 2019. Horizonti bronzanog doba na lokalitetu Nad Klepečkom / Bronze Age horizons at the site of Nad Klepečkom, u/in: Kapuran, A., Bulatović, A., Filipović, V., Golubović, S. (eds.), Viminacijum u praistoriji / Viminacium in Prehistory , Arheološki institut, Beograd, 80-141. Kapuran, A., Gavranović, M., Mehofer, M. 2011. Bronze Age settlement and necropolis Trnjanenear Bor – revision and new research results,Starinar n.s. LXI, 141-153. • • • • • • • • • • • • 146 V. Kiss, S. Fábián, T. Hajdu, K. Köhler, G. Kulscár, I. Major, G. Szabó 2015. Contributions to the relative and absolute Chronology of the Early and Middle Bronze Age in western Hungary based on radiocarbon dating of human bones, in: Németh, R.E., Rezi, B.(eds.), Bronze Age Chronology in the Carpathian basin, Târgu Mureș, 23-36. Лазић, М., 1997. Жидовар у бронзано доба, ур. М. Лазић, Жидовар, насеље бронзаног и гвозденог доба, Филозофски факултет у Београду и Народни музеј у Вршцу, БеоградВршац, 21-36. Oršić – Slavetić, A. 1940. Bubanj eine Prähistorische Ansiedlung bei Niš, Mitteilungen der prähist. Kommission der Akademie Wissenchaften, Wien, 1-42. OʼShea, J. 1996. Villagers of the Maros, A Portrait of an Early Bronze Age Society, Springer Science+Buisiness Media LLC, New York. OʼShea, J., Barker, A., Motta, L., Szentmiklosi, A. 2011. Archaeological investigations at Pecica „Şanţul Mare“ 2006-2009. Analele Banatului, Arheologie-Istorie XIX, 67-78. Дејановић, Д. (ур.) Праисторијске културе Поморавља и источне Србије 1971, каталог изложбе, Ниш. Радојчић, Н. 2013. Златица у Омољици и Најева циглана у Војловици код Панчева, керамички налази бронзаног доба, Народни музеј, Београд. Srejović, D. 1997. Ljuljaci, Arheološki leksikon, Savremena administracija, Beograd, 609-610. Срејовић, Д., Лазић, М. 1997, Насеља и некрополе бронзаног доба у Тимочкој крајини, Археологија источне Србије, Београд, 225247. Стојић, М. 1980. Старе културе и народи на тлу средњег Поморавља, Светозарево. Stojić, M. 1998. Lieux de trouvaille de la ceramique de type Vatin en Serbie au sud de la Save et du Danube. Die Kulturen der Bronzezeit in dem Gebiet des Eisernen Tores, Kolloquium in Drobeta Turnu Severin, November 1997. Bukarest, 81-104. Stojić, M., Jacanović, Д. 2008. Пожаревац, културна стратиграфија праисторијских локалитета у Браничеву, Београд-Пожаревац. Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project • • • • • • • • Стојић, М., Јоцић, М. 2006. Ниш - културна стратиграфија праисторијских локалитета у нишкој регији, Београд-Ниш. Стојић, М., Чађеновић, Г. 2006. Крушевац, културна стратиграфија праисторијских локалитета у зони става Западне Мораве и Јужне Мораве, Београд – Крушевац. Тасић, Н. 1983. Југословенско Подунавље од индоевропске сеобе до продора Скита, Нови Сад-Београд. Tasić, N. 1984. Die Vatin-Kultur, Kulturen der Fruhbronzezeit des Karpatenbeckens und Nordbalkans, Ed. N. Tasić, Beograd, 59-82. Tasić, N. N., Tasić, N. 2003. Serbian Prehistoric Archaeology in the 1990s. in: Grammenos, D.V. (ed.), Recent Research in the Prehistory of the Balkans, Thessaloniki, 73-128. Tompa, F. V. 1934/35. 25 Jahre Urgeschichtsforchung in Ungarn 1912-1936. Sonderabdruck aus dem 24./25. Bericht der Romisch-Germanischen Kommission, Mainz am Rhein, 27-127. Чађеновић, Г. 2000. Налазишта ватинске културне групе у зони става Јужне Мораве и Западне Мораве, Крушевачки зборник 14, Крушевац, 161-179. Vasić, R. 2003. Die Nadeln im Zentralbalkan, Prähistorische Bronzefunde XIII, 11, Stuttgart. Aleksandar Bulatović Principal Research Fellow Institute of Archaeology, Knez Mihajlova 35/IV, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia E-mail: [email protected] Graduate from the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade (2005 MA thesis: Topografija preistorijskih lokaliteta na teritoriji jugoistočne Srbije/Topography of Prehistoric Sites in the Territory of South-eastern Serbia; 2008 Ph.D. thesis: Nastanak i razvoj kultura bronzanog doba u basenu Južne Morave/ The Origin and Development of the Bronze Age Cultures in the South Morava basin), Serbian expert for the stylistic and typological characteristics of pottery and the absolute chronology of the Metal Ages in the central Balkans. Current interests: Settlement patterns in the Eneolithic and the Bronze Age in the central Balkans; Cultural interactions between the central Balkan communities and communities of the neighboring regions during the Eneolithic and the Bronze Age; Ritual and spiritual life of the central Balkans’communities in prehistory, proto-hirstory and early history; Prehistoric tin sources in the central Balkans. 147 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Beaker from western Serbia (Jančići) ; (photo: M. Bojović) Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Vatinska kultura u zapadnoj Srbiji: tradicionalne postavke i činjenice u XXI veku Katarina Dmitrović, Marija Ljuština Apstrakt: U radu se navode dosadašnje činjenice o kulturnom razvoju vatinske i zapadnosrpske varijante vatinske kulture, tradicionalne postavke i aktuelna znanja i stavovi. Imajući u vidu navedenu građu, izvedene su činjenice koje jasno ukazuju na odvojenost kulturnog razvoja zapadne Srbije i južnog dela Karpatskog basena, što implicira i neophodnost izmene naziva za kulture srednjeg bronzanog doba u zapadnoj Srbiji, na način kojim se više ne bi potcrtavala veza između vatinske sa kulturnim razvojem u centralnoj i zapadnoj Srbiji. Ključne reči: Srednje bronzano doba, vatinska kultura, zapadnosrpska varijanta vatinske kulture, tumuli, kultura Bubanj Hum IV - Ljuljaci, naselja. Abstract: The article summarises former facts on the cultural development of the Vatin and Western Serbian variant of the Vatin culture, traditional concepts as well as current knowledge and attitudes. Having considered the available material, it was possible to derive the facts that clearly indicated separated cultural development of Western Serbia in comparison with southern part of the Carpathian Basin. It implies necessity to change terminology for the Middle Bronze Age cultures in Western Serbia in accordance with the situation in which there is no direct connection between the Vatin culture and the cultural development in Central and Western Serbia. Keywords: Middle Bronze Age, Vatin culture, Western Serbian variant of Vatin culture, tumuli, Bubanj Hum IV – Ljuljaci culture, settlements. Vatinska kultura predstavlja manifestaciju srednjeg bronzanog doba tipičnu za srpski deo Karpatskog basena. Nazvana je po eponimnom nalazištu Bela Bara u Vatinu u Banatu i u arheologiji predstavlja pojavu koja je odavno poznata. Identifikovana je početkom XX veka zahvaljujući istraživanjima koja je na eponimnom i drugim nalazištima 149 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project u južnom Banatu obavio Feliks Mileker, jedan od osnivača i kustos muzeja u Vršcu (sl. 1). Početne korake i važan doprinos u spoznavanju vatinske kulture kao posebne pojave u arheologiji načinio je Miodrag Grbić (sl. 2). Izdvojio je vatinsku kulturu na osnovu nekropole sa spaljenim pokojnicima u Vatinu, datirao je u srednje bronzano doba i u njen opus svrstao nalaze koje danas, doduše, smatramo predstavnicima belegiške kulture i kulture Kornešti-Crvenka. Začetnik je i ideje o centralnosrpskom poreklu vatinske kulture prema nalazima iz Ljuljaka, koje je opredelio u prevatinski horizont (Ljuština 2017, 30-32), što su prihvatili i razvili mnogi kasniji autori (Богдановић 1986; Стојић Sl. 1: Feliks Mileker (Medaković 2002). 1998; Garašanin 1983c, 738; Taсић 1983, 58). Nakon više od pola stoleća i sistematizacije bogate građe, vatinsku gru- Fig. 1 Felix Milleker (Medaković 2002). pu su u svojim sintezama detaljno opisali Garašanin i Tasić (Гарашанин 1973; Garašanin 1983а; Tasić 1974; Тасић 1983). Stavovi i definicije ranijih istraživača o raznim aspektima vatinske kulture, koji su bili u skladu sa onovremenim znanjima i građom, oslikavajući duh tih vremena, činili su polaznu osnovu za determinisanje mnogih drugih kulturnih manifestacija i pojava (npr. zapadnosrpska varijanta vatinske kulture) koje u savremenoj arheologiji nose drugačije nazive i odrednice. Moderna znanja i stavovi o vatinskoj kulturi su sada drugačiji, a mnoga pitanja o genezi, rasprostranjenosti, karakteristikama keramike i hronologiji još uvek traže odgovarajuća rešenja (Ljuština 2012) (sl. 3). Kada je u pitanju hronološko pozicioniranje vatinske kulture, imali smo velika očekivanja od rezultata istraživanja višeslojnog lokaliteta Židovar u Banatu. Na žalost, do sada nisu dobijene serije radiokarbonskih datuma. Dva izolovana uzorka, jedan iz konteksta najranije faze razvoja vatinske kulture, a drugi iz kasne, dala su rezultat (grubo uzevši XVIII-XVII vek p. n. e.) koji je ukazivao na veoma malu hronološku razliku između dva uzorka koji bi Sl. 2: Miodrag Grbić (Гачић 2005). trebalo da omeđe čitav period razvoja vatinske kulture na Židovaru. Pa ipak, kada se uporede svi prikupljeni radio- Fig. 2 Miodrag Grbić (Гачић 2005). karbonski datumi za vatinsku kulturu, postaje jasno da čak i problematični datumi sa Židovara odgovaraju apsolutno hronološkim okvirima predloženim od strane Gogltana (Gogâltan 2008) koji bi pokrivali period oko 2000.-1500. g. p. n. e. (Ljuština, Dmitrović 2015, 40-41), što je u saglasnosti sa opšteprihvaćenim hronološkim opredeljenjem perioda i kulture (cf. Boroffka 2013; Daróczi, Ursuţiu 2015). Slično se kretao i istorijat kulturnog razvoja tokom bron150 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Sl. 3 Vatinska keramika, Omoljica - Zlatica (Vulić, Grbić 1937). Fig. 3 Vatin culture pottery, Omoljica - Zlatica (Vulić, Grbić 1937). 151 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project zanog doba u zapadnoj Srbiji. Kulture bronzanog doba na ovom prostoru obeležene su veoma markantnim i značajnim fenomenom – razvijenim pogrebnim kultom i podizanjem pogrebnih humki - koji predstavlja fundamentalnu osobenost celokupnog razvoja ovog dugotrajnog perioda i nastavlja da traje i tokom gvozdenog doba. Zahvaljujući upravo izražajnosti tumula u sklopu pejzaža, ali i vrlo čestih i bogatih nalaza, istraživanja su započela srazmerno rano, te se beleže pojedina iskopavanja s kraja XIX veka u okolini Čačka, Valjeva i Loznice (Tројановић 1890; 1892; Валтровић 1890; 1893; Јовановић 1892), brojni zapisi o izgledu, broju i rasporedu humki u zapadnom delu Srbije (Карић 1887; Ердељановић 1902; Каниц 1985). Poseban uzlet u istraživanju humki zapadne Srbije, kao i definisanju kulturnih zbivanja tokom bronzanog doba, nastao je u posleratnom periodu i vremenu formiranja brojnih centralnih i lokalnih ustanova zaštite. U tom smislu, prvenstveno je važan rad Drage i Milutina Garašanina (sl. 4), koji su započeli sa beleženjem i iskopavanjem humki zapadne Srbije (Kriva Reka, Ražana), a potom definisali, shodno tadašnjim stavovima i znanjima, kulturne tokove na tom području (Гарашанин 1973; Garašanin 1983b, c; Garašanin 1966). Njihove definicije i nazivi su i danas aktuelni, ali delimično izmenjeni prisustvom rezultata novih iskopavanja i sistematizacije građe, o čemu će detaljnije biti reči u daljem tekstu. Rano bronzano doba je okarakterisano razvojem kulture Belotić – Bela Crkva, koju je u osnovi definisao M. Garašanin (Garašanin 1983b), a čije je trajanje određeno novijim analizama građe u drugu polovinu trećeg i u početak drugog milenijuma pre n. e. (Дмитровић 2016, 249-251). Nakon većeg vremenskog hijatusa, kulturni razvoj bronzanog doba je nastavljen kroz kulturu poznatu po tradicionalnom nazivu “Zapadnosrpska varijanta vatinske kulture” koju je takođe svojevremeno izdvojio M. Garašanin (1983c). Pogrebni kult je i dalje glavna odrednica i ove kulture, a zapaženo je da nosioci zapadnosrpske varijante koriste starije humke za sekundarno sahranjivanje ili osnivaju nove tumule u okviru starijih nekropola (sl. 5). Novinu predstavlja intenzivna pojava nakita izrađenog od bronze – torkvesi, narukvice, igle, različite vrste privezaka, nopenrinzi i tutuli uglavnom centralnoevropskih oblika i uzora, među kojima su prepoznati jedinstveni primerci, verovatno proizvodi lokalne manufakture (Васић 1997, 44) (sl. 6). 152 Sl. 4 Draga i Milutin Garašanin (https:// www.novosti.rs/vesti/naslovna/reportaze/ aktuelno.293.html:364158-Porodica-Garasanin-Stvarali-pet-Srbija). Fig. 4 Draga and Milutin Garašanin (https://www.novosti.rs/vesti/naslovna/reportaze/aktuelno.293.html:364158-Porodica-Garasanin-Stvarali-pet-Srbija). Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Zapadnosrpska varijanta vatinske grupe izazvala je najviše polemika i izmena, upravo zbog konstatacije o postojanju vatinskih komponenti u zapadnim krajevima Srbije. Na ovu činjenicu se prvo osvrnuo Nikola Tasić (1983, 97; 2002, 177-178,183-184), a zatim su usledili radovi Filipovića (2013), Bulatovića (2012; 2018) i potpisnica ovog teksta, koji su u osnovi ponovili konstataciju da ne bi trebalo izjednačavati kulturni izraz u zapadnoj Srbiji krajem srednjeg i početkom kasnog bronzanog doba sa znatno ranijom vatinskom kulturom, niti sa njenim uticajem. Navedene činjenice o istorijatu obeju kultura koje su se razvijale u potpuno različitim geomorfološkim i kulturnim preduslovima, do izvesne mere dopuštaju opravdanje za njihovu svojevremenu povezivanost. Najpre, njihova međusobna sličnost je formirana na osnovu formalnih sličnosti pehara sa dve drške (sl. 7). Međutim, razvojem arheologije je utvrđeno da predmetne pehare iz Vojvodine ne treba svrstati u vatinsku, već u kulturu Belegiš I, što i u hronološkom smislu potpuno odgovara vremenu razvoja zapadnosrpske varijante. Ovu činjenicu potvrđuje i nekoliko novijih datuma dobijenih C14 metodom, koji ukazuju na vreme 14. - 13. veka pre n.e. (Gligorić, Filipović, Bulatović, 2016; Bulatović, Gori, Vander Linden 2018, 123), što je vreme tokom kog se više ne može računati na egzistenciju populacija vatinske kulture. Mnogo je duži spisak međusobnih razlika, gde je kao prva i najvažnija postojanje specifičnog pogrebnog kulta razvijenog na zapadnom Balkanu, okarakterisanog sahranjivanjem pod tumulima, što uopšte nije zabeleženo na vatinskoj teritoriji. Isto tako, uprkos intenzivnoj i kontinuiranoj prospekciji terena zapaženo je da su naselja u zapadnoj Srbiji vrlo retka pojava, dok se slika o vatinskoj kulturi na matičnoj teritoriji gotovo isključivo stvara na osnovu naseobinskih lokaliteta. Upravo u ovoj kategoriji pronalazimo još jednu tradicionalno zasnovanu vezu sa vatinskom kulturom, definisanu analogijama sa keramikom iz najpoznatijeg i najpotpunije istraženog naselja u Ljuljacima (Garašanin 1983c; Богдановић 1986; Стојић 1998; 2000). Kategoriji naselja pripada vrlo mali broj lokaliteta koncentrisanih na istočnom obodu i graničnom području fenomena sahranjivanja pod tumulima zapadnog Balkana prema kulturama karakterističnim za centralnu Srbiju i basenu Velike Morave. Ovoj grupi pripadaju naselja 153 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project 1 Sl. 5 Grobne konstrukcije tipične za zapadnosrpsku grupu, Jančići - Dubac (Дмитровић 2016). 2 Fig. 5 Grave constructions typical for the Western Serbian group, Jančići - Dubac (Дмитровић 2016). 154 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Slatina u Gornjoj Gorevnici (Дмитровић 2009), Sokolica u Ostri (Стојић 2000; Дмитровић, Љуштина 2007; Ljuština, Dmitrović 2009) i Milića brdo u Ljuljacima (Богдановић 1986). Zajedničku karakteristiku ovih naselja čini postojanje bikoničnih pehara sa dve drške (sl. 8), koji mogu imati plastične dodatke na vrhovima drški i lepezasto razgrnute obode, koji su označeni kao osnovna determinanta veze sa Vatinom. U novije vreme, sveobuhvatnijom analizom građe iz centralne i južne Srbije, A. Bulatović i J. Stankovski su utvrdili da se i u ovom slučaju radi o posebnoj kulturnoj manifestaciji, različitoj od vatinske kulture, a osobenoj za centralnu Srbiju. Opisane pehare su nazvali peharima tipa Ljuljaci, tipičnim za područja oko Južne Morave, timočke regije, Velike Morave i Šumadije (Булатовић, Станковски 2012, 241, 260, 343). Kao pojedinačni nalazi zapaženi su u Podunavlju od ušća Tamiša do Đerdapske klisure, a sporadično čak i u basenima Tise i Moriša (Булатовић, Станковски 2012, 337). Prema oblicima i dekoraciji keramike, između ostalog i opisanih pehara, navedeni autori su definisali kulturu tipičnu za centralnu i delove južne i istočne Srbije početkom II milenijuma pre n. e. i nazvali je Bubanj Hum IV – Ljuljaci. Zaključili su i da je nasledila raniju, Bubanj-Hum III kulturu, sa kojom je delila istu teritoriju (Булатовић, Станковски 2012, 337). Tipična keramika otkrivena na naseljima u Ostri u G. Gorevnici je stilski veoma bliska sa Ljuljacima, što ih generalno opredeljuje u Bubanj Hum IV – Ljuljaci kulturni krug. Nalazimo da ovakva postavka ne isključuje uticaj koji je na keramičku proizvodnju i razvoj stila Bubanj Hum IV – Ljuljaci mogla imati keramička proizvodnja sa teritorije naseljene nosiocima vatinske kulture. U poređenju sa keramikom iz nekropola, keramika iz navedenih naselja je veoma različitih formi i izrade, što ukazuje na potpuno različito poreklo, kulturnu pripadnost i što je najvažnije, hronologiju (Dmitrović 2016, 238-240). Raspored naselja na zapadnoj periferiji Šumadije prema zapadnom Pomoravlju doveo je do pretpostavke da se radi o potpuno drugačijem kulturnom supstratu od onog u zapadnoj Srbiji i da njihove pozicije mogu da ukazuju na određen odbrambeni sistem koji su formirali žitelji naselja u Ostri, Ljuljacima i Gorevnici, nadirući sa istoka i potiskujući starije stanovništvo grupe Belotić-Bela Crkva preko venca planine Jelice na zapad (sl. 9). Na činjenicu da se radilo o nesigurnim vremenima, mogu da ukažu tipovi ovih naselja – dominantne pozicije u Ljuljacima i Ostri i 155 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Sl. 6 Кeramika i nakit od bronze tipični za zapadnosrpsku grupu (Дмитровић 2016, sa navedenom literaturom). Fig. 6 Pottery and bronze jewellery typical for the Western Serbian group (Дмитровић 2016, with cited literature). Sl. 7 Pehari i amfore iz zapadne Srbije (1,3 – Jančići, Dubac) i južne Panonije (2,4 - Kaluđerske livade) (Никитовић 1999; foto: M. Bojović; Петровић 2006). Fig. 7 Beakers and amphorae from Western Serbia (1,3 – Jančići, Dubac) and southern Pannonia (2,4 - Kaluđerske livade) (Никитовић 1999; photo: M. Bojović; Петровић 2006). 156 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Sl. 8 Pehari sa dve drške i lepezasto razgrnutim obodom sa lokaliteta Sokolica u Ostri kod Čačka (Стојић 2000; foto: M. Bojović). Fig. 8 Two-handled beakers with fan-shaped everted rim from the site of Sokolica in Ostra near Čačak (Стојић 2000; photo: M. Bojović). skrovitost naselja u G. Gorevnici, koje su im obezbeđivale nadgledanje i odbranu. Uvid u keramički material sa Ostre i Ljuljaka otkrio je da je na ovim naseljima život trajao i dalje, drugom polovinom II milenijuma pre n.e., što potvrđuju nalazi razvijene vatinske i kulture Paraćin I, što ih kulturno ponovo odvaja od istovremenih zbivanja u zapadnoj Srbiji. Već pominjana belegiška kultura koja se na samom kraju srednjeg i u kasnom bronzanom dobu razvijala u Sremu nije jedina kultura koja je svoj pečat ostavila na građi iz zapadne Srbije. Naime, u zapadnoj Srbiji je zapažen uticaj vinkovačke, Šomođvar, Nađrev i drugih kultura ranog bronzanog doba, dok je kasno obeleženo delimičnim refleksijama kulture polja sa urnama (Dmitrović 2014), kompleksa koji je u to vreme široko prekrivao centralnu Evropu. Međutim, pomenuti kulturni uticaji ne predstavljaju fizičko prisustvo nosilaca navedenih kultura, već refleksije koje su vidljive na proizvodima materijalne kulture. S druge strane, na osnovu specifičnih pogrebnih običaja, materijalizovanih u podizanju grobnih humki sa osobenim grobnim konstrukcijama sa biritualno sahranjenim pokojnicima, tragovima obavljenih rituala i prisustvu grobnih priloga, kulturu srednjeg i kasnog bronzanog doba u zapadnoj Srbiji možemo smatrati autohtonom pojavom, čija materijalna kultura ne predstavlja import, već lokalni proizvod načinjen pod uticajima značajnijih kulturnih centara na severu, koji su stizali uglavnom preko belegiške kulture. Uz navedene činjenice o keramici, jasno je da ne treba vezivati kulturu s kraja srednjeg i kasnog bronzanog doba na zapadu Srbije za vatinsku kulturu i njene regionalne grupe i lokalne varijacije, već da se radi o posebnom kulturnom entitetu, u čijoj genezi učestvuju autohtona komponenta i uticaji sa severa. Stoga bi trebalo preinačiti tradicionalni naziv zapadnosrpska varijanta vatinske kulture u onaj koji ne insistira na direktnoj paraleli sa Vatinom u južnom delu karpatskog basena. Već je bilo predloga o preimenovanju ove specifične kulture, gde treba navesti s jedne strane sintagmu brezjačka grupa (Филиповић 2013,70; Bulatović, Gori, Vander Linden 2018, 126-127), kao zapadnosrpska grupa srednjeg bronzanog doba (Dmitrović, Ljuština 2013, 156-158; Дмитровић 2016, 233; Ljuština, Dmitrović 2016, 45). Dok se ne postigne konsenzus i usvoji jedinstven naziv, svakako ostaje činjenica da je nedvosmisleno prepoznato i prihvaćeno da vatinska i 157 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project zapadnosrpska kultura međusobno nemaju direktnih dodirnih tačaka, počevši od hronoloških, budući da je vatinska kultura osvedočeni kulturni fenomen prve polovine II milenijuma p. n. e. Sl. 9 Karta sa predloženim rasporedom kulturnih grupa u centralnoj Srbiji na početku II milenijuma pre n.e. (Ljuština, Dmitrović 2016, Fig. 6). Fig. 9 Map with proposed layout of cultural groups in Central Serbia at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC (Ljuština, Dmitrović 2016, Fig. 6). 158 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Bibliografija • • • • • • • • • • Богдановић, М. 1986. Љуљаци, насеље протоватинске и ватинске културе, Крагујевац: Народни музеј. Boroffka, N. 2013. Romania, Moldova, and Bulgaria, in: Harding, A., Fokkens (eds.) H. The Oxford Handbook of the European Bronze Age. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 877-897. Булатовић, А., Станковски, Ј. 2012. Бронзано доба у басену Јужне Мораве и у долини Пчиње. Београд: Археолошки институт – Куманово; Н.У. Музеј. Булатовић, А., Филиповић, В., Глигорић, Р. 2017. Лозница. Културна стратиграфија праисторијских локалитета у Јадру, Рађевини и Азбуковици. Београд: Археолошки институт; Лозница: Центар за културу „Вук Караџић“, Музеј Јадра. Bulatović, A., Gori, M., Vander Linden M. 2018. New Absolute Dates as a Contribution to the Study of the Late Bronze Age Chronology in the central Balkans. Journal of the Serbian Archaeological Society 34, 121-132. Daróczi, T. T. and Ursuţiu, A. 2015. Worship, Habitation, Rafuge. Bronze and Iron Age Sites of the Lower Feneş Valley. Cluj-Napoca: Mega Publishing House. Дмитровић, К. 2009. Насеље раног бронзаног доба на налазишту Слатина у Горњој Горевници. Зборник Народног музеја XIX/1 – археологија, 103-117. Dmitrović, K. 2014. Notes on the Urnfield Period in the Čačak Region, Serbia, in: D. Ložnjak-Dizdar, M. Dizdar (eds.). The Beginning of the Late Bronze Age between the Eastern Alps and the Danube. Proceedings of the International conference in Osijek, October 20-22, 2011. Zagreb: Institut za arheologiju, 262-271. Филиповић, В. 2013. Нова истраживања некропола развијеног бронзаног доба у северозападној Србији, хронолошка и терминолошка питања. Гласник Српског археолошког друштва 29, 51-84. Гачић, Д. 2005. Миодраг Грбић (1901-1969): живот и дело. Музеј Града Новог Сада: Нови Сад. • • • • • • • • • • • • Garašanin, D. 1966. Skica periodizacije bronzanog doba Srbije. Materijali Arheološkog Društva Jugoslavije IV, 203-208. Garašanin, M. 1983а. Vatinska grupa, in: Benac, A. (ed.). Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja IV. Bronzano doba. Sarajevo: Svijetlost i ANUBiH, 705-718. Garašanin, M. 1983b. Grupa Belotić – Bela Crkva, in: Benac, A. (ed.). Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja IV. Bronzano doba. Sarajevo: Svijetlost i ANUBiH, 504-519. Garašanin, M. 1983c. Zapadnosrpska varijanta vatinske grupe, in: Benac, A. (ed.). Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja IV. Bronzano doba, Sarajevo: Svijetlost i ANUBiH, 736-753. Gligorić, R., Filipović, V., Bulatović, A. 2016. An AMS Dated Late Bronze Age Grave from Mound Necropolis at Paulje. Старинар LXVI, 103–109. Gogâltan, F. 2008. Fortificaţiile tell-urilor epocii bronzului din bazinul Carpatic. O privire generală. Analele Banatului S.N., XVI, 81-100. Јовановић, Ђ. 1892. Табље, тумули, гомиле буковачког поља и ћелиска пећина. Старинар IX (књ.2), 46-55. Каниц, Ф. 1985. Србија, земља и становништво. Београд: Српска књижевна задруга. Карић, В. 1887. Србија, опис земље, народа и државе. Београд: Краљевско-српска државна штампарија. Ljuština, M. 2012. Stratigrafija naselja i periodizacija vatinske culture u Vojvodini – nepublikovana doktorska disertacija odbranjena na Filozofskom fakultetu u Beogradu. Ljuština, Đ. M. 2017. Vatin Culture in Scientific Opus of Miodrag Grbić, in: Vujović, M. (ed.). Ante Portam Auream. Studia in Honorem Professoris Aleksandar Jovanović. Belgrade: Faculty of Philosophy, 23-44. Ljuština, M. and Dmitrović, K. 2009. The Bronze Age Vatin Culture in the West Morava Basin – Case Study of Sokolica in Ostra, in Zanoci, A., Arnaut, T., Băţ, M. (eds.). Studia Archaeologiae et Historiae Antiquae: Doctissimo viro Scientiarum Archaeologiae et Historiae Ion Niculiţă, anno septuagesimo aetatis suae, dedicatur. Chişinău:Universitatea de Stat din Moldova Casa Editorial-Poligrafică „Bons Offices”, 53-63. 159 Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project • • • • • • • • • • • • Ljuština, M., Dmitrović, K. 2015. Core vs. Periphery: Some Stratigraphical and Chronological Remarks on the Vatin Culture in Banat and Western Serbia, in Németh, R. E., Rezi, B. (eds.). Bronze Age Chronology in the Carpathian Basin: proceedings of the International Colloquium from Târgu Mureş: 2-4 October 2014. Târgu Mureş: Medaković, A. 2002. Felix Milleker (1858– 1942.). Istraživač, publicista i kustos Gradskog muzeja u Vršcu. Gradski muzej u Vršcu: Vršac. Никитовић, Л. 1999. Резултати ископавања праисторијске некрополе на локалитету Дубац у Јанчићима на Каблару, Зборник радова Народног музеја XXIX, 5-21. Петровић, Б. 2006. Калуђерске ливаде, некропола бронзаног доба. Београд: Музеј града Београда. Стојић М. 1998. Културни хоризонт ватинске културне групе у Србији јужно од Саве и Дунава: Мојсиње – Добрача, у: Тасић, Н. Рад Драгослава Срејовића на истраживању праисторије централног Балкана. Меморијал Драгослава Срејовића. Зборник радова I, Крагујевац, 133-146. Стојић, M. 2000. Праисторијска керамика са локалитета Соколица у Остри. Зборник радова Народног музеја XXX, 15-20. Tasić, N. 1974. Bronzano doba, in: Brukner, B., Jovanović, B. Tasić, N (eds.). Praistorija Vojvodine. Novi Sad: Institut za izučavanje istorije Vojvodine; Savez arheoloških društava Jugoslavije, 185-256. Тасић, Н. 1983. Југословенско Подунавље од индоевропске сеобе до продора Скита. Нови Сад: Матица српска – Београд: Балканолошки институт САНУ. Тасић, Н. 2002. Некропола у Белегишу и проблем белeгишке културе, in: Вранић, С., Белегиш, Стојића Гумно - некропола спaљених покојника. Београд: Muzej grada Beograda, 168-184. Тројановић, С. 1890. Преисторијске старине из рудничког округа, Старинар VII, 101-107. Тројановић, С. 1892. Преисторијске старине из рудничког округа. Старинар IX, 1-23. Валтровић, M. 1890. Бакрене и бронзане старине из Србије. Старинар VII, 65-96. 160 • • • • • Валтровић, M. 1893. Преисторијске старине у ваљевском и подрињском округу. Старинар X, 75-97. Васић, Р. 1997. Белешке о бронзаном добу у Србији. Зборник радова Народног музеја XXVII, 37-47. Vasić, R. 2006. Notes on the Bronze Age Vatin Culture in Serbia, in: Tasić, N., Grozdanov, C. (eds.). Homage to Milutin Garašanin, Belgrade: Serbian Academy of Science and Arts, 449-453. Vulić, N., Grbić, M. 1937. Corpus vasorum antiquorum, Yugoslavie, Fasc. 3, Beograd. https://www.novosti.rs/vesti/naslovna/reportaze/ aktuelno.293.html:364158-Porodica-Garasanin-Stvarali-pet-Srbija Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project Katarina Dmitrović Senior Consultant National Museum, Cara Dušana 1, 32000, Čacak, Serbia, E-mail: [email protected] Diplomirala (2000. godine), magistrirala (2008) i doktorirala (2015) na Odeljenju za arheologiju Filozofskog fakulteta u Beogradu. Od 2001. godine je stalno zaposlena u Narodnom muzeju u Čačku, gde vodi praistorijsku zbirku. Od 2015. godine dobila je i stručno zvanje muzejski savetnik. Profesionalno je orjentisana ka istraživanju mlađe praistorije u zapadnoj Srbiji. Učestvovala je i rukovodila sa više stručnih i naučnih projekata i objavila više desetina radova kod nas i u inostranstvu. Član je strukovnih udruženja SAD i UISPP. Marija Ljuština Assistant Professor PhD University of Belgrade, Faculty of Philosophy, Department of Archaeology, Čika Ljubina 18-20, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia, E-mail: [email protected] Diplomirala je, magistrirala i doktorirala na Odeljenju za arheologiju Filozofskog fakulteta u Beogradu, na kome je zaposlena od 2000. godine. Kao docent na Odeljenju za arheologiju učestvuje u izvođenju nastave na kursevima o mlađoj praistoriji Evrope, kao i u individualnom mentorskom radu. Autor je više radova publikovanih u domaćoj i stranoj periodici, kao i monografskim publikacijama, iz oblasti bronzanog i gvozdenog doba jugoistočne Evrope. Član je Međunarodne unije preistorijskih i protoistorijskih nauka (UISPP), Srpskog arheološkog društva, i stipendista Tokio fondacije. 161 CIP - Каталогизација у публикацији Народна библиотека Србије, Београд 903.023.08"637"(4)(082) 903.4"637"(4)(082) 904:738"637"(4)(082) CRAFTING pottery in Bronze Age Europe : the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project / editors Vesna Vučković ... [et al.]. - Paraćin : Regional Museum of Paraćin, 2021 (Bor : Tercija). - 162 str. : ilustr. ; 27 cm "This monograph is the result of the Crafter project - Crafting Europe in the Bronze Age and Today " --> kolofon. - Radovi na srp. i engl. jeziku. - Tiraž 1.000. - Str. 6-7: Introduction / Vojislav Filipović. - Beleške o autorima uz svaki rad. - Napomene i bibliografske reference uz radove. - Bibliografija uz svaki rad. ISBN 978-86-920553-2-4 а) Керамика -- Европа -- Бронзано доба -- Зборници б) Археолошки налази -- Србија -Бронзано доба в) Археолошка налазишта -- Србија -- Бронзано доба COBISS.SR-ID 29334537