PRÄHISTORISCHE ARCHÄOLOGIE IN SÜDOSTEUROPABAND 28

THE NEOLITHIC AND ENEOLITHICIN SOUTHEAST EUROPE

NEW APPROACHES TO DATING AND CULTURAL DYNAMICS IN THE 6TH TO 4TH MILLENNIUM BC

EDITED BYWOLFRAM SCHIER

FLORIN DRAŞOVEAN

RAHDEN / WESTF. 2014

THE

NEO

LITH

ICA

ND

EN

EOLI

THIC

INSO

UTH

EAST

EU

ROPE

PAS28

ISBN 978-3-89646-599-3ISSN 0723-1725

AND

THE NEOLITHIC AND ENEOLITHIC IN SOUTHEAST EUROPE

PRÄHISTORISCHE ARCHÄOLOGIE IN SÜDOSTEUROPA

BAND 28

Herausgegebenvon

BERNHARD HÄNSELund

Institut für Prähistorische Archäologieder Freien Universität Berlin

VERLAG MARIE LEIDORF GMBH • RAHDEN/WESTF. 2014

WOLFRAM SCHIER

PRÄHISTORISCHE ARCHÄOLOGIE IN SÜDOSTEUROPA

BAND 28

THE NEOLITHIC AND ENEOLITHICIN SOUTHEAST EUROPE

NEW APPROACHES TO DATING AND CULTURAL DYNAMICS IN THE 6TH TO 4TH MILLENNIUM BC

Edited byWOLFRAM SCHIER

andFLORIN DRAŞOVEAN

Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH . Rahden/Westf.2014

440 Seiten mit 313 Abbildungen

Published with financial support of the Timiş County Council

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek

Schier, Wolfram / Draşovean, Florin (Hrsg.):The Neolithic and Eneolithic in Southeast Europe ; New approaches to dating and cultural Dynamics in the 6th to 4th Millennium BC /hrsg. von Wolfram Schier… .Rahden/Westf.: Leidorf 2014

(Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa ; Bd. 28)ISBN 978-3-89646-599-3

Die Deutsche Bibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie.Detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.ddb.de abrufbar.

Alle Rechte vorbehalten© 2014

Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbHGeschäftsführer: Dr. Bert Wiegel

Stellerloh 65 · D-32369 Rahden/Westf.

Tel: +49/(0)5771/ 9510-74Fax: +49/(0)5771/ 9510-75

E-Mail: info@vml.deInternet: http://www.vml.de

ISBN 978-3-89646-599-3ISSN 0723-1725

Kein Teil des Buches darf in irgendeiner Form (Druck, Fotokopie, CD-ROM, DVD, Internet oder einemanderen Verfahren) ohne schriftliche Genehmigung des Verlages Marie Leidorf GmbH reproduziert werden

oder unter Verwendung elektronischer Systeme verarbeitet, vervielfältigt oder verbreitet werden.

PC-Texterfassung und Scans: Die AutorenRedaktion: Wolfram Schier, Florin Draşovean

Satz, Layout und Bildnachbearbeitung: Morten Hegewisch

Druck und Produktion:

Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier

The present volume assembles contributions presented at two international conferences dedicated to recent studies on the Neolithic and Eneolithic of Southeast and Eastern Central Europe. Twenty years after the publication of the last comprehensive and broad scale conference on the historical concept, materiality and chronology of the Copper Age� the International Conference “The Transition from the Neolithic to the Eneolithic in Central and South-Eastern Europe in the Light of Recent Research” took place in Timişoara, Romania on �0–�2 November 20��. Organised by the editors of this volume, 23 colleagues from seven countries gathered at the atmospheric venue of the baroque fortification “Bastionul” for a two days intensive program of lectures, focussing on regional overviews over the transition from the Neolithic to the Eneolithic. The meeting brought together new data and new perspectives on the final periods of the Neolithic as well as the transition process to the Eneolithic.In 2013, while most of the Timişoara conference contributions had been submitted and editorial work had already begun, the editors of the present volume organised the session A32 at the �9th meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists (EAA) at Plzeň, Czech Republic on “Relative vs absolute chronology of the Neolithic of the Carpath-ian Basin and South Eastern Europe”. Twelve lectures and one poster presentation were given by scholars of nine European countries, some of which had also taken part at the Timişoara conference. The thematic scope of the EAA session was focussed rather on approaches to adjust and revise traditional relative chronologies using new radiocar-bon dates and calibration models (Bayesian statistics).Only a part of the EAA session contributions, however, was submitted until spring 20�4 – too few to be published in a separate volume. The editors therefore decided to integrate the Plzeň papers into the volume originally planned as the Timişoara proceedings. The present volume, thus, has developed a broader scope – both in terms of chronol-ogy (from Early Neolithic to Late Eneolithic) and geography (from Greece to Slovenia and Ukraine). The editors are convinced that it represents quite an impressive cross section of ongoing research on the Neolithic and Eneolithic in Southeast and Eastern Central Europe.Finally we would like to thank all the contributors for their patient cooperation, the Muzeul Banatului Timişoara, County Timiş and the Freie Universität Berlin for the financial support in organising the Timişoara conference and publishing this volume, the Czech organisers of the EAA meeting at Plzeň for a smooth organisation and pleasant atmosphere, Dr. Morten Hegewisch and Jan Müller-Edzards (FU Berlin) for the substantial editorial work.We hope that this volume will both stimulate discussions on our present knowledge and be an incentive for further research. Only an improved chronological resolution will help us to better understand the dynamics of cultural pro-cesses in prehistory.

Berlin and Timişoara, November 2014 Wolfram Schier and Florin Draşovean

� J. Lichardus (ed.), Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche (Bonn 1991).

Preface

Participants of the conference “The Transition from the Neolithic to the Eneolithic in Central and South-Eastern Europe in the Light of Recent Research” (Timişoara, Romania on 10.–12. November 2011 in front of the baroque fortification “Bastionul”. From left: Dragoş Diaconescu, Ferenc Horváth, Katalin Vályi, Vladimir Slavčev, Yavor Boyadzhiev, Raiko Krauß, Florin Draşovean, Johannes Müller, Wolfram Schier, Yuri Rassamakin, Borislav Jovanovic, Mirjana Blagojević, Gheorghe Lazarovici, Pál Raczky, Marcel Burić, Nenad Tasić, Kristina Penezić, Saša Lukić, Alexander Möser, Alexandra Anders, Eszter Bánffy, Attila Gyucha,

Georgeta El Susi.

Content

Preface .............................................................................................................................................................................

Darko Stojanovski, Trajče Nacev; Marta Arzarello, Pottery typology and the monochrome Neolithic phase in the Republic of Macedonia ...................................................................................................................................................

Stratis Papadopoulos, Nerantzis Nerantzis, Eastern Macedonia during the 5th millennium BC: Stability and Innovation ........................................................................................................................................................................

Yavor Boyadzhiev, The transition between Neolithic and Chalcolithic on the territory of Bulgaria ..............................

Cornelia-Magda Lazarovici, The Late Neolithic and Copper Age in Eastern Romania ................................................. Knut Rassmann, Michael Videjko, Daniel Peters, Roland Gauss, Großflächige geomagnetische Untersuchungen einer kupferzeitlichen Siedlung der Trypillia-Kultur. Aktuelle Prospektionen in Taljanky und Maydanetske (Ukraine) im Vergleich mit früheren Forschungen .........................................................................................................

Gheorghe Lazarovici, Cornelia-Magda Lazarovici, Corelations and new observations regarding absolute and relative chronology based on Banat and Transylvania researches ..................................................................................

Florin Draşovean, On the Late Neolithic and Early Eneolithic Relative and Absolute Chronology of the Eastern Carpathian Basin. A Bayesian approach ..........................................................................................................................

Adam N. Crnobrnja, The (E)neolithic Settlement Crkvine at Stubline, Serbia ..............................................................

Mirjana Blagojević, The Transition from Late Neolithic to Eneolithic in Western Serbia in the Light of Recent Research – archaeological rescue excavations in the Kolubara mining basin ................................................................

Saša Lukić, Early copper metallurgy in the Central Balkans: from technological determinism towards socio-technical interpretation ....................................................................................................................................................

Dragoş Diaconescu, New remarks about the typology and the chronology of the Pločnik and čoka copper hammer-axes ..................................................................................................................................................................................

Gheorghe Lazarovici, Beginning of the Copper age in Transylvania and some data regarding the copper and gold metallurgy ........................................................................................................................................................................

Attila Gyucha, William A. Parkinson, Richard W. Yerkes, The Transition from the Late Neolithic to the Early Copper Age: Multidisciplinary Investigations in the Körös Region of the Great Hungarian Plain ................................

Ferenc Horváth, Questions relating to the Proto-Tiszapolgár Period in South-Eastern Hungary. Main issues and present state of research ..................................................................................................................................................

Pál Raczky, Alexandra Anders, Zsuzsanna Siklósi, Trajectories of Continuity and Change between the Late Neolithic and the Copper Age in Eastern Hungary .........................................................................................................

Eszter Bánffy, Istvan Zalai-Gaál, Tibor Marton, Krisztián Oross, Anett Osztás, Jörg Petrasch, Das Sárköz im südungarischen Donaugebiet – ein Korridor zwischen dem Balkan und Mitteleuropa im 6.–5. Jt. v. Chr. ....................

Marko Sraka, Bayesian modeling the �4C calendar chronologies of the Neolithic-Eneolithic transition. Case studies from Slovenia and Croatia ...............................................................................................................................................

Lea čataj, Middle Eneolithic Lasinja and Retz-Gajary cultures in northern Croatia – development of chronology .....

Borislav Jovanović, Mirjana Blagojević, Bratislava type lids as indicators of early copper metallurgy in the early Chalcolithic of central and southeast Europe ..................................................................................................................

6

9

29

49

69

99

��3

�29

�73

�87

2�3

22�

243

273

297

3�9

347

369

397

409

Nicolae Ursulescu, Neolithic – Eneolithic/Chalcolithic – Copper Age: a simple terminological problem? ..................

Wolfram Schier, The Copper Age in Southeast Europe – historical epoch or typo-chronological construct? ................

List of authors ..................................................................................................................................................................

4�3

4�9

437

Abstract

The article addresses questions of chronological methodology and terminology related to the period of the Eneo-lithic or Copper Age. By relating absolute and relative chronology to ordinal and metric time scales and with refer-ence to statistical scale theory some methodological consequences are briefly discussed and illustrated by selected chronological charts of the time period under consideration. Besides absolute and relative time scales further com-ponents of archaeological chronology are periodisation and (culture-historical) phaseology. In archaeological prac-tice authors often decide to refer chronological charts either to culture sequences or to hierarchical period systems, whereas both are necessary.

A critical review of the archaeological practice in comparative chronology demonstrates some sources of mis-matching and discrepancies both within and between chronological systems. Here quantitative approaches relying on representative samples of stratigraphies are strongly recommended, instead of arguing with selected “import” sherds.

The second part of the article deals with the concept of the Copper Age as a historical epoch, introduced into Ger-man-speaking archaeology by scholars as H. Müller-Karpe and J. Lichardus. A critical review of Lichardus’ criteria for a pan-European Copper Age in the light of the actual chronology and evidence challenges the notion of a ho-mogenous historical epoch. Therefore it is suggested to abandon the idea of a historical Copper Age, to use the term “Eneolithic” merely as an element of chronological terminology and to analyse the cultural dynamics and regional diversity exclusively within a solid framework of absolute dates.

Introduction

Suggested in 1884 by Franz von Pulszký for the first time, the notion of a distinct “Copper Age” has become firmly established in the archaeology of eastern Central, southeastern and eastern Europe as well as southwestern Asia, thus signifying a fourth period inserted into J. Thomsen’s Three Age System between the Stone and Bronze Age. This term as well as the chronological concept has, however, never been generally accepted and/or widely used in western Central, Western and Northern Europe.

In the archaeological literature on Southeast Europe and the Near East the terms “Eneolithic” or, respectively, “Chalcolithic” are far more commonly used than “Copper Age”. While generally considered roughly synonymous, “Eneolithic”/”Chalcolithic” seem to be understood rather as chronological termini technici, while “Copper Age” is more frequently employed in popular texts in a metaphorical sense, suggesting a distinct epoch in prehistory embrac-ing particular processes, events and associations. In Continental European archaeology, since the �970s the Copper Age has indeed been conceived as a historical epoch, defined not only by time, but also by common cultural traits (see below).

In the present article we shall review the terminology of “Eneolithic” as a concept in terms of relative and absolute chro-nology, in relation to copper metallurgy and other claimed common cultural phenomena. At first, however, some method-ological aspects of chronology will briefly be discussed and illustrated by selected chronological charts of the time period under consideration. A critical review of the archaeological practice of comparative chronologies will demonstrate some sources of mismatching and discrepancies both within and between chronological systems.

Chronology and archaeological practice

Looking closely, chronological charts can be considered quite complex, two-dimensional representations of cul-tural sequences in spatially distinct, yet neighbouring areas. Usually they contain aspects of both relative and absolute chronology as well as attributions to cultures or/and regional chronological terminology. Until two to three decades ago, comparative chronological charts, however, were quite often constructed without any reference to absolute dat-ing (fig. 1).

The Copper Age in Southeast Europe – historical epoch or typo-chronological construct?

Wolfram Schier

Wolfram Schier420

Relative chronology refers to an ordinal time scale, which allows only for a sequential ordering of temporal units, whose length remains undefined and which therefore cannot be compared quantitatively (proportionally). Time cannot be measured directly on an ordinal scale, but is expressed instead basing on proxies of time: either vi-sual similarity/dissimilarity (typology, seriation) or spatial relations between find complexes (stratigraphy) (Schier 20�4).

Since the mid �990s the majority of published chronological charts of the southeast European Neolithic and En-eolithic refer to absolute chronology. Some early examples applied an uncalibrated time scale (fig. 2). The nonlinear absolute (calibrated) time scale of others (fig. 3) reveals, that the mental scaling of cultural sequences still rests firmly upon relative chronology, to which absolute figures were added later. The latter chart also contains a reference to the third dimension of prehistoric chronology, the phasing system (early/middle/late Neolithic and early/middle/late Eneolithic). Many authors, however, have decided to refer either to the hierarchical period terminology or to the spe-cific cultures and their respective phases, which makes comparisons between different assignments to periods more difficult.

Logical inconsistencies arise, when the period terminology in a comparative chronological chart is valid only for a part of the table. In his chronological chart (fig. 4). W. A. Parkinson added in the righthand column the period assign-ment for Hungary, which is inconsistent with the respective terminology for Bulgaria in the neighbouring column. If it is taken at face value, the table suggests that the Kodžadermen-Gumelniţa-Karanovo (KGK) VI culture complex to be Early Eneolithic, whereas, according to Bulgarian archaeology it is defined as Late Eneolithic (Todorova 2002, 37; 40; Boyadzhiev this volume). Parkinson used an absolute timescale in steps of 500 years, but without equidistant spacing of the year figures. Another problem in his chart is the very long duration of the Vinča culture: the late end of Vinča D around 4000 calBC implies a contemporaneity with the Tiszapolgár culture, which is in contradiction to published radiocarbon dates for Vinča D (Borić 2009).

Fig. 1. Example of a relative chronological chart (Pavúk �990, �27).

Fig. 2. Example of an early absolute (uncalibrated) chronological chart (Mantu 1995, 224 fig. 2)

The Copper Age in Southeast Europe – historical epoch or typo-chronological construct? 42�

Fig. 3. Relative and absolute chart with assignment of phase terminology (Görsdorf/Bojadžiev 1996, 107 Abb. 1)

Fig. 4. Comparative relative/absolute chart with overall period assignment (Parkinson 2006, 57 fig. 4.4).

Wolfram Schier422

Fig. 6. Comparative absolute/relative chart with the indication of different periodisations (Schier 2010, 33).

Fig. 5. Comparative relative/absolute chart with overall period assignment and oblique dividing lines (Govedarica 2004, 227 Abb. 56).

Another common feature in chronological charts are stepped or oblique dividing lines between different phases of a culture or within a region (fig. 5). Despite their frequent use, the precise meaning of oblique lines is rarely speci-fied. Some researchers seem to prefer oblique lines to express the gradual transition between an older and a younger phase within a cultural sequence, others may just refer to existing uncertainties in the absolute dating, while a third

The Copper Age in Southeast Europe – historical epoch or typo-chronological construct? 423

group apparently draws oblique lines to account for the fact that the transition between two phases might not occur at the same time throughout the region concerned. In the last case the width of a column represents the geographical variability of such a phase transition while the angle of the oblique line would represent the time difference between the earliest and the latest occurrence of the new phase.

An example of a chronological chart accounting for all three chronological dimensions 1) (relative) cultural se-quence, 2) absolute dating and 3) terminological period attribution is shown in fig. 6. As in most charts, the geographi-cal diversity is presented in parallel columns; the cultural phases are indicated by horizontal divisions referring to a linear calibrated time scale. Oblique lines in this chart are used to indicate chronological overlap or divergent transi-tions within one region (column).

The attribution to regional period terminologies is expressed by colours, whereby different shading is equivalent to early/middle/late stages within the periods. The overlaying of culture phasing and period attribution illustrates clearly the “terminological fault line” running right through Central Europe. While the Eneolithic represents a period of its own in Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic, it has never been established in German-speaking archaeology. Therefore, for instance, the Baden culture is classified as Late Eneolithic in Hungary, Middle Eneolithic in the Czech Republic and Late Neolithic in Austria.

Culture-historical phaseologyThe offset in the period attribution between neighbouring regions reflects, at first sight, different research

traditions, regional schools and concepts. Taken at large, however, these offsets are the consequence of a spe-cific perspective to archaeological chronology which we refer to as culture-historical phaseology. An early explication of this perspective is given by K.-J. Narr in the introduction to his Handbuch der Urgeschichte (Narr �975, �2 Abb. 2). The large-scale, comparative perspective on periodisation is, as Narr states, based on the principle of iso-phenomenology, i.e. the occurrence of the same major transformations and cultural pro-cesses in different regions at different times, yet in the same relative sequence. He chooses the neolithisation as example, referring to the same process of change from hunter-gatherer to agrarian subsistence, but cover-ing a time span from the �0th/9th millennium in the Near East until the early 4th millennium in northwestern Europe (fig. 7). Like the neolithisation line, some other phaseological boundaries follow a time gradient from the Near East and Egypt towards northern Europe: literacy, the introduction of iron, bronze and copper, pot-tery, proto-urban settlements.

The isophenomenological perspective is complementary to, but logically incompatible with its counterpart, the isochronological view of prehistory. The latter perspective compares the different processes and cultural phenom-ena occurring synchronously, i.e. projected on an absolute (metric) timescale. This perspective has been supported, among others, by C. Strahm as an alternative option to the prevailing use of (relative) cultural phase systems in the �980s and �990s (Strahm �988).

Fig. 7. Phaseological borders using an absolute time scale (Narr �975, �2 Abb. 2)

Wolfram Schier424

Synchronising chronologies – the past, the present and the futureSince the times of V. Milojčić “Chronologie der Jüngeren Steinzeit” (1949), the methodological approach of com-

parative relative chronology has not changed fundamentally. Site by site, stratigraphic sequences that are considered representative and sufficiently well published, are compared and correlated, using selected elements of assumed diag-nostic character. Usually no assessment is made as to how frequent the pottery types and decorative techniques occur in both sites, how specific they are for the layer or phase concerned, or how many corresponding elements relate to how many divergent ones.

In transcultural chronological comparisons “import sherds” frequently play a crucial role for regarding phases as contemporary. The notion of “import” actually implies a territorial concept of archaeological cultures: only when we can define a culture area spatially by a sharp boundary, can we distinguish between inside and outside, between elements constituting a culture and imports in the context of a neighbouring culture. If, however, a less homogenous, more fuzzy concept of culture is applied, as, for instance, the polythetic model suggested by D. L. Clarke as early as 1968 (Clarke ²1978, 263–266), the recognition and definition of imported elements becomes less clear.

Elements of material culture that have turned out to be frequent but short living in one site, often are taken as chronological marker for far reaching correlations. There are however examples where pottery or other characteristics are diagnostic only for one region, while in other regions they may have had a much longer production lifespan�.

Another problematic assumption is the stratigraphic gap, the “hiatus”. Keeping in mind the rules of scale theory (Stevens 1946), we have to realise that an ordinal scale, unlike interval or proportional scales, can reproduce neither dynamic processes (acceleration, retardation) nor gaps adequately. Increased dissimilarity of material culture between neighbouring units on an ordinal scale, be it based on seriation or on stratigraphy, can reflect either a longer time interval (hiatus?) or accelerated change (innovation?, culture change?). Relative chronology just does not permit to dissolve this ambiguity.

In the practice of archaeological chronology the concept of a stratigraphical hiatus sometimes is used to account for mismatches in the correlation of two stratigraphies2. If sequence A contains layers and types between an upper and lower layer that can be linked to another sequence B, where the intermediate types are lacking, this may be an indication of dis-continuity in sequence B. It may, however, also be due to a delayed diffusion of the lower types in A to B, a local origin of the intermediate material, or an increased sedimentation rate in sequence A during the intermediate phase.

Again, relative chronology, using an ordinal time scale, does not allow us to decide between these alternative op-tions. Stratigraphic layers (groups) as well as the phases derived from a seriation are discrete units of unknown time

� This could be shown, f. i. for shallow bowls with thickened and channelled rim, typical for Vinča C2/C3 at the type site, but oc-curring much earlier at Karanovo III–IV and Vinča sites in southern Serbia (Schier 2000).2 As an example: by comparing his Romanian relative chronology of the Vinča culture with the stratigraphy of the eponymous tell site, Gh. Lazarovici suggested several interruptions in the sequence of Vinča Belo Brdo (Lazarovici 1981, 173–178), which, however, could not be supported by other authors.

Fig. 8. An assumed time horizon can link stratigraphic layers of different duration at different points in their lifespan (Parzinger �993, �4 Abb. �).

The Copper Age in Southeast Europe – historical epoch or typo-chronological construct? 425

depth. Even if a stratigraphy is expressed in meters and the eigenvector plot of a Correspondence Analysis suggests a continuous metric scale, both are nonlinear proxies of time (Schier 2014, 269–270).

H. Parzinger was aware of the immanent uncertainties and ambiguities of comparative stratigraphy, when he ap-plied his concept of time horizons in his comprehensive study of Neolithic/Eneolithic chronology between the Taurus Mountains and the Carpathian Basin (Parzinger 1993). He intended to overcome the discrepancies of regional termi-nologies and phasing systems by referring to a set of �5 main and 22 subdivided horizons, correlating the individual stratigraphic sequences of hundreds of sites included in his study. He illustrated three possible scenarios of compara-tive stratigraphy, which would result in the same attribution to a specific horizon (fig. 8). Obviously, the correlation of discrete units of unknown length cannot account for the (inaccessible) information on the real calendar scale. Thus, the horizon approach reduces temporal resolution and introduces, unintentionally, further errors and ambiguities into the resulting chronological systems.

Applied to the question of the end of tell settlement in the Carpathian Basin (Link 2006), the horizon approach suggests a gradual abandonment of tell sites around the transition Late Neolithic/Eneolithic (fig. 9). For the reasons mentioned above, however, a comparative relative chronology based on the horizon model can a) mask real synchro-nisms (the end of one horizon being contemporary with the beginning of the following one); b) exaggerate real time lags or c) suggest a synchronism where in reality two sites were abandoned at the beginning and end of a horizon respectively.

Even today the search for analogies in material culture appears as a valid approach of comparative chronology, but only if some methodological prerequisites are acknowledged: It ought to be performed on a quantitative basis and should respect the geographical distance between sites and regions as well as any evidence for culture contact between them. Furthermore, wide ranging comparisons should be embedded in a framework of absolute dates and be submitted to a methodological cross-check for inconsistencies (for instance Bayesian dating models).

Comparative relative chronology in continental European archaeology has only occasionally been performed by applying statistical analysis, based on large samples. An early example is the joint seriation of two distinct regional Linearbandkeramik sequences, the Rhineland and Baden-Württemberg by Stehli (1994). Two paraboloid shapes,

Fig. 9. Application of the horizon approach to the end of Neolithic tell settlements in the Carpathian Basin (Link 2006, 45 Abb. 221).

Wolfram Schier426

resulting from Correspondence Analysis, could be projected in a common space, thus demonstrating regional differ-ences, but also a consistent time trend (Zimmermann 1994).

More recently, M. Furholt used Correspondence and Network analysis in his spatio-temporal analysis of the re-gional groups within the northern Baden Culture (Furholt 2009).

In a recent study M. Woidich applied Correspondence Analysis to the western Globular Amphora Culture (GAC). By using spatial cells instead of closed finds he could statistically separate spatial from temporal variability of GAC pottery. The latter was established using spatially insensitive elements in a conventional, find complex-based Cor-respondence Analysis (Woidich 20�4, �42–�74).

Future research might show that Correspondence and/or Network Analysis can also be successfully applied to stratigraphic units, thus providing a quantitative approach to comparative stratigraphy. Such new approaches might review, correct and modify conventional cross-referencing of distinct stratigraphies based on selective elements or types. However, comparing the real dynamic of culture change between different regions requires a dense mesh of absolute dates.

Regional time lags in similar transformations of material culture, economy and society tend to be interpreted as evidence for a) a diffusion process, b) different regional response to common prime movers, c) structural differences between the societies involved (stratification, specialisation etc.), or d) innovation. If we search for the origins and diffusion paths of innovations, a gradient of time (depending on temporal resolution) should be identifiable.

The Copper Age as Historical Epoch – Grand narratives of the 1970s and 80s

Within German-speaking archaeology, one of the first archaeologists and surely the most influential one to develop the concept of Copper Age was H. Müller-Karpe. In the introduction to the third volume (“Kupferzeit”) of his monu-mental Handbuch der Vorgeschichte (Müller-Karpe 1974), he defined the Copper Age as the period between the 27th and �7th century BC (!), covering early historical periods such as the Old and Middle Kingdom in Egypt, the Early Dynastic and Akkad period in Mesopotamia, as well as the Early and Middle Helladic period in Greece. Beyond the scope of historical chronology he considered as contemporary the megalithic cultures of northwestern and western Europe as well as the Younger and Late Neolithic cultures Michelsberg, Baalberg, Corded Ware and Bell Beaker. Accordingly, he suggested applying the term Copper Age also to regions and cultures hitherto classified as Early, Middle, Younger, Late Neolithic or Eneolithic, since he regarded all of the above mentioned cultures and periods not only as contemporary but even historically linked3.

It is important to note that with this concept Müller-Karpe took the isochronological perspective, based on the (nowadays obsolete) absolute chronology of the �970s, and claimed historical links between areas and cultures with largely different economic, socio-political and cultural properties. If, however, historical links between cultures and impulses from ancient civilisations towards the prehistoric “periphery” of Europe could be recognised, basing on their (claimed) synchronisms, these “historical links” must be abandoned after their chronology has been proven to be false. This logical conclusion would not necessarily hold true for an isophenomenological perspective, which allows for variable temporal offsets between similar processes and developments.

Probably the most prominent advocate for the idea of a pan-European Copper Age was Jan Lichardus. Based on his own field research in Bulgaria, an intense network of scientific relations and almost four decades of academic teaching at the University of Saarbrücken, Lichardus became one of the most active, committed and sometimes even pugnacious academicians in the field of Southeast European later prehistory in the German-speaking archaeological community.

In �988 he organised the renowned international conference “Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche” at Saar-brücken and Otzenhausen, which was published in two volumes in �99�. In his introduction Lichardus reviews the history of the concept of Copper Age since the late �9th century (Lichardus �99�a). He points out that within the research of the 1960–80s three groups of opinions can be distinguished: a) the rejection of a general European Copper Age, conceding, however, the introduction of copper objects in later stages of the Neolithic; b) the accep-tance of Copper Age as independent chronological period; and c) the notion of Copper Age as a truly historical epoch, which regards copper metallurgy as just one of several innovative common traits and phenomena leading to a major step in cultural evolution (Lichardus 1991a, 16–18). Lichardus referred to E. Chernych, E. Neustupný, E. Pleslová-Štiková and A. Sherratt as influential supporters of this approach. He assigns his own and M. Lichar-

3 „Freilich erweist es sich bei einer großräumigen Betrachtung chronologisch zusammengehöriger und – wie sich zunehmend herausstellt – historisch miteinander in Verbindung stehender Erscheinungen als wünschenswert, gewisse nomenklatorische An-gleichungen vorzunehmen und dem Begriff „Kupferzeit“ auch dort Geltung zu verschaffen, wo bis jetzt – wie in Teilen Europas von Früh-, Mittel-, Jung-, Spät- oder Äneolithikum oder – wie in Teilen Vorderasiens – bereits von Bronzezeit gesprochen wird.“ (Müller-Karpe 1974, V).

The Copper Age in Southeast Europe – historical epoch or typo-chronological construct? 427

SocietyIf we accept tell settlements as representing some kind of central function in a graded settlement system, this type

of settlement can be found starting from the Early Neolithic in Macedonia and Thrace to the Middle/Late Neolithic at the Lower Danube (Polyanica and Boian cultures), the Central Balkans (Vinča culture) and the eastern Carpathian Basin (Tisza and Herpály-Csőszhalom cultures). A number of tell sites meanwhile have been shown to be surrounded by fortification ditches4, dating to the Middle and Late Neolithic as well as the Eneolithic.

4 Raczky et al. 1994; Schier/Draşovean 2004; Schier 2008a; 2009; Hansen et al. 2005, 344 f.; Müller/Rassmann/Hofmann 2013, 103; 106; Mischka 2008; 2009.

Tab. �. Catalogue of social, economic and religious phenomena which were considered constitutive of the Copper Age (after Lichardus �99�b).

A) Society B) Economy C) Religion1) Centralised and fortified settlements, relating to traffic routes

�) Focus on lifestock husbandry, larger herds, new type of sheep

1) first cult buildings

2) Hierarchical social structure, regional and supra-regional elites, high social status also for some children

2) horse domestication, first use of horses as riding and draft animals

2) large ditch enclosures with ritual depositions in the ditches and the interior

3) First symbols of status and power3) draft animals (cattle) 4) first plough (ard)

3) spiritual beliefs guided by hierarchical social structure

4) First monumental burial architecture5) careful crop cultivation, systematic weeding 6) cultivation of spices and herbs

4) changes in burial customs (partial, collective, multiple)

5) Social specialisation: prospectors, miners, craftsmen besides farmers

7) Intensified salt extraction5) new rites connected with the sun, animal husbandry and male gender

6) distinct gender rôles8) mining of flint, copper ore and gold 9) specialised craft: metallurgy

6) new customs of deposition

7) metrical systems and astronomical knowledge

�0) increased harvesting of wood and charcoal production

��) organisation of transport and exchange networks

12) first wheeled transport

�3) innovations in ship building

dus-Itten’s approach to the same position, emphasizing a polythetic genesis of the Copper Age which happened largely independently of the Near East, rooted in what he called the Late Neolithic civilisation of Southeast Europe (Lichardus 1991a, 20; 24).

It is interesting to note that Lichardus, while criticising the chronological mismatches in Müller-Karpe’s concept of Copper Age (Lichardus �99�a, �8), relies entirely upon comparative relative chronology in his outline of the temporal framework for the “historical epoch” of the Copper Age. The correlation of regional sequences, depicted in his comparative chronological chart (Lichardus 1991a, 26–27), lists all of the regional cultures and phases, without discussing the evidence for their simultaneity (contact finds, imports, typological comparison etc.). Neither his nor any other contribution in the two volumes contain any radiocarbon dates.

In the second volume Lichardus developed his view of the Copper Age as a historical epoch extensively, referring to three cultural complexes, i.e. Cucuteni-Tripol’e, Tiszapolgár-Bodrogkeresztúr and Early Funnel Beaker (Lichardus �99�b). In conclusion he compiled a catalogue of social, economic and religious phenomena which he considered constitutive for the Copper Age “civilization” (tab. �).

Some of these features and their claimed synchrony will be discussed in the following – in the light of the present absolute chronology, more than two decades later.

Wolfram Schier428

While the beginning of tell settlements shows a temporal gradient from Southeast to Northwest (fig. 10), the abandonment of nucleated tells and a shift to more dispersed settlement patterns occurs in the Carpathian basin starting in 4700 calBC (Link 2006; Borić 2009; Parkinson 2006, Parkinson/Gyucha/Yerkes 2004), while the end of tell settlement comes about half a millennium later at the Lower Danube (end of KGK VI culture complex ca. 4250 calBC).

Evidence for increased social stratification is based mainly on the cemetery of Varna, still only selectively published. The comprehensively published cemetery of Durankulak (Todorova 2002) displays a similar, but less pronounced tendency towards social inequality, increasing from the Middle Neolithic Hamangia I–II phases, the Late Neolithic Hamangia II–IV until the Varna phases I–III. Whereas this process of social differentiation and the emergence of social elites with (at least) an ideology of inheritable status (as manifested by richly equipped child burials), is very visible in the western Pontic region, the situation in other parts of Southeast Europe is less clear. For Thrace and the Central Balkans cemeteries are lacking almost completely for both Late Neolithic and Early Eneolithic. In the eastern Carpathian Basin some continuity in burial practices can be observed between Late Neo-lithic Tisza burials and Early Copper Age Tiszapolgár cemeteries. The latter, however, reveal an increased concern for status and gender differentiation5.

Monumental burial architecture, typical for Early and Middle Neolithic northwestern Europe since the mid 5th (Britanny) and the early-late 4th millennium (British Isles, Netherlands, northern Germany, southern Scandinavia), is by and large absent in the Early Copper Age of Southeast Europe. Burial mounds emerge in the North Pontic steppe region during the 4th millennium and occur in Southeast Europe with the Yamnaya expansion at the turn of 4th/3rd mil-lennium and occasionally in Central Europe in the mid 4th millennium6.

While metrical systems have been suggested (and disputed) even for the Linerbandkeramik and the Early Neolithic of northwestern Europe7, evidence for detailed astronomical knowledge is provided by the Middle Neolithic circular enclosures of the Lengyel, Stichband, Oberlauterbach and Großgartach cultures between northwestern Hungary and northeastern Germany, dating between 4800 and 4500 calBC8. Nevertheless the existence of such advanced astro-nomical knowledge in the – almost contemporary – Early Copper Age of Southeast Europe can neither been ruled out nor has it been proven yet.

5 Derevenski 1997; Chapman 2000. 6 Borgna/Müller Celka 2011; Yamnaya migration: Ecsedy 1979; Heyd 2011; Adriatic coast: Primas 1996.7 Thom 2003; Rasch 1996.8 Schier 2008b; 2011; Schlosser 2012; Zotti 2012.

Fig. 10. Beginning of tell accumulation in the Near East and Southeastern Europe (Schier 2005, 10 Abb. 2).

The Copper Age in Southeast Europe – historical epoch or typo-chronological construct? 429

EconomyThe first six arguments (tab. 1, B1–B6) presented by Lichardus refer to the eneolithic subsistence economy and

require, in addition to archaeological evidence, support from bioarchaeological data. In hindsight, it appears quite courageous to draw these general conclusions based on the scanty and heterogeneous evidence of the later �980s. A greater focus on lifestock husbandry during the late 5th to early 3rd millennia is indeed suggested by some indirect evidence for various cultures and regions concerned. It ranges from stylised depictions of cattle made of sheet gold in the cemetery of Varna9, dated to the mid 5th millennium, to burials of pairs and groups of cattle in the Baden and Globular Amphora cultures in the second half of the 4th millennium, reaching as far north as Jutland�0.

The dispersed settlement structure of the Tiszapolgár culture has also been interpreted as reflection of a more mo-bile and pastoral way of life�� (Bognár-Kutzian 1972, 160–164) and for the giant enclosures of the somewhat younger Michelsberg culture (4200–3500 calBC) in western Central Europe a function as site for gathering and dividing large herds of cattle has recently been suggested (Geschwinde/Raetzel-Fabian 2009, 242–249).

Nonetheless, all of this heterogeneous and indirect evidence is far from rendering a consistent, quantifiable and synchronous picture for the period concerned. The introduction of wool-bearing sheep (B1), draft animals (B3) and the plough (B4) were components of A. Sherratts concept of a Secondary Products Revolution (Sherratt 1981), which was criticised for a lack of synchronous and consistent evidence�2, but recently defended in its general arguments by H. Greenfield (Greenfield 2010).

No less controversial during the last three decades has been the debate about origins and dating of the domestication of the horse. Critical re-examination of the available evidence suggests a later occurrence of the domesticated horse than formerly claimed for the key site Dereivka and the Early Eneolithic in the steppe zone (Benecke 2002).

Careful cultivation of crops, including systematic weeding (tab. 1, B5) can hardly be regarded as typical (only) for Cop-per Age agriculture, since it has been demonstrated already for Early and Middle Neolithic agriculture in several studies�3, whereas, on the other hand, archaeobotanical studies for eneolithic settlements are still rare for Southeast Europe.

Salt production on an almost industrial scale has indeed been recently proven by V. Nikolov for the Late Eneolithic phases at the tell Provadia, 50 km inland from Varna (Nikolov 2008; 2012). However, the scale of salt production in Provadia still remains a unique case for the 5th and 4th millennium. The attractiveness of salt springs for human settle-ment, which are well known, for instance, on the eastern fringe of the Carpathians, is attested already for the Early Neolithic (Tasić 2012; Saile 2012).

The mining of copper ores is obviously a prerequisite for any copper metallurgy that exceeds the hammering of native copper. It is amazing that since the identification of Rudna Glava in Eastern Serbia and Ai Bunar in the Bul-garian Sredna Gora region in the early 1970s, no further prehistoric mines have been identified in Southeast Europe. The intensive work on archaeometallurgical provenance, pioneered by the teams of E. černych and E. Pernicka, sug-gested prehistoric mining also in Majdanpek in Serbia and Medni Rid at the Bulgarian Black Sea Coast (Pernicka et al. 1997, 141–146). At both sites, however, historical mining activity (from Antiquity to modern times) apparently has eliminated any earlier traces. D. Borić recently published new radiocarbon dates from Rudna Glava, which push back the beginning of malachite extraction at the site to the end of the 6th millennium (Borić 2009). At the nearby site of Belovode, a Vinča B/C site, the working of malachite and the smelting of copper ore seems to have been practised as early as 5250 calBC (Borić 2009, 207–210).

The mining of silex, however, started considerably earlier and the mining of gold occurs much later than suggested by Lichardus 1991: The German site of Abensberg-Arnhofen in Lower Bavaria is a well documented large-scale min-ing area comprising thousands of vertical shafts, dug down to �5 meters’ depth in order to reach the layer containing Jurassic flint nodules (Rind 2006). The extraction of silex started in Arnhofen already during the Linearbandkeramik (5400–4900 calBC) and continued throughout the Middle Neolithic (4900–4200 calBC).

Increased harvesting of wood and charcoal production (tab. 1, B10) seem to be assumed rather than proven conse-quences of incipient metallurgy. Indeed many 4th millennium pollen profiles from bog and lake sediments in Central and Northern Europe show raised non-arboreous pollen counts correlating with intensified precipitation of charcoal micro particles (Rösch 2000; Rösch et al. 2002). These types of evidence, however, point to an opening of the land-scape by fire and/or fire-based cultivation practices (Schier 2009).

9 Burial 36: Ivanov 1988,66 Abb. 34; Marazov 1988, 70 Abb. 36.�0 See Johannsen/Laursen 20�0 for the most recent compilation and mapping of late Neolithic cattle burials.�� Bognár-Kutzian 1972, 160–164; according to Bartosiewicz 2005 the main archaeozoological difference between Late Neolithic and Early Eneolithic is a decrease of hunted wild animals. Gyucha/Parkinson/Yerkes (this volume) suggest that an increased em-phasis on animal husbandry might have taken place already in the Late Neolithic.�2 Chapman 1982; Vosteen 1996.�3 Kreuz 1990; Bogaard 2004.

Wolfram Schier430

Exchange networks or the organisation of transport (tab. 1, B11) can hardly be considered an achievement of the Copper Age. Spondylus is probably the most striking example of a (almost) pan-European Neolithic exchange system of prestige goods (Ifantidis/Nikolaidou 2011), while quite recognisable silex varieties like Rijckholt and Szent Gál ra-diolarite or the Jístebsko amphibolite are well known examples of Neolithic functional commodities being exchanged over hundreds of kilometres across Central Europe�4.

The earliest wheeled transport has been a topic of archaeological debate for more than fifty years. In the last two decades it proved to have been one of the fastest innovations in European prehistory. Since there is almost no time difference between the oldest dated wheels in lakeside and bog settlements along the Alps, the wheeled ceramic containers of the Baden culture and the Late Tripol’e culture as well as the earliest indirect evidence of wheel and wagon in the Near East�5, neither the origin nor the direction of spread of the wagon can be traced with certainty. All available dates for the worlds earliest wheeled vehicles cluster between 3300 and 2800 cal/denBC (Velušček 2009; Köninger et al. 2002), pertaining to Late/Final Neolithic, Late Eneolithic or Early Bronze Age depending upon the regional terminologies.

Hence we have to face the fact that two major and well datable innovations attributed to the Copper Age by Lichar-dus – copper metallurgy and wheeled transport – occurred separated by about � ½ millennia, while most of the other claimed economic changes are unspecific, ambiguous, not quantifiable, geographically too localised, not representa-tive or insufficiently researched.

�4 Gronenborn 1997; Zimmermann 1995; Ramminger/Šída 2012.�5 Cf. Various contributions in Fansa/Burmeister 2004.

Fig. ��. Synoptic chart of selected phenomena (according to Lichardus �99�b) in their spatial and temporal distribution over Europe, based on actual absolute chronology.

The Copper Age in Southeast Europe – historical epoch or typo-chronological construct? 43�

ReligionThe association of the Copper Age with the occurrence of the first cult buildings in Southeast Europe is based main-

ly on the evidence of a building with decorated loam-covered pillars at the Late Boian/Gumelniţa tell of Căscioarele (Dumitrescu 1970). Another prominent example, not referred to by Lichardus, are the two so-called sanctuaries of Parţa, tell I, displaying symbolic plastic wall decorations, a so-called altar with an attached bucranion and other fea-tures which are unusual for a normal domestic building. The probable cult buildings, however, date to the end of the Middle Neolithic period B2 of the Vinča culture (Lazarovici/Draşovean/Maxim 2001, 204–241).

Large ditch enclosures containing ritual depositions in the backfill of ditches and/or in their interior are a wide-spread phenomenon in Central, Western and Northern Europe. Its chronological range covers a long time span, start-ing with the enigmatic LBK enclosure of Herxheim (southwestern Germany; Zeeb-Lanz et al. 2007) dated to the late 6th millennium, continuing with monumental enclosures of the Michelsberg culture (4200–3500 calBC)16, the Chas-séen Septentrional and the British Early Neolithic up to the Funnel Beaker enclosures like Sarup (Jutland, Denmark) and Büdelsdorf (Schleswig-Holstein, Germany), dating to the second half of the 4th millennium�7. A chronological concentration can be observed at the end of the 5th and in the first half of the 4th millennium – geographically, however, this phenomenon is specific to northwestern and western Central Europe and hardly known from the Copper Age of Southeast Europe.

A similar geographical distribution show hitherto unusual burial customs (partial, multiple, collective burials; tab. 1, C4): partial and multiple burials occur occasionally in the later Middle Neolithic of Southern Germany at the end of the 5th mill., while collective burials are common in the North European Funnel Beaker culture (collective burials in com-plex dolmen and passage graves, concentrating ca. 3500–3200 calBC), Late Neolithic non-megalithic collective graves in Central Germany (Wartberg, Walternienburg and Bernburg cultures) and Central Poland (Kujavia) as well as mega-lithic allées couvertes of the Seine-Oise-Marne Culture of Northern and Eastern France�8. Thus, the custom of collective burial is widespread in the 2nd half of the 4th millennium, but widely unknown in Copper Age Southeast Europe.

Spiritual beliefs guided by hierarchical social structure as well as new rites in connection with the sun, the male gender and animal husbandry (tab. 1, C3, C5) appear as rather speculative categories for implying specific interpreta-tions and seem to be strongly inspired by the cemetery of Varna. Neither these, nor new customs of deposition (tab. 1, C6) can be regarded as representative for the whole of Copper Age Europe.

If we apply Lichardus’ criteria to the current chronology for the Later Neolithic and Copper Age (fig. 11), it be-comes obvious that the phenomena are neither ubiquitous – or at least wide spread – nor contemporaneous. Some suggested criteria had been hypothetically derived from other observations and cannot be considered independent evidence. Some criteria, such as collective burial custom and monumental funeral architecture, are specific for north-ern and northwestern Europe, thus emphasizing differences between Neolithic and Copper Age rather than supporting the pan-European notion of a Copper Age.

Even if focussed on Southeast Europe, the claimed criteria are not consistent in their temporal sequence: in the Western Pontic and Lower Danube area, for instance, metallurgy, burials representing high social status and complex tell settlements develop more or less parallel. In the Carpathian Basin, however, Late Neolithic tells end well before metallurgy becomes omnipresent and gender-specific status-emphasizing burials become a widespread phenomenon. The end of complex tell settlements in the Carpathian Basin precedes the end of Late Eneolithic tells in southeastern Romania and northwestern Bulgaria by several centuries. Therefore, even an isophenomenological approach, allow-ing for the delayed diffusion of innovations, does not work: The time lags in the spread of copper metallurgy, the end of tell settlement and the evolution of highly status-differentiated cemeteries do not reflect a geographical gradient, but instead work “the wrong way round”.

Conclusion

Looking back more than two decades, the concept of the Copper Age as a historical epoch appears far less convinc-ing than it was perceived around �990. The changes in absolute chronology have affected many claimed synchro-nisms and created new, hitherto unrecognised ones�9. Complex tell settlements are a feature of the Late Neolithic, the Early Copper Age or both; their abandonment and transformation to more dispersed settlement patterns are not

16 Seidel 2008, Jeunesse/Seidel 2010; Geschwinde/Raetzel-Fabian 2009.�7 Cf. Andersen 1997; Varndall/Topping 2002; Meyer/Raetzel-Fabian 2006. �8 Several contributions in Beinhauer et al. 1999; Walternienburg/Bernburg burials: Beier 1983; non-megalithic TRB burials: Kos-sian 2005; allées couvertes: Masset/Soulier 1995. �9 As, for instance, the parallel occurrence of heavy copper tools in Southeast and prestigious jadeite axes in western Europe (Pe-trequin et al. 20�3).

Wolfram Schier432

synchronous. Even though the absolute chronology for the 5th and 4th millennium in Southeast Europe still requires much improvement and an enhanced time resolution, it is already clear now that there is more temporal dynamic and regional variability and less uniformity in the cultural, social and economic processes concerned. We suggest, there-fore, that the notion of Copper Age as a historical epoch be abandoned and the terms Eneolithic/Chalcolithic be used just as terminological conventions without culture-historical or even holistic implications. The processes of change and transformation that doubtlessly took place between the beginning of the 5th and the end of the 4th millennium in (Southeastern) Europe should, however, be studied, compared and interpreted using an absolute timescale as frame of reference. The time of grand narratives may be over, but local and regional stories are equally fascinating and more adequate reflections of the dynamic cultural diversity in prehistoric Europe.

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Dr. Emily Schalk, Berlin for improving the English of the present article.

Bibliography

Andersen �997: N. H. Andersen, Sarup: � The Sarup enclosures (Aarhus �997).Bartosiewicz 2005: L. Bartosiewicz, Plain talk: animals, environment and culture in the Neolithic of the Carpathian

Basin and adjacent areas. In: D. A. Bailey/A. Whittle/V. Cummings (eds), (Un)settling the Neolithic: Breaking down Concepts, Boundaries and Origins (Oxford 2005) 51–63.

Beinhauer et al. 1999: K. W. Beinhauer/G. Cooney/C. E. Guksch/S. Kus (eds), Studien zur Megalithik. Forschun-gsstand und ethnoarchäologische Perspektiven (Weissbach 1999).

Beier 1983: H.-J. Beier, Die Grab- und Bestattungssitten der Walternienburger und Bernburger Kultur. Neolithische Studien 3 (Halle [Saale] �983).

Benecke 2002: N. Benecke, Zu den Anfängen der Pferdehaltung in Eurasien. Ethnogr.-Arch. Zeitschr. 43/2, 2002, �87–226.

Bogaard 2004: A. Bogaard, Neolithic Farming in Central Europe. An archaeological study of crop husbandry prac-tices (London/New York 2004).

Bognár-Kutzián 1972: I. Bognár-Kutzián, The Early Copper Age Tiszapolgár Culture in the Carpathian Basin (Bu-dapest �972).

Borgna/Müller 2011: E. Borgna/S. Müller (eds), Ancestral landscapes: burial mounds in the Copper and Bronze Ages (Central and Eastern Europe-Balkans-Adriatic-Aegean, 4th–2nd millennium B.C.) : proceedings of the International Conference held in Udine, May �5th–�8th 2008 Celka (Lyon 20��).

Borić 2009: D. Borić, Absolute Dating of Metallurgical Innovations in the Vinča Culture of the Balkans. In: T. L. Kienlin/B. W. Roberts (eds), Metals and Societies. Studies in honour of Barbara Ottaway (Bonn 2009) 191–245.

Chapman 1982: J. Chapman, The secondary products revolution and the limitations of the Neolithic. Bull. Inst. Arch. Univ. College London �982, �07–�22.

Chapman 2000: J. Chapman, Tensions at funerals. Micro-tradition analysis in later Hungarian prehistory. Archaeolin-gua, Ser. Minor 14 (Budapest 2000).

Clarke 1968: D. L. Clarke, Analytical Archaeology (London2 1978). Derevenski 1997: J. S. Derevenski, Age and gender at the site of Tiszapolgár-Basatanya, Hungary. Antiquity 71/274,

�997, 874–889.Dumitrescu 1970: V. Dumitrescu, Edifice destiné au culte découvert dans la couche Boian-Spanţov de la station-tell

Căscioarele. Dacia N. S. 14, 1970, 5–24. Ecsedy 1979: I. Ecsedy, The people of the Pit-Grave Kurgans in Eastern Hungary. Fontes arch. Hungariae (Budapest

�979).Fansa/Burmeister 2004: M. Fansa/S. Burmeister (eds), Rad und Wagen. Der Ursprung einer Innovation. Wagen im

Vorderen Orient und Europa (Mainz 2004).Furholt 2009: M. Furholt, Die nördlichen Badener Keramikstile im Kontext des mitteleuropäischen Spätneolithikums

(3650–2900 v. Chr.). Stud. Arch. Ostmitteleuropa 3 (Bonn 2009). Geschwinde/Raetzel-Fabian 2009: M. Geschwinde/D. Raetzel-Fabian, EWBSL. Eine Fallstudie zu den jungneolith-

ischen Erdwerken am Nordrand der Mittelgebirge. Beitr. Arch. Niedersachsen 14 (Rahden/Westfalen 2009).Görsdorf/Bojadžiev 1996: J. Görsdorf/J. Bojadžiev, Absolute Chronologie der bulgarischen Urgeschichte. Eurasia

Ant. 2, 1996, 105–172.Govedarica 2004: B. Govedarica, Zepterträger – Herrscher der Steppen. Die frühen Ockergräber des älteren Äneo-

lithikums im karpaten-balkanischen Gebiet und im Steppenraum Südost- und Osteuropas (Mainz 2004).

The Copper Age in Southeast Europe – historical epoch or typo-chronological construct? 433

Greenfield 2010: H. J. Greenfield, The Secondary Products Revolution: the Past, the Present and the Future. World Arch. 42, 20�0, 29–54.

Gronenborn 1997: D. Gronenborn, Silexartefakte der ältestbandkeramischen Kultur. Univforsch. Prähist. Arch. 37 (Bonn 1997).

Hansen et al. 2005: S. Hansen/A. Dragoman/A. Reingruber/I. Gatsov/J. Görsdorf/P. Nedelcheva/S. Oanţa-Marghitu/B. Song, Der kupferzeitliche Siedlungshügel Pietrele an der Unteren Donau. Bericht über die Ausgrabungen im Sommer 2004. Eurasia Ant. ��, 2005, 34�–393.

Heyd 2011: V. Heyd, Yamnaya groups and tumuli west of the Black Sea. In: E. Borgna/S. Müller Celka (eds), Ances-tral Landscapes: Burial mounds in the Copper and Bronze Ages (Central and Eastern Europe – Balkans – Adriatic – Aegean, 4th–2nd millennium BC). Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée (Lyon 2011) 535–555.

Ifantidis/Nikolaidou 20��: F. Ifantidis/M. Nikolaidou (eds), Spondylus in Prehistory: new data and approaches. Con-tributions to the archaeology of shell technologies. British Arch. Rep. Internat. Ser. 2216 (Oxford 2011).

Ivanov 1988: I. Ivanov, Die Ausgrabungen des Gräberfelds von Varna (1972–1986). In: Al. Fol/J. Lichardus (eds), Macht, Herrschaft und Gold. Das Gräberfeld von Varna (Bulgarien) und die Anfänge einer neuen europäischen Zivilisation (Saarbrücken 1988) 49–66.

Jeunesse/Seidel 20�0: C. Jeunesse/U. Seidel, Die Erdwerke. In: Jungsteinzeit im Umbruch. Die „Michelsberger Kul-tur“ und Mitteleuropa vor 6000 Jahren (Karlsruhe/Darmstadt 2010) 58–69.

Johannsen/Laursen 20�0: N. Johannsen/S. Laursen, Routes and Wheeled Transport in Late 4th–Early 3rd Millennium Funerary Customs of the Jutland Peninsula. Praehist. Zeitschr. 85, 2010, 15–58.

Köninger et al. 2002: J. Köninger/M. Mainberger/H. Schlichtherle/M. Vosteen (eds), Schleife, Schlitten, Rad und Wagen. Zur Frage früher Transportmittel nördlich der Alpen, (Hemmenhofen 2002).

Kossian 2005: R. Kossian, Nichtmegalithische Grabanlagen der Trichterbecherkultur in Deutschland und den Nie-derlanden (Halle [Saale] 2005).

Kreuz 1990: A. Kreuz, Die ersten Bauern Mitteleuropas. Eine archäobotanische Untersuchung zu Umwelt und Land-wirtschaft der ältesten Bandkeramik. Analecta Praehist. Leidensia 23 (Leiden 1990).

Lazarovici 1981: Gh. Lazarovici, Die Periodisierung der Vinča-Kultur in Rumänien. Praehist. Zeitschr. 56, 1981, 169–196.

Lazarovici/Draşovean/Maxim 2001: Gh. Lazarovici/F. Draşovean/Z. Maxim, Parţa, I/1 (Timişoara 2001).Lichardus �99�a: J. Lichardus, Kupferzeit als historische Epoche. Eine forschungsgeschichtliche Einleitung. In: J.

Lichardus (ed.), Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche. Symposium Saarbrücken und Otzenhausen 6.–13.11.1988, 1 (Bonn 1991) 13–32.

Lichardus 1991b: J. Lichardus, Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche. Versuch einer Deutung. In: J. Lichardus (ed.), Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche. Symposium Saarbrücken und Otzenhausen 6.–13.11.1988, 2 (Bonn 1991) 763–800.

Link 2006: T. Link, Das Ende der neolithischen Tellsiedlungen. Ein kulturgeschichtliches Phänomen des 5. Jahrtausends v. Chr. im Karpatenbecken. Univforsch. prähist. Arch. 134 (Bonn 2006).

Mantu 1995: C. M. Mantu, Cronologia absolută a neo-eneoliticului. Stud. şi Cercetări Ist. Veche şi Arh. 46, 1995, 2�3–235.

Marazov 1988: I. Marazov, Tod und Mythos. Überlegungen zu Varna. In: Macht, Herrschaft und Gold. Das Gräber-feld von Varna (Bulgarien) und die Anfänge einer neuen europäischen Zivilisation (Saarbrücken 1988) 67–78.

Masset/Soulier �995: C. Masset/P. Soulier, Allées couvertes et autres monuments funéraires de Néolithique dans la France de Nord-Ouest: Allées sans retour (Paris �995).

Meyer/Raetzel-Fabian 2006: M. Meyer/D. Raetzel-Fabian, Neolithische Grabenwerke in Mitteleuropa – Ein Über-blick. www.jungsteinsite.de (15.12.2006).

Milojčić 1949: V. Milojčić, Chronologie der Jüngeren Steinzeit (Berlin 1949).Mischka 2008: C. Mischka, Geomagnetische Prospektion neolithischer und kupferzeitlicher Siedlungen in Rumän-

ien. Eurasia Ant. �4, 2008, �0�–��5.Mischka 2009: C. Mischka, Neue Ergebnisse der geomagnetischen Prospektion neolithischer und kupferzeitlicher

Siedlungen in Rumänien. Eurasia Ant. 15, 2009, 1–14.Müller-Karpe 1974: H. Müller-Karpe, Handbuch der Vorgeschichte. Dritter Band, Kupferzeit, erster Teilband, Text

(München �974).Müller/Rassmann/Hofmann 2013: J. Müller/K. Rassmann/R. Hofmann (Hrsg.), Okolište I – Untersuchungen einer

spätneolithischen Siedlungskammer in Zentralbosnien. Univschr. Prähist. Arch. 228 (Bonn 2013).Narr 1975: K.-J. Narr, Einleitung, In: K.-J. Narr, Handbuch der Urgeschichte, Bd. 2, Jüngere Steinzeit und Steinkup-

ferzeit. Anfänge von Bodenbau und Viehzucht (Bern, München 1975) 7–31.Nikolov 2008: V. Nikolov (ed.), Praistoričeski solodobiven centăr Provadija-Solnicata (Sofia 2008).

Wolfram Schier434

Nikolov 2012: V. Nikolov, Salt, early complex society, urbanization: Provadia-Solnitsata (5500–4200 BC). In: V. Nikolov/K. Bacvarov (eds), Salt and Gold: The Role of Salt in Prehistoric Europe (Provadia-Veliko Tarnovo 2012) 11–65.

Parkinson 2006: W. A. Parkinson, The Social Organization of Early Copper Age Tribes on the Great Hungarian Plain. BAR Internat. Ser. 1573 (Oxford 2006).

Parkinson/Gyucha/Yerkes 2004: W. A. Parkinson/A. Gyucha/R. W. Yerkes, Settlement reorganization at the end of the Neolithic in Central Europe: recent research inthe Körös River Valley, southeastern Hungary. Eurasian Prehist. 2/2, 2004, 57–73.

Parzinger �993: H. Parzinger, Studien zur Chronologie und Kulturgeschichte der Jungstein-, Kupfer- und Früh-bronzezeit zwischen Karpaten und mittlerem Taurus. Röm.-Germ. Forsch. 52 (Mainz 1993).

Pavúk 1990: J. Pavúk, Genetische und chronologische Beziehungen der Vinča-Kultur zum Neolithikum und Äneo-lithikum Mitteleuropas. In: D. Srejović/N. Tasić (eds), Vinča and its World (Beograd 1990) 127–132.

Pernicka et al. 1997: E. Pernicka/F. Begemann/S. Schmitt-Strecker/H. Todorova/I. Kuleff, Prehistoric copper in Bul-garia. Ist composition and provenance. Eurasia Ant. 3, �997, 4�–�80.

Pétrequin et al. 20�3: P. Pétrequin/S. Cassen/M. Errera/L. Klassen/A.-M. Pétrequin/A. Sheridan, The production and circulation of Alpine jade axes during the 5th–4th millennia in a European perspective. In: T. Kerig/A. Zimmermann (eds), Economic Archaeology: From Structure to Performance in European Archaeology (Bonn 2013) 65–82.

Primas 1996: M. Primas, Velika Gruda 1. Hügelgräber des frühen 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. im Adriagebiet – Velika Gruda, Mala Gruda und ihr Kontext. Univforsch. z. prähist. Arch. 32 (Bonn 1996).

Raczky et al. 1994: P. Raczky/W. Meier-Arendt/K. Kurucz/Z. Hajdú/A. Szikora, Polgár-Csőszhalom. A Late Neo-lithic settlement in the Upper Tisza region and its cultural connections (Preliminary report). Jósa András Múz. Évkönyve 36, 1994, 231–236.

Ramminger/Šída 2012: B. Ramminger/P. Šída, Der bandkeramische Felsgesteinabbauplatz Jistebsko, Kataster Jablonec nad Nisou, und sein regionales Siedlungsumfeld im mittleren Isertal, Tschechische Republik. In: S. Wol-fram/H. Stäuble/M. Cladders/Th. Tischendorf (Hrsg.), Siedlungsstruktur und Kulturwandel in der Bandkeramik. Beiträge der internationalen Tagung „Neue Fragen zur Bandkeramik oder alles beim Alten?“ Leipzig, 23. bis 24. September 2010 (Dresden 2012) 167–179.

Rasch 1995: W. Rasch, Das megalithische Yard: Ein Maß durch Zeiten und Räume des Neolithikums. In: Ordo et mensura. 3. Internationaler Interdisziplinärer Kongress für Historische Metrologie vom 17. bis 21. November 1993 im Städtischen Museum Simeonsstift Trier (St. Katharinen 1995) 39–55.

Rind 2006: M. M. Rind, New excavations in the Neolithic chert mine of Arnhofen, Stadt Abensberg, Lkr. Kelheim, Lower Bavaria. In: G. Körlin/G. Weisgerber (eds), Stone Age – Mining Age. Der Anschnitt, Beih. 19 (Bochum 2006).

Rösch 2000: Rösch, M., Anthropogener Landschaftswandel in Mitteleuropa während des Neolithikums. Beobachtun-gen und Überlegungen zu Verlauf und möglichen Ursachen. Germania 78/2, 2000, 293–318.

Rösch et al. 2002: M. Rösch/O. Ehrmann/L. Hermann/E. Schulz/A. Bogenrieder/J. P. Goldammer/M. Hall/H. Page/W. Schier, An experimental approach to Neolithic shifting cultivation. Veget. Hist. Archaeobot. 11, 2002, 143–154.

Saile 2012: T. Saile, Salt in the Neolithic of Central Europe: production and distribution. In: V. Nikolov/K. Bacvarov (eds), Salt and Gold: The Role of Salt in Prehistoric Europe (Provadia-Veliko Tarnovo 2012) 225–238.

Schier 2000: W. Schier, Karanovo und Vinča. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen eines stratigraphischen Vergleichs. In: St. Hiller/V. Nikolov (Hrsg.), Karanovo Band III. Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa (Wien 2000) 349–358.

Schier/Draşovean 2004: W. Schier/F. Draşovean (mit Beiträgen von H. Becker, E. Fischer, A. Kadereit, M. Rösch, S. Scharl, S. Suhrbier, B. Sponholz u. A. Tillmann), Der spätneolithisch-frühkupferzeitliche Tell von Uivar, jud. Timiş, Rumänien. Vorbericht über die Prospektionen und Ausgrabungen 1998–2002. Praehist. Zeitschr. 79, 2004, �45–230.

Schier 2005: W. Schier, Einführung. In: W. Schier (Hrsg.), Katalog zur Ausstellung „Masken, Menschen, Rituale“, Martin von Wagner-Museum der Universität Würzburg, 21. April–10. Juli 2005 (Würzburg 2005) 9–18.

Schier 2008a: W. Schier, Uivar. A late Neolithic-early Eneolithic fortified tell site in western Romania. In: D. W. Bai-ley/A. Whittle/D. Hofmann (eds), Living Well Together? Settlement and Materiality in the Neolithic of South-East and Central Europe (Oxford 2008) 54–67.

Schier 2008b: W. Schier (mit einem Beitrag von Th. Schmidt-Kaler), Zur astronomischen Orientierung der mittelneo-lithischen Kreisgrabenanlage von Ippesheim, Mittelfranken. Acta Praehist. et Arch. 40, 2008, 45–55.

Schier 2009: W. Schier, Tell formation and architectural sequence at late Neolithic Uivar (Romania). In: F. Draşovean/D. L. Ciobotaru/M. Maddison (Hrsg.), Ten years after: The Neolithic of the Balkans, as uncovered by the last de-cade of research (Timişoara 2009) 219–233.

The Copper Age in Southeast Europe – historical epoch or typo-chronological construct? 435

Schier 20�0: W. Schier, Einführung. In: Jungneolithikum und Kupferzeit in Mitteleuropa (4500–2800 v. Chr.). In: Jungsteinzeit im Umbruch. Die „Michelsberger Kultur“ und Mitteleuropa vor 6000 Jahren (Karlsruhe/Darmstadt 2010) 26–36.

Schier 2011: W. Schier, Activitatea edilitară ca reflectare a cunoştiinţelor – complexe monumentale de şanţuri cir-culare (Kreisgrabenanlagen) din mileniul al V-lea î. Chr. din Europa centrală. Anal. Banatului, Ser. nouă Arh. 19, 20��, 2�–32.

Schier 2014: W. Schier, Zeitbegriffe und chronologische Konzepte in der Prähistorischen Archäologie. Praehist. Zeitschr. 88/2, 2013, 258–273.

Schlosser 2012: W. Schlosser, Astronomische Untersuchungen der Kreisgrabenanlage von Goseck. In: F. Bertemes/H. Meller (Hrsg.), Neolithische Kreisgrabenanlagen in Europa. Internationale Arbeitstagung vom 7. bis 9. Mai in Goseck. Tag. Landesmus. Vorgesch. Halle 8 (Halle a. d. Saale 2012) 389–393.

Seidel 2008: U. Seidel, Michelsberger Erdwerke im Raum Heilbronn. Math. Arch. Baden-Württemberg 81/1 (Stutt-gart 2008).

Sherratt �98�: A. G. Sherratt, Plough and pastoralism: aspects of the Secondary Products Revolution. In: I. Hodder/G. Isaac/N. Hammond (eds), Patterns of the Past (Cambridge 1981) 261–306.

Stehli 1994: P. Stehli, Chronologie der Bandkeramik im Merzbachtal. In: J. Lüning/P. Stehli, Die Bandkeramik im Merzbachtal auf der Aldenhovener Platte. Rhein. Ausgr. 36 (Köln 1994) 79–191.

Stevens 1946: S. S. Stevens, On the Theory of Scales of Measurement. Science 103, 1946, 677–680.Strahm 1988: C. Strahm, Chalkolithikum und Metallikum: Kupferzeit und frühe Bronzezeit in Südwestdeutschland

und der Schweiz. Rassegna Arch. 7, �988, �75–�90.Tasić 2012: N. Tasić, New evidence on salt use in the Neolithic of Southeast Europe. In: V. Nikolov/K. Bacvarov

(eds), Salt and Gold: The Role of Salt in Prehistoric Europe (Provadia-Veliko Tarnovo 2012) 213–218.Thom 2003: A. Thom, Megaliths and Mathematics. In: T. Darvill/C. Malone (eds), Megaliths from antiquity (Cam-

bridge 2003) 325–332.Todorova 2002: H. Todorova (ed.), Durankulak, Band II. Die prähistorischen Gräberfelder (Sofia 2002).Varndall/Topping 2002: G. Varndall, P. Topping, Enclosures in Neolithic Europe: essays on causewayed and non-

causewayed sites (Oxford 2002).Velušček 2009: A. Velušček, Stare gmajne pile-dwelling settlement and its era. The Ljubljansko barje in the 2nd half

of the 4th millennium BC (Ljubljana 2009).Vosteen 1996: M. Vosteen, Unter die Räder gekommen. Untersuchungen zu Sherratts „Secondary products revolu-

tion“. Arch. Ber. 7 (Bonn 1996).Woidich 20�4: Die Westliche Kugelamphorenkultur. Untersuchungen zu ihrer raumzeitlichen Differenzierung, kul-

turellen und anthropologischen Identität. Topoi – Berlin Stud. Ancient World 24 (Berlin 2014).Zeeb-Lanz et al. 2007: A. Zeeb-Lanz/F. Haack/R.-M. Arbogast/M. N. Haidle/Ch. Jeunesse/J. Orschiedt/D. Schim-

melpfennig, Außergewöhnliche Deponierungen der Bandkeramik – die Grubenanlage von Herxheim. Germania 85, 2007, �99–274.

Zimmermann 1994: A. Zimmermann, Prokrustes-Rotation als Technik zur Synchronisierung lokaler Chronologien. In: J. Lüning/P. Stehli (Hrsg.), Die Bandkeramik im Merzbachtal auf der Aldenhovener Platte. Rhein. Ausgr. 36 (Köln 1994) 193–205.

Zimmermann 1995: A. Zimmermann, Austauschsysteme von Silexartefakten in der Bandkeramik Mitteleuropas. Univforsch z. Prähist. Arch. 26 (Bonn 1995).

Zotti 2012: G. Zotti, Versuch einer astronomischen Interpretation ausgezeichneter Richtungen der Kreisgrabenan-lagen Niederösterreichs. In: F. Bertemes/H. Meller (Hrsg.), Neolithische Kreisgrabenanlagen in Europa. Interna-tionale Arbeitstagung vom 7. bis 9. Mai in Goseck. Tag. Landesmus. Vorgesch. Halle 8 (Halle a. d. Saale 2012) 40�–43�.

Alexandra AndersInstitute of Archaeological Sciences, Eötvös Loránd UniversityH-1088 BudapestMúzeum körút 4/B HungaryE-mail: anders.alexandra@btk.elte.hu

Marta Arzarello LT TEKNEHUBSezione di Scienze Preistoriche e Antropologiche Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici Università degli Studi di Ferrara C.so Ercole I d’Este 32 44�00 FerraraItalyE-mail: marta.arzarello@unife.it

Eszter BánffyErste DirektorinRömisch-Germanische Kommissiondes Deutschen Archäologischen InstitutsPalmengartenstr. �0–�2GermanyE-mail: eszter.banffy@dainst.de

Mirjana BlagojevićInstitute for the Protection ofCultural Monuments of Serbia – BelgradeRadoslava Grujića 1111000 BelgradeSerbiaE-mail: blagojevicmiki@gmail.com

Yavor BoyadzhievNational Institute of Archeology with MuseumSaborna 2,1000 SofiaBulgariae-mail: yavordb@abv.bg

Lea čatajCroatian Conservation InstituteArchaeological HeritageDepartment for Land ArchaeologyKožarska 510 000 ZagrebCroatia

List of authors

E-mail: lcataj@h-r-z.hr

Adam N. CrnobrnjaBelgrade City MuseumZmaj Jovina 111000 BeogradSerbiaE-mail: ancrnobrnja@gmail.com

Dragoş Diaconescu Muzeul Banatului TimişoaraPiaţa Huniade nr. 1RomaniaE-mail: goshu_d@yahoo.com

Florin DraşoveanMuzeul Banatului TimişoaraPiaţa Huniade nr. 1RomaniaE-mail: fdrasovean2000@yahoo.com

Roland GaussFraunhofer-Institut für Silicatforschung ISCProjektgruppe für Wertstoffkreisläufe und Ressourcenstrategie IWKSBrentanostraße 263755 AlzenauGermanyE-Mail: roland.gauss@isc.fraunhofer.de

Attila GyuchaHungarian National MuseumCenter of National Heritage ProtectionRegional Office in SzegedHungarye-mail: attila.gyucha@mnm-nok.gov.hu

Ferenc HorváthMóra Ferenc MúzeumSzeged H-6720Roosevelt tér I-3Hungary E-mail: f_horvath@mfm.u-szeged.hu

Borislav JovanovićSerbian Academy of Science and ArtsKnez Mihailova 3511000 Belgrade, Serbia

List of authors438

E-mail: bjovanovic@yubc.net

Cornelia-Magda LazaroviciInstitute of ArchaeologyCodrescu 6, Pavilion HIaşi 700479RomaniaE-mail: magdamantu@yahoo.com

Gheorghe LazaroviciLucian Blaga UniversityFacultatea de Istorie si PatrimoniuBulevardul Victoriei 10Sibiu 550024RomaniaE-mail: ghlazarovici@yahoo.com

Saša LukićHauptstr. 9312159 BerlinGermanyE-Mail: addstol@gmail.com

Tibor Marton Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of SciencesÚri u. 49H-1014 BudapestHungaryE-mail: marton@archeo.mta.hu

Trajče Nacev Associate ProfessorInstitute for Archaeology and HistoryFaculty of Educational SciencesGoce Delcev University, Stip Republic of MacedoniaE-mail: trajce.nacev@ugd.edu.mk

Nerantzis NerantzisArchaeological Museum of KomotiniA. Syneonidi 469100 Komotini, GreeceGreeceE-mail: nnerantzis2001@yahoo.co.uk

Krisztián OrossArchaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of SciencesÚri u. 49H-1014 Budapest HungaryE-mail: oross@archeo.mta.hu

Anett OsztásArchaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of

SciencesÚri u. 49H-1014 Budapest HungaryE-mail: osztas.anett@btk.mta.hu,

Stratis PapadopoulosArchaeological Museum of KavalaEryhtrou Stavrou �756110 KavalaGreeceE-mail: efstratiospa@gmail.com, epapadopoulos@culture.gr

William A. ParkinsonDepartment of AnthropologyField Museum of Natural HistoryChicago, ILUSAE-mail: wparkinson@fieldmuseum.org

Daniel PetersFreie Universität BerlinFachbereich Geschichts- und KulturwissenschaftenInstitut für Prähistorische ArchäologieAltensteinstraße 15D-14195 BerlinGermanyE-mail: d.peters@fu-berlin.de

Jörg PetraschEberhard-Karls-Universität TübingenInstitut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte und Archäologie des MittelaltersAbteilung für Jüngere Urgeschichte und FrühgeschichteSchloß Hohentübingen72070 TübingenE-mail: joerg.petrasch@uni-tuebingen.de

Pál RaczkyInstitute of Archaeological SciencesEötvös Loránd UniversityMúzeum körút 4/B H-1088 BudapestHungaryE-mail: raczky.pal@btk.elte.hu

Knut RassmannLeiter Technische AbteilungRömisch-Germanische Kommissiondes Deutschen Archäologischen InstitutsPalmengartenstr. �0–�2GermanyE-mail: knut.rassmann@dainst.de

Wolfram Schier

List of authors 439

Freie Universität BerlinFachbereich Geschichts- und KulturwissenschaftenInstitut für Prähistorische ArchäologieAltensteinstraße 15D-14195 BerlinGermanyE-mail: wolfram.schier@fu-berlin.de

Zsuzsanna SiklósiInstitute of Archaeological Sciences, Eötvös Loránd UniversityMúzeum körút 4/BH-1088 BudapestHungaryE-mail: siklosi.zsuzsanna@btk.elte.hu

Marko SrakaDepartment of ArchaeologyFaculty of ArtsUniversity of LjubljanaSlovenia E-mail: Marko.sraka@ff.uni-lj.si

Darko StojanovskiInternational Doctorate in Quaternary and Prehistory, PhD studentDepartment of GeologyUniversity of Trás-os-Montes e Alto DouroQuinta de Prados5000-801 Vila RealPortugal

E-mail: stjdrk@unife.it

Nicolae Ursulescu“Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of IaşiFaculty of HistoryBld. Carol I, no. 1170056 IaşiRomaniaE-mail: n.ursulescu@gmail.com

Michael VidejkoInstitute of Archaeology NAS of Ukraine�2 Geroiv Stalingrada Ave042�0 Kyiv-2�0UkraineE-mail: wideiko@gmail.com

Richard W. YerkesDepartment of AnthropologyOhio State UniversityColumbus, OHUSAE-mail: yerkes.1@osu.edu

István Zalai-GaálArchaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of SciencesÚri u. 49H-1014 Budapest HungaryE-mail: gaal.istvan@btk.mta.hu