Search

In the summer of 2020, a fragmentary lower part of a statue base with a Latin inscription carved on its underside was accidentally discovered in Vinča, in the area of the archaeological site of Ošljane. The remains of а Roman building (presumably a villa rustica) were located at the aforementioned site. After the discovery, the monument was stolen, then it was soon recovered and transferred to the National Museum of Serbia. The inscription records the career of a member of the equestrian order.

In this contribution the author presents several discarded human bones found in various Neolithic contexts from the Vinča settlement at Șoimuș-La Avicola (Ferma 2), Hunedoara County, Romania. Some of them show signs of interpersonal violence, which makes the interpretation more difficult when compared with the usual funerary contexts of the Southeast European Neolithic. On the other hand, this type of finds are not uncommon in the Neolithic Europe of the second half of the 6th and the first half of the 5th millennia BC.

Miloje M. Vasić (1869–1956) is considered to be the founding father of Serbian archaeology. This paper directly challenges, as based on detailed archival research, the prevailing view that his excavation of the Vinča archaeological site is a model standard for Serbian archaeology. Instead, Vasić’s handling of the excavation was selective, non-systematic and destructive when viewed today from the perspective of modern practices. Vasić originally gained authority based on the discovery of Vinča, a prehistoric archaeological site that contains layers from the Neolithic to the middle ages. In his zeal to uncover “prehistory”, he deliberately ignored the other archaeological layers present. The most significant example of neglected archaeological remains is his excavations of Vinča’s medieval cemetery where he did not document observations systematically. This prioritization of the importance of one archaeological period over another was reflected in the further development of archaeology in Serbia, so that medieval archaeology was treated as marginal and second-rate compared to others. The aim of this paper, therefore, is to contextualize Vasić’s approach through the methods used in the history of archaeology. The key research question thereof is how Miloje M. Vasić failed to document the burials at the Vinča site, which is the consequent reason why there is little to no documented evidence of them. The theoretical and methodological basis of the analysis is based on the approach of Gavin Lucas who views the creation of the primary field documentation as testimony. Lucas notes that the debate concerning knowledge production had drifted from merely an epistemological issue to a phenomenon centered around archaeological practice. Here the key questions have come to concern the social and material setting of knowledge production and not the objective coherence of the argument. Burials that were noted in Vasić’s documentation are categorized into four groups: 1) unwanted or medieval burials; 2) incidental burials originating from prehistory 3) an “ossuary” from Vinča containing nine skeletons and 4) imagined multiple cremations based on one found cremation. Therefore, even while documenting several “lateral” prehistoric graves, he entirely omitted any thorough documentation of the medieval cemetery, considering them of less import. If there is any lesson that may be learned from this journey through the history of archaeological practice, it is that archaeological documentation as a form of testimony should be done ethically, adequately and responsibly. It should not be done according to the practices of the “bad science” of its founding-fathers.

Miloje M. Vasić (1869–1956) is considered to be the founding father of Serbian archaeology. This paper directly challenges, as based on detailed archival research, the prevailing view that his excavation of the Vinča archaeological site is a model standard for Serbian archaeology. Instead, Vasić’s handling of the excavation was selective, non-systematic and destructive when viewed today from the perspective of modern practices. Vasić originally gained authority based on the discovery of Vinča, a prehistoric archaeological site that contains layers from the Neolithic to the middle ages. In his zeal to uncover “prehistory”, he deliberately ignored the other archaeological layers present. The most significant example of neglected archaeological remains is his excavations of Vinča’s medieval cemetery where he did not document observations systematically. This prioritization of the importance of one archaeological period over another was reflected in the further development of archaeology in Serbia, so that medieval archaeology was treated as marginal and second-rate compared to others. The aim of this paper, therefore, is to contextualize Vasić’s approach through the methods used in the history of archaeology. The key research question thereof is how Miloje M. Vasić failed to document the burials at the Vinča site, which is the consequent reason why there is little to no documented evidence of them. The theoretical and methodological basis of the analysis is based on the approach of Gavin Lucas who views the creation of the primary field documentation as testimony. Lucas notes that the debate concerning knowledge production had drifted from merely an epistemological issue to a phenomenon centered around archaeological practice. Here the key questions have come to concern the social and material setting of knowledge production and not the objective coherence of the argument. Burials that were noted in Vasić’s documentation are categorized into four groups: 1) unwanted or medieval burials; 2) incidental burials originating from prehistory; 3) an “ossuary” from Vinča containing nine skeletons and 4) imagined multiple cremations based on one found cremation. Therefore, even while documenting several “lateral” prehistoric graves, he entirely omitted any thorough documentation of the medieval cemetery, considering them of less import. If there is any lesson that may be learned from this journey through the history of archaeological practice, it is that archaeological documentation as a form of testimony should be done ethically, adequately and responsibly. It should not be done according to the practices of the “bad science” of its founding-fathers.

Over the last few years, careful analysis of a large quantity of ceramic material found during excavation at Vinca has identified a significant number of ceramic fragments with clear use-wear traces. Recycled fragments of ceramic vessels are characterized by the presence of damage and deformation caused by abrasive processes i.e. contact of the fragments with hard material. All recorded recycled fragments can generally be divided into two basic groups: fragments representing tools with a working edge, and fragments with traces of abrasion on their outer surface. The largest group comprises fragments whose edges form the working edge of a tool, rounded or flattened through use and so becoming smooth. In contrast to so-called burnishers (the secondarily used, striped handles with traces of the action of water, manifesting in a uniformly rounded break) with ceramic tools only one edge of the fragment is rounded and used; the remaining edge indicates a completely normal break. In addition, most fragments also have abrasions directly beneath the working edge, which indicates holding the tool at a certain angle during use. That damage can occur both on the exterior and interior surfaces. It is striking that in a large group of fragments, the rim is used as a working edge. Tools are mostly fragmented, but it appears that their shape was not modified before use. In that sense, two straight polygonal tools can be distinguished (T. I/1a-b), or tools which are rectangular in shape with rounded corners (T. II4a-b), preserved complete. In most cases, these are fragments of bowls, so tools usually have polished or burnished surfaces, but ornamental parts formed by burnished lines or channelling are also noticeable. Fragments of rough fabric were never used as tools, but only those with an admixture of fine sand. Very rarely, actually in two cases, fragments of amphorae were used as tools (T. IV/2,5). Usually the upper parts of vessels were used, although there are several exceptions, where parts of the base and body were used as well (T. IV/3). Also, in the damaged area straight depressions can often be noticed, which apparently represent some kind of negative impression of the object on which they were used, or, in rare cases, the whole working surface is step-like. The second group of fragments do not generally differ from the first group as regards their form and the surface treatment. The difference can be seen in the distribution of damage. To be precise, the zone of intensive abrasion lies on the surface of fragments and is manifested by complete removal of original surface, while across it, marks caused by contact with hard material often result in deep incisions, which can be seen with the naked eye. These marks can be found on the most protruted parts of vessels i.e. on the shoulder, apart from two cases concerning the shoulder, or the thickened rim of an amphora (T.V/1,5). Finally, we should emphasise the fact that not one ceramic tool has been found around an architectural structure. Specimens originate from archaeological layers or contexts which do not represent a specific zone of activity (destruction layers, ditch filling, posthole, levelling layers etc) but in contexts in which waste material was deposited. From that perspective, one example can particularly be distinguished, a tool with a working edge found near the ceramic substructure of a oven. By analysis of the distribution, shape and kind of damage, as well as the position and shape of the working edge, it is possible to reconstruct the direction of movement and position of the tool during use. Scraping tools show marks in the form of dense incisions, visible both macroscopically and microscopically. They can also be characterised by a pronouncedly rounded working edge. Bearing these characteristics in mind, tools from Vinca with rounded working edges can be categorized as tools for scraping away excess clay and for thinning the surface of unfired vessels. They were held at right angles or slanting in relation to the vessel, with the working edge horizontal or also at an angle or lateral to the working edge, so that the vessels walls were thinned by movements in various directions. Ceramic tools were not specialized, and were undoubtedly multi-functional. They could have been used for smoothing and polishing. This is supported by the fact that abrasion traces are parallel or distributed in various directions. A group of tools with a flattened working edge, judging by preserved marks, had a rather different function. There are indications that these were held at right angles to the vessel but that the movement was not lateral. The tool was probably held with the working edge in a vertical position, so that burnished decoration could be carried out by using up/down movements, when it was necessary to make thin burnished lines of uniform thickness and with clearly defined edges. Bearing in mind traces of 'negative' impressions of the item on which the tools were used, the tool could also have been used in a left-right direction, when it was used to execute the burnished zone typical for upper bowls' parts. One of the important characteristics of ceramic tools is the use of the rim of a broken vessel as a working edge. This is a very logical choice. Bowl rims have a naturally rounded and often symmetrical, sharpened shape. Thus, craftsmen got a ready-made thin, relatively sharp tool, so there was no need to modify a fragment or re-shape it for the working edge to obtain the desired shape. Likewise, as mentioned before, the existence of a negative impression on work edges, usually rims, makes it probable that such tools were used to shape and burnish the rims of vessels. It is an interesting fact that most of these tools comprise fragments of bowls, and this is not coincidental. Important role in the appearance and form of traces caused by abrasive processes is played by characteristics of the abrasive, i.e. tool, such as hardness and granulation. All bowls are characterised by their fine fabric and fine-sand admixture, thin walls, burnished or polished surfaces and firing in a reduced atmosphere. These characteristics are very significant regarding the reaction of material to mechanical stress. A reduced atmosphere during firing increases the hardness of ceramics. Ceramics with fine granulation and lower porosity show greater resistance to mechanical stress than ceramics of rougher fabric with larger quantities of a coarse admixture. Burnishing and polishing lead to the compression of particles on surfaces, which creates a hard, compact structure, resistant to abrasion. It was especially convenient to have tools made of materials with identical characteristics as material they were used on. Analysis of ceramic fragments from the early phase of the Late Neolithic settlement at Vinca indicated an exceptional number of recycled vessel fragments, shaped as tools and used in the process of shaping and modifying ceramic surfaces. Since this concerns a new class of archaeological finds, it is necessary to suggest a direction for future research, particularly experimental, which would, together with microscopic identification of use-wear traces, reveal completely the activities in which ceramic tools were used.

Miloje Vasić je smatrao da su kulturne promene rezultat dodira kulturno superiornih centara i inferiorne periferije, te da se one arheološki najbolje manifestuju u kultnim praksama. Smatrao je da ovaj proces ima dve oprečne prirode: s jedne strane, posmatrao je kultne fenomene kao dinamične impulse koji se na kulturnoj periferiji usvajaju pod uticajima centara „viših” civilizacija, dok ih je, s druge strane, doživljavao kao konzervativne, trome i gotovo nepromenljive strukture koje izbijaju iz vanvremenskih i dubokih slojeva tla. U konkretnom slučaju, kojim se Vasić bavio tokom čitave karijere, ovi naizgled suprotstavljeni, ali suštinski sinergični vektori bili su dubinski kultni supstrati praistorijskog Podunavlja i kultne, odnosno religijske ideje i prakse bronzanodobne Egeje i klasične Grčke. Takva kultna sinergija prožimanja centra i periferije bila je, po Vasiću, toliko snažna da je omogućila kontinuitet mnogih kultnih i kulturnih fenomena (sirvivala) na Balkanu sve do modernog doba. Za interpretaciju ovih fenomena razvio je složen mehanizam, kojim je objašnjavao kako se originalne ideje iz centra transformišu do neprepoznatljivosti na periferiji. Taj mehanizam omogućio mu je, hronološki i prostorno, slobodno i neograničeno analoško zaključivanje, koje je neminovno dovodilo do pogrešnih interpretacija, što je imalo dugoročne epistemološke posledice u srpskoj arheolgiji.

Rad je posvećen sagledavanju britanskih uticaja na arheološka istraživanja praistorijske Vinče kroz kaleidoskop istorijskih činjenica i do nedavno zanemarene arhivske građe i lične korespondencije Miloja Vasića sa Dž. L. Majresom, arheologom i obaveštajcem, kao i enigmatičnim bračnim parom Braun – Ketrin i Alekom, koji su, svako na svoj način, doprineli afirmaciji Vinče. Autori ukazuju na manje poznate činjenice, a posebno one u vezi s učešćem, potencijalnim motivima i ulogama ovih ličnosti u I svetskom ratu i međuratnim godinama.

The analysis of macro-botanical remains from the late Neolithic site of Vinča-Belo Brdo has provided first information on the range of crops and wild plants present at the site, and revealed their potential role as foodstuffs. The abundance and distribution of certain plant taxa across different archaeological deposits suggests to what extent they were used within the settlement. The analyzed plant remains also offer insight into the types of food consumed by Vinča residents and serve as a basis for inferring the seasonality and method of food provision/production and activities related to plant use. [Projekat Ministarstva nauke Republike Srbije, br. 177012: Society, spiritual and material culture and communications in prehistory and early history of the Balkans]

This paper defines the notion of standardization, presents the methodological approach to analysis, points to the problems and limitation arising in examination of materials from archaeological excavations, and presents the results of the analysis of coefficients of variation of metric parameters of the Late Neolithic vessels recovered at the sites of Vinča and Motel Slatina. [Projekat Ministarstva nauke Republike Srbije, br. 177012: Society, the spiritual and material culture and communications in prehistory and early history of the Balkans]

The following paper will discuss the problems of Eneolithic settlements of Baden and Kostolac culture at Vinča near Belgrade. Eneolithic horizons from Vinča site were scarcely published owing to the fact that both Baden and Kostolac layers are not well stratified because of heavy medieval devastations. In spite of all post-depositional destructions Eneolithic settlements at Vinča show enormous significance for understanding the life of the period, both on the micro and macro-regional scale. At the same time, this work is a sort of an insight into the results of ongoing analysis of material culture and socio-economic patterns of Eneolithic period settlements in Belgrade and its vicinity.

Since the time of the revolutionary characterization of obsidian in the 1960's only a small number of artefacts from the Serbian sites have been analyzed, of which at least seven samples come from the site of Vinča. These results showed that obsidian was coming from Carpathian sources, disproving old romantic ideas of the existence of local obsidian sources in the central Balkans. These results allowed for the development of ideas about exchange networks of interregional importance during the Late Neolithic in which obsidian was an integral component. In this paper we will be discussing the results of the characterization of 60 obsidian samples, representing ca. 4% of the entire obsidian assemblage from the site. The samples were taken from the whole Neolithic sequence at Vinča selecting macroscopically different obsidian types.

The Hyde-vase and anthropomorphic vessel found at Vinča within two sets of pottery vessels are vessels of cult the meaning of which has never been examined. The authors highlight the significance of their archaeological contexts and positions in the settlement, reconstructed based on the preserved documents. The cult character of both pottery sets is confirmed and they are thought to have been used for a ritual important to the whole Vinča community. Considering that they come from the horizon associated with the beginning of the Gradac phase of the Vinča culture, the performed ritual may be seen as a possible reaction of the Vinča inhabitants to dynamic changes triggered by emergence of metallurgy in the region and the whole of South East Europe.

This paper deals with the issue of a common grave or so-called ossuary with entrance hall - found in the deepest layer at Vinča. The paper is based on the research conducted by M. Vasić in 1931 and 1934. The published information and interpretations of the grave have been corrected and supplemented with analysis of unpublished field documentation and study collection.

Abundant hand written documentation from excavations of Vinča (1908–1934) offers sufficient evidence that confirms the thesis established by investigator of Vinča M. M. Vasić himself that Vinča was metallurgical center. After comparing these data with the finds related to early copper processing on other sites of the central Balkans (Belovode, Pločnik, Gornja Tuzla, Fafos, Selevac) it could be assumed that Vinča culture was acquainted with metallurgy from its very outset. This assumption is supported by similar finds from other sides of the world (Tymna, Chinflon, Batán Grande) and even more so the results of experimental copper processing.

(nemački) Die bandkeramische Siedlung bei Bad Nauheim–Nieder-Mörlen wurde in bisher vier Kampagnen (1997–99, 2001) ergraben. Das Siedlungsgelände erstreckt sich über etwa 8 ha, ist durch eine extrem dichte Bebauung charakterisiert und war von der ältesten Flombornphase bis zur jüngsten LBK belegt. Aus der großen Fundmenge ragt eine Vielzahl außergewöhnlicher, meist keramischer Funde hervor. Deren Spektrum reicht von vollständigen Idolfigürchen und abgebrochenen Gliedmaßen über zoomorphe Statuettenfragmente bis hin zu unbestimmbaren Fragmenten. Die lange Laufzeit der Siedlung, bei absoluter Ortskonstanz, die zahlreichen Hinweise auf weitreichende Kontakte das hohe Sonderfundaufkommen, das auf ein religiöses Zentrum schließen läßt und die Anzeichen für arbeitsteilige Prozesse, wie das überdurchschnittliche Aufkommen von Mahlsteinen, Beilen, Hämatitstücken sowie von Spinnwirteln - und Webgewichten sprechen für einen hochrangigen Zentralort, der an der Spitze der regionalen Siedlungshierarchie stand.

The work of Miloje Vasić represents a cluster of “revered common places” of the Serbian archaeology. Elevated to the throne of the founder of the discipline with iconical value, Miloje M. Vasić (1869–1956) has been treated by the Serbian archaeologists and general public alike in accordance with the widely accepted and stereotypized canon: he is one of the great personalities of the Serbian science, the first academically educated Serbian archaeologist, long-term professor at the Faculty of Philosophy, director of the National Museum in Belgrade, and the excavator of one of the most important prehistoric sites in the country, the Neolithic Vinča. The intention here is to read the papers of Miloje Vasić written in the period from 1900 to 1908, in the combined internalistic–externalistic key of the history of the discipline, but as well to interpret his personal motifs and dilemmas without the layers of the “revered common places”. As early as in 1906 Vasić started diligently developing his paradigm in which he interpreted all the prehistoric sites from the wider area of the Serbian Danube valley in connection to the Aegean world. At the same time, he did not consider the prehistory in the Serbian lands as the distant echo of the Mediterranean, but an equal, though somewhat poorer branch of the Aegean family. All the subsequent erroneous chronological adaptations and his lowering of the dates of Vinča and other prehistoric sites have exclusively been the building blocks of this imaginary model of the Aegean on the Danube and its approaching to the Aegean and Greek “motherland”. Even before he started excavating Vinča in 1908, Miloje Vasić was utterly convinced in his illusion that this site represented a grand emanation of the Bronze Age of the Aegean.

In this paper an attempt is made to estimate the number of figurines which were in "use" in households of the Late Neolithic Vinča culture. The number of accumulated figurines and houses is used as a starting point. Given the complexities of the settlement dynamic, figurine use and the formation processes of the archaeological record, the ratio of the number of accumulated of figurines to the number of accumulated houses is only an indirect reflection of the systemic number of figurines. Different figurine use scenarios are evaluated in order to see what the result would be. Keeping in mind that the entire analytical procedure is highly speculative and the range of tested models is far from exhaustive, the results suggest that scenarios resting on the assumption that there was a single figurine per household and that the average use-life of the figurine was equal to the average human generation length predict outcomes that are comparable to the actual archaeological situation.