Fewkes 3 PDF

Neolithic Sites in the Yugoslavian Portion of the Lower Danubian Valley Author(s): Vladimir J.
Fewkes Source: Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 78, No. 2 (Dec. 10, 1937), pp. 329-406 Published by: American Philosophical Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/984541 . Accessed: 12/11/2013 09:38
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Philosophical Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Tue, 12 Nov 2013 09:38:31 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NEOLITHIC
SITES IN THE YUGOSLAVIAN PORTION THE LOWER DANUBIAN VALLEY

VLADIMIR J. FEWKES
*
OF
American Director, Expedition to Yugoslavia (Read bytitle, April24, 1936)

ABSTRACT
The Yugoslavianportion of the lowerDanubian Valleyis adjacentto the southside ofthe river the Iron Gate to the mouth from of theTimok. Recent field in thisarea resulted in therecording reconnoitering offresh data on a score ofsites. Among them are five extensive settlements withrichNeolithic deposits. Andit seemslikely thatsomeoftheother sites,all, thusfar,revealing onlylater deposits on excavation, disclose will, Neolithic occupation as well. The Neolithic material remains from thesesites comprise varieties quite characteristic of the halfofthelowerDanubianValleyat large. Theycontain, western amongother the barbotine class of pottery things, which has a widedistribution in the Danubianarea. This pottery a veryuseful provides meansforcomparative studies and chronological as it is particularly reconstructions, characteristic, locally,of the initialNeolithic the barbotine occupation. Technologically, ware is a well class. (The Appendixdeals with some qualitativeaspects of a distinguished sampleseriesfrom in the Starcevo.) Whilethe observations thusfargathered field and in thelaboratory are quitesuggestive, no definite conclusions regarding theNeolithic culture ofthearea can be drawn history untiladequateexcavations are made. Although the data thusfargathered have onlya provisional value, itis obvious thatcertain dependable leadscannowbe followed. The Yugoslavian of the lowerDanubian Valleyoffers portion forarchaeosplendid opportunities work. The Neolithic logicalfield sites,although damagedby Danubian erosion, in thisregardsince theyseem to be potential are especially attractive sources ofhighly data. desirable
THE Yugoslavian portionof the lower Danubian valley is confined to the rightbank of the Danube between the Iron I Gate and the mouth of the Timok.2 Its interiorextentis
* Withan Appendix by Donald Horton,entitled"Note on a microscopic studyofa samplegroupofbarbotine withpositive sherds appliquefrom 'Grad,' Starcevo." the Iron Gate is identified by the approximately 130 km. 'Geotectonically, longcleft which theDanube follows initspassagethrough theBalkan-Carpathian mountain system;cf.Cviji6,1908,pp. 1 if. 2 The corresponding courseof the Danube provides a part of the boundary between Yugoslaviaand Roumania;. theislandsin thissection oftheriver belong to Roumania. PROCEEDINGS VOL. 78, NO.
2, DECEMBER, 1937
OF THE
AMERICAN
PHILOSOPHICAL
SOCIETY,
329
330
VLADIMIR
J. FEWKES
definedby the Miroc, Veliki Greben,and Deli Jovan ranges in the west, by the foothillsof the Svrljiska Planina in the boundaryline in the south,and by the Yugoslavian-Bulgarian southeast. This boundaryjoins the rightbank of the Timok 8 km. above the estuaryand coinat a point approximately cides withthe riverthereafter. of this area is very At the present time the prehistory unevenly and indeed incompletelyunderstood. Systematic excavationshave not been attemptedyet and reconnoitering have been concentratedchieflyalong the Danube. efforts Althoughcertainstrayfindsas well as severalsites have been recorded deep in the interior,our knowledgeof prehistoric conditionsaside fromthe bank of the Danube is decidedly inadequate. Yet it is quite apparent that as early as the were NeolithicAge, some of even the most outlyingdistricts reached. For this reason it is imperativeto deal with the that the bulk of regionas a whole, despite the circumstance in the imis concentrated evidence occupational positive mediate riparian zone of the Danube. It is possible, of by the rivermay course,that some ofthe advantagesproffered in thisrespectespecially factor wellhave been a discriminating of Neolithiceconomy. Neverthe initialimplantation during inland is supportedby distributheless,an early penetration with the genetic affinities tional factorswhich clearlyreflect culturalstatus commonto the riverloci. From the eastern edge of the Iron Gate to the mouth of the Timok, the Danube pursues an undulating course with straight stretches, and its channel shifts freintermittent quently. The banks are subject to seasonal inundationand there is considerable erosion which often changes their contours. Ice flowsand atmosphericweatheringalso cause pronounceddamage. Owingto these actions,sites in vulnerable locations are now more or less exposed and vertical of their deposits are therebybroughtto view. The profiles task of findingarchaeological stations is then conveniently facilitatedand simplified. The bank varies in height from place to place. A minimumof 1 m. or even less is to be
NEOLITHIC
SITES
331
found between the villages of Kostol and Mala Vrbica; and this is true of only a short distance, for the bank attains a much greater height as either of the two communitiesare approached. At Korbovo, Brza Palanka, and Velesnica, the 3 m. to 4 m. While at Prahovo and average is approximately Radujevac a maximumof 12 m. to 15 m. is reached. In the last named instance,dunes are presentand add to the normal heightofthe bank. At the mouthofthe Timok the Danubian bank is 2.5 m. to 3 m. high. The repeatedlyactive waterand ice erosion findslittle resistance in the compositionof the banks, which consistsof sand, gravel, Icess (probably rather alteredloess), and humus. Cvijic identified this formation as the last (i.e. contemporary) or seventh Danubian terracein the lowervalleyofthatriver.' At low state ofwater,a shelfof packed sand and gravel, varyingin width froma few centimetersto as much as 100 m., extendson an inclinedplane (in the mannerof a beach) fromthe base of the bank to the edge of the stream. (P1. VIII: 1-5.-However, this "flood plain" does not confinethe high water of the Danube which, in floods,overflowsthe banks as well.) In places containing archweological deposits embedded in the terrace (i.e. the immediate bank, the seventh terrace), the surface of the shelf is usually strewn with dislodged cultural remains.2 These peculiar circumstances, apalling as they certainlyare, nevertheless aid an archweological survey.3 The exposed
16. The nativesseem to be well acquaintedwithlocationsof sites and often possessvaluablerelics. Vandalism, in Romanruins, especially is notuncommon, and certainamountof selectivecollecting forcommercial purposesis likewise on record. At timesfalsified oddities are offered forsale, such as, forexample, a tilewithincised depiction of,presumably, Trajan's Danube bridge, said to have beenfound"in digging"nearthe remains of thisstructure belowthe villageof Kostol. (In general effect and inseveraldetails thisportrayal closely approaches the freakexecuted upon a fragment of a capitol,allegedly "discovered"in the same locality, and publishedby Vasi6, 1907a.) In my personal experiences I have foundthe natives most obligingin rendering usefulinformation and guidance. 3The prehistoric sites are characterized by a level surfaceplane which, unlessdisturbed by cultivation or other artificial incursions, does notnecessarily disclosethe presenceof archaeological deposits. However,the Roman ruins, whichare especially in this region, numerous are usuallydistinguishable by a mound-shaped accumulation surmounting their masonry remains. The series of
2
1 Cvijic,1908,p.
332
VLADIMIR
J. FEWKES
sections are particularlyuseful in examiningstructuralfeatures and stratigraphic data. It thus becomes plausible to pursue there a speedy investigationfor the purpose of a general orientation. With the valuable evidence in situ so abundantlyat hand, the scatteredmaterial assumes a much greater significance than might be the case in a strictly surf acecollectingsurvey. In certaininstancesthe exposed deposits can be followed uninterruptedly for a distance of several hundredmeters. Various details of tectonicalfeaturesand a truly remarkable amount of cultural material (especially sherds) are in view at most of the sites. Under such circumstances correlationof stray findswith reliable depositional attainable. It is obvious, of course, evidence is frequently that even these conditionsdo not diminishthe necessarily superficial natureof the resulting impressions. Only systematic excavations, conducted on a large scale, can lead to and deductions. Untilthat is done conclusiveinterpretations no morethan a provisionaldescription can be presented. It and I do now becomesmy task to attemptsuch a description so in fullcognizanceof the many inevitableshortcomings. The initial archaeological survey concerned primarily of the area under discussionwas underwith the prehistory Vasic in 1907.1 He then collectedvarious taken by Professor materialin ten localitiessituatedon the bank of the Danube 2 between Kladovo and Radujevac I and summarilyascribed the total to "the Iron Age." 4 Having foundmostlypottery analogous with that from "Zuto Brdo," 5Vasic, despite
each with an outside moat, particularly embankment-enclosures, rectangular (i.e. of Negotin,and invariablycalled meteris in the neighborhood frequent features. These wellpreserved identifiable by their are unmistakably bulwark), quite recent oftenerectedupon ancientsites,are unquestionably earthworks, in origin. l Vasi6,1910,pp. 2 ff. on thebankoftheDanube, and one,i.e. " Pesalk," lie directly 2 Nineofthese arm of the Kladovo, on the bank of an old, now dry (yet seasonallyflooded)
river; op. cit., pp. 5 ff. 3 Op. cit., and PI. I (map). 4Ibid., pp. 1 ff.
by him 5 A site previously by Vasi6 (1907,pp. 1 ff.)and relegated explored withIhe is not in agreement however, to the Iron Age. This interpretation, (cf.Hoernes, theBronzeAgeproper fallswithin ofthesitewhich position cultural
NEOLITHIC
SITES
333
several examples of clearly-Neolithic ceramics and stone did not recognize or allow the existence of this artifacts,1 earlier period in any of the ten sites. Rather he attributed the older (i.e. Neolithic) elementsto survivals persisting in considerablylater contexts(i.e. the misconceivedIron Age).2 More recentreconnoitering in the same regionhas establishedfresh evidenceofNeolithicoccupation. This consistsof the following: (1) In situ deposits of settlementsrevealing abundant material and valuable structuralfeatures,particularly profilesof dwelling pits as well as of floors. (2) Secondarilyplaced material foundin the immediatevicinity of such deposits and fullycorrelatedtherewith. (3) Secondarilyplaced materialfoundin localitieswhich,as far as has been possible to ascertain by examination of their exposed profiles, do not reveal correspQndingly datable deposits. (4) Stray material, obtained from private hands, and said to have been foundin depositsin which Neolithicoccupationis indubitably proved. Moreover, additional data on later periods have also been secured. Among these are sherd collectionsduplicatingVasic's findsof 1907,3i.e. Bronze Age material, a few examples suggestive of La Tene pottery, numerous Roman antiquities,and Early Slavic (mediaeval) sherds, as well as sundry details regardingthe nature and structureof such later deposits. It is the purpose of this writingto summarize those findingswhich pertain to the
1925,pp. 408 and 410,Franz,1922,p. 98, and Childe,1929,pp. 285 ff.). Similarly, thematerial from thetensitesbelowtheIronGate,labeledbyVasi6 (ibid.) as "of the '2uto Brdo' type," represent largelythe Bronze Age. However, there are also certain unmistakable instances ofNeolithic remains notsegregated as suchby Vasi6. ' Cf. Vasi6,1910,Pls. VII: 56, 58; VIII: 66, 67; IX: 73, 77; XI: 91, 96. 2 Cf. Vasi6, ibid.,p. 12, wherethe reference to "Gradac," near Leskovac (Vasi6, 1911,pp. 97 ff.),makes the case clear. The erroneous interpretation and datingof "Gradac" (op. cit.) has recently been emphatically reiterated by Vasi6 (1936,pp. 137and 154). 3 For illustrations ofthetypical pieces,cf.Vasi6,1910,Pls. II-IX, to which mayprobably be addedalso thefollowing: P1.IV: 18,19; V: 40; VI: 41 (?); VIII: 59. Vasi6'scollection of 1907was originally housedin the NationalMuseumat Belgradewhichwas destroyed by bombardment duringthe World War; cf. Petkovi6, 1921,pp. 205 ff., and Vasi6,1932,p. ix.
334
VLADIMIR
J. FEWKES
NeolithicAge.' While my chiefobjective is concernedwith sites containing actual Neolithic deposits which I have personallyexaminedI am also drawingfromotherpertinent sources. Thus I includelocalitiesin whichNeolithicmaterial appears in a secondary position but not in situ, as well as chance finds as yet perhaps totally undocumentedby depositional evidence.2 Some of these instances may lead to and certainly providepotentialguidance additionaldiscoveries fieldwork. forfurther No traces of human occupation antedatingthe Neolithic in the Yugoslavian portion Age have yet been noted anywhere of lower Danubian valley. The nearest occurrences,geographically, of Palwolithic existence are reported from Bulgaria whereseveral caves with Aurignaciandepositshave and fromLittle Walachia whereone station, been explored,3 of a Lower Aurignacian phase, has been inpresumably vestigated.4 There are no indicationsof Mesolithiceconomy sectorof lower Danubian valley. anywherein the right-bank to Nestor" echtemesolithische On the oppositeside, according
by the Fogg 'The fieldworkfromwhichthis task arises was sponsored School of (season 1933), and the American Art Museum,Harvard University Research(seasons1933and 1934); theNationalMuseumofBelgrade Prehistoric of 1933 and the NegotinMuseumin that of 1934; in the program cooperated and 1935,pp. 16 ff. 1934a,pp. 33 ff., cf.Fewkes,1934,pp. 24 ff., is depositedin these investigations during Most of the materialcollected the NegotinMuseum. The NationalMuseumat Belgradehas a representative from purchased previously as wellas certain specimens seriesof the 1933finds hands. private gratefully is hereby which Museum, oftheNegotin 2 With thekind permission certain ofits to incorporate on thisoccasion, it becomes possible, acknowledged, thecourtesy madeavailableto methrough records and general finds independent ofMr. S. Stefanovic. and 3 Cf. Popov, 1911,pp. 248 ff., pp. 263 ff.,1931,pp. 1 ff., 1912-1913, also Mikov,1933,pp. 14 ff. 1933,pp. 1 ff.; of the 4Cf.- Nestor,1932, p. 22. This authorquestionsthe designation type (I.c.,note 61), and speaks of yet Sagletuas of the Abri-Audit pointfrom traces of PalEolithicsites in Little Walachia (ibid.). See other,unpublished, bone the dubiousMousterian(?) or Aurignacian regarding also his comments cave near Topalu on the Danube in and stone pieces froma now destroyed interpreted had previously pp. 1 ff., Morosan,1928/1929, Dobrogea. However, Morosan,1936,p. 1242, as Aurignacian. And morerecently the Topalu finds aussi de Topalu en Dobrogeasemble pal6olithique states: "L'industrie expressly facies." a un tel [i.e. MiddleAurignacian] appartenir
NEOLITHIC
SITES
335
Funde sind bishernurin der Kleinwalacheizu verzeichnen."1 The materialin question is said to consistof "einige Mikrolithen, die eine der Chwalibogovice-KulturPolens entsprechende Facies aufweisen sollen." 2 With respect to the Neolithic Age, the vestiges of which are clearly recognized moreor less throughout the lowervalley of the Danube, there can be no doubt that even the apparently"oldest" remains bespeak a well developed cultural complexity. Although regional differences are distinguishable,a common fundamental basis of economy is demonstrated. This reflectsa communal mode of life, sessile conditions,agricultureand stock raising-in other words controlledeconomy. Local parental antecedents from which the determiningcriteria of such an innovationmightbe considered to have germinated are certainlytotally unsubstantiated. On the contrary, the very nature of the Neolithic cultural status, collectively viewed,indubitably bespeaks derivation from external sources. Moreover, it seems obvious that not only fresh cultural inspirations,but also a freshinfluxof people must be accounted for,at least at the beginningof the Neolithicmanifestations. It would be futile to speculate on such aspects as place of origin,motive,velocity,route, etc., of the forces involved. The processoccurredsubsequentto the accumulation of the quarternary lcessmantlewhichcoversmost of the valley area. However,it does not seem to have taken place immediatelyafterthat depositionwas completed. That an intervalof time lapsed betweenthe two events is indubitably proved, at least in some localities, by an aboriginal humus layer which overlies the lcess.3 In suchinstances theNeolithic
Nicolescu-Plopsor who,statesNestor,"unterscheidet zwei mikrolithenfuhrende die auch geographisch Kulturen, auseinander gehalten worden k6nnen." It is patent, ofcourse, thatsuchmeager andone-sided evidencedoes not lend itselfto conclusive interpretation. The plausibility of recognizing cultures on thebasisofa few microliths is,obviously, opento question. 3 In the instances specifically notedin theregion underdiscussion themaximumaccumulation of this humusdid not exceed 0.4 m. It is interesting to recallthatat "Vinca" thethickness ofa similar aboriginal humus layerhas been ascertained by Vasic to measure0.5 m. (Vasic, 1910a,p. 23) and even 0.7 m.0.75 m. (Vasic, 1936,p. 8).
2 Ibid., based on the work of
1 Nestor, 1932,p. 29.
336
VLADIMIR
J. FEWKES
deposits pierce the ancient humus and penetrate farther below into the Icess. We have no objectively ascertained data as to the nature of living conditionsprevailingduring one the acute period of the Icess formation. The impression gathers fromexaminingthe exposed profilesof the mantle along the Danube is that theywereunfavorableto man; such an impressionis inconclusiveand cannot claim recognition. occupationhave At any rate positivetraces of contemporary not been ascertained therein. The Neolithic evidence is invariablyclearlyintrusive. In view of these considerations it seems imperativeto regardthe initial Neolithic settlersas pioneeringcolonists. Their socio-economicstatus reveals a ratherthan an experimental well roundedculturalfoundation circumstanceis particularlysignifistage. This interesting duality cant with respect to the inseparable ethno-cultural as diffusion of primary a process implies immediately which also the most plausible rationalizationof its existence. It mitigates against an autochthonous development and of a hiatus. the recognition strengthens In dealingwiththe individualsiteswithinthe Yugoslavian the portion of lower Danubian valley I use predominantly presenttense althoughI realize that some of the conditions here describedmay have been alteredsince 1934.1 The sites threecategories: fall into the following (A) DefinitelyNeolithic settlementsunquestionablyidentifiedby depositsin situ. (B) Likely (?) Neolithic settlements,i.e. those in which secondarilyplaced Neolithicmaterialappears without datable deposits. positiveproofof correspondingly
rather asserted(by archaeologists assumedand frequently It is commonly thattheleesszone of the Danubianarea was originally thanby palaeobotanists) as the NeolithicAge ensued and that the initial coveredby primevalforest in orderto be moreor of the growth substantial clearing required settlements application allocated;cf.,e.g.,Childe,1929,pp. 26 ff.(general less permanently to middleDanube and lowerDanube valley),and Vasic, 1936,p. 8 (specified is notcited. proof instance analytical for"Vinca"). In either I As a matter at Kusjak, insiteprofiles offactin 1934I notedseveralchanges in 1933. While there existing withconditions and Kostolas compared Korbovo, to naturalerosionotherswereplainlydue to some of thesewereattributable causes. artificial
NEOLITHIC
SITES
337
(C) Miscellaneous sites from which sundry Neolithic (and later) material has been secured, but in which depositional circumstanceshave not been adequately identified as yet. Inasmuch as the material(ceramic,bone, stone,etc.) from the several localities is quite homogeneousin characterand falls into a uniform classificational scheme,I shall enumerate the individual occurrencesat each site and detail the total under a separate heading. This will avoid repecollectively titionof descriptive data. (A) DEFINITELY
NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENTS
These include fivesites, all situated upon the immediate bank of the Danube. Their positions are here given in relationto moderncommunities; the sequence of theirnumbers (1-5) is correspondingly marked in the accompanying sketchmap (Fig. 1). The natives referto these sites simply as obala, i.e. river bank, although in certain cases specific names prevail. Whatever the individual usages they are here givenin transliteration. In the instanceof the two sites at the village of Korbovo, however,I have arbitrarily employed geographicdirections to clarify the distinction. Thus I call the site situated upstream from the village "Obala Northeast," Korbovo, in contrast to "Obala Southwest," Korbovo, whichidentifies the site situated downstream from the village. And I shall, hereafter, give the name of each site in quotation marks. 1. " Obala" at Kostol The village of Kostol lies 2.5 km. east of Kladovo. The site of "Obala" is situated withinthe land belongingto this community, about 2.5 km. eastward fromits centertowards Mala Vrbica (Fig. 1, site number1), and approximately 0.8 km. downstream fromthe ruinsof the Moesian abutmentof Trajan's Danube bridge (P1. VII: 11). The height of the bank bearingthe deposits varies fromabout 3 m. (upstream
\~k~o
SV/4'ASCEA
<H I~ Al NSYST
O4W
-
Vhe
-<>isrv
135
DobMv
26)
44
/$de ZSanube be/veen S*t 54 wlezoe2 .3d mabiPC a1oavot aiLaJ. hc k{eslwz
oracliatej ( u-slav;2
Izlassg
t t// j4jd0bs~vac
a' fuflanov
t'nr K
Yet'I/o7y
rbowhfi
X-5
5S 'Y2oAa6 iVu5la*,peepr
J}c7A1ovo.
S<radAfae
Q teIcov
s
*be5rQov4wf7/r
(a/Jc "h2sce
.+ SLti
(I) 'OesaAVrCadovo_6)Corvav,az6 Yu6OSLAVIA~~~~~~~.
&ara4K6</dova.
-3 ' O &
J6-a
ile
~e'
w,'ca.
,t
COboo5eofthe Da7naebe firom S( /Vovi -"d to P/is "he 13/ack^5ea~ 0Thp'rivArS 'fefltO7edoef
24D* o. *Jeanlae77 raLLt ,7 tbk FIG. 1. Sketch map showing the
(a
C/,C" wor.4
5 BLAR
ke
>
oogtca
o1\ Tobak,lcv *
Novo Selo, Bulgaria, based on Cvijic, 1908, and on the pertinentsection shee Institute of Yugoslavia, issues 1925-1929. The definitely Neolithic sites are nu likely Neolithic sites are lettered a-h, while the miscellaneou-s sites are numbe sites vi and vii fall outside the area embraced by the sketch map.) The inser the Danube fromNovi Sad, Yugoslavia, to the Black Sea, is a free sketch.
course
of
the
Danube
between
Veliko
Gra
NEOLITHIC
SITES
339
margin) to about 0.5 m. (downstreammargin), and is only partially exposed by erosion. The visible profile of the culture level, consisting of pits and superimposed debris, appears within a length of approximately200 m. In the cornfieldsupon the horizontalplane of the bank we collected surfacesherdsover an area considerably exceedingthe stretch of the exposed bank and reachinginland as much as 300 m. This, of course,does not provideany dependable means with whichto judge the probableinterior extentofthe site,because the material was placed in its secondary position in the process of geoponic activities. Similarlythe relics whichwe foundat the base of the exposed profileand on the adjacent shelf had been secondarily deposited. However, in the culture deposits themselves, both in pits and in the immediatelysuperposed debris, plentifulevidence of Neolithic occupation exists in situ. The characterof this material is identicalwiththat represented in the surfacelot. Moreover, the deposits themselves did not reveal (1933 and 1934) anythingbut Neolithic relics. Both the pits and the debris them contained, as much as has been possible surmounting to ascertain by observation,uniformstructuralnature and contents. Althoughthe revealed face of the bank appears to markonly a portionof the site it is noteworthy that its entire lengthdemonstrates homogeneousdepositionalcircumstances and like material. The maximum vertical span of the exposed deposits measured 1.8 m. (approximately 50 m. downstream fromthe westernedge), whereasthe minimum(sampled at the downstreammargin,where a natural depression extends fromthe Danube inland) amounted to 0.4 m. The reducedthickness off the edge ofthisdepression is attributable to water erosion as well as to recent ploughing. The total observations and the material remains definitely establish this locality as a settlement site. Its full extent,as well as the question of whetheror not it belongs exclusivelyto the Neolithic Age cannot be determined withoutproperexcavation. The material includes: Barbotine, incised, fluted, burnished, and hand-smoothedpottery; flint blades, slate
340
VLADIMIR
J. FEWKES
shoe-last celts, and millingstones and querns of sandstone; of wall plaster.1 and fragments at Korbovo 2. "Obala Northeast" in the region of community Korbovo, the southern-most Kljuc, is situated on the bank of the Danube opposite the point of the Roumanian island of Ostrovul northwestern Corbului (Fig. 1, site number2). The site of "Obala Northlimit of east" lies immediatelyupstream fromthe northern Korbovo. Its exposed deposits are first noticeable at a distance of about 1 km. fromthe boat station and extendfor 0.6 km. Withinthis stretchthe heightof the approximately from2 m. to 4 m., and its surface Danubian bank fluctuates plane rises gentlyinland to meet the higherelevation of the background (P1. VIII: 3). The eroded profile contains culture pits cut througha 0.3 m. to sharply distinguishable 0.4 m. thick layer of aboriginalhumus into the lcess mantle and often penetrating to the sand niveau. The upper by a zone of debris horizontallimitof the pits is surmounted which terminates with the contemporaryhumus mantle averaging0.2 m. in thickness. The maximumdepth of the culturebearingdeposits,taken verticallyfromthe bottomof the deepest pit to the base of the top soil, measured (in 1933) of the habitation type as 2.6 m. The pits are definitely wall plaster, their size and of fired proved by the presence floors,nature of accumulations,and contents. distribution, In several instances superimposedfloors,interspaced by a fillrichin sherds,ashes,etc., are visible;the side walls ofthese pits, as much as revealed in the exposed profile,are either vertical or gently sloping inward toward the bottom. A truly amazing abundance of ceramic remains was noted in debris. 1933 and 1934 bothin the pits and in the superimposed quite abruptly ofthebank terminates margin The downstream of on an acute angle (P1. VIII: 1) withwhichthe distribution about the exposed deposits ends; there is a marked dent,
infra.
in the corresponding 1 This material, here,is duplicated illustrated notfully Korbovo,and "Obala," Kusjak; vide foundat "Obala Northeast," categories
NEOLITHIC
SITES
341
30 m. wide, below whichthe bank is again aligned with that of "Obala Northeast" and its height increases toward the village. Owing to lack of exposure we were not able to ascertain the demarcation of the site on its northernside. However, the site, again a settlement, seems to continueuninterruptedly throughoutthe observed distance of 0.6 km. The surfaceplane of the culture bearing bank is not under cultivationbut is used as pasture land.1 In addition to the damage caused by seasonal floods, the site suffers considerably fromillicit diggingpursued by youngsters tendinglive stock and occasionally,it seems,also by profit-seeking pot hunters.2 While the inclined shelf,which resemblesa beach, is strewn with quantities of dislodged material, the surface plane of the bank, since it is not being cultivated, gives a very poor reward to the collector. The site appears to have the thickestand (in contents) richestNeolithic deposits on the Yugoslavian bank of the lower Danube. Although an indeterminateportion of its original deposits is now gone, a systematic excavation is highly desirable. The Neolithic material,foundeitherin situ or in secondaryposition,comprisesthe following: The barbotine,incised,fluted, burnished, burnish-decorated, and hand-smoothedclasses of pottery; ceramic human figurineswith incised decoration; ceramic altars; flintblades and chips; millingstones and querns of sandstone; slate shoe-lastcelts; bone awls; firedwall plaster; animal bones (among whichdomesticcattle and pig, dog, roe deer, red deer, and sturgeon[vertebraw] have been identified by me in the field).3
is, incidentally, communal land and readily availableforexcavation. Fortunately at least someof the material so plundered has been obtained either by the NationalMuseumat Belgradeor, morerecently, by the Negotin Museum. 3 Vasi6,1908,Fig. 11 (textpp. 99 ff.), and 1910,P1. V: 77 (textp. 12), illustratesan axe-shaped specimen of whitemarble from "Korbovo"; its dimensions are givenas "4.5 by 3.4 by 1.6 cm." (op. cit., p. 12). Vasi6, 1910,pp. 9-12, recorded onlyone site at Korbovo,but did not detailits location. As has been indicated, there are twoseparate siteswithin theland ofthisvillage, heredistinguished,respectively, as "Obala Northeast" (now under consideration) and "Obala Southwest"(to be described later). It is, therefore, rather difficult to assignthe marblependant(?) in questionto eitherone of the two sites with dependability.It seemsto me,however, thatin viewof the circumstance that
2
1 It
342
VLADIMIR
J. FEWKES
In addition to the Neolithic material, we also collected later remainsin secondaryposition,but did not note any in situ. We recognizedsherdsof the Late Bronze Age I (Vatin and of Roman brick,amphorae, phase), as well as fragments pyramidal weights. The site of "Smradila," which lies on the bank about 1 km. upstream from"Obala Northeast," contains Roman ruins (probably those of a castellum); immediatelysouthwardof the prominentmound at "Smradila" we noted a series of skeletal graves eitherin plain pits of the bank, but or in tile cists,plainlyrevealedin the profile without any furniturein view. While the tiles suggest Roman provenience,and perhaps an association with the no clue as to their station (?), the plain graves offer military probable period. From Ostrovul Corbului Neolithic,Bronze Age, and Roman remainsare reported.2 3. "Obala" at Velesnica The village of Velesnica lies 12.5 km. due east of Korbovo (measuredon a directaerial line). The site is situatedon the bank of the Danube, partiallywithinthe village properand
[culture] to "a clearlyrecognizable referred Vasi6, op. cit.,p. 9, specifically place. For at "Obala themorelikely is perhaps level,"our "Obala Northeast" Vasid(ibid.) visible' Moreover, so clearly arenotnearly thedeposits Southwest" at "Korbovo"-including,presumably, his material that he collected remarked the marblepiece- "on the [Danubian] strandsubjectedto inundation"(free seasonally thepertinent, " where " Obala Northeast translation). Thisalso favors has an averagewidth(at low water)of at least 25 m. as compared shelf flooded during zero) notedat "Obala Southwest" of8 m. (minimum withthemaximum that ofcourse, heredescribed. It is to be remembered, trips thereconnaissance and our first tripto Vasic's investigations Professor the lapse of timebetween an interval years; in so pronounced to exactlytwenty-six amounts thisregion of the erosionmay have taken place and changedthe condition considerable on a venturing bankat bothsites. It is forthisveryreasonthatI abstainfrom of note to the marblepiece. And it is worthy withrespect decision conclusive placed Neolithicmaterial that we have foundsecondarily in this connection type)at "Obala Southwest," is ofa Neolithic certainly pendant (and themarble depositsin the exposedprofile our searchforcorresponding Korbovo,although results. ofthatsitedid notmeetwithpositive note I.e. "the 'Zuto Brdo' type" of Vasid,1907,and 1910; cf.,however, 10, supra. 2 BArcacill, 1924,pp. 283 ff.
NEOLITHIC
SITES
343
partially below its southern limit;1 its vertical profileis especially prominently exposed along its southern margin. The deposits revealed in 1933 were concentratedwithin a distance of approximately 300 m. and the culturelevel with pits amounted to as much as 2.5 m. in maximum vertical span. We ascertained Neolithic material in situ only in scatteredinstances,but always in pits. On the other hand the surface findsfromthe adjacent sloping shelf comprised predominantly later remains,especially those of the Bronze Age, Iron Age (?La Tene), and the Roman and Early Slavic periods. And we also recognizedBronze Age (Vatin phase) and Roman sherds in the level surmounting the pits. The site is a settlement in addition to Neolithic,later containing, vestiges as evidenced by the mixed and complicated stratigraphic features. In certain pits suggestive of a Neolithic origin we noted intrusive later material, while other pits disclosed exclusively Bronze Age remains. Being located largelyunder a portionof the village,the site is not available forexcavation except in its southernsection. The Neolithic materialconsistsofthe barbotine, and handfluted, burnished, smoothed classes of pottery,flintblades and millingstones. We did not notice association of wall plaster with the apit was seen in situ it could parentlyNeolithicpits; wherever not be clearly assigned to a specificproveniencebecause of complicated stratigraphicconditions and mixtureof sherds reflecting two or moreperiods. The questionmustbe settled by excavation. Similarly, it would be difficult to place some of the animal bones (domesticpig and cattle, wild boar, and ulna of a red [?] deer-the last named specimenjudged by its size) whichwe recorded. Two additionallocalitiesboth on the bank of the Danube, each presumablywith similardeposits and material remains, are said to be situatednear Velesnica. The one situatedabout
1 It was first recorded by Vasid,1910,pp. 13-14,who also excavatedthere in 1910 (cf. ibid.,pp. 1-2); as faras I am aware no results of thisexcavation have beenpublished. (Professor Vasidkindly informed me,in a personal interview during the season of 1932,that his fieldnotesantedating the WorldWar had been lost.
344
VLADIMIR
J. FEWKES
1 km. upstreamfromthe village is called "Jelas"; the other, fromthe village is knownas lyingabout 1.5 km. downstream "Biljevina." It was not opportuneto visit either of these places duringour fieldwork,and I am at a loss to say whether they contain Neolithic remains or not. On information it would dependablelocal informants seemingly obtainedfrom seem that the two localitiesmarkratherextensivesettlements and that they apparentlyboth contain Roman relics (tile, pithoi). amphorae, 4. " Glamija-Obala" at LjubiGevac The village of Ljubicevac is located 3.7 km. southwardof Velesnica and the site lies an equal distance fartherdownstream opposite Grabovica Island. The term Glamija, sometimes Glameja, is a corruptionof mogila, the Slavic equivalent for mound. A Roman ruin, apparently the remnantof a castellum,with a surfaceappearance of an oval tumulus, is still partially preserved there. Its name is Glamija and after it, it seems, the bank containing the is named " Glamidepositswithwhichwe are hereconcerned, ja-Obala." This is again a settlement characterized by similarfeaturesas in the instancesalready stated; it is, however, more extensive (viewed fromthe river) than the other sites here detailed, forit is about 1 km. long. The deposits below it into the forma culturelevel with pits penetrating from2 m. to 2.5 m. The Icess,the total verticalspan ranging average heightof the bank itselfvaries from3.5 m. to 4.5 m. In several pits we noted ratherexcessivelyfiredwall plaster of daubed superwhich seemed to indicate conflagration structures of dwellings. Artificiallyfired floors, such as occur at "Vinca," 1 may possiblyexist at this site; however, positive deductions in this regard must await excavation. in 1933 revealed The pits observedduringour reconnoitering a roundedor flattened bottom, an equilateral,verticalprofile, and a rathershallow depth (not exceeding 1.5 m.). While of wattlingwere wall plasterwith-impressions chunksof fired
1Vasic, 1932, p. 10.
NEOLITHIC SITES
345
quite abundant throughout the deposits,the laminated more or less horizontallylaid "floors" (?) composed of a similar substance seemed to be restrictedto a layer immediately overlyingthe pits.' Cultural material in situ was fully in view throughoutthe exposed deposits. Furthermore,the shelfbetweenthe bank and the Danube, and to a lesserextent also the horizontal plane of the bank (especially its tilled portion),were fairlystrewnwithsecondarilyplaced remains. In addition to the Neolithic deposits,which (in the exposed profile)seem to represent a primarysettlement, Bronze Age occupation (Vatin phase) is also fullydocumented,and it is likewise obvious that the site was utilized (perhaps as a militarypost) duringthe period of Roman occupation. The Neolithic materialincludes: the barbotine,fluted, burnished, and hand-smoothedclasses of pottery; flintblades, milling stones and quernsof sandstone; fired wall plasterand flooring (?); and animal bones (domesticcattle and pig). 5. " Obala-Kusjak," near Prahovo The village of Prahovo is situated on the bank of the Danube opposite the southernextremity of the Roumanian island of OstrovulMare. The site lies about 2 km. upstream fromthe railroadstation of Prahovo and 300 m. downstream fromthe Kusjak gristmill. Its northern limitcoincideswith the edge of the gulley which intervenesbetween the Kusjak gristmill and the bank of the Danube, which at this point has a greaterelevationthan in any of the previously specified instances of Neolithic sites. The deposits are concentrated withinthe eroded bank fora distance of about 200 m. The heightof the culturebearinglevel ranges from2.5 m. to 3.5 m., and the richest exposed depositsare confined to the profile of a prominentdepressionwhich formsa triangularpocket in the surface plane of the bank. The deposits consist of large pits, the contoursof which are clearly distinguishable
1 Provisionally, thisphenomenon may perhapsbe viewedas somewhat of a similarcase to "Vinca," wherehouses withan artificially preparedand fired floor are stratigraphically laterthan the bothros niveau,whichis characterized by simple pits;cf.Vasic,op. cit.,and passim.
346
VLADIMIR
J. FEWKES
above these, and debrissuperimposed in the Icessfoundation, surmounted,in turn, by recent humus. In 1933 and 1934 of the site was exposed by fresherosionand the entireprofile its limitswerepreciselytraceable in the bank. The artificial deposits were everywhereclearly revealed without a break in their continuous distribution. The sloping beach-like small quantityof secondarilyplaced shelfyieldeda relatively othersites. On the surfaceof the with materialas compared site no culturalevidence was noted; the groundis not under cultivation,servingmerelyas pasture land. The nature of the deposits and the material findsestablish the site as a Neolithic settlement which seems to have remained unoccupied, subsequent to its termination,until the Roman period. The pits and the immediatelysuperimposedlayers werefoundto contain exclusivelyNeolithicremains. It was only in the highestdeposits and withinthe humus that we noted Roman brick and sherds. The originalNeolithic site was probably more or less confinedto the depressionin the surfaceof the bank (P1. VIII: 2) forin the higherelevation above this locus, occupied by recentlyploughed fields,we failed to find any cultural remains. This view is further of the culture by the pronouncedconcentration strengthened bearing deposits within the profileof the depression. The burnished, fluted, the barbotine, Neolithicmaterialcomprises: and hand-smoothedclasses of pottery; fired wall plaster; flintblades; millingstones of sandstone; slate shoe-lastcelts. Our search along the Danube bank downstreamfrom "Obala-Kusjak" met with negative resultsin so far as Neolithic sites are concerned. In Prahovo proper, near the crossingof the railroad and the highway leading fromthe boat station to Negotin, we noted Roman deposits in the high bank of the Danube; the distance fromthis place to "Obala-Kusjak," measured along the immediateriverbank, is roughly1.6 km. I do not mean to imply that this course deposits; the of the bank is entirelydevoid of archaeological none point I wish to stressis that duringour reconnoitering were obviously exposed. This observation,it seems to me,
NEOLITHIC
SITES
347
has a direct bearing on the followingrecord quoted from Vasic: "Below the site at [the mouth of] Slatinska reka [Slatina brook, which joins the Danube about 15.5 km. northwest of Kusjak] the first nearestprehistoric locality on the bank of the Danube thus farknownis Praovo [now called Prahovo]. The site itselflies on the Danube above present day Praovo, not far from the road Negotin-Kusjak. The bank at this place is cut [i.e. eroded] and high." 1 From this inadequate localization a precise placement of the " prehistoric locality" in question is, of course, not attainable. The road Negotin-Kusjakrunsfairly parallelwiththe Danube formore than 1 km. beforeKusjak is reached, and its maximum distance from the river amounts to about 300 m. Beginningwith"Obala-Kusjak" the bank of the Danube has an elevation of well over 6 m. (as contrastedwith 1.5 m. or less in frontof the grist mill called Kusjak), and its height increases to 12 m. immediatelyfartherdownstream. This level of the bank continuesto and beyond Prahovo; indeed, in several instancesit reaches a heightof as much as 15 m., especially where sand dunes occur. It seems that Vasic's reference to the high bank, his omissionto take into account the position of Kusjak itself,and above all the Late Bronze Age findswhichhe reported,2 have to do not with the site of "Obala-Kusjak" here described,but ratherwith a separate localitysituated,presumably, somewhere farther downstream. Accordingto Vasic's record,as stated in the reference just quoted, the place should be allocated "not far fromthe road Negotin-Kusjak." Among the finds from this site, as describedand illustratedby Vasic,3thereare two sherdswhich suggestNeolithicprovenience.4 The site of " Obala-Kusjak " need not necessarily markthe last Neolithic settlement situated on the Danube bank
Vasic,1910,p. 14. (Free translation.) Vasic,1910,p. 15,and P1.XI: 92-95,97 (Pl. XI: 91 a, b, and 96 illustrate Neolithic sherds).
2 1
ofthesesherds to theNeolithic Ageas represented at thesiteof "Obala-Kusjak," or any other Neolithic settlements heredescribed.
3 Op. cit., PI. XI: 91, 96. 4Vasic, 1910,Pl. XI: 91 a, b, and 96. I shouldnot hesitate to assignboth
348
VLADIMIR
J. FEWKES
between" Obala" at Kostol in the west and the mouthof the Timok in the east. It is necessaryto emphasizethe observation, however,that beyond "Obala-Kusjak" actual deposits containing evidence in situ fromwhichto determine indubitable existenceof Neolithic ocupation are unsubstantiatedat this time. This statement, of course, refers only to the Yugoslavian portion of the lower Danubian bank, for it is well known that sites comparable to the five here detailed appear in the same bank beyond the Timok estuary (in Bulgaria); and like sites have also been ascertained on the Roumanian bank between the Iron Gate and, roughly,the town of Calafatul, as well as on several of the Danubian islands situatedwithinthe corresponding portionof the river. (Vide infra.) The fivesites just describedhave a great deal in common withrespectto position,natureof deposits,formof dwellings, characterof material,size (as revealed in profile),quantity of remains,and mannerof erosion. Above all, they are all settlements documenting an essentially uniform type of economy.
(B)
LIKELY
(?) NEOLITHIC
SETTLEMENTS
Under this heading are here listed localitiesagain located on the bank of the Danube between the Iron Gate and the mouth of the Timok the exposed profiles of which,however, reveal only Late Bronze Age (and sometimes also later) deposits. Yet, in the immediate vicinity of these sites, usually at the base of the bank (on the inclinedshelf), but always in a strictly secondary position, Neolithic sherds have been collected. The necessity of segregatingthese instancesis dictatedby the ice and wateraction ofthe Danube in so far as the two affect the bank, forit is conceivablethat dislodged remains might be transportedand transplanted. While it must be stressedthat duringour examinationof the fromthe base of the bank to the edge slopingshelfextending of the river we found only a negligibleamount of material the contingency attributableto the agencies just mentioned,
NEOLITHIC
SITES
349
involved must neverthelessbe respected. When the sites themselvesyield positive proof of cultural evidence in situ their deposits usually also reveal some clue as to theirtime placement. That was the case in the fiveinstancesthus far detailed, all of which (as far as their profilesdisclose) originated as Neolithic settlements, although later occupations are also documentedat all these sites. However, there are from several instancesof findsof Neolithicmaterialretrieved now secondary position at localities revealing later than Neolithic deposits. Naturally, any prognosis would be necessarilypremature;the problematicalissue must be dealt with through additional field work. Yet, for the sake of it seems desirable to include the potentialdata completeness in this treatment. In doing so we must also take into cognizance the sites reported by Vasicj, even though his manner of dealing with some of their material fails to be obviously convincingwith respect to ceramics earlier than "the 'Zuto Brdo' type." For Vasic describedbut a sampling of his findsand it is conceivablethat his collectionmay have contained specimens of Neolithic proveniencewhich might not be ordinarilyillustrated.2 We shall, for convenience, now reversethe orderof our previousgeographicprogression and proceed fromthe Timok toward the Iron Gate, but still along the Danube. (a) Radujevac is the first Danubian community on Yugoslav Radujevac territory above the mouth of the Timok. Practically in its center, opposite the boat station, on the high bank of the Danube, are quite prominent and readilytraceableruinsofan extensiveRoman castellum. The site is locally called either " Gradic6" 3 or " Rimski Grad" 4 and has suffered a greatdeal
in his plates II-XI by findsillustrated describing themin a sequencecorresponding to the numbering of the individual specimens shown on theplates. 3 Serbo-Croatian diminutive forfortress. (The diminutive variantis rather difficult to appreciate in viewoftheextensive natureoftheruins.) 4 I.e. Romanfortress.
2 Vasi6, 1910, detailed only the
1 Vasic, 1910,pp. 2 ff.
350
VLADIMIR
J. FEWKES
plunderfromextensive,and here and thereindeed intensive, Late found Vasic this place At date. recent clearly ing of a Bronze Age material, presumably in secondary position.' When I examinedthe site in 1933 only Roman depositswere revealed in the eroded bank, and very little material,again exclusivelyRoman, was strewnon the sloping shelfbetween the base of the bank and the edge of the Danube. The ilpublishedby Vasic 2 do not include any Neolithic lustrations material from Radujevac. Yet, for reasons previously it seems well to hold this locality in abeyance for specified, fieldworkin the region. further (b) As has been stated in connectionwith "Obala-Kusjak," supra, Vasic reporteda site "above this village not far from the Negotin-Kusjak road." 3 In his opinion it represented"another example of 'Zuto Brdo' analogies," and as such, of course, was assigned by him to the Iron Age. However, two sherds among his findsfrom "Praovo" certainly bespeak Neolithic provenience.4 True, two sherds of Vasic's report are meager evidence, but the methodology to possible with respect mind open an to retain us compels Brdo' type" Neolithic material in any sites "of the 'Zuto withthe material describedtherein. Since Vasic dealt merely and dismissedthe nature of the deposits with a few cursory remarksit is not plausible to do more than this. In any event, great caution must be exerciseduntil actual diagnosis of the several localities is made available throughfurther it seemsto me that the individual exploration. Nevertheless, instances of Neolithic material recognizable from the ilof Vasic, but disregardedby him lustrationsand description as such, command attentionin the presentwriting. In this sense Prahovo ("Praovo"), be it on the basis of two sherds, justifies,in my opinion at any rate, its inclusion under localitiessuggestiveof likely (?) Neolithicsites.
1 Vasic,1910,pp. 15 ff. 2 Op. cit., PI. XI: 98 a, b. 3 Op. cit., p. 14.
4 Op.
cit., PI. XI: 91 a, b, and 96.
NEOLITHIC
SITES
351
(c) " U96eSlatinskeReke" 1 The Slatina brook joins the Danube about 4 km. to the north-northeast of the village bearing the same name, at a location situated opposite the southernarm of the bifurcated island of Malo Ostrvo.2Vasic recorded "finds of prehistoric objects of the same character" as in the other nine sites examinedby him in 1907.3 None are describedor illustrated in his report, the reason being that the author "did not wish to burden the article with a very large number of illustrations." 4 It is to be assumed, then, that the material in questionrepresented Vasic's "usual 'Zuto Brdo' type"; since, as has been stressed,this categoryembracesNeolithicsherds, I feelthat "Usce Slatinske Reke" must,provisionally at any rate, be mentionedamong the likely (?) Neolithicsites. (d) " Zidinje " (or " Glamija") at Vajuga The village of Vajuga is located on the Danube at a distance of 6 km. practicallydue south of Kladovo. The site of "Zidinje," 5 sometimesalso called "Glamija," 6 is situated on the bank of the Danube offthe eastern edge of the community. Whetheror not it is to be identified with Vasic's finds7 is not possible to ascertain because Vasic referred to them as being collectedwithinthe land belongingto Vajuga, without designatingany specificlocation.8 And he did not
mouthofthe Slatinabrook. Malo Ostrvo (i.e. LittleIsland) is the Serbianname; the island,however, is a Roumanian possession. I am not certain that Ostrovul Mica, a Roumanian equivalentof the Serbiandesignation, is the recognized official name of this island;myattempts to verify thisprovedunsuccessful. 3 Vasic,1910,p. 14.
2
I I.e.
VasiM, 1910,p. 13 (i.e. "9. Vajuga"). Beginning about 300 m. westward of "Zidinje" another site exists;thisis knownas "Obala" (Vajuga) and is also locatedon the Danube bank. In the exposedprofile visible at theplace in 1933a deposit averaging 0.5 m. in thickness was revealed. However, the materialwhichwe obtainedfrom this localityis
8
mogila for mound.
derivedfromthe natureof the site which containsruinsof an extensive Roman castellum withthe lowerportionof its wallsand thefoundation exposedby "treasure"hunters. 6 The mound-shaped form ofthesurface features ofthesiteseemsto explain this alternate name; this,as has been said, is a corruption of the Slavic term
4 Op.
cit. 5 The name, meaning walls,is
352
VLADIMIR J. FEWKES
mention the Roman ruins. Vasic's illustrations of his material fromVajuga do not include any Neolithic pieces.' Our 1933 findsfrom"Zidinje" compriseonly Late Bronze Age and Roman sherds. However, duringour visit to the sitein 1934 we collectedadditionalsurface piecesamongwhich, aside fromthe previouslynoted periods,the NeolithicAge is definitely represented. Yet the deposits, well exposed by fresherosionon both occasions, did not reveal any evidence in situ older than the Late Bronze Age. The pre-Roman deposits are probably disturbed,in part at least, by the foundationof the castellum, and much additional damage has recently been caused by vandalism. Preservedtraces of pre-Romanoccupationmay perhaps lie buriedoffthe mound proper. A testat the western edge ofthe ruins,carriedinland fromthe river, might serve to ascertain this presumption, forit is therethat Late Bronze Age materialhas at timesbeen ploughed up. Until a definite conclusion can be drawn fromexplorationthe site may be placed within our group of likely (?) Neolithiclocalities. (e) " Obala Southwest" at Korbovo This site, again, as its name suggests,located on the bank of the Danube, begins at the southernmarginof the village and extends on downstreamfor a distance of about 300 m. After a brief interval at its lower (downstream) terminal similardeposits,in so faras structure, and remains thickness, are concerned, continue fartheron toward Vajuga. The bank is considerablylower (maximum height 2.5 m.-Pl. VII: 13) than at the site above the village 2 and the culture bearingdepositsare nowherequite so thickas theyare at that as a Bronze and Iron Age locality. The site was identified on the basis of the materialfoundin situ in 1933.3 settlement
is highly suggestive ofa settlement andthesiteitself Romanorlater, wholly either ofthecastellum (?) at "Zidinje" orsubsequent to theexistence with contemporary from that the material Vajuga reported ("Glamija"). And it is verydoubtful at "Obala," Vajuga. by Vasic (op. cit.)mayhave beencollected 1Cf. Vasi6, 1910, Pls. IX: 78-80, and X: 81-85; theserepresent the Late BronzeAge. 2 I.e. "Obala Northeast," Korbovo. 1934,p. 36, note23. "Fewkes,
NEOLITHIC
SITES
353
In view of the fact,however,that in the collectionof surface remainsfromthe slopingshelfextending fromthe base of the bank to the water edge, several examples of characteristic Neolithic sherds are included, it seems advisable to record this locality in the categorynow under treatment. It must be especially stressed that I am referring only to that uninterrupted stretchof deposits which lie partiallywithinthe village proper and partially immediatelydownstreamfrom it, designatedas "Obala Southwest." It remainsforfuture investigationto ascertain the relationshipof those segments of like deposits located fartherdown the Danube and individually separated (in 1933 and 1934) by sterile intervals. Our observationsenabled us to identify all of these sectorsas belongingat least to the Late Bronze Age (and, in certain spots, also to later periods), but nowheredid we locate Neolithic remains. Including the blank spaces, the total span of the culture bearing bank, beginningwith "Obala Southwest" and progressing downstream towardVajuga, measured (in 1933) about 2 km. It seems that several settlements are presentunless, of course, the intermittent sterilebreaks are merelysporadic blanks in a single occupational area. It is to be remembered that we are dealing only with the exposed face of the bank. Burials are indicated by actual skeletal remains visible in the eroded profile particularly at the downstream marginof the terminalsegmentof the individual stretches of deposits.1 At " Obala Southwest" itself we noted several coffin-like structures of firedplaster with thin, uprightwalls, oval in shape (P1. VII: 10-center foreground), some divided into halves along the long axis, and showing remains of the originalroofing likewise of firedplaster. In the deposits most recentlywashed by the Danube waters we foundtwo of these structures completely exposed,but empty.
1At thelocality known as "Grla," situated on theDanube between Korbovo and Vajuga, about 4 km. from the first namedvillage,we notedan especially prominent concentration of skeletalburials,eitherextendedor flexed, in well distinguishable gravepits. Although we recorded Roman and later sherdson the adjoiningslopingshelf, we foundno tracesof tile, nor furniture, actually in situ. The site is accessible to excavation witha nominal outlayand should, in myopinion, repaythorough exploration.
354
VLADIMIR
J. FEWKES
Definiteremainsof othersimilarinstanceswerealso visible in more protectedpositions,but even in these cases there were or burialsto give dependable no noticeabletraces of furniture data as to their original purpose. However, we were told by natives that "large human bones" had come to view in a disturbedby erosion about the year 1930.1 "coffin" freshly on record merelyas a matterof In placing this information routine it seems well to recall the burials in "Mulden von schwachgebrantenTon" at Hallstatt.2 (f) "Kurvin Grad" at Mala Vrbica The village of Mala Vrbica lies opposite the Simianu island about 6 km. eastward of Kladovo. "Kurvin Grad" 3 is situated approximately2 km. upstream fromthe village, on the bank of the Danube. The ruins of a Roman stronghold, perhaps originallya castellum, identifythe locality. These are now largelyunder water; in a dry season the walls are usually partially exposed, and their contours are distinguishableeven when submerged. From this site Vasic recorded certain "finds of 'Zuto Brdo' analogies," 4 and
1 In 1933 we examined the remains of the structurein question (P1. VII: 12, 15) and found it to be apparently a half of the original (assumption based on comparison of its measurementswith those of other similar remains still more or less well preserved). The portionstill restingwithinthe bank had not suffered from erosion although it had been mutilated by curious natives. There were no traces of either skeletal or cultural remains. Although the structure was incompleteand considerablydamaged, its formerdimensions could be estimated (by comparative calculation in combination with deductions based on extant vestiges) as follows: total length 1.7 m.; thickness of walls 0.05 m. (average); height of chamber near preserved end 0.3 m. (probable maximum at center perhaps as much as 0.4 m.); maximum width 1 m. The shape suggested a fairly regular oval. The plaster was thoroughlyfiredand was characterized by uniformityin color and texture. There were no signs of ashes or of firecrackling within the contraption, nor, for that matter, in its immediate vicinity. The firingof the plaster impressed me as an intentional process designed to attain of the walled and vaulted structure. It certainlywas not to be sturdy firmness as a remnantof an oven. It would be useless to speculate about the interpreted contrivance; the incompletestate of preservaoriginal purpose of the interesting tion and the recent damage preclude definitedeductions. The answer to this puzzling question must be sought by excavation in the undisturbed portion of the deposits. 2 Von Sacken, 1868, pp. 6 if. 3 The name means fortress of a prostitute. where the locality is described as a settlement. 4Vasic, 1910, pp. 5 ff.,
NEOLITHIC
SITES
355
among the materialillustratedby him,two sherdsare highly and I am inclinedto believe suggestiveof Neolithic origins,1 in the same source that two of the several figurines illustrated are also Neolithic.2 Although these instances constitute distinctlyinadequate documentation I think it proper to include " Kurvin Grad" under the localities suggestive of likely (?) Neolithicsites. (g) "Pesak" near Kladovo At this place, situated on the Kladovo-Korbovo road (beforereachingthe inundationdepression,extendinginland fromthe eastern margin of the site of "Obala" at Kostol, vide supra), Vasic noted "a locality with 'Zuto Brdo' type of sherds and cinerated human bones." 3 The author illustratedbut two sherds,both of which obviouslybelong to the Late Bronze Age.4 The locality is occupied by a live dune which seems to have advanced and increased since 1907.5 It is here included among likely (?) Neolithic sites not only because of necessarycaution with respectto Vasic's interpretation, but also in view of the fact that the definitely Neolithicsite of "Obala" at Kostol, lies but a shortdistance from"Pesak." (h) "Krvava Bara" at Kladovo About 0.4 km. southofthe fortress ofSvetislav (sometimes also called Feth Islam, Fet Izlam, or Fetislav) which lies on the bank of the Danube a littleless than a kilometer fromthe center of Kladovo, brick clay is now being exploited in an area roughly150 m. long and about 50 m. wide. The place is knownas "Krvava Bara." 6 During our reconnaissance in 1933 we examinedthe open groundand noted several culture pits, more or less mutilatedby the clay cuttingactivities,as
I
2
cit., P1. III: 10 a, b, and 11 a, b. The time of ProfessorVasic's survey, op. cit.; he specificallymentionedthe live dune in his report. The name Pesak means sand. 6 I.e. bloody pool.
4 Op.
5
3 Op. cit., p. 5.
Op.
Op. cit.,PI. V: 38 and 40. cit., P1. IV: 18, 19 a, b; cf.note 13, supra.
356
VLADIMIR
J. FEWKES
well as some remnants of skeletal graves. Although the cultural material recoveredthere is only of the Roman and later periods,we did note a veryfewsherdson the surfacein the vicinityof the cuts, which, despite their small size and rather atypical character,suggest an earlier, possibly Neoto say whetherthe few lithic, provenience. It is difficult fragmentsin question originally came from deposits at "Krvava Bara"; but it seems to me desirable to mention this localityas a possible source of Neolithicoccupation.' Of the eight sites just enumeratedsix are more or less of Neolithic localities. Their the same nature as the definitely allocation,and characterof debris,as depositionalconditions, character. The two sites well as extent,show a homogeneous at Kladovo are rather distant fromthe Danube; "Krvava Bara" seems to have very shallow deposits, and "Pesak" fails to reveal any indications of its depositional nature. With the single exceptionof "Krvava Bara" the othersites had all been occupied in the Late Bronze Age period; and most, if not all, including "Krvava Bara," also in Roman times. It may be of interestto note, at this point, that Roman ruins are especially numerousalong the bank of the Danube betweenthe Iron Gate and the mouth of the Timok (and on into Bulgaria, of course). The workof Kanitz, however amateurish,gives a fairidea of the continuousdistribution of Roman militarystations in this zone.2 The number of those castella and castra which I have visited between Kladovo and Radujevac exceeds a score. And in several depositsexist under instances,as has been stated, prehistoric is such ruins. Where the bank exposed, or the wall foundations disturbed,examinationof the remainsis readily facilitated. Elsewhere, however,the mounds are fairlyintact featuresgive a clue to theirRoman and only theirsuperficial origin, while search for earlier relics need not meet with positive results. It seems to me that a specialist in Roman
I In the courseof our visitto the fortress is quite rich which, incidentally, tile,and bricknear we notedRomansherds, antiquities, Turkish in interesting periods. ofanypreceding evidence anypositive butdidnotcollect front, thewater and his map. Kanitz,1892,pp. 42 ff.,
NEOLITHIC
SITES
357
antiquitieswould finda veryrichfieldin this sectionof Yugoslavia and that explorationin sites the occupational history of which outside of Roman times remains obfuscous would him as well as the prehistorian. benefit
(C) MISCELLANEOUS SITES
The Negotin Museum has a small collectionof material obtained on various occasions at four localities here listed under (i)-(iv); and the Nis Museum has a sample collection from three additional sites, here listed under (v)-(vii). I have not seen any of these seven places, but have examined, at Negotin and Nis, respectively, the pertinentfinds from (i)-(iv), (vi), and (vii). A briefnote has been published on
(V) .1
(i). "Grad" at Miroc; two shaft-hole axes of (?) copper. (ii). "Pisk" at Glogovica; severalslate (and allied material) celts of the shoe-lasttype and forms derivedtherefrom, as well as two perforated axes of quartziticstone. (iii). " Glozar" at Negotin; apparentlyNeolithicsherds. (iv). "Grad" at Tabakovac; apparentlyNeolithicsherds. (v). " Glabarova Glavica at Klenovac; apparently Neolithicsherds.2 (vi). "Strnjane" at Osmakovo, drainage area of the upper Timok; various Neolithic material (incised, barbotine, hand smoothedundecoratedwares,altars, weights, fluted, one celt,one abraidingstone) previously describedby me.'
2 Cf. Bogdanovic and Milenovic', 1936,pp. 13-14; surface finds, reported by amateurs, material in Nig Museum(op. cit.,p. 14). 3Fewkes,1936,p. 61. I includedthissite,and "Tumba" at Kalna, vide in the Moravo-Danubian infra, area to whichthe studyjust citedwas devoted alongthelinesofthepresent paper. Thiswasdonesimply becausebothlocalities fallwithin a geographic locus whichembraces partsof boththe Morava system and the lowerDanubian valley. The two sites are here mentioned more for completeness than by necessity of altering theiraforementioned geographical placement. As it happensthe materialfromboth is equtlly characteristic of either periphery ofthe two drainages (Morava and Timok). It is impossible to drawsharplinesofdemarcation againstdistributional evidence.
IBogdanovic and Milenovic', 1936.
358
VLADIMIR
J. FEWKES
(vii). " Tumba" at Kalna, drainagearea of the upper Timok; Neolithic fluted,burnished,and hand-smoothed(plain) reportedby me.' wares previously None of these seven sites have, as far as I am aware, been to present investigatedin detail; it is not possible,therefore, any data respecting their< deposits. The material was gathered in surface collecting. "Grad," Miroc, "Pisk,' Glogovica, "Glozar," Negotin, and "Grad," Tabakovac, contain Roman and perhaps also later ruins While some of the chance findsmust of necessitybe viewed with reserveespecially those of (i)-(v)-the abundance and variety of obvious Neolithic relics at "Strnjane," Osmakovo, perfectly have and at "Tumba," Kalna, both of which, incidentally, of the Nis Museum, warranttheir been examinedby the staff acceptance as Neolithic sites. The two seem to be rather extensive settlementsand the material found upon their surfaceplanes had been turnedup in the process of cultivaNeotion.2 They really belong in the categoryof definitely lithic settlementsand are included in the group now under discussionforreasons already clarified. portionof the Yugoslavian As has been stated,the interior is very little known valley in Danubian the lower possession from the standpoint of prehistoricarchawology.A large number of sundry sites exists more or less throughoutthe each with a specificname, and, in many instances territory, of masonry ruins, also with some local tradition, usually claimed to be a Roman survival. In the latter case findsof coins, glass, slag, bronze objects, "huge pots" (pithoi?), inscribedtiles,etc., are said to have been gatheredby natives and at times by outsiders.3 Some such material has been but more often it seems to have disappeared preserved,4 without trace. Roman occupation appears to have been
1936. Cf. also Fewkes, 2Information fromNig Museum,correspondence op. cit., p. 62, note440. theWorld during thecountry awayfrom have beencarried 3Much is said tct occupation. War whileSerbiawas undermilitary and a very sculptures Museumhas salvagedseveralsplendid 4The Negotin coins. of Barbaric collection important
I
Fewkes,1936,p. 62.
NEOLITHIC SITES
359
quite general not only along the Danube but deep in the interior as well, and penetratedinto the mountainousdistrict evidentlyin quest of mineral wealth. And it is interesting to note that in some of the mines exploitedby the Romans, prehistoric findsare occasionally gathered. How far inland may have reached the various cultural predecessorsof the Romans is far from clear at present. It seems advisable, to recordall indicationswhichmay lead to a better therefore, of this matterin the future. understanding Descriptionof theNeolithic Material The homegeneityof the five definitely Neolithic settlements, as revealed in their depositional nature, is further in the relicswhichthey contain. The two marginal reflected settlements("Strnjane," Osmakovo and "Tumba," Kalna) have yieldedpreciselythe same type of relics as we foundin the Danubian loci. Moreover,the materialthus fargathered in those places which comprise, our category of likely (?) Neolithic sites, as well as certain chance collections, also show comparable characteristics. The total, therefore, may be described collectively. The various classes of ceramics here presentedare distinguished along the following qualitative characteristics: surface finish,texture, decoration or embellishment, shape, and color. While it would be possible to arrange a typologicalseriation this would necessarilybe quite prematurein view of the completelack of stratigraphic data definitely establishedby excavation. Even the significant observationat "Obala-Kusjak," wherebythe barbotine class of potteryis indicated as the oldest,must be taken only provisionallydespite the seeminglyclearly identified case of of layers. Althoughthe stratigraphic superimposition order noted in this particular instance is indeed significant, its precise understandingand interpretation must not be used conclusively without excavating the site and proving its depositionalhistory. We must also point out that the material here specifically treated representsapproximatelythe followingproportions: "Obala Northeast," Korbovo, circa
360
VLADIMIR
J. FEWKES
forty-five per cent, "Obala-Kusjak," Prahovo, about the same, and the remaininginstances the rest.' Nevertheless, even the smallest lots conformto the general character as exemplified by the two large groups. In the classificational some overlappingcannot very well be avoided, arrangement but on the whole the several categories,as they are here stipulated, reflect fairly sharply defined qualitative differences.2
1 This excludes from"Strnjane,"Osmakovo,and "Tumba," the material Kalna. rational on a satisfactory pottery 2It is not a simplematterto classify are each to be taken into consideration basis, because the variousattributes ofa stablevalue. to a coefficient conform and do notnecessarily variable highly a meanswithwhichto attempt a dependable aspectsprovide Whilequalitative rule like a prescribed anything theyfailto constitute grouping, classificational applicationis concerned. In the presentwork,the insofaras theirspecific but combination, are notused in a constant characteristics qualitative individual class. We shallsee, then, theneedsofeach individual with in conformity rather is one of our of surfacing (and the manner finish by burnishing that surface wareas a class, and to the burnished is common of distinction) criteria guiding and evento barbotine incised, as wellas to fluted, pieces, alsoto burnish-decorated terms technological thefollowing at thistime, pottery. I shouldliketo explain, to thefinished, Fabricrefers description. pottery with in connection hereutilized size ofthe (thatis to say the measurable and is judgedby texture product, fired as revealedin the crosssectionbetweenthe outer or platy particles granular (i.e. the so-calledtempering of a givensample),inclusions and innersurfaces to talk difficult and the natureof firing. It seemsto me exceedingly medium), ofthe paste, and the general in preparation clay, its manipulation ofthe original occasioned subsequently becauseofthealtering construction, preceding treatment the whichto reconstruct adequate positivedata from by the firing.Without attempts or empirical theoretical either procedure, variousstepsof the potter's cannot claim seriousrecognition.Buildingconnotesthe at an explanation its identifipermit extantcriteria wherever procedure of constructional manner it should ofbuilding, process to whatI call thesegmental cation. Withrespect in whichspirally inter alia, true coiling, be said that this methodcomprises, in which (or loop) variant, and the circuit of paste are diagnostic, woundfillets ofa givenvesselat a givenheight fillet equals the circumference each individual in the barbotine of its body. Both of these variantsare amplydocumented are givenin the terms(but not class here descibed. The colorsof surfaces and to symbols)of Ridgway,1912. In orderto precludemisunderstanding, in the case of the readerwho has no in translation forestall possibledifficulties ofthe in footnotes,rough synonyms book,I am including, accessto Ridgway's are not equivalentto thesesynonyms colorvalues; obviously, less self-evident on thepartofsome reactions plates. I am led to thisstepby certain Ridgways's book,experienced access to Ridgway's who,without ofmyEuropeancolleagues after the color descriptions, to comprehend in theirattempts some difficulty note111) ff. Despitethispredicausedin Fewkes,1936,pp. 27 (there Ridgway, on matching colordescription ofbasing utility ofthegeneral I am convinced ment onlybasic colorsand their scale. In any event,I am giving witha recognized ranges. respective
NEOLITHIC
SITES
361
(I) Ceramics. (A) Pottery. (1) The barbotineclass.' potteryin the This, the most constantly-recurring sites here described,is perhaps to be understoodas the chiefdomesticware.2 It containsorganic (chaff and grasses) and inorganic (small particles of sand vinacegrit)inclusions. The basic colorsrangefrom 3 to warm sepia 4 on the exterior and from ous buff orange cinnamonto fuscousI on the interior. The just stated are quite typical of the characteristics
1 The nomer barbotine is here employed in exactly the same senso as it was applied to the typical material from "Grad," Stareevo;' cf. Fewkes, Goldman, Ehrich, 1933, pp. 43 ff. However, its original utilization in Yugoslavia is to be credited to Professor Vasie, who firstused it in describing the same class of potterywhich he found chieflyin the bothros level of "Vin6a"; cf. Vasie, 1932, pp. 82, 90-91, and P1. XXIX: 132 a, 132 b, and 133. Cf. also Fewkes, 1936, to note that in his latest publication pp. 27 (there note 109) ff. It is interesting on "Vinca," Vasic, 1936b, pp. 7 ff.,P1. I, places the barbotine ware at the head of his sundry categories of pottery. However, he still, and more emphatically than ever, insists on his incredible obcession that the site was originallyfounded at about the break from the seventh to the sixth centuries B.C. The reader cannot help but wonder how and why the excavator of "Vinea" which, in its unusually instructive stratigraphyand in its rich, diversifiedmaterial, has no equal on the Danube, could have been so grossly misled. Having devoted more than one quarter of a centuryto the study of "Vinca," ProfessorVasie comes to the amazing conclusion that the settlement was established at a date actually succeeding the period which, as he himselforiginallystated (1905, pp. 262-263), and subsequently repeated (cf. Fewkes, 1935, pp. 651-652), had witnessed its termination! In his personal attack on my recentpaper (Fewkes, 1936, especially pp. 19 ff.), Vasie, 1936b, pp. iv-v, obviously reveals his failure to comprehend and appreciate my objectives and motivationwhich I expresslyspecified(Fewkes, 1936, p. 40, note 237). "The results of the excavations at Vinea," we are told by Vasi6, 1936b, p. v, "brought forth,successively,more and more proofagainst the customary 'scholastic' theories, and particularly against the dating of Vinea into the Neolithic Age. It was, therefore,only natural that the new data caused an evolution in my dating of the establishment of Vinea. It is a well known fact that Vasic, 1932, 1936, 1936a, and 1936b, has utterly failed to furnish anythinglike convincingproofof his palpably absurd contentions; cf. Minns, 1933, and 1937. And the reader may recall Vasie's publication on "Gradac," 1911, and its review by Menghin, 1913; cf. Fewkes, 1936, pp. 54-55. 2 Its character, depositional appearance, and geographic distribution (in lower Danubian Yugoslavia, at any rate) are conducive to a statement that this class of potteryis very likely to be viewed as the chiefware of the primary Neo-
in thisregion. lithic settlers

3 Pinkish-buff. 4Sepia-brown.
Dark brownish-gray,
362
VLADIMIR
J. FEWKES
;z1.
NEOLITHIC
SITES
363
ii
__
364
VLADIMIR
J. FEWKES
78
V 1%
tS
/2
307
NEOLITHIC
SITES
365
V
/
/~~~~~~~~~~/
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
366
VLADIMIR
J. FEWKES
1*
~~~~~~~~17
of acttual FIGS. A, B, C, D, and E: Field sketches, approximately four fifths size, of sample material from "Obala Northeast," Korbovo; B: 1 = P1. V: 7, B: 2 = P1. V: 5, B: 3 = P1. V: 15, and B: 4 = P1. V: 2.
NEOLITHIC
SITES
367
Aj~~~~A
17
F~~~~~
jo
zo
368
VLADIMIR
J. FEWKES
C%
9.
------C.t2) w
J*
910
I/ 0
NEOLITITIC
SITES
369
of actual size, of fourfifths approximately FIGS. F, G, and H: Field sketches, "Obala-Kusjak,"nearPrahovo. from samplematerial
370
VLADIMIR
J. FEWKES
class as a whole, irrespectiveof surface treatment. subthe following However,on the basis of surfacing divisionsare recognizable: (a) Positive applique. This categorycomprisesseveral variants which have a commonbond in the manneroftheirsurface finish. The potter added to the outside of the wall a quantity of paste, the constituentquality fromthat of the body of of which did not differ the plastic vessel, and worked over it to produce either a positive or a negative relief. Consethe followingdistinctions quently,we distinguish in the ware so treated. (i) Streaking. eitherpurely was accomplished This treatment manually, and then we speak of finger-stroked streaking,or with the aid of a tool, such as a stick of wood, a spatula (wood, bone), etc; we streakmay call the latter practice tool-treated however, that the ing, always remembering, paste medium with which the applique was was added by hand. Reconstructively affected -according to inductive tests-this peculiar may be describedas follows. mannerofsurfacing surfacethe potterapplied Over a handsmoothed a thin coating of paste so as to cover the entire area to be subjected to barbotine treatment. Then, by allowing additional similar paste to ooze out between her fingersas she pressed a small quantity held in hand, she superposed, formations upon the coating,a seriesofridge-like in positive relief. These she subsequently bonded withthe surfacecoatingeitherby finger or tool stroking(P1. I: 1-4, 8, 9, 11, 14, 20, 23, P1. II: 7, 9, 10, 13, P1. VI: 5, 6, and Fig. G: 1-3). process are as a The marksleftby the stroking rule clearly distinguishablemegascopically; in
NEOLITHIC
SITES
371
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
certain border cases microscopic examination must be made to determine the technique. Dimpled and/orpinchedtreatment. A finger tip, finger nail, or sometimesa tool were used to affectthis manner of barbotine surfacing, again upon a previouslycoated surface. Additional application of paste to the coated area was often,but not always, accomplished (P1. I: 10. 12, 13, 16, 21, P1. VI: 1, Fig. G: 4, and Fig. H: 1, 4). Lumpy treatment. This consistsof adding,upon a coated surface, a series of dabs of paste, eitherhand shaped or allowed to ooze out of the hand and to drop on the wall; in either case subsequent adjustment depended on a purely manual manipulation. The lumps are ratherirregular in size and shape. (P1. I: 5, 22, P1. VI: 19.) At timesthe arrangement depends on aligned applied warts in combinationwithincision (Fig. G: 5). Applied ridge (or band). In this categorythe positiveapplique is added over a previouslycoated surfacein such manner that the reliefstands out as a strip, band, or ridge; the surfaceplane of such an addition is often embellished by indentations (fingertip, finger nail, tool) or by positiverelief(P1. I: 6, 7, P1. III: 10, 12, 18, P1. VI: 2, and Fig. H: 2, 5). Scatteredapplique. When the positiveapplicationofthe barbotine treatmentis done in such manner that a conscious effort at arrangement along the lines of a streakedeffect is absent, we speak of scattered applique (P1. V: 1). The finishingtechnique is essentiallythe same as in streakedembellishment.
372
VLADIMIR
J. FEWKES
(vi) Rosette. Employing the principleof an applied ridge the rosetteis hand-modeledinto the shape of a disc or oval and then embellishedby dimpling (P1. III: 8, and Fig. A: 2). At times additional the body ofthe rosette; appendagesradiate from however, this particular feature is not a lug of its size and shape. irrespective (vii) Miscellaneous applique. as the faceThis includes such arrangement shownon P1. III: 9, and combinations like effect of two or more of the variants previously described. (viii) Incised and groovedtreatment. Incisingis done witha sharp tool, presumably the sharp edge of a cuttingimplement. Grooving, on the other hand, is dependent upon a blunted tool. In cross section the furrowof such tools is V-shaped (or at least semi-Vor shaped) in incising and either semi-circular semi-oval in grooving. In the barbotine class is invariably exeof ware such embellishment cuted over a paste-coated surface. Another criterionwhich contrasts readily-distinguishing it with the incised ware of the "Bandkeramik" style is the pronouncedcrudenessof its technique. As far as I am aware, moreover, the barbotine incised and grooved embellishment patterns. The along rectilinear runsexclusively examples here illustrated(P1. I: 15, 17-19, and Fig. F: 1, 2) are quite characteristic. (ix) Plain barbotineware. The readilydistinguishable qualitativecharacteristics of the surface coating-the "leading "-of the barbotine ware enables us to fossil segregateits plain, that is to say unembellished, ranges from variant. The mannerof surfacing
NEOLITHIC
SITES
373
"rough," i.e. either non-hand-smoothedor brushed (apparently with some vegetable fiber medium), to hand smoothed (identified by finger striations),and even to burnished(with a tool, of course). In any case the surface coating always precedes the surfacingproper.1 illustrations The following represent plain barbotine ware: P1. II: 1-6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 20; P1. V: 4, 22; P1. VI: 3, 4, 7-14, 16, 23. With respect to forms of the barbotine warespeaking of the class as a whole irrespective of surfacing-it is not yet possible to presenta conclusive deduction. The profiles here shown (Fig. C: 1-3, '7, 9, 12, 20-23, 25, 27, Fig. E: 6, 9, 13-17, Fig. F: 1, 2, 5-8, 14, 15, 17, 20, Fig. G: 1-4, and Fig. H: 1-10), eitherrim or bottom fragments, bespeak essentially globular shapes, more or less ablated, sometimes profilated to assume a distinctshoulder, or ovate and even conical shapes. The base is either rounded, slightlycurved,or flat; pieces with a flatbase often have a short, cup-like pedestal, or a considerably thickened bottom. The latter instances are invariably accompanied by a peculiar feature which seems to be a prominentcriterion of the ware as a class. This consistsof a compositeprocess wherein the actual bottom of the cup-base or thickened-base ware is made by bonding two disc-like pieces of paste, one applied fromwithin the vessel and the other exteriorly, subsequent to the erection of at least the lowerportionof the wall. With a cup base vessel such an operationshouldhave involveda more delicate procedure because of the height of the pedestal whichoftenexceeds 0.05 m. In flatbottom pieces, on the other hand, the manipulation may
1At "Grad," Starcevo,a chronological and typological sequence leading fromunsmoothed to smoothedand to burnished surfacing is quite obvious. In theregion under discussion, thematerial however, is yetinadequate to warrant deduction thesuggestive a similar correlates thusfarobserved. despite
374
VLADIMIR
J. FEWKES
have been relatively simple. In either case the had an openingat its plastic tectomorph embrionic, body base whichwas not closed until the composite bottom was constructedin the manner described. Obviously,the traces of the process are most readily revealed in a freshsection of the fabric (P1. III: 7), by the bonding joints. and often also superficially (A binocular microscope is especially useful in examiningthe pieces for criteria of constructional methods.) The surface coating is a diagnostic characteristic especiallywhen ofall barbotinepottery;it resembles, quite thin, a slip. But the coating is not qualitafromthe core of the fabric,although tivelydifferent there is an obvious contrast in color which is attributableto the firing. I am unable to state, as or not thereare this paper goes to the press,whether between the of differences any instances qualitative coatingsand the cores. Until adequate technological studies are completed it is not possible to be conclusive in this matter. The thin-sections of a representativeseries of samples selected from the " Grad," Starcevo (videHorton's barbotineware from Appendix,infra),all of which findduplicationamid the material under discussion,uphold the resultsof the examinationof the materialfrom my preliminary in Yugoslavia.sites lowerDanubian technique Extant criteria of the manufacturing
1 Through I hereby which ofmycolleagueMr. Donald Horton, thecourtesy here to incorporate on thisoccasion, it becomes possible, acknowledge, gratefully studies of the the accompanying Appendixdealing with certainmicroscopic Danubian thelower from "Grad," Starcevo. Macroscopically, barbotine samples from the Starcevoseries. It is condifferences revealsno substantial material identical ifnotfully, loci concerned, virtually, ceivablethatin anyoftheseveral withsampleclays from may have been available. Experiments raw materials the of Icessand top soil formed that a combination Star6evostrongly suggest further ware. However, paste forthe barbotine basis of the Neolithic potter's in orderto arriveat a are necessary studiesas well as inductions technological at the site duringits of the raw materials employed identification conclusive Neolithic existence.
NEOLITHIC
SITES
375
reveal that the barbotineware was made by segmenof paste. tal buildingwhichdepended on rolledfillets The circuitvariantseemsto have been morein vogue than true coiling (vide note 84, supra), althoughthe latter is amply documented. The separately filled bottoms and the small vessels were produced by hand modeling(directshaping). The barbotine class of ware has been ascertained Neolithic sites here in every one of the definitely described (reconnaissanceof the American Expeditions and the Negotin Museum), but not, as far as I am aware, in any of the likely (?) Neolithic sites. It also appears at "Strnjane," Osmakovo (Nis Museum-see Miscellaneous Sites, supra). (2) The incisedclass. This, the most sparsely representedclass in the sites here considered,falls withinthe unsatisfactory but well rooted concept of "Bandkeramik"; or Danubian. Its decoration perhaps spiral-meandric embraces well conceived,oftencomplicateddesigns, executed, as a rule, in finetechnique; and it stands out in sharp contrastto the crudelyincisedbarbotine difference betweenthe pieces. A further pronounced two categories lies in qualitative properties. The a higher incised class has a finerfabric (texture),* is and almost exclusively degree of compactness, burnished. Its inclusions consist of a greaterproof portionof mica (which may well be a constituent the originalclay), sand grit (and other mineralsyet to be identified studies), but rarely by petrographic chaff. There is no unambiguous proof of a slip. However,in certaininstancesthe mechanicalagency of pebble (?) or other tool-burnishing produced a surface "film" which is clearly differentiated from the core of the fabric. Surfaces so affected are indubitably recognizable by accelleratedcompactness of theirtexture,the marks leftby the tool, and-in
376
VLADIMIR
J. FEWKES
section-by their thickness. However, the color of the fabricis entirelyindependentof the manner of surfacing. The incised ware is oftenexcessivelycarbonized; certain examples bespeak a fuel-smoothedfiring observationsuggestsa process. While a superficial higherdegreeof heat than in the barbotine class, it regarding thisaspect to deferconclusions is necessary studieshave been completed. untiltechnological The basic surfacecolor ranges fromivory yellow to sepia or fromsmoke gray to deep smoke gray on both surfaces. The decorationdepends on an incisingtechnique executedwithsharptools whichmay have been made of stone, bone, or wood. The examples thus far noted in our area show both curvilinearand rectilinear motifs. The complete vessel from " Obala Northeast" at Korbovo (P1. V: 15, Fig. B: 3) 1 ilspiraliform lustrates both motifs. Its multiple-line produces six horizontally placed S-spirals, each definedby a band, and containingeitherone or two additional lines withinthe band, roughlyparalleling the curvature of the main figure. The individual spirals are mutuallyinterlockedwithintheir bends. This designoccupies a greaterportionofthe spheroid body of the vessel. At the base are fourhorizontal, more or less parallel lines surmounted by band chevrons at four equidistant places. Above the spirals,upon the shoulder,runsa seriesof low joined arches consistingof three parallel, unbroken lines. Immediatelybelow the junction of the shoulderand neck are fourhorizontal,parallel lines, under which, line,hang band chevappended to the lowermarginal rons placed opposite to similar(but reversed)figures at the base. The horizontal plane of the squarish
1 Chancefind, from information as to its a peasantwithreliable purchased Museum, in Negotin deposited provenience;
NEOLITHIC
SITES
377
platformis decorated by five groups of parallel, straightlines, comprising either quadruple or quintuple arrangement (Fig. B: 3). In a specimen from "Zidinje" ("Glamija") at Vajuga (one sherd,not illustrated here) the preserved portion of the design reveals a rectilinear motif arranged in bands and a single line convolution. The human figurinesfrom "Obala Northeast," Korbovo, see infra, also illustrate the nature of incised decoration. Band chevrons filled with dimples appear on a sherdreportedby Vasic as "from Korbovo." 1 The formsof the incised ware are chiefly globular. The intact specimen from "Obala Northeast," Korbovo, may perhaps be describedas a cruse or a bottle shape. It has a peculiar horizontalplatform with a circular orificein its center. The neck is gently profilated,and meets gradually with the shoulderwhich,in turn,continuesto broaden out to produce the belly. The bottom is flat. Otherwise the sherdssuggestonly sphericaland semi-spherical shapes. No observationsare yet available insofaras rims, lug-handles,or handles of this class are concerned. In one rather questionable example from "Obala Northeast," Korbovo, a cork-shaped lug is fairly well, althoughnot absolutelyconclusively, indicated on a damaged sherd. And there are no dependable signs with whichto judge the manufacturing technique of the incised ware. In distribution the incised ware is represented at "Obala Northeast," Korbovo, "Obala," Kostol (both definitely Neolithic sites), and at "Zidinje" ("Glamija"), Vajuga (a likely [?] Neolithic site). In the upper Timok drainage it appears at "Strnjane," Osmakovo (videsupra, Miscellaneous Sites).
1 Cf. Vasi6,1910,P1. VIII: 66.
378
VLADIMIR
J. FEWKES
(3) Fluted and ribbed ware. The fabricof this class closely assimilatesthat of the incised pottery. The basic colors range from drab to olivaceous black on the outside and from pale neutralgray to dark neutralgray on the inside. The decoration comprises rather shallow, broad or with fluting executedeitherwiththe tip of a finger producespositiveapplique a blunttool. The ribbing when additional stripsof paste are bonded with the surface; otherwisethe reliefis negative, being due in which the surfaceplane of whollyto the fluting, the ribbing does not protrude above that of the area of the wall. In all cases thus far surrounding observed the decorative motifs run on a straight line, formingeither parallel arrangementsor tri(Fig. A: 5, 7; and P1. IV: 2). angular figures The most common formis a bowl with a differentiated, vertically drawn neck, a gently rounded shoulder,and either an ovate or conical body. In cross section of the shoulder the thickness of the wall withinthe acute profile("break") is invariably greaterthan that of the rest of the body. This is an outstanding characteristic of the fluted and ribbed ware throughoutthe Danubian area. As so prevyet, however,the angular shoulderprofile, alent in the Moravo-Danubian area,1 has not been noted in the regionunder discussion. On the basis of the peculiar shapes common to the fluted and ribbedware (Fig. C: 4-6, 14-17, and Fig. F: 18) it is usually quite simple to recognize sherds of this categoryeven whentheyare withoutdecoration(P1. IV: 4, 5, 7-12, 14, 16-18, 23). The bottomis invariablyflatand the rimis either rounded or flattenedand thinnedor thickened,but only rarelyfashionedinto a distinctlip. No lugs have been observedin this categorythus
1 Cf. Fewkes,1936,pp. 30 ff-
NEOLITHIC
SITES
379
far. There are, however,a few instances of small band handles attached on the shoulder. There wereno dependabletraces of manufacturing techniqueamong the pieces which I have examined. The fluted and ribbed ware has been found at "Obala Northeast," Korbovo, "Obala," Velesnica, and " Obala," Kostol-all on theYugoslav bank ofthe lower Danube and at "Strnjane," Osmakovo, and and "Tumba," Kalna, both in the upper Timok of the Nis Museum). drainage (reconnaissance (4) Burnishedware. This category includes potterysurfacedby toolcompactingliberallyexecuted more or less over the on the outentirewall of the vessel, predominantly side, but often also on the interior. Although a varyingdegree of lusteris usually presentthis need not necessarily be due to the techniqueinvolved,but ratherto a separate agency (polishing). Provisionally three grades of burnishing may be recognized: low, medium,.and high. These are distinguished by surfaceappearance, that is to say by the marks leftby the tool, as well as by the degreeof compactness, but they are independentof lusterwhichitself can be grouped into at least three categories. The burnishingprocess consists of rubbing the plastic (preferably, although not absolutely necessarilyso, moistened)surfacewitha hard medium(bone, stone, wood) in such a manneras to compact the paste so affected to a higherdegreethen can possiblybe don merelywith hands. It is the pressure,ratherthan friction, that achieves the desired result. A moist surface is, quite naturally,best conducive to such procedure;and if burnishing followstectonicoperation beforeair dryinghas advanced, the potterneed not be obligedto wetthe surface in orderto "smooth" it with a tool. The fabricof the burnishedware is of finetexture;
380
VLADIMIR
J. FEWKES
mica (constituent?),sand grit, and other minerals are representedamong the inclusions. The basic color rangesfrompale smoke gray to chaeturablack or fromdrab grayto fuscouson eithersurface. In a meretricious may be viewed sense burnishing as having a certainestheticvalue. Combined with mottlingand luster it certainlyproduces a striking alone that effect. It is oftenthe mannerofsurfacing the burnishedclass fromother wares distinguishes of similarshapes and fabric. are globularjars, conical or ovoid bowls, The forms low casseroles, and cups. All have a flat bottom, and the rimsare eitherrounded,flattened, or slightly drawnout and everted. (P1. III: 1-7, 15, 17, 19, 20; P1. IV: 6, 13, 15, 19-21; P1. V: 8, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23; P1. VI: 15, 20, 21; Fig. C: 8, 10-13, 18, 19, 24, 26, 28-30; Fig. E: 12; and Fig. F: 3, 4, 9-13, 19, 21, 22.) Plain lugs, either rounded or cork-shaped,sometimes with a depressed margin or slightlyturned upward (P1. V: 17, Fig. E: 1-5, 7, 8), are common. Handles, roll or band varieties,are appended either whollyon the body or looped fromshoulderto rim, and oftenhave a wart-likeprotuberancesurmounting the horizontalplane (Fig. D: 1-5, 8, 9). There are severalexamplesofspout lugs (P1. IV: 15, 19-21, Fig. D: 11, 12). and The pedestalledpieces have a footconstructed in described same manner as the already shaped underthe barbotinecategory. The burnished pedestals, however,presenta greatervarietyof formand are oftenmuchmoreslender(P1. III: 1-7, Fig. F: 1113, 19, 21, 22). As far as can be ascertained fromextant traces, two techniques of manufactureare manifested:(1) Direct shaping by hand modeling; (2) segmental both process dependingon a fillet,and comprising and circuit building. coiling spiral
NEOLITHIC
SITES
381
In distributionthe burnished ware has a wide representation. It appears at every one of the five Neolithic sites here treated, as well as at definitely "Tumba," Kalna (upper Timok), and at our likely (?) Neolithicsitesof " Zidinje" ( Glamija"), Vajuga, "Obala Southwest," Korbovo, and "Kurvin Grad," Mala Vrbica. (5) Burnish-decorated ware. There are only a fewsherdsof this class amongthe materialI have thus far examined. They are all of the same color ranges as the burnishedware, insofar as the ground is concerned; the decoration proper, however, is predominently blackish mouse graythereby contrastingsharply with the rest of the surface. The fabricand inclusionsare of the same nature as in the burnishedware. The decoration consists of lustrous,straightline or arched strips arranged in parallel groups and localized on the bellyof the vessel in a verticalorder. The ground of the wall is either lightlyburnished or simply hand-smoothedso that the contrast between the two treatmentsis indeed conspicuous. in color between the Inasmuch as the difference decorated and undecorated zones is so pronounced, it appears-on megascopic examination, at any rate-that a coloring medium was employed in connection with the burnish-decorating technique. Until a dependable series of samples is available for the necessary qualitative analysis, no conclusive technological deductionscan be made. There are no restorableshapes, neither bottomnor rim pieces. Likewise, lugs and handles have not yet been noted. And there are no dependable criteriaof the technique of construction, althoughtrue coilingis feably suggestedin one sherd. The burnish-decorated pieces here described and
382
VLADIMIR
J. FEWKES
figured(P1. IV: 3, Fig. A: 1, 3, 4, 6) come from "Obala Northeast," Korbovo-a definitelyNeolithicsite. (6) Hand-smoothedware. Under this category are included sherds which cannot be placed in any of the previouslydiscussed groups. It is likely that some of the material may represent distinct categories, but at the moment there are no adequate grounds for any specific classificational subdivisions. The fabricsof the hand-smoothed ware are rather coarser than those of the embellishedor decorated classes. The inclusions vary fromrough pieces of sundrymineralsto finesand grit,and fromchopped straw to chaff. Mica (constituent?)is present in many instances. The basic surface-color ranges fromdrab gray to fuscous,or frompalid mouse grayto blackishmouse gray. There is, as a rule,no embellishment, the surfacing to smoothing beingconfined by plain liand (identified by striations)whichmay have been incidentalto the shaping process. In two instances we have basket impression appearingon the outside plane of bottom pieces (P1. V: 18, 21). The shapes include broad bowls of a conical form, large vessels of the pithostype,cylindrical cups, and heavy plates. Flat bottomspredominatein all but the pithos-like pieces wherethey are oval; the rims are eitherroundedor flattened. Plain lugs and roll handles are common. In short,the hand-smoothed group represents somewhatof a medley of features, rather than any outstandinglycharacteristic(save the surfacing) distinctions (P1. II: 16-18; P1. III: 11, 13, 14, 16; P1. IV: 1; P1. V: 3, 6; P1. VI: 18, 22; Fig. D: 6, 7, 10; Fig. E: 10, 11; and Fig. F: 16). The manufacturing technique,the traces of which
NEOLITHIC
SITES
383
are often very well preserved,depended either on direct shaping by modeling or on spirally carried coiling in which rolled filletswere employed,being connectedby overlapping. Distribution: All of the five definitely Neolithic sites; "Strnjane," Osmakovo, and "Tumba," Kalna (both upper Timok drainage-material in Nis Museum); "Glozar," Negotin (material in Negotin Museum), and "Grad," Tabakovac (material in Negotin Museum). (B) Figurines. Among the human figurines we have several head " Obala Northeast,"Korfragments and torsos,all from bovo. The torsoshave a flattened body, short,stumplike arms, and a broad neck (P1. V: 2, Fig. B: 4, P1. V: 9). The heads are of two varieties. One has a stylizedform, flattened on the top and back, and with very little facial modeling (P1. V: 5, Fig. B: 2), while the other representsa more realistic, though rather crude, product with a rounded face, depressed eyes, and modeled nose and chin (P1. V: 10). The decoration of these figurines consists of rectilinear and curvilinear incisingexecuted in the manner of the incised ware. Meandric and spiraliform motifs predominate. The nature of the decorative features (as well as color,fabric,and degree of firing) certainly bespeak close relationship betweenthe figurines and the incised class of ware. The two incompete torsos from "Kurvin Grad," Mala Vrbica, figured by Vasic 1 suggest Neolithic provenience. The one with short, stumpy arms 2 iS especially similar in shape to our specimen (P1. V: 9) illustrating this type. There is onlyone zoomorphic figurine from the region
1 Vasic, 1910, Pl. IV: 18 and 19 a, b; text pp. 6 and 7, wherethe author considers both specimens as examplesof "extremedegeneration of the usual '?uto Brdo' typeoffigurine."
2Ibid., P1. IV: 18.
384
VLADIMIR
J. FEWKES
under discussion,also from"Obala Northeast," Korbovo. This is a seated specimenwith a well modeled head, the face of whichis drawn out into a snout, and with outstretchedstumpy legs (P1. V: 7, Fig. B: 1), withoutdecoration. As far as can be observedfromrevealed criteria, the figurinesappear to have been made by plain hand modelingand out of one lump of paste. Joining oftwo separate halves, so commonin the Moravo-Danubian area, has not been observed thus far. In surface color, texture of the fabric,and nature of firing, the figurines assimilatethe incised class of ware. (C) Altars (or tables). These specimens are of the tri- or quadri-footed variety with a triangular or rectangular platform which is either planed or somewhat depressed. The decorationconsistsof incised,rectilinear design. The legs are either triangularor rectangularin horizontal crosssection (P1. V: 11, 12; Fig. A: 8). In manufacturing technique,nature of firing, fabric, and general appearance the alters (tables) closely in otherwordsthey also fall in approach the figurines; the categoryof incised ware. (D) Spindle whorlsand weights. Biconical spindle whorls and discoidal weights are represented by a few fragments from "Obala Northeast," Korbovo. These do not allow any deductions except to say that in fabric and shape they conform to the usual Moravo-Danubian specimensof the kind. (II) Stone artifacts. (1) The axe-shaped specimen of marble from Vasic's "Korbovo," 1 presumablyan amulette,may have been found at the site of "Obala Northeast," Korbovo. That is to say it would readilyfall withinthe Neolithic at the contextsofthat site whereasit would be difficult, present, to associate it with " Obala Southwest,"
1
Vasi6, 1910, P1. V: 77, text p. 12; also Vasic, 1908, Fig. 11.
NEOLITHIC
SITES
385
(2)
(3) (4)
(III)
(IV) (a)
Korbovo. The specimen has several very close analogies at " Vinca." 1 The celts, invariablyof slate, shale or allied material, are eitherof the shoe-lasttype or trapezoidalin shape (P1. IV: 22, Fig. E: 18-21). And there are modified forms derived from these two, most characteristic forms. The celts have been noted at everyone of the five definitelyNeolithic sites, at "Pisk," Glogovica (materialin NegotinMuseum), and also at "Strnjane," Osmakovo (upper Timok-material at Nis Museum). Knife blades (some possibly scrapers?) of flint and related hard stone (Fig. F: 23, 24), are commonto all of the fivedefinitely Neolithicsites. Milling stones and querns of limestoneand sandstone, roughly rectangular in shape, are common to all definitely Neolithic sites. I speak of those which we actually observed in situ within wholly Neolithic deposits. Otherwiseit would be difficult to perceive the relativedate of such pieces. Bone artifacts. With the single exception of " Obala Northeast," Korbovo, where we found two bone awls in situ in Neolithic deposits,this categoryof material,although by no means infrequent,cannot be safely assigned a relative date. The same may be said of stray fragments of red deer and roe deer antler pieces with traces of human workmanshipwhich we noted at "Obala Northeast," Korbovo, and at "Obala Kusjak," Prahovo. Miscellaneous. Wall plaster. Fired fragments of wall plaster,with twig and post impressions, rathercoarse in textureand veryunevenly fired,have been observed in situ at every one of the five definitely Neolithic sites. The inclusionsconsist
I Cf. Vasic, 1908, pp. 99 ff.;also unpublished specimens in the University Museumand the NationalMuseum, bothat Belgrade.
386
VLADIMIR
J. FEWKES
eitherof mineralsor organic admixturessuch as chaff and other vegetal material. It should be possible, with a proper technique, to pursue botanical identificationof the florarepresented therein. The plaster offers direct evidence on the manner of constructiDg dwellings; daubed wall, over a wattled frame work, supported by heavy posts, seems to have been most prevalent. The seeming appearance of artificially fired floors suggestiveof "Vinca" parallels in this peculiarityis, as already stipulated, not yet to be interpreted conclusively. (b) Metals. There are no tracesof copperor othermetal attributable to the deposits of any of the five definitely Neolithic sites. At "Grad," Miroc, two shaft-holeaxes of (?) copper-the celebrated "Hungarian type" have been found (specimensin Negotin Museum), but nothing seemsto be knownwithrespectto theiroriginal deposition. Conceivably, such axes may well belong to Neolithic contexts. Additional, similar shaft-hole axes, again of (?) copper, have been collected in the vicinityof Zajecar, i.e. to the south of Negotin (specimens in Zajecar Museum).'
DISCUSSION
In view of the strictly provisionalnature of the observations here presentedit is not plausible to proffer any definite conclusions. The evidence of Neolithic economy in the several instances just dealt with does, of course, furnisha usefulbasis forfurther investigation. It indicatesthe signal importanceof the Yugoslav portionof the lower Danubian valley in Neolithic and later culturehistory. While certain deductionscan be drawnand some generaldevelopments can, to a greateror lesser degree,be perceived,their elaboration
I Cf. Fewkes,1934a,p. 36.-Analyses of any of theseaxes have not been their composition. markregarding made; hencethequestion
NEOLITHIC
SITES
387
at this time would have no more than a tentative value. Strictly objective interpretationsare not attainable until actual excavation reveals fullydependable stratigraphic and chronologic factors. It should then become possible to segregate introducedtraits fromendemic accomplishments. It would be absurd to insist on "feelings," "views," or "opinions" in such matters;the existing, inadequate factual orientationwould render them premature and subjective. But it does seem permissibleto discuss our subject matter from the standpoint of general relationshipswith developments in adjacent regions. The provisional value of our data must be stressedonce more; moreover,it is necessary to stipulate the empirical nature of the broad contentions, especially those regardingthe cultural complexityand the type of economyat sites 1-5. To pursue this end, it is convenientto summarizeour observations. The Yugoslavian portion of the lower Danubian valley is adjacent to the southernside of the riverbetweenthe Iron Gate and the mouthof the Timok. The lengthof the Danubian bank withinthese limitstotals roughly100 km. Within this length we now know five rather extensive Neolithic all with like deposits and relics. Fifteenother settlements, localities-a-h of our likely (?) Neolithic sites, i-v of our miscellaneous sites, and "Jela's" and "Biljevina" near Velesnica-all potentialsources of Neolithicremains,require of corresponding identification deposits which may or may not be there. In the southern periphery,on the upper Timok, two Neolithic sites have been recorded.' There is, then, an impressive number of sites within a fairly small area. These-taking into consideration all known prehistoric sites in the region-bespeak extensive settlements well separated fromone another. Having examined several kilometersof exposed profilesof these sites I am convinced of theirpermanency in aboriginaltimes. This is not a feeling but an observation of what appears to be an historicalfact.
'Records of the Nig Museum,containing reports on archaeological finds submitted by communal offices, indicatethatsimilar sitesprobably existfarther downtheTimokas well;information from Nig Museum, correspondence 1936.
388
VLADIMIR
J. FEWKES
Neolithic sites reveal an interesting Moreover,the definitely phenomenon;their lowest deposits (as brought to view by erosion) are characterizedby pits alone. This is true of localities1-5. And it is in such depositionthat the barbotine class of ware occurs most constantly. Presumably, these dwellpits (bothroi) are the remnantsof semi-subterranean remains ings.' The nature of their original superstructure unknown (although by no means unascertainable,provided that proper technique of excavation be applied); it is of interestto note that nowherein the regionunder discussion did we findtraces of posts in associationwithpits. With the exceptionof "Obala," Kostol, the other definitelyNeolithic sites contain remainsof dwellingswith a packed (sometimes perhaps [?] fired)floor,apparentlywithoutsub-pits.2 And with these associated post molds have been identified. The documenttwo stages two typesof dwellingthus distinguished of architecturalhistory. Huts depending on bothroi undoubtedlybelong to the primaryNeolithic occupation at all on the otherhand, are our sites (1-5). Houses 3 with floors, younger,although still fully Neolithic, in stratigraphically four out of the same five sites. The exceptionis "Obala," so. The most characKostol; and this is only provisionally is no houses such only the barbotine longer of teristicpottery ware-which, alone, seems to be an exclusive class of the the incised, fluted,burnished, bothroi but predominantly categories. Figurines and hand-smoothed burnish-decorated, and altars (by fabricmembersof the incised class) are likewise foundin houses ratherthan in pits. These observations a relationshipbetween type of dwellingand distinct suggest
1 Theirtype has a wide distribution both in space and time.-At "Vinca" antedatehouseswithfloors(cf. Vasic, 1932,pp. 10 ff. unquestionably bothroi also Fewkes,1935, pp. 633 ff.);this is equally true even if not and 101 ff., date. Andat "Vinca" Danubiansitesofa Neolithic other alwaysrecognized-of ware of identicalnaturewiththat from"Grad," Starcevo(Fewkes, barbotine to the bothros belongsessentially certainly Ehrich,1933,pp. 43 ff.), Goldman, and Pl. I. niveau;cf.Vasic,1936b,pp. 7 ff. of housesat "Vinca" scale, the remnants on a smaller 2 These assimilate, cf.Vasic, 1936,Pls. CXIII and CXIV. profiles; in vertical revealed I I use the distinction sense hutsand housesin the same arbitrary between as in Fewkes,1935,pp. 656 ff.
NEOLITHIC
SITES
389
wares which is so obviously recognizable at "Vinca."I I referto "Vinca" because that site has been explored on a larger scale than any other of a similar date in the entire Danubian area. This, however,does not imply that similar depositional conditions necessarilyexist in other Danubian stations; the question requiresspecificfieldinvestigation. Sites containing Neolithic material comparable to that found in the Yugoslavian portion of the lower Danubian valleyexiston the left(Roumanian) bank ofthe corresponding sectorof the Danube. Several are reported from the vicinity of Turnu Severin; 2 an extensive settlementis known at Hinova,3 and another on the island of Corbului, opposite Korbovo.4 And similar sites are known on the Bulgarian bank ofthe Danube (and in theinterior) eastwardoftheTimok on to the Vit.5 In eitherseries,however,we have no reliable information with respect to the nature of the deposits; nor have any ofthesesites,as faras sourcesshow,been systematically excavated. Nestor states that the Boian phase, which is said to mark the initial Neolithic developmentin central Walachia and in central Bulgaria (north of the Balkan range), does not show any traits ascribable to his "Vinca I = Turdas I-Kultur." 6 At the same time,however,Nestor holds that a Vinca-Boian A relationship is not to be denied.7 The latterview findsa supportin Mikov's observations.8 Close parallelsto the variousclasses ofceramics(and other traits) appearingin Neolithicsites in lower Danubian Yugoslavia are found in westernWalachia,9 Siebenbtirgen,10 the
Cf. Fewkes,1935,pp. 655 ff., and 1936,pp. 19 ff. Barcacila,1924,pp. 280 ff. I Nestor, 1932,p. 34. 4Barcacila, 1924,pp. 283 ff. Cf. also Franz, 1922,pp. 90 ff., forcertain finds from Ostrovul locationsee oursketch Girla(for thefigurine map); however, on Franz's PI. I: 1 a, b, described by him as Neolithic,certainly a suggests Late BronzeAge provenience. 5 Cilingirov, 1911,pp. 147 ff. 6 Nestor, 1932,pp. 34-35. 7Ibid., p. 34. Cf. also p. 56, therein, a presumable respecting originof Boian A whichthe authorviewsas a local specialization rootedin Ariusd(formerly Er6sd),VincaI and II, and Bukkmaterial. 8 Cf. Mikov,1933,pp. 23 ff. 9Barcacila,1924,pp. 280 ff., and Nestor,1932,pp. 33 ff. 10Schroller, 1933,pp. 6 ff., Nestor, op. cit.,and Popescu,1925,pp. 304 ff.
2
390
VLADIMIR
J. FEWKES
Banat,' the Moravo-Danubian region,2 and in northwestern Bulgaria.3 These do not all appear at each site; the notable exceptionis "Vinca." There, in the extremely richdeposits, we may readilyisolate materialvirtuallyidenticalwithevery one of the several categorieshere described. The barbotine class of ware has perhapsthe widestdistribution in the Banat and in the Moravo-Danubian region. Fartherwest, outside of Yugoslavia, barbotinepotteryis especiallycommonin the valley of the upper Tisa.4 In the Roumanian portionof the lower Danubian valley this ware appears at sites usually designated as of the Boian phase (central Walachia),5 in certainMoldavian contexts,6 and, as already stated, more or less throughout Little Walachia.7 The incised, and the flutedand ribbed wares have a wide distribution not only in the middle Danube valley, but in the lower divisionas well.8 The burnish-decorated class finds closest analogies in the Moravo-Danubian region,and the burnished ware is common to the middle and the lower Danube alike. The figurines assimilatethose of centralBulgaria and Walachia on the one hand and those of "Vinc'a" on the other. The stone celts, particularlythe shoe-last type, are a common bond of the entireDanubian area. It appears that the barbotine class is the oldest, i.e. the primarypotteryin lower Danubian Yugoslavia. While this
I Especiallyat "Grad," Starcevo;cf. Fewkes,Goldman, Ehrich,1933, pp. sources are givenin note486. and Fewkes,1936,p. 73, where 33 ff., 2 Fewkes, citedtherein. and sources 1936,pp. 27 ff., I Mikov, 1933,pp. 22 ff., 27-32 correlations), especiallypp. 24 (regarding Bulgaria),33-50 (listing123 open caves in northern (dealingwithtwenty-two mounds in northern 132habitation and 55-72 (listing Bulgaria), sitesin northern sources. with respect to local literary exhaustive is very Bulgaria). Mikov'swork and 1935,pp. 121ff. 4Banner, 1932,pp. 32 ff., 5Andriesescu, 1924,pp. 51 ff.(Sultana); Dumitrescu, V., 1924,pp. 29 ff., 1925,pp. 138 ff.(Cascacioarele); Stefan, and 1925,pp. 325 ff.(bothGumelnita); 1925, pp. 249 ff. (Boian); Dumitrescu, Christescu, H., 1927-1932,pp. 88 ff. H., 1927-1932a,pp. 150 ff. (GrAdi*tea Fundeanca); (Bonte*ti);Dumitrescu, 1927-1932, pp. 167ff.(Vadastra). Christescu, 6 Dumitrescu, H., 1927-1932,pp. 56 ff.,and Figs. 20: 9, 21: 4, showing 1932 (Cucuapplique (Ruginoasa),and Schmidt, warewithstreaked barbotine applique). warewithstreaked teni),P1.24: 1 and 6 (barbotine 7 Brcacila, loc. cit., and Nestor, loc. cit. 8 Cf.especially Mikov,1933,pp. 24 ff.
NEOLITHIC
SITES
391
is supportedby insufficient impression observastratigraphic tion it is significant that barbotineware has been foundin all of the fivesites definitely Neolithicsettlements, documenting and that in all cases it has been ascertained in the oldest portion of such deposits. No similar observations are available with respect to the other classes of ceramics. At "Vinca," as well as in a numberof related sites, the incised ware apparently belongseven to the oldestdeposits(bothroi).1 The position of the flutedand burnish-decorated wares remains obscure. The burnish-decoratedgroup, however, seemsto implya somewhatlater development. At "Vinca" the barbotineware occurs in the pit level markingthe initial occupation of the site. In Roumania, as has been said, it is foundin severalsites in associationwiththe Boian development. The barbotineware seems to have a similar relationship in centralBulgaria,2but in the westernportionof that country,it appears free of Boian elements.3 At "Grad," Starcevo, this class of ware certainlyrepresentsthe oldest ceramic group fully antedating the painted pottery which includes elements characteristicof the Sesklo and Dimini painted pieces. There were no "Vinca" importsin the pit level of " Grad," Starcevo,but in its stratigraphically younger niveau examples of "Vinca" fabrics (apparently importsas yet, however,subjects to technologicalanalysis to prove theirprovenience),especiallyflutedsherds,have been found. The total absence at " Grad," Starcevo, of the so-calledtypically Danubian incised ware furnishes,it would seem, a significant indication of the priorityof the barbotine ware at that site. The somewhat puzzling relationshipbetween the incised. and the barbotinewares withinthe Danubian valley depends largely on additional field work. Somehow, the barbotine ware seems to have escaped adequate attention although its occurrence is ratherwide spread; and its genericplacement
28, and sources citedtherein. Field observations and museum studies, season1932. 3 Cf., e.g., Popov, 1912/1913, pp. 279 ff., and Figs. 183-185,189, and 192; theseare hereselected as unmistakable examples ofthebarbotine wareillustrated by Popov.
2
1 Cf. Fewkes, 1936,p.
392
VLADIMIR
J. FEWKES
in the Neolithicsphereat large is yet to be elaborated. One stands out withrespectto the Danubian important impression distribution of thistype of ware; it seemsto have survived,at least sporadically-although in an altered style-well into the Bronze Age, while in its earliestappearance it marks (in certainlocalities,at any rate) the initialphase ofthe Neolithic Age. It is possible that here we have to deal with a large and long-lived family of pottery, quite individual in its character,and traceable, it seems, to gourd inspiration. In this regardit has a bond in commonwiththe spiral-meandric incisedware,but it embodiesgourdimitationmoreeffectively both in shape and in embellishment. here discussed The lowerDanubian Neolithicattainments seem to indicate-as far as tangible evidence permits an interpretation-an extraterritorial primary derivation. There certainly are no obvious local cultural antecedents whichmight foran independent providea potentialfoundation originof a Neolithicculture. The positiveNeolithicevidence beforeus clearly documents a maturityof cultural accomthe mode of life which readily admits plishmentsreflecting of applying to it the standard-even if inadequate-appeldifferlation of the Neolithic Age. Althoughintraregional entiation is demonstratedin subsequent developments,the underlying basis, that is to say the primary(or introductory) over a large territory. core, reflects a pronounceduniformity As has been stressed,it is forfutureexplorationto ascertain and fromsite to site first the criteria withwhichto segregate, then by correlation,that which is primaryas against the subsequent,howeverinspired,growth. Collectivelyconsidered,the lower Danube valley has a series of signal common bonds: relief,nature of topsoils, hydrography,general means of subsistance (natural resources), economic possibilities, and sundry anthropogeographical factors. Its Neolithic culture history,however, reflects certaindiversitiesnot only in material achievement, but also, apparently, in time placement. Despite the impressive number of sites recorded in the Yugoslavian,
NEOLITHIC
SITES
393
Bulgarian, and Roumanian sectorsof the lower Danube, and the reconnaissance, sounding, and excavation conducted there, a general synthesisis not yet attainable. For that reason it is not plausible to arrive at a rational appreciation of the seemingcomplexityof the cultural patternbeforeus. Yet, at least two geographic zones of Neolithic growth suggestthemselves. In the easternportionof the valley the so-called Boian development seems to be the dominant expression. Characterized by open sites and settlement mounds, and distinctlyindividual only in its ceramics (but not in its cultural totality), it representsa ratheradvanced Neolithic phase. In the westernportionof the valley, that is to say approximatelywestward from the rivers Jantra (Bulgaria) and Vede (Roumania), and as faras the Iron Gate, the culturalstamp is moreakin to that of the middleDanube valley. There we find several elements in common with so with "Grad," Star"Vinca" 1 and even more strikingly of the open type, alcevo.2 The sites are predominantly though in northernBulgaria a series of cave stations is on record.3 Perhaps the most extensivesettlements are situated on the Danubian bank, where deposits of 3 m. (or more) in thicknessare by no means rare. Nestor opines that the absence of plastics in Boian A (which are so rich in Gumelnita A) may indicate that the Boian development is quite old.4 It is ofinterest to recallthe at "Grad," Starcevo.5 And it will be of paucity of figurines
1 Nestor, 1932,pp. 33 ff.(his "Vinca I = Turda?I-Kultur"); Mikov,1933, pp. 24 ff;Fewkes,1936,pp. 73 (note488) ff. 2 Fewkes, 1934a,pp. 35 ff., and 1936,p. 73. 3 Mikov,1933,pp. 27-32,where twenty-two caves are listed. Nestor,1932,p. 56. 5 Cf. Fewkes,Goldman,Ehrich,1933, p. 48.-In 1934, Mr. L. Nadlacki, whoserved as foreman oftheAmerican Expedition at Starcevo in 1932,acquired, by purchase,a ceramicfigurine said to have been foundby brickmakers at "Grad," Starcevo. From the briefnote and sketchpublishedby Nadlacki, 1936,it seemsthatthespecimen is painted in "lightredstripes on white ground," the designforming has prominently irregular, joined diamonds. The specimen produced breasts, has incisions on the back and shoulders whichare suggestive of hair,and is 6.2 cm. high. The head is missing, and the basal portion is said to be damaged. (The statement that heretofore fromStarcevowere figurines not known, op. cit., p. 39, is not quite correct;cf. Fewkes,Goldman,Ehrich, 1933,pp. 48-49.)
394
VLADIMIR
J. FEWKES
great importanceto determinethe true relationshipof the primarybarbotine ware to the Boian group of pottery,for it is quite possible that the former style formsa foundation of the latter. This, of course,is merelya provisional thought. The Yugoslavian region here treated is most readily accessible via the Danube and its floodplain. The rivercan be crossed with a nominal effort. Under normal conditions the current is ratherslow, landingplaces are plentiful, and in several instances islands facilitate crossing. The Danube certainly providesa vital natural arteryof communication in the open sectors of its valley. However, the Iron Gate, approximately 130 km. long, imposes numerous serious impediments to riveror bank passage. It is well to recallthe historyof modern (steamship) navigation in this portion of the Danube 1 to appreciate the significance of the Iron Gate in relationto antiquity. As far as positiveevidence permits the Iron Gate appears not to have been penetrated deductions, eitherby craftor on footin pre-Romantimes. Insofaras the Neolithic Age is concernedit is significant to note that the ofsettlements distribution ratherthan suggestscircumvention utilizationof the Danube and its banks at least withinthe most inhospitablestretches of the Iron Gate (such as P1. VII: 4, 5, 8). This observationseems to be applicable to other prehistoric periods as well. There is no positive proofwith which to show that the Iron Gate accommodated cultural beforethe second centuryof our era. The remarkable traffic achievementof Trajan's engineersenjoyed but a short-lived success,forthe famousroad throughthe Iron Gate (P1. VII: 7), the backbone of the intricatewaterway (used forpulling water craft), fell into disuse and ruin fairlysoon after the conquest of Dacia. " Die Stromsnellen,"writes Gilsdorf, " lamten die Schiffahrt schon in den altesten Zeiten. Sie dass die Griechen,die die untere Ursache die waren dafiur, nicht uber die Kataracktenstrecke Donau befuhren, hinaus stromaufwarts gelangtenund den oberen und unteren Teil zwei ganzlichverschiedene des Stromfiur Wasselatife hielten."2
1Gonda,1899. 2 Gilsdorf, 1928,p. 18.
NEOLITHIC
SITES
395
of the Under aboriginalconditions,priorto the construction of the left before the on the regulation bank; Szechenyiroad navigationchannel whichnow cuts througha seriesof rapids and uses an ingenious canal (at Sip) to clear the terminal of the road by Trajan, obstacles; and until the construction the Iron Gate apparentlydiscouragedpassage both upstream and downstream. The immediatehinterlandof the winding -the Balkan-Cargorge consists of a mountainous massif pathian formation-and is heavily forested; there are no laterally transverse gaps or passes to facilitatecommunication with the Danube. The natural circumstanceswhich orithe Neolithic "explorer-pioneer"cannot, ginally confronted and visualized. Yet it is of course, be fully reconstructed directedresearchwill lead to certain verylikelythat properly rationalizationof the natural conditionsthen prevailing. It may perhaps be surmizedthat the adverse conditionswhich Roman attemptsto build a road on had discouragedthe first the Moesian side, but which Trajan's engineerseventually difficulties subdued, may well have presentedinsurmountable in earlier times. However, strictly objective deductions cannot be made until appropriatefieldworkestablishesmore dependable data than we have at this time. Despite the fact that essentiallythe same type of Bronze is foundin Age (i.e. the " Zuto Brdo" development)expression a series of sites immediatelyabove and immediatelybelow the Iron Gate,1 we have no acceptable proof that contacts between the two regions were maintained via the Danube. Indeed, withinthe Iron Gate one looks in vain forlinks with which to support such contacts. The Bronze Age sherds reportedfrom "Orsova" by Wosinsky2 were, according to Milleker's information given to Vasic,3actually foundin the vicinityof Kladovo! Vasic, prompted,as he expressedit, by reasons of an "easier citation of these objects" [sic!] continued to designate them as "finds froinOrsova." 4 As far
2
1 For the southern and his map on PI. bankcf.Vasic, 1910,pp. 5 ff.,
and Pls. C-CIII. Wosinsky, 1905,pp. 69 ff., 3 Vasic,1910,p. 4.

4Op. cit.
I.
396
VLADIMIR
J. FEWKES
as Neolithic material is concerned, it is only at Dolnea Lupcova, in Roumania (cf. Fig. 1), not far fromthe western terminal ofthe Iron Gate, that certainpositivedata have been recorded. These consist of surface sherds collected and as to briefly reportedby Milleker.1 There is no information the Iron Gate at large the nature of the locality. Otherwise periods antedating constitutesa lacuna in all archaeological its conquest by the Romans. In Neolithictimes,judgingby extant distributional evidence,the Iron Gate appears to have " on either side oftheDanube.2 been circumvented by " detours of this peculiar As one observes the exotic configuration in prehistory. one can its negative role gorge readilyappreciate I discussed the matter of natural arteries (river valleys) across the Balkan-Carpathian formation in Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and Roumania in my paper dealing with the Moravo-Danubian region.3 To repeat its substance here would be a mereduplicationand thereare no new significant observationsrelated to the subject to be added at this time. But it seems well to stress the apparent importanceof the Struma as an early "route" in contrastto the still grossly "disappointing" valley of the Vardar.4 Again, our factual knowledgeis indeed meager, but it seems that the Struma area is revealingearlierNeolithicremainsthan have hitherto been noted in the drainageof the Vardar. I am not aware of any dependable analogies with the barbotineclass of ware in and am not dealingwiththe paintedpottery Greece,5 complex; on the other hand the subject of Danubian ceramic traits in Greece is outside of my presentconcern.6
15 ff. Fewkes,1936,p. 71. 3 Fewkes, 1936,pp. 69 if. 4 Cf. Mikov,1933,p. 44, i.e. "Mursalevo" and "Kadin Most,"and pp. 32 f. 5 The Peabody Museumof HarvardUniversity of collection has a surface sherdsfromtumbasnear Larisa; this containsseparatelyfilledcup bases, a is ware. But the mannerof surfacing of the barbotine typicalcharacteristic a fragment of a 1934, Beilage XII, illustrates Grundman, entirely different. embodies a shapequitecommonly which marble vessel(seealso hisreconstruction) to Cretan cf.Fewkes, comparisons inthebarbotine class.-Withrespect appearing 1936,p. 27, note109. 6 Cf.,however, sources op. cit.,and Fewkes,1936,p. 74 (there Grundman, in notes493 and 494).
2
1 Milleker, 1897,pp.
NEOLITHIC
SITES
397
Provisional as the observationson the Neolithic sites in the Yugoslavian portionof the lower Danube necessarilyare, they do, nevertheless, help to increase our insightregarding the culturehistoryof the north-central portionof the Balkan peninsula. The leads here brieflydescribed call for much additional field work and study. The chief need of future work is to adopt a truly objective methodology. It is also necessary to remember that pottery, though an integral Neolithic trait, does not in itselfmake up a culture.
APPENDIX NOTE ON A MICROSCOPIC STUDY OF A SAMPLE GROUP OF BARBOTINE SHERDS WITH POSITIVE APPLIQUE FROM "GRAD," STARCEVO DONALD HORTON'
The sample here described consists of sixteen sherds which,insofaras typologyis concerned,are said to be representative of an early phase of the Neolithic manifestations identified by the AmericanExpedition at Starcero (information by Dr. Fewkes). On the exteriorof each of the sixteen sherds there is evidence of an applied surface coating, resembling an "irregularslip," which,in some cases, attains a thicknessof as much as ten millimeters. In accordance with a desirespecified by Dr. Fewkes I made it my object to determine,if possible,the nature of this so-called applique surfacecoating. On the basis of my observationsI conclude that the applied surfacecoatingis of essentially the same materialas that used in the construction of the vessels themselves.
'Mr. Hortonis TechnicalAssociate, in chargeof the CeramicLaboratory, University Museum,Philadelphia; the Laboratory is underthe joint auspices of the University Museum and the WorksProgressAdministration (Project No. 2232). This Appendixis an excerptfromMr. Horton'snotes thus far compiledin the courseof his technological research dealingwith samplesselectedfrom theAmerican shareofpottery obtained at the siteof "Grad," Starcevo, in 1931. The exploratory test excavationaccomplished at that time was sponsored jointlyby the Peabody Museum,HarvardUniversity, and the University Museum, Philadelphia. (Footnote by V. J. Fewkes.)
398
VLADIMIR
J. FEWKES
Althoughthe microscopicstudy of this material is near completion,a detailed technological analysis is yet to be considered. For the purpose of the study here summarized thinsectionsof everyone ofthe sixteensherdswereprepared. 10000C. to approximately A fragment of each sherdwas fired forhalf an hour,and then thin sectionswere made of the refired piteces. The total number of sections prepared and examinedwas thirty-two. The workwas carriedout chiefly in the Ceramic Laboratory of the University Museum. were made in the determinations Certain of the petrographic laboratory of the Department of Geology, University of Pennsylvania, throughthe courtesy of ProfessorFrederick E. Ehrenfeld. of my observations. is a description The following Microscopic Character.-Allofthe sherdshave a dense and texture. The fabric contains an abundance of fine-grained of angular particlesof quartz and platy chiefly silt consisting In twelveof the sherdsthe quartz mica. of sericitic particles grains, which are of nearly uniformsize, are estimated to have an average diameteron the orderof 0.03 mm., and the mica plates have an average lengthon the same order. The 0.1 mm. in diameter, largestquartz grainsare approximately Two of the sherds are of of and there are very few these. even finertexture,and two are slightlycoarser. The latter contain a few grains0.2 mm. in diameter. These few grains of veryfinesand are visible to the naked eye, but account for much less than 15 per cent of the volume of the fabric. All to be described as "sparsely sixteen sherds are, therefore, tempered" accordingto Shepard's (1936, p. 409) scale. A characteristic featureof the sherds is the presence of thin, elongated cavities, which in cross section are straight, curved,or even hook-shaped. In a fewcases, thin,elongated of calcareous material, laminated like shellfragfragments ments, are present,but these account for very few of the cavities observedin thin-section. Examinationof the sherds themselvesshows that most of the cavities were originally filledwhollyor partly with what appears to be more or less
NEOLITHIC
SITES
399
carbonaceous ash of grass blades.' These residues of grass are thin and strap-like. They consist of a "skeleton" of amorphoussilica, which has a characteristic pattern and an index of refraction of about 1.45 (opal). Where the fabric has not been completelyoxidized on firingthere is a carbonaceous residue of organic matter adheringto the spodogram. Since these remnants occupy their cavities very looselythey break up on grinding and do not appear in thinsection. In every case, a strong color-banding is shown both in the sherd and in the thin-section. Margins, which may be very narrow,are buffto light reddish-orange in color; the core is always neutralgrayto black. On refiring to 10000C. the coloredmargins may be widenedand changedto a slightly redderhue, but the cores tend to remaindark. It is evident that thematrixis so denseas not to allowsufficient penetration of oxygenforoxidationof the carbonaceouscore even at high temperature. This peculiarityof the material accounts for the circumstancethat in many cases the applique surface contrastsin color withthe body of the sherditself. Examination of thin-sections of the barbotinesherdsand of the refired pieces of the same sherdsshows definitely that the surfacecoatings have exactly the same textureand the same inclusions,both mineralgrainsand grass blades, as the cores themselves. On refiring, the cores and the applique develop the same colors. Except where faint structural differences are evident,the two componentsof the sherd are undistinguishable underthe microscope. There is, therefore,
1 Footnote by V. J. Fewkes:Regarding thispoint, mycolleague Mr. William C. Darrah, Associate Curatorof Palhobotany,Harvard Botanical Museum, thefollowing contributes statement: "The elongated thincavities present in the Starcevo sherdsare natural 'spodograms'of the stems of certaingrassesprobably wheat. It has not yet been possibleto identify the genusor species precisely. The stemsof many plants,particularly reedsand grasses,contain largeamounts ofmineral calciteor silica. Upon burning, themineral ash retains the shape of the stemalthough all of the carbonaceous material has been volatilized. The name 'spodogram'has been appliedto the mineral 'skeletons'of plantparts. In yourceramics the 'spodograms' wereproduced by the firing of the vessels." (Dated June7, 1937.)-Mr. Hortonand I wish to expressour gratitude to Mr. Darrah forhis speedyresponse to our needs in this matter.
400
VLADIMIR
J. FEWKES
convincing evidence that the cores and theirsurfacecoatings consistof similarmaterial.

ANDRIEAESCU,J. BIBLIOGRAPHY
de Sultana,"Dacia, I: 51 if. 1924 "Les fouilles J. BANNER, und Ansiedlungen von H6dmez6vAsArhely-Kopanc 1932 "Die neolithische DolgozatokKotacpart und die III. PesiodederTheiss-Kultur," Arbeiten, VIII: 32 ff.; ibid., IX, zu Kotacpart bei H6dmez6vAsArhely," 1935 "Ausgrabungen 1-2: 121 ff.
BARCXCILX,A. 1924 "Antiquit6s pre- et protohistoriquesdes environsde Turnu-Severin,"
BOGDANOVIC,
CHILDE, V. G.
Dacia, I: 280 ff. A. AND MILENOVI6, B. Glanik, Arheoloski Klenovac,"Moravski naseljeu opstini 1936 "Neolitsko I: 13 ff.
CHRISTESCU,V. 1925 "Les stations prehistoriquesdu lac de Boian," Dacia, II: 249 ff.; 1927-1932 "Les stations pr6historiquesde Vadastra," Dacia, III-IV: 167
CILImGIROV,
(Oxford); 1929 TheDanubein Prehistory
DUMITRESCU,H.
ff. A. D. na nahodi,akraj Dunava ot Timokdo Vit," Izvjestija 1911 "Predistoricni DruUestvo, II: 147ff. B'tgarskoto Arheologi6esko CviJIC,J. Mitteildes EisernenTores," Petterman's 1908 "Entwicklungsgeschichte Nr. 160: 1 ff. Erg4nzungsheft, ungen, de Rugionasa,"Dacia, III-IV: 56 ff.; 1927-1932 "La station.prehistorique Daca, 1927-1932a "Raport sur les sondagesde Gradi~tea-Fundeanca," III-IV: 150 ff.
DUMITIRESCU, V.
de Gumelnita," Dacia, I: 325 ff.; 1924 "D6couvertes Dacia II: 29 ff.; 1925 "Fouillesde Gumelnita," Dacia, III-IV: 88 ff. de Bonte~ti," pr6historique 1927-1932 "La. station FEWKES, V. J. American School 1934 "Reporton the 1933Summer School,"etc.,Bulletin 10: 21 ff.; ofPrehistoric Research, in Yugoslavia,"ibid.,29 ff.; reconnaissance 1934a "Archseological American and dating of Vinca," etc., Proceedings 1935 "Interpretation Society, LXXV, No. 7: 651 ff.; Philosophical
1936 "Neolithic sites in the Moravo-Danubian area," Bulletin A. S. P. R., FEWKES, V. J., GOLDMAN, H., EHRICH, R. W. 1933 "Excavations at Starcevo," etc., Bulletin A. S. P. R., 9: 17 if. FRANZ, L. 1922 "Vorgeschichtliche Funde aus Rumanien," Wiener Prahistorische
12: 5 ff.
IX: 89 ff. Zeitschrift,
NEOLITHIC
SITES
401
GONDA, B. VON
GRUTNDMAN,K. M.
H. GILSDORF, 1928 Die Beseitigung derSchiffahrthindernisse in derKataraktenstrecke der unteren Donau (Eisernes Tor), ihre Schwierigkeiten und ihre wirtschaftliche Bedeutung (Ulm). 1899 Die Regulierung des EisernenTorsund deruibrigen an der Katarakten unteren Donau (Budapest). 1934 "Donaulandischen Importim steinzeitlichen Athenische Thessalien," D. A. 1., 59: 123ff. Mitteilungen,
HOERNES,
1925 Urgeschichte derbildenden Kunst,etc.,3rdedition(Wien). KANITZ, F. 1892 "R6mischeStudienin Serbien," etc., Denskchriften derK. Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Classe, 41, Abhandlung 11: 1 ff. MENGHIN, 0. 1913 "ReviewofVasid,'Gradac,' 1911,"Mitteilungen derAnthropologischen Gesselschaft in Wien,XLIII: 240 ff. MIKOV,V. 1933 "Predistoriceski seligta i nahodiga na B'lgarija,"Izdanija na Narodnija Arheologiceski Muzej, No. 30, Materializa Arhelogilceska Karta na B'lgarija,book VII: 1 ff.
MILLEKER, B.
MINNS,
NADLACKI, L. NESTOR, I.
1898 Delmagyarorszdg ellbti idbkbol foglalds (Temesvar). E. H. 1933 "Review of Vasid,Preistoriska Vinca I, 1932,"Man, XXXIII: 183; 1937 "Review of Vasid,Preistoriska Vinca I, II, 1936," Man, XXXVII: 67ff. MORO AN, N. N. 1928/1929 " Ostatiunepaleolitica in Dobrogea-Topalu," Academia Romana, Sectiunii Ser. III, V: 91 ff.(actually paginated1 ff.); Stiinfifice, 1936 "Les restes de 1'homme fossile en Roumanie," International Geological Congress, Report ofthe XVI Session,U. S. A., II: 1239if. 1936 "Veneraod Starceva,"Moravski Glasnik, 3: 38 ff. Arheoloski
PETKOVIC, V. R.
1932 "Der Stand der Vorgeschichtsforschung in Rumainien," 22. Bericht, Rbmisch-Germanische Kommission, D. A. I., 11 ff.
SCHMIDT,H.
1921 "NarodniMuzej 1914-1919," Srpske Godisnjak IraljevskeAkademije, XXVIII: 205 ff. D. 0. POPESCu, 1925 "Fouillesde Lechinta de Mures,"Dacia, II: 304 ff. Popov, R. 1911 "Raskopkiv Malkatapegtera," Izvjestija na B'lgarskoto Arheologicesko Dru&estvo, II: 248 ff.; 1912-1913 "Raskopkiv pegterata 'Morovica,"' ibid.,III: 263 ff.; 1931 "PegterataTemnata Dupka," Izdanija na NarodnijaArheologiceski Muzej,No. 25. 1933 "PegterataMirizlivka," ibid.,No. 26. 1932 Cucuteni, etc. (Berlin and Leipzig).
402
SCHROLLER,
VLADIMIR
J. FEWKES
H. 1932 "Die Stein-und Kupferzeit Siebenbiirgens," Vorgeschichtliche ForchHeft8. ungen, SHEPARD, A. 0. ofPecospottery," 1936 "Technology Papersofthe Southwestern Expedition, Andover Academy, VII: 389 ff. STEFAN, G. 1925 "Les fouilles de Cascioarele," Dacia, 11: 138 ff. VASIC (1910a as Vassits), M. M. S. K. A., XIX: 241 ff.; 1905 "Izvegtaj o radu,"etc.,Godis'njak n. r. g. II: 1 ff.; 1907 "Zuto Brdo,"etc.,Starinar, 1907a "Falsifikovana n. r. g. II, predstava Trajanovogmosta,"Starinar, 2, Dodatak,cols.42 ff. n. r. g. III: 71 ff.; 1908 "Preistorijski obredni predmeti," Starinar, 1910 "Zuto Brdo,"etc.,Starinar, n. r. g. V: 1 ff.(published 1912); in Vinca im der prahistorischen 1910a "Die Hauptergebnisse Ausgrabung Jahre 1908,"Prdhistorische Zeitschrift, II, No. 1: 23 ff.; 1911 "Gradac. Preistorijsko nalazigte latenskogadoba," G7lasSrpske Kraljevske Akademije, LXXXVI: 97 ff.; I (Beograd); 1932 Preistoriska Vincra 1934 "Colons grecsA Vinca,"Revue Internationale desEtudesBalkaniques, I: 65 ff.; 1936 Preistoriska VincaII (Beograd); 1936a Preistoriska VincaIII (Beograd); 1936b Preistoriska VincaIV (Beograd). VON SACKEN, E. vonHallstatt und dessenAlterthuimer 1868 Das Grabfeld in Ober6sterreich (Wien).
WOSINSKY, M.
1904 Die inkrustierte Keramik derSteinundBronzezeit (Berlin).
PLATE I
4''''X'I
from "Obala Kusjak," Prahovo. material 1-23: Ceramic
PLATE II
| "'IL
.~~~~~~5
"
.
~~~~10
_
1_0_eai mtra
'
rmOaaKsa,
ww~~~~~~~~~0
Prhv
is,
1 r
PLATE III
5~~~~~~~~~~~~\
8~~~~
"Obala Kusjak," Prahovo;16-18:Ceramic from 1-15: Ceramic material material from "Obala," Velesnica.
PLATE IV
-io~~~~i
MA
Korbovo. Ceramic material "Obala Northeast," (1-21,23) and celt (22) from
PLATE V
/17
1-23: Ceramic'material from "Obala Northeast," Korbovo.
PLATE VI
7,~~~~~~~~~~~~~1
1-17: Ceramicmaterialfrom"Obala," Kostol; 18-23: Ceramicmaterialfrom "Glamija-Obala,"Ljubic'evac.
PLATE VII
1: Viewof the Danube; takenfrom the surface of the site of "Vinca." 2: Golubac (Cuppae). 3: ViewoftheleftbankoftheDanube opposite Ljubicevac. 4: The Danube belowVelikiStrbac. 5: The Kazan. 6: Vicinity ofMihajlovac. 7: Portionof the ledge of Trajan's road in the Kazan. 8: The terminal strait on the Danube (immediately above Sip). 9: Tumulus (Roman and perhaps also earlier) just westofPrahovo. 10, 12, 13, 15: "Obala Southwest," Korbovo. 11: Southern abutment of Trajan's Danube bridge;TurnuSeverin(Roumania) is seenin thebackground. 14: The Danube at Prahovo.
E t,, ........iii
PLATE VII
'V
5~~?
PLATE VIII
1: "Obala Northeast," Korbovo; downstream limitof the culturebearing bank. 2: "Obala Kusjak," Prahovo;the depression marking the siteis seen in the centerand leftforeground and the gristmill in the background (center). 3: "Obala Northeast," Korbovo,viewed fromthe Danube, showingexposed depositsin the bank and the risingsurfaceplane of the terrace. 4: "Kod Ruzenke,"Mihajlovac; remnants of a Roman road, superimposed over earlier seen in the exposedbank. (Note the slopingshelf.) 5: View of the deposits, Danube takenfrom the siteof "Kula" (a Romancastellum) nearthe mouthof the SlatinskaReka brook,facingBrza Palanka. 6: View of the flatcountry nearMihajlovac, takenfrom thesiteof "Blato" (a Romancastellum). (Photographs by the HarvardExpedition to Yugoslavia,season 1933,and by members oftheAmerican SchoolofPrehistoric Research, undermydirection, in 1934.)
PLATE VIII
3 5

Fewkes 3 PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Fewkes 3 PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Neolithic Sites in the Yugoslavian Portion of the Lower Danubian Valley Author(s): Vladimir J.

SITES IN THE YUGOSLAVIAN PORTION THE LOWER DANUBIAN VALLEY

American Director, Expedition to Yugoslavia (Read bytitle, April24, 1936)

1 Nestor, 1932,p. 29.

(I) 'OesaAVrCadovo_6)Corvav,az6 Yu6OSLAVIA~~~~~~~.

1 Vasic, 1910,pp. 2 ff.

cit., PI. XI: 91 a, b, and 96.

mogila for mound.

cit. 5 The name, meaning walls,is

IBogdanovic and Milenovic', 1936.

in thisregion. lithic settlers

2Ibid., P1. IV: 18.

1 Cf. Fewkes, 1936,p.

and Pls. C-CIII. Wosinsky, 1905,pp. 69 ff., 3 Vasic,1910,p. 4.

convincing evidence that the cores and theirsurfacecoatings consistof similarmaterial.

(Oxford); 1929 TheDanubein Prehistory

IX: 89 ff. Zeitschrift,

1904 Die inkrustierte Keramik derSteinundBronzezeit (Berlin).

from "Obala Kusjak," Prahovo. material 1-23: Ceramic

1-23: Ceramic'material from "Obala Northeast," Korbovo.

1-17: Ceramicmaterialfrom"Obala," Kostol; 18-23: Ceramicmaterialfrom "Glamija-Obala,"Ljubic'evac.

S-ar putea să vă placă și