THE CUCUTENI–TRYPILLIA CULTURAL COMPLEX AND ITS …community.dur.ac.uk/j.c.chapman/tripillia/pdf/13_Chapman, 2015.pdf · Культурний комплекс Кукутень–Трипілля

Institute of Archaeology of the National Academy of Science of Ukraine

Institute of Archaeology of the University of Rzeszów

THE CUCUTENI–TRYPILLIA CULTURAL

COMPLEX AND ITS NEIGHBOURS

Essays in Memory of VOLODYMYR KRUTS

Edited by Aleksandr Diachenko, Francesco Menotti, Sergej Ryzhov,

Kateryna Bunyatyan and Sławomir Kadrow

Інститут археології Національної академії наук України

Інститут археології Університету Жешова

КУЛЬТУРНИЙ КОМПЛЕКС

КУКУТЕНЬ–ТРИПІЛЛЯ ТА ЙОГО СУСІДИ

Збірка наукових праць пам’яті ВОЛОДИМИРА КРУЦА

За редакцією Олександра Дяченка, Франческо Менотті, Сергія Рижова,

Катерини Бунятян і Славоміра Кадрова

УДК 903(477.5)"636"(082)ББК Т4(4)я43К-90

Культурний комплекс Кукутень–Трипілля та його сусіди. Збірка наукових праць пам’яті Володимира Круца / За редакцією Олександра Дяченка, Фран-ческо Менотті, Сергія Рижова, Катерини Бунятян і Славоміра Кадрова. — Львів: Видавництво «Астролябія», 2015. — 476 с., 225 рис.

Книжку присвячено пам’яті Володимира Круца, роботи якого із кукутень-трипільської проблематики стали надбанням світової археології.

Збірка містить статті англійською, польською, російською та українською мова-ми, які охоплюють період неоліту – доби бронзи у Південно-Східній та Центральній Європі. В роботах дискутується розвиток населення кукутень-трипільського куль-турного комплексу, його етнічна структура, феномен поселень-гігантів, господарство «кукутень-трипільців» у взаємозв’язку з навколишнім середовищем, а також за-гальні проблеми інтерпретації археологічного матеріалу. Особливу увагу приділено взаємним зв’язкам давнього населення Центральної та Південно-Східної Європи, хронології трипільських пам’яток, структурі неолітичних та енеолітичних поселень, житлобудуванню та ритуальному руйнуванню споруд, поховальному обряду давніх суспільств. Результати останніх польових досліджень поєднано з переосмисленням уже відомих матеріалів.

Рекомендовано до друку Вченою радою Інституту археології НАН України 06.11.2014

Рецензенти:член-кореспондент НАН України Г.Ю. Івакін,

д. і. н., професор М.І. Гладких

Institute of Archaeology of the University of Rzeszów

ISBN 978-617-664-060-8Дизайн © Видавництво «Астролябія» 2015Text © by Authors 2015

5

CONTENTS

PREFACE .............................................................................................................................................. 11

ПЕРЕДМОВА ...................................................................................................................................... 15

1. In memory of Volodymyr Kruts ................................................................................................ 19Aleksandr Diachenko, Francesco Menotti, Sergej Ryzhov, Kateryna Bunyatyan and Sławomir Kadrow

1. Пам’яті Володимира Круца ..................................................................................................... 23Олександр Дяченко, Франческо Менотті, Сергій Рижов, Катерина Бунятян і Славомір Кадров

Part 1. THE CUCUTENI–TRYPILLIA: IDENTITIES, TRAJECTORIES OF DEVELOPMENT, AND THE GIANT-SETTLEMENTS PHENOMENON

Частина 1. КУКУТЕНЬ–ТРИПІЛЛЯ: ЕТНІЧНА СКЛАДОВА, ШЛЯХИ РОЗВИТКУ, ФЕНОМЕН ПОСЕЛЕНЬ-ГІГАНТІВ

2. Триполье: культура и этнос ..................................................................................................... 27Петр Толочко

3. Поселения-гиганты или прото-города — ошибочное противопоставление ........... 35Биссерка Гейдарска

4. Interacting forms and visualized identities: the implications of graphic and syntactic variability in the symbolic repertoires of Trypillian culture groups .................................... 57Kathryn Marie Hudson and Sarunas Milisauskas

Part 2. ENVIRONMENT AND SUBSISTENCE

Частина 2. НАВКОЛИШНЄ СЕРЕДОВИЩЕ ТА ГОСПОДАРСТВО

5. Нові палеоботанічні матеріали з трипільських пам’яток ............................................. 97Галина Пашкевич i Дмитро Черновол

6. The habitat of the Cucuteni culture within the Neamţ depression (Ozana–Topoliţa) in Moldavian Sub-Carpathians, Romania ................................................................................ 111Constantin Preoteasa

Part 3. SITE CHRONOLOGIES. THE ‘TRYPILLIANS’ AND THEIR NEIGHBOURS

Частина 3. ХРОНОЛОГІЯ ПАМ’ЯТОК. ‘ТРИПІЛЬЦІ’ ТА ЇХ СУСІДИ

7. Cucuteni-Tripolye contact networks: cultural transmission and chronology ............ 131Aleksandr Diachenko and Francesco Menotti

6

8. Владимировская локально-хронологическая группа западнотрипольской культуры в Буго-Днепровском междуречье ........................................................................ 153Сергей Рыжов

9. Eastern peripheries of the Funnel Beaker culture ............................................................... 167Małgorzata Rybicka

10. Dom na wzgórzu, 3200 przed Chr. Mala osada ludności kultury pucharów lejkowatych na stanowisku Opatowice 42 (Kujawy) i jej południowo-wschodnie koneksje .............. 183Aleksander Kośko i Marzena Szmyt

Part 4. SETTLEMENT STRUCTUREЧастина 4. СТРУКТУРА ПОСЕЛЕНЬ

11. Планиграфия и структура поселения культуры Криш Сакаровка I (Республика Молдова) ............................................................................................................... 211Валентин Дергачев и Ольга Ларина

12. Interpreting the Funnel Beaker culture village in Central Poland: intra-site organization and the community ...................................................................................................................................... 241Andrzej Pelisiak

Part 5. HOUSE BIOGRAPHY: FROM ’BIRTH‘ TO ’DEATH‘Частина 5. ЖИТТЯ ДОМУ: ВІД ‘НАРОДЖЕННЯ’ ДО ‘СМЕРТІ’

13. Burn or bury? Mortuary alternatives in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic of Central and Eastern Europe ......................................................................................................................... 259John Chapman

14. Археологические исследования 2012–2013 гг. в Байя (уезд Сучава, Румыния) и некоторые новые данные о домостроительстве Прекукутень—Триполья ............. 279Константин-Эмил Урсу и Станислав Церна

15. Malice сulture dwelling сlusters in South-eastern Poland ............................................. 299Sławomir Kadrow

16. «Мегаструктура» — храм на трипільському поселенні біля с. Небелівка ........... 309Михайло Відейко і Наталія Бурдо

Part 6. THE ’TRYPILLIANS‘ MATERIAL CULTURE: POTTERY, TOOLS, AND MOREЧастина 6. МАТЕРІАЛЬНА КУЛЬТУРА ’ТРИПІЛЬЦІВ’: ПОСУД, ЗНАРЯДДЯ ТА ІНШІ ВИРОБИ

17. Крем’яний інвентар з господарської споруди на поселенні Бернашівка ............ 337Павло Шидловський і Євген Слєсарєв

7

18. Колекція пластики із ранньотрипільського поселення Могильна ІІІ ................. 357Олександр Пересунчак і Наталія Бурдо

19. Крем’яні вістря з трипільського поселення Ожеве-oстрів ...................................... 367Дмитро Черновол та Іван Радомський

20. Пам’ятки трипільської культури в Чернятині на Прикарпатті в контексті зв’язків з енеолітичними культурами Центральної Європи ................... 385Віталій Конопля

21. Поселение каневской группы Западного Триполья Вильшана I............................ 413Эдуард Овчинников

22. Керамічний комплекс пізньотрипільського поселення Шарин ІІІ ...................... 429Дмитро Куштан

23. Керамічний комплекс пізньотрипільського поселення Євминка 1 на Чернігівщині (із зібрання Національного музею історії України) .............................. 441Олена Якубенко та Олександр Кириленко

24. Могильник Козаровичи эпохи поздней бронзы .......................................................... 463Сергей Лысенко

9

CONTRIBUTORS

Kateryna BunyatyanInstitute of Archaeology of the NAS of Ukraine

Natalia BurdoInstitute of Archaeology of the NAS of Ukraine

John ChapmanDepartment of Archaeology, Durham University

Dmytro ChernovolInstitute of Archaeology of the NAS of Ukraine

Valentin DergachevInstitute of Cultural Heritage of the Academy of Science of Republic of Moldova

Aleksandr DiachenkoInstitute of Archaeology of the NAS of Ukraine

Bisserka GaydarskaDepartment of Archaeology, Durham University

Kathryn Marie HudsonDepartment of Anthropology, Department of Linguistics, State University of New York at Buffalo

Sławomir KadrowInstitute of Archaeology and Ethnology of the Polish Academy of Sciences

Dmytro KushtanInstitute of Archaeology of the NAS of Ukraine

Oleksandr KyrylenkoDepartment of Archaeology and Museum Studies, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv

Vitaliy KonopliaI. Krypjakevich Institute of Ukrainian Studies of the NAS of Ukraine, Lviv

Aleksander KośkoAdam Mickiewicz University in Poznań

Olga LarinaInstitute of Cultural Heritage of the Academy of Science of Republic of Moldova

Sergej LysenkoInstitute of Archaeology of the NAS of Ukraine

10

Francesco MenottiSchool of Archaeological Sciences, University of Bradford, UK

Sarunas MilisauskasAnthropology Department, State University of New York at Buffalo

Eduard OvchinnikovInstitute of Archaeology of the NAS of Ukraine

Galyna PashkevychInstitute of Geological Sciences of the NAS of Ukraine

Andrzej PelisiakInstitute of Archaeology, University of Rzeszów

Oleksandr PeresunchakZavallia Secondary School, Ukraine

Constantin PreoteasaHistory and Archaeology Museum in Piatra NeamţIvan RadomskyiDepartment of Archaeology and Museum Studies, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv

Małgorzata RybickaInstitute of Archaeology, University ofRzeszów

Sergej RyzhovInstitute of Archaeology of the NAS of Ukraine

Pavlo ShydlovskyiDepartment of Archaeology and Museum Studies, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv

Evhen SlesarevNational University of ‘Kyiv-Mohyla Academy’Marzena SzmytAdam Mickiewicz University in PoznańPetr TolochkoInstitute of Archaeology of the NAS of Ukraine

Stanislav Tserna‘High Anthropological School’ University, Kishinev

Constantin-Emil UrsuBukovina Museum Complex, Suceava

Mykhailo VideikoInstitute of Archaeology of the NAS of Ukraine

Olena YakubenkoNational Museum of History of Ukraine, Kyiv

259

13

BURN OR BURY? MORTUARY ALTERNATIVES IN THE NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC OF CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE

John Chapman

Keywords: Balkan Neolithic & Chalcolithic, house-burning, mortua ry practices,Trypillia

Introduction

The Trypillia group, to which Volodymyr Kruts has dedicated most of his research career, is an ideal group with which to begin an investiga-tion of burnt houses (symbolized by the Russian term for the resultant mass of burnt daub — ‘ploshchadka’ — Fig. 1). In the earliest stage of research, the discoverer of the eponymous Tripolye site, V. Hvojka, and the excavator of Petreny, E. Stern, both identified the burnt houses as ‘houses of the dead’, comparable to mastabas tombs, before accepting what was to become the standard interpretation as houses for the living (Kurinnoi, 1926; Korvin-Piotrovskiy et al., 2012: 211). As early as 1990, Kruts had recognized that the dwelling houses of Trypillia settlements were ritually burnt down prior to site abandonment. In a later article (2003), Kruts explained how the house-burning instantiated the house as a ritual object through a complex sequence of events, which included the ‘killing of the hearth’, the deposition of ‘grave goods’ — both whole vessels and animal bones — for the ancestors of the house, the creation of a mortuary ‘carpet’ of daub and sherds and the burning of the house starting with the second floor. It was also widely recognized that the mortuary domain of Trypillia — Cucuteni groups was weakly devel-oped until the final, C phase of the Trypillia group (Bailey, 2005: 2010; Kogălniceanu, 2008; Popovici, 2010: 105–106; Kruts, 2012: fig. 10.1). Kruts has explained the absence of inhumations by suggesting that the

260

PART 5. House biography...

principal mortuary practice was cremation without placing the ashes in urns — both for persons and for houses (Kruts, 2003).

The Trypillia debate over the relationship between burnt houses and mortuary practices is part of a much wider discussion about the meaning and significance of burnt houses in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic of Central and Eastern Europe (Paul, 1967; Tringham 1990; 2005; Stevanović, 1997; 2002; Chapman, 1999; Gheorghiu, 2002; Ivanova, 2007; Gaydarska et al., 2011; Porčić, 2012; Borić, in press). Many pos-sible reasons for house-burning have been proposed: accidental fires, including the result of high-temperature pyrotechnology or even baking (McPherron and Chris-topher 1988: 477), defumigation or cleansing of pests (Chapman, 1999), inter-village raiding (Chapman, 1999), long-distance warfare (Gimbutas,1978; 1979), house-burn-ing to strengthen the construction (Krychevskij, 1940) and ritual burning (Raczky, 1982–1983; Tringham 1990; 2005; Stevanovic, 1997; Chapman, 1999). This is not the place for the full evaluation of these competing explanations (but see Stevanović, 1997; Chapman, 1999). For the purposes of this short paper, I shall take as fundamental Stevanović’(1997) argument that it was impossible to reach the temperatures at which the daub of most houses burned from the materials of the house itself — the timber posts, wattle-and-daub walls, daub floor and thatched rooves. Hence, the addition of additional fuel meant that, in the majority of cases, house-burning was a deliberate act to terminate the life of the house — an act which Tringham (2005: 107) evocative-ly terms ‘domicide’ or ‘domithanasia’. The question then arises: ‘what kinds of ritual meaning were materialized in the extraordinary performance of burning down a com-plete Neolithic/Chalcolithic house?’

Figure 1. Burnt daub mass (‘ploshchadka’) of House A9, Nebelivka, excavated in 2009 (photo:

M. Videiko)

261

John Chapman BURN OR BURY?

Ruth Tringham (2005: 105) has extended Kruts’ notion of the ritual burning of the house with the idea that, after the Early Neolithic, the burning of houses, without the deposition of the dead person in the house, and intramural burials on dwelling sites were probably mutually exclusive practices. There are five implications of Tring-ham’s striking idea. First, house-burning and intramural burial were, in some sense, structural equivalents of each other. Secondly, one sense of this structural equivalence is that house-burning materialized the death of an important household or commu-nity member, replacing the performance of an intramural burial by the more spectacu-lar performance of a house-burning. Thirdly, the absence of the body of the deceased household leader from both the house and the site meant yet a third extra-mural place linked to house and settlement in the sequence of mortuary practices, and possibly other places. Fourthly, the death of a household or community leader in groups who practiced house-burning was celebrated by a long and complex, multi-stage sequence of mortuary practices. A fifth, more remote possibility is that the removal of the de-ceased’s body from the house and the settlement to a place outside the settlement may have been one contributory factor to the emergence of extra-mural cemeteries.

While working well in the Central Balkans, Tringham’s extremely interesting idea has hitherto remained untested through wider cross-cultural comparison, involving societies across the whole of Central and Eastern Europe. The relationship between house-burning and intramural burial can also be extended to take into account the emergence of formalized cemeteries, as well as the relevant settlement form — whether tells or flat sites or a combination of the two.

The cross-cultural study

The mortuary data from such a large study region (Fig. 2) have been drawn from the excellent synthesis by Clemens Lichter (2002), also utilising more recent summa-ries (Gligor, 2009; Chapman, 2010; Lazǎr et al., 2012; Kogălniceanu, 2012). Informa-tion on house-burning has been extracted from a wider range of sources, including the Lazarovici’s two-volume survey of Romanian Neolithic and Chalcolithic architecture (2003; 2007), Lichter’s survey of houses (1993)1 as well as a wide variety of site re-ports. The data are grouped into two sets of categories (A and B), each set being mu-tually exclusive states of the same variable: Category A: (1) groups with examples of both intramural burials and burnt houses; (2) groups with intramural burials but no burnt houses; and (3) groups with burnt houses and no intramural burials. Category B: (4) groups with cemeteries and settlements with burnt houses; (5) groups with cemeteries and settlements with no burnt houses; and (6) groups with cemeteries, in-tramural burials and burnt houses. The additional settlement information concerns the presence of tells in any specific group (signified by the letter ‘T’ (many tells) or ‘sT’ (some tells) in the requisite column). In practice, where sites with intramural burials or burnt houses were found, this was recorded as a positive sign for the whole cultural group, even if there was no evidence that both features were found on the same site(s) in that group. The rationale here is a sampling point: the occurrence of a burnt house 1 It should be noted that, unhelpfully for this study, Lichter (1993) focuses largely on house construction rather than house destruction.

262


Figure 2. Map of key sites mentioned in chapter: 1 — Lepenski Vir; 2 — Ajmana; 3 —

Tečić; 4 — Star čevo; 5 — Donja Branjevina; 6 — Gomolava; 7 — Vinča; 8 — Opovo; 9 —

Botoš; 10 — Alsónyék; 11 — Zengővárkóny; 12 — Maroslele Pana; 13 — Szegvár-Tűzköves;

14 — Vésztő-magor; 15 — Endrőd 119; 16 — Szajol; 17 — Szanda; 18 — Kisköre-

Damm; 19 — Csőszhalom; 20 — Tiszavasvári; 21 — Tiszapolgár — Basatanya; 22 —

Bodrogkeresztúr; 23 — Krivodol; 24 — Sofia-Slatina; 25 — Chavdar; 26 — Rakitovo;

27 — Azmak; 28 — Karanovo; 29 — Kazanluk; 30 — Maluk Preslavets; 31 — Ruse; 32 —

Varna I; 33 — Durankulak; 34 — Constanţa; 35 — Uivar; 36 — Parţa; 37 — Salcuţa; 38 —

Vădastra; 39 — Cernica; 40 — Sultana — Valea Orbului; 41 — Andolina; 42 — Pietrele;

43 — Cernavodă; 44 — Decea Mureşului; 45 — Şeuşa — Gorgan; 46 — Gura Baciului; 47 — Iclod;

48 — Trestiana; 49 — Poduri; 50 — Scânteia; 51 — Petreni; 52 — Luka Vrublivetska; 53 —

Veremya; 54 — Kosenivka; 55 — Trypillia (drawn by Yvonne Beadnell)

263


and/or an intramural burial at a site which has been excavated over a limited surface area, as is usually the case, probably means that such features were originally present at other sites in the same cultural group as well. The problem of cultural group vari-ability is acknowledged as a limiting factor.

A summary of the results are presented below (Table 1) 2. Several points stand out from these data:

There are very few groups in which houses were burned but in which no intramural burials were found (Category A3). In one of the three groups (the Cernavodă I group, located in SE Romania and NE Bulgaria), burials were usually extra-mural, whether under tumuli or in inhumation cemeteries. In the Copper Age in West Bulgaria — there were twice as many flat sites as tells. Despite their low numbers, these three cases support the Tringham idea of mutual exclusivity.

There is an intermediate number of cases in which intramural burial is found on sites where there has been no house-burning (Category A2). There were no tell settle-ments in the vast majority of groups with such characteristics. Again, these cases (n = 20) support Tringham’s idea.

In the vast majority of groups (n = 43), settlements occurred where both house-burning and intramural burials took place (Category A1). In contrast to the second case (intramural burial without house-burning), tell settlements were found in the vast majority of groups with both burial and burning. The main exception to the link with tells occurred in the Trypillia / Cucuteni groups in Romania, Moldova and Ukraine, where only one tell is known so far (Poduri, in Romanian Moldova: Monahet al., 2003). These cases would appear, at face value, to contradict the Tringham model of mutual exclusivity.

The number of groups in which extramural cemeteries were linked to dwelling sites with the presence of burnt houses (Category B4, n = 14) (e.g., Gumelniţa sites) is slightly higher than the number where there was no such house-burning (Catego -ry B5) (n = 10) (e.g., Lengyel sites). Tell settlements were found in over half of the groups with such an association, while they were very rare in groups where cemeteries were not accompanied by house-burning. There are few groups with tells with burnt houses and intramural burial as well as extramural cemeteries (Category B6).

Two important aspects of intramural burial concern the completeness of the human remains (whether articulated or disarticulated) and their spatial dispersal (whether grouped or dispersed). The two clearest examples of a predominance of disarticulated remains over articulated bo dies come from the Iron Gates Late Mesolithic (Wal lduck, 2014) and the Trypillia-Cucuteni groups (Bem, 2007). In the former, Wallduck has demonstrated a long sequence of multi-stage mortuary treatments, often culminating in the deposition of body parts (Fig. 3). The latter is best exemplified by the ‘ossuary’ in Building 9 at Scânteia (Bem, 2007: 253 and lower Fig., p. 209: here = Fig. 4), as well as several examples of disarticulated human remains deposited in burnt houses at Luka Vrublivetska (Phase A), Trypillia itself and Veremya (both Phase C1) and Koseniv-ka (Phase C2) (Bibikov, 1953: 51—64, 195). But there are many examples of sites with disarticulated human remains deriving from what was presumably a multi-stage 2 The full data with site listings by cultural group is available on request from the author.

264

PART 5. House biography...T

ab

le 1

. M

ort

ua

ry p

ract

ice

s in

th

e M

eso

lith

ic, N

eo

lith

ic a

nd

Ch

alc

oli

thic

by

cu

ltu

ral

gro

up

Dat

e In

tram

ural

Bur

ials

W

ith

Bur

nt H

ouse

sIn

tram

ural

wit

hout

bu

rnt

hous

es

Bur

nt H

ouse

s w

itho

ut I

ntra

mur

al

Bur

ial

Cem

eter

ies

&

sett

lem

ents

wit

h bu

rnt

hous

es

Cem

eter

ies

&

sett

lem

ents

wit

h-ou

t bu

rnt

hous

es

7th m

ill. B

CK

aran

ovo

IT ; Mac

edon

ian

Fir

st N

eo-

lithi

cT ; Ear

ly S

tarč

evo

Iron

Gat

es L

ate

Mes

olit

hic

Ear

ly 6

th

mill

Kar

anov

o II

T ; Nor

th B

ulga

rian

Ear

ly

Neo

lithi

c; W

est

Bul

gari

an P

aint

ed

War

essT

; Lat

e S

tarč

evosT

; Kör

ös; C

riş;

Kak

anj.

Dal

mat

ian

Impr

esse

d W

are.

Nor

th B

ulga

rian

E

arly

Neo

lithi

c

Lat

e 6th

m

illK

aran

ovo

IIIT ; K

aran

ovo

IVsT

; Ear

ly

Vin

časT

; Nor

th B

ulga

rian

Mid

dle

Neo

lithi

csT; E

arly

Alf

öld

LB

K;

Văd

astr

asT

Tra

nsda

nubi

an

LB

K; R

oman

ian

LB

K; S

opot

-L

engy

el; D

udeş

ti;

Dan

ilo

Ear

ly V

inča

sTE

arly

Ham

angi

a;

Dud

eşti

— B

oian

I;

Sop

ot-L

engy

el

Ear

ly 5

th

mill

Kar

anov

o V

T ; Kar

anov

o V

IT ; Nor

th

Eas

t B

ulga

rian

CA

T ; Lat

e H

aman

-gi

a; S

toic

ani-

Ald

enisT

; Pre

cucu

teni

; T

rypi

llia

A; C

ucut

eni A

; Try

pilli

a B

1;

Ari

uşdsT

; Pet

reşt

isT; F

oeni

; Tur

daşsT

; S

upla

cu d

e B

arca

u; C

sősz

halo

msT

; H

erpá

lyT ; T

isza

T ; Lat

e V

inča

sT; B

ut-

mir

sT;

Zau

-Icl

od-L

umea

N

ouă;

Ear

ly

Len

gyel

; Var

nasT

; S

avasT

Wes

t B

ulga

rian

C

oppe

r A

geT ;

Kri

vodo

l

Lat

e H

aman

gia;

L

ate

Boi

anT ;

Nor

th E

ast

Bul

-ga

rian

Cop

per

Age

T ; Tur

daşsT

; P

etre

ştisT

Zau

-Icl

od-L

umea

N

ouă;

Ear

ly

Len

gyel

; Var

nasT

; S

avasT

|

Lat

e 5th

m

illT

isza

polg

ársT

; Bal

aton

-Las

inja

; G

umel

niţaT ; S

alcu

ţasT

; Cuc

uten

i AB

; T

rypi

llia

B2

Lat

e L

engy

el;

Lud

anic

e;

Bod

rogk

erez

túr;

Cer

navo

da I

; ***

Tis

zapo

lgár

sT;

Sal

cuţa

sT; C

er-

navo

da I

Bod

rogk

eres

ztúr

; L

ate

Len

gyel

4th m

illC

ucut

eni B

; Try

pilli

a B

2; T

rypi

llia

C1;

T

rypi

llia

C2;

Coţ

ofen

iC

oţof

eni

Try

pilli

a C

2; D

e-ce

a M

ureş

ului

;H

unya

di H

alom

Key

: T —

tel

l set

tlem

ents

com

mon

; sT

— t

ell s

ettl

emen

ts r

are.

265


mortuary treatment. However, in the majority of groups showing the coexistence of house-burning and intramural burial, there were more complete, articulated burials than disarticulated remains. This pattern is visible in all periods (e.g. 6th millennium — Starčevo and Criş; 5th millennium — Zau, Early Vinča, Tisza, Herpály, Csőszhalom, Karanovo V and VI, Boian and Gumelniţa; 4th millennium — Bodrogkeresztúr, Bala-ton-Lasinja) and on tell sites as much as flat sites (e.g. tells — Karanovo, Salcuţa; flat sites — Early Vinča, Tiszapolgár). These examples show that, when intramural burial co-existed with house-burning, the complete corpse was the usual subject of mortu-ary rites, with disarticulation also present in low frequencies.

The spatial dispersion of intramural burials can be assessed according to the prox-imity of dwelling remains to burials, or their intermingling (as in the Late Meso-lithic sites of the Iron Gates gorge: Wallduck, 2014).The example from the horizon-tal site next to the Csőszhalom tell shows how the dispersion of bodies was linked to household clusters (Raczky et al., 2007). Groups of burials in a special mortuary place are known from all periods but rarely predominate over dispersed burial. Clas-sic examples from flat sites include the Alföld Linear Pottery gro up of seven burials at Tis zava svári — Déakhalom (Ku rucz, 1994), the grave lines at Kisköre-Damm

Figure 3. Disarticulated burial, Lepenski Vir Burial 104 (source: Wallduck,

2014)

266


(Korek, 1960; Chapman, 2000a) and the well-known adjacently-placed settlement and burial zones at Lengyel sites such as Zengővárkóny (Dombay, 1939; 1960). By contrast, the intriguing Aj-mana burial group, where 17 mostly incomplete graves were shap ed in a rough circle, would appear to lie outside the nearby Starčevo settle-ment, and should the re fore be classified as an ‘ex tramural’

burial group (Radosavlje vić-Krunić, 1986; Chapman, 2000b: 141–142). There are many examples of groups of

burials on the otherwise empty spaces on tells, such as the Late Vinča group at Go-molava (Borić, 1996), the Karanovo VI burials at Tell Ruse (Georgiev and An gelov, 1952; 1957) and the Tisza group burials at Szegvár-Tűzköves (Korek, 1989). These data show that the spatial dispersion of intramural burials was another feature of ‘normal’ burial on dwelling sites, whether or not house-burning occurred.

Place-time trends

Can we recognize any overall tendencies in this complex mass of multi-regional, long-term mortuary data? Although it may appear cautious to note that the most we can hope to identify are ‘tendencies’ or ‘trends’ rather than absolute decisions and di visions, the recognition of this limitation merely reflects living conditions on the ground — namely that variations and divergences were based upon the inability of any Neolithic or Chalcolithic community to enforce their lifeways on any other com-munity. Emulation rather than compulsion was the principal motor of cultural change in these periods.

Three tendencies have long been recognized in the Balkan Neolithic and Chalco-lithic: the gradual and increasing selection of tell settlement, the wider adoption of extramural burial and the targeted increase in house-burning, mostly on tells, in the late 6th and 5th millennia BC. These two millennia of house-burning show that there is, however, no sense of a ‘burnt-house horizon’, whether in the original meaning of the term for the Late Vinca group (Tringham, 1984) or as a dramatic result of Pontic invasions in the East Balkan Late Copper Age (Ivanova, 2007). It is more interest-ing, as Ruth Tringham has done, to seek a structural link between house-burning and intramural burials. Is it possible to go further than this and relate settlement form and the spatial dimensions of burial to her argument?

Figure 4. Analysis of disarticulated remains from Scânteia Bu il-

ding 9 (source: redrawn from Bem, 2007: 209, lower figure)

267


It is useful to begin our account with Iron Gates gorge sites at the time of the transition between foragers and farmers, since this is a baseline with which to compare later, farming developments. At first sight, there would ap-pear to be a major change in mortuary practice bet-we en foragers and farmers, with the Late Mesolithic pattern of the predomi-nance of disarticulation over complete skeletons being reversed. However, both patterns conti nue into the farming period (Wallduck, 2014). The re is a strong case that any complex multi-stage mortuary practices which culminated in the deposition of disarticulated remains has an origin in the Late Mesolithic, which, however, lacked burnt houses and extramural bu rials. The long, if discontinuous, occupation at Lepenski Vir, now well-supported by AMS dates (Bonsall et al., 2004; Bonsall et al., 2008), suggest a settlement form not entirely unlike a tell, with vertical expansion of settlement and occasional house superposition.

In the early farming period (6300–5500 BC), as noted by Tringham (2005), there was a regular association between the dual mortuary practices of house-burning and intramural burial and tell sites in the Macedno-Bulgarian transition zone (e.g., Kara-novo, Azmak), and occasionally further North (e.g., Kazanluk and Chevdar), as well as on Southern multi-layer sites (e.g. Rakitovo, in the Rhodope foothills). This dual practice was also found in Southern Serbia and the Struma valley, as well as North of the Danube, in settlements better described as multi-layer settlements than tells (e.g. Sofia-Slatina, Donja Branjevina, Trestiana and Gura Baciului). It was in the later (6th millennium BC), dispersed flat settlements of the early farmers (e.g. Tečić, Starčevo itself, Endrőd 119 and Maroslele Pana) that the option of house-burning became less common, while there was a continuation of intramural burial of complete and disar-ticulated bodies near houses, in pits and in the occupation layer. However, the two examples of the combination of both mortuary practices — burnt houses on which the dead were placed after the house fire had died down — were two Late Körös small dispersed sites — Szajol and Szanda, both near Szolnok (Raczky, 1983) — a sign that regional variations may well mask inter-site differences in mortuary practices.

There is a strong relationship between settlement in dispersed hamlets or home-steads and the earliest use of extramural cemeteries in several parts of our study region. It holds as good for the North Bulgarian Early Neolithic cemetery of Maluk Preslavets (Băchvărov, 2003) as for the Early Vinča cemetery of Botoš, in the Banat (Garašanin,

Figure 5. Plan of the Radovanu — La muscalu complex: A — tell;

B — working area; C — off-tell dwelling are as; D — cemetery

(source: Comşa, 1990: fig. 29)

268


1956; Chapman, 1983), the large Dudeşti — Early Boian cemetery of Cernica3, in Mun-tenia (Comşa and Cantacuzino, 2001; Chapman, 2013c), a series of Hamangia cemeter-ies along the Bulgarian and Romanian Black Sea coast (Berciu, 1966; cf. Durankulak: Dimov, 2002) and the more recently discovered Sopot-Lengyel phase of the long-term Alsónyék cemetery, in SW Hungary (Osztás et al, 2012). In each case, the major site focus in the landscape was the cemetery, with a series of homesteads or hamlets bringing their dead to the central place for lineage ceremonies (cf. Saxe, 1970; Goldstein, 1981). While there are examples of sites with intramural burial at the same time as the use of the cemeteries (e.g. the Hamangia site of Constanţa: Haşotti, 1997), there is no known example yet of burnt houses in neighbouring settlements or even within breeding net-works of 50 km radius (NB, the Botoš cemetery lies some 80 km from the Vinča-Belo Brdo tell, some 70 km from the Uivar tell). A possible exception is the cemetery claimed to be located on the Northern periphery of the Parţa I tell (Resch and Germann, 1995), but this remains an insufficiently validated claim (Lichter, 2002: 418).

In areas without early (6th millennium BC) extramural cemeteries, we observe, con-tra Tringham (2005), the continued use of the dual mortuary practice of combined house-burning and intramural burial on tells (e.g., Karanovo III, Early Vinča, North Bulgarian Middle Neolithic) and the preferential use of intramural burial in groups characterized by dispersed settlement on flat sites (e.g. Romanian and Transdanubian-Linearbandkeramik and most AVK sites4). However, there are a small number of tells where intramural burial was favoured without house-burning (e.g. tell Sava). In other words, there is a continuation of the two mortuary trends found among the first farm-ers, together with the addition of a spatial strategy of the establishment of extramural cemeteries in areas with dispersed settlement.

In the first three/four hundred years of the 5th millennium BC, in the period before the Varna I cemetery (4650–4400 BC: Higham et al., 2007), two major intertwined expansions occurred in both the East and the West Balkans, as well as the Carpathian Basin — the expansion of tell lifeways and the wider use of extramural cemeteries. In only certain regions characterised by the expansion of tell lifeways, (e.g. the Lower Danube basin), small extramural cemeteries diversified off-tell social space, as did off-tell dwelling practices. Since these new tell-linked cemeteries (e.g. Sultana — Malu Rosu) were far smaller than the earlier Cernica cemetery (Comşa and Cantacuzino, 2001), it suggests that they were too small to receive all the burials of the tell popula-tion, indicating lineage rather than general cemeteries. At the same time, large extra-mural cemeteries were founded near flat sites, such as Sultana — Valea Orbului (over 250 graves and counting: Şerbănescu et al., 2008). In other areas, such as the Mid-dle Danube basin and Transylvania, tell settlement was not complemented by off-tell ceme teries. A more widespread trend is the continuation of the dual mortuary practic-es of house-burning and intramural burial from late 6th millennium BC settlements in all of the tell communities, irrespective of whether they additionally used extramural 3 It is also possible that the cemetery can be dated in its entirety to the Early Boian phase; the results of AMS dating are expected by the end of 2014 (p.c., R. Kogălniceanu).4 There is one example of the remains of burnt daub fragments with impressions from the Tiszadob site of Krasznokvarda (Lichter, 1993: 122).

269


cemeteries or not. In this early 5th millennium time of greatly increased regionaliza-tion, there were relatively few areas in which groups using cemeteries did not include house-burning as one element of mortuary diversification: the Hamangia group on the Black Sea coast5 and the West Hungarian Lengyel. Conversely, the Trypillia A / Pre-cucuteni groups marked the start of a two-millennium tradition in house-burning ‘fer-tilised’ by occasional deposition of disarticulated human bones (Bem, 2007: ch. XI).

There was a striking regional contrast between the Lower and Middle Danube Basins at the time of Varna (46th—45th centuries BC) and beyond, in which, in the former, even more tells diversified their off-tell space through the creation of small cemeteries than before (e.g. the Radovanu — La muscalu complex of a tell, an off-tell settlement and a cemetery: Comşa, 1990) (Fig. 5), while there was a tendency to create a wider range of extramural cemeteries integrated to networks of dispersed flat sites — homesteads and hamlets — in the latter (e.g. the Tiszapolgár cemetery: Bognár-Kutzian, 1963). This contrast led to a second difference between the two areas — the continuation of the dual mortuary practice of house-burning and intramural burial in the former, while relatively few Middle Danube groups integrated house-burning with the use of extramural cemeteries into their total mortuary practice (e.g. the burnt houses of such Tiszapolgár tell occupations as at Vésztő-magorhalom (Hegedűs and Makkay, 1987) but far fewer in the succeeding Bodrogkeresztúr period). This trend in the increasing domination of extramural cemeteries in the mortuary domain continued on into the 4th millennium BC in groups such as Cernavoda I, Decea Mureşului and Hunyadi Halom. It should not, however, be overlooked that the memories of burnt houses in mortuary practice were occasionally re-activated in the rare settlements ex-cavated for such groups (e.g. Cernavoda — Dealul Sofia; Şeuşa — Gorgan). The single major area which resisted the trend towards increased extramural cemetery develop-ment until the last (Trypillia C2) phase was that occupied by the Trypillia-Cucuteni groups. A variant development in the Lengyel group in Western Hungary consisted of an alternation between extra-mural cemeteries — sometimes huge (e.g. Alsónyék, with over 2,500 graves) — and large grouped burials juxtaposed with zones of dwelling (e.g. Zengővárkóny: Dombay, 1939; 1960), both groups also favouring house-burning.

Discussion

There has been a tendency in later Balkan-Carpathian prehistory to discuss aspects of past communities’ lifeways in isolated, self-contained boxes: ‘ritual’, ‘architecture’, ‘subsistence’, ‘settlement’, ‘exchange’ — the list goes on. This tendency has been parti-cularly true of discussions of the ‘world of the dead’ (mortuary studies) and ‘the world of the living’ (settlement and subsistence studies and exchange). This leaves the read-er with the impression that we are dealing with two hermetically sealed aspects of life, which were not at all related to each other, let alone inter-dependent. Although some authors cite social anthropologists such as Hertz (1907), or Bloch and Parry (1982) who emphasise the way that the recently dead continue to live on in the community, having many important roles to play, with indeed the sense that ‘death’ is a transition 5 Even in the Hamangia settlements, there are some traces of burnt daub, but the small extent of excava-tions hinders defi nitive interpretation (p.c., R. Kogălniceanu).

270


to another stage of life, these insights are rarely transferred into settlement studies with a view to integrating the sequence of mortuary practice into intra-mural and extra-mural social space. A particular example has been the way that house-burning has been related to ritual practices and usually non-mortuary ritual practices instead of relating the burning of houses to an alternative form of mortuary ritual. This was Ruth Tringham’s (2005) insight that formed the starting-point of this chapter.

At the beginning of this chapter, I mentioned five implications of Tringham’s idea: the structural equivalence of house-burning and intramural burial in an integrated ‘domestic-and-mortuary’ domain; the way that the performance of house-burning ma-terialized the death of an important household or community member; the multi-stage and multi-place mortuary sequence implied by the absence of the body of the deceased from both the house and the site; and the possibility that this multi-place mortuary se-quence may have contributed to the emergence of extra-mural cemeteries. The overall significance of these implications is the recognition that, in regions and periods domi-nated by settlement archaeology (and often contrasted in this respect with the Neo-lithic and Chalcolithic of North West Europe: Allen et al., 2012), mortuary practices were much more complex, dramatic and long-drawn-out than in our usual portrayals. The structural equivalence of house-burning and intra-mural burial in the mortuary realm immediately conjures up a suite of alternative practices, which may well have materialized different kinds of people or different corporate identities. One tentative social construction is that, if house-burning was a more complex mortuary practice fitting for household or community leaders, the complex multi-stage rite leading to disarticulation may have been maintained for other community members of lower standing, perhaps belonging to different kinship groups, while intramural inhumation of complete corpses may well have been reserved for still other lineages or different household statuses. This interpretation is but one of a series of possible visua lizations of a newly-complex mortuary stage, on which different performances led to the crea-tion of a much more complex and varied cultural memory than we had pre viously realized. One aspect of Tringham’s original insight that does not work on a wider Balkan — Carpathian canvas is the notion of the mutual exclusivity of house-burning and intramural burial after the early farming period. What this means is a wider range of mortuary options was available for different communities to draw upon — in ways that we are still beginning to understand.

What I have termed the ‘dual mortuary practice’ of house-burning and intramu-ral burial on the same site can be seen as a major mortuary tradition from the Early Neolithic to the Late Copper Age in many parts of the region. But the settlements on which the dual mortuary practice was most frequently found were tell villages or mul-ti-layered settlement villages, although there were instances of tells where intramural burials were found without house-burning 6. The principal alternative mortuary path-way concerned small, flat sites which were dispersed hamlets or homesteads; there, there was a strong tendency towards intramural burial without any house-burning, from the Early Neolithic into the 4th millennium BC. The greater frequency of house-6 We should recognize that there was limited ability to recognize unburnt houses in many settlement exca-vations, even up to the end of the last century (p.c., R. Kogălniceanu).

271


burning on tells and multi-layer settlements suggests an emphasis on dwelling con-tinuity in the face of death, achieved through the communal efforts of collecting the fuel and the feasting ingredients, and reinforced by spectacular visual imagery (for an example from the mature farming period, see Opovo: Russell, 2012). It is doubtful that the rarity of house-burning on dispersed hamlets or homesteads was connected to the smaller scale of communal labour, since each hamlet and homestead would have been inter-connected to another 20–30 similar units to maintain long-term breeding networks (Wobst, 1974; Chapman, 1989); rather, dwelling continuity was related to the spatially delimited place-identity of hamlets and homesteads, just as lineage con-tinuity was related to focal mortuary places in the wider landscape. The emergence of extra-mural cemeteries in the 6th millennium BC is closely related to dispersed settle-ment groupings, with corporate group links to the new, often large, cemeteries.

In the period preceding the Varna cemetery (the early centuries of the 5th millen-nium BC), the inter-connected expansion in both tell lifeways and the use of extra-mural cemeteries indicates a greater differentiation of social space. The most striking contrast in this period occurs not between tells and dispersed flat sites — but between those tells which practiced house-burning and which were associated with small line-age cemeteries (mostly in the Lower Danube Basin) and tells practicing house-burn-ing but with no such cemeteries (mostly in the Middle Danube Basin). Part of this narrative was undoubtedly the spatial and social complexity of on-tell inhumation burial, with frequent groups of burials or a great diversity of dispersed burials. This pattern suggests a complementary relationship between grouped intramural burial and extramural cemetery burial, perhaps related to different lineage traditions of mor-tuary practice. The association between cemeteries and dispersed settlement groups continued in some areas, such as with the Hamangia and Lengyel groups — both in areas of traditional settlement dispersion — but the link was now broken in the Lower Danube valley, where a fraction of the people living in tell villages were now buried in local cemeteries.

I have written elsewhere (Chapman, 2013a; 2013b) about the ‘Varna effect’ — the social and cultural changes occurring in spatially remote communities as a result of their participation in the Varna exchange networks of the 46th and 45th centuries BC. I concluded that there was a regionally variable impact of the ’Varna effect’, with a central tension existing between the domestic domain and the mortuary domain — the former dominated by traditional, ancestral materials (ceramics, lithics) and their values, the latter by the display of new materials (metals). This tension was often unre-solved, leading to communities and regions favouring one or other domain. However, the Varna area in particular, and the Lower Danube basin as a whole, was unusual in having communities which played out these tensions in both domains simultaneously. This unusual level of social competition was rarely found in regions where communi-ties favoured one domain over the other. The variable strength of the ‘Varna effect’ in different areas contributed to a marked regionalization of social space in the mid-to late-5th millennium BC; the Trypillia-Cucuteni groups rejected the Varna trend to-wards extra-mural cemeteries, while the Lengyel group followed this trend, if only in some of their sites.

272


The split between mortuary practices between the Middle and the Lower Danube basins already found in the pre-Varna period was exaggerated in the mid-5th millennium BC and later, producing one significant bifurcation: tell settlements, with their dual mortuary practice of house-burning and intra-mural burial combined with small extra-mural cemeteries, stood in contrast to dispersed flat settlements with little house-burn-ing, occasional intra-mural burial and major mortuary nodes in the landscape formed by the extra-mural cemeteries. One root of such a binary pattern was the different at-tachments to place created through tell living and burying in nucleated cemeteries. On the one hand, the nucleation of large numbers of people in several distinctive cor-porate units reflected the choice of long-lived dwelling in a single area — the tell. The shorter-lived place-value of small dispersed farmsteads, on the other hand, enabled co-residence of only fragmentary corporate groupings, with a reduction in architec-tural differentiation. The attachment of a group of 20–30 dispersed farmsteads to the place-value of a single, nucleated extra-mural cemetery provided a different experi-ence, more dispersed in time as well as in place, with greater flexibility of kinship as-sociation than in a nucleated village.

In this study, we have encountered a plethora of different mortuary practices, which I have sought to relate to one another, especially trying to break down the hermeti-cally-sealed ‘mortuary’ and ‘domestic’ zones. It will be possible to tell a more nuanced story one day, with the arrival of the wider use of AMS dating and Bayesian analysis (Whittle, in preparation). We are still at the stage when we have to talk, for the most part, about developments in periods of half a millennium or more; a centennial times-cale awaits these new chronometric developments.

Concluding thoughts

In this chapter, I hope to have made some progress in integrating the various forms of mortuary practice which we can now identify in the Neolithic and Chalco-lithic of Central and Eastern Europe. In the broad-scale exploration of Ruth Tring-ham’s idea of the mutual exclusivity of house-burning and intramural burial, I have found that this relationship was not as mutually exclusive as Tringham had sug-gested. Instead, the key relationships were the contrasts between large, long-term village settlement, on tells and multi-layer sites, with their dual mortuary practice of house-burning combined with intramural burial; and smaller, shorter-lived flat, dispersed homesteads and hamlets, with their preference for extramural burial and a far lower incidence of house-burning. This contrast means that, while house-burning can still be interpreted as a key aspect of mortuary practice, there is a vital rela-tionship between long-lived settlement — whether on tells or multi-level village si -tes — and the regular burning of houses as part of a multi-stage mortuary sequence. The links between extramural cemeteries and the domestic domain varied through time, initially related to dispersed settlements but later associated just as frequently with nucleated tell villages.

I started this chapter with a discussion of Vladimir Kruts’ views on the burning of Trypillia houses. It is striking that it is exactly in the Trypillian settlements — not least the mega-sites of the Southern Bug–Dnieper interfluves — that the long-lasting

273


custom of burning houses in honour of an important household or community leader, or for other social reasons, carried on for the longest time in Central and Eastern Eu-rope — with examples of house-burning in the C2 phase dating to the end of the 4th and the beginning of the 3rd millennia BC. There is a sense of immense conservatism in this far-flung group, whose members resisted the attractions of barrow burial already taken up in the East Balkans in the 4th millennium BC in favour of the cultural memory of 80 generations of people. It is not for nothing that this group shares with Cucuteni the title of ‘the last great Chalcolithic civilization of Europe’ (Mantu et al., 1997).

Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to editors of this volume for the opportunity to dedicate this chapter to Volodymyr — one of his generation’s finest Trypillia scholars. My thanks to Ruth Tringham for inspiring me with her articles about house-burning over the past decades and, especially, the key idea on which this chapter was based. I am very grate-ful to Raluca Kogălniceanu for her many valuable comments on the mortuary evidence presented here. Thanks, also, to Rosalind Wallduck for permission to publish a figure from her otherwise unpublished PhD thesis. And, as ever, it is my pleasure to thank Bisserka for many hours of discussions over the mortuary data of the later Balkan Neolithic and Chalcolithic.

References

Allen, M.J., Gardiner, J. and Sheridan, A. (eds.) 2012. Is there a British Chalcolithic?: people, place and polity in the later 3rd millennium. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Băčvarov, K. 2003. Neolitni pogrebalni obredi. Intramuralni grobove ot bulgarskite zemi v kontekstana Jugoiztochna Evropai Anatolia. Sofia: Bard.

Bailey, D.W. 2005. On the absence of burial ritual in Cucuteni-Tripolie communities. In V. Spi-nei, C.-M. Lazarovici and D. Monah (eds.) Scriptaprae historica. Miscellanea in honorem nonagenariimagistri Mircea Petrescu-Dîmboviţa oblata. Iaşi: Trinitas, 319–340.

Bailey, D. 2010. The figurines of Old Europe. In D.W. Anthony and J.Y. Chi (eds.) The lost world of Old Europe. The Danube Valley, 5000–3500 BC. New York: Institute for the Study of the Ancient World, 112–127.

Bem, C. 2007. Traian Dealul Fântânilor. Fenomenul Cucuteni A-B. Monografii V. Bucureşti: Mu-zeul Naţional de Istorie a României.

Berciu, D. 1966. Cultura Hamangia. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Ro mânia.

Bibikov, S.N. 1953. Poselenie Luka-Vrublevetskaya ana Dnestre. Materialy i issledovania po archeologii SSSR 38.

Bloch, M. and Parry, J. (eds.) 1982. Death and the regeneration of life. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Bognár-Kutzian, I. 1963. The Copper Age cemetery of Tiszapolgár-Basatanya. Budapest: Aka-démiai Kiadó.

Bonsall, C., Cook, G.T., Hedges, R.E.M., Higham, T.F.G., Pickard, C. and Radovanović, I. 2004. Radiocarbon and stable isotope evidence of dietary change from the Mesolithic to the Middle Ages in the Iron Gates: new results from Lepenski Vir. Radiocarbon 46 (1): 296–300.

274


Bonsall, C., Radovanović, I., Roksandić, M., Cook, G., Higham, T. and Pickard, C. 2008. Da-ting burial practices and architecture at Lepenski Vir. In C. Bonsall, V. Boroneanţ and I. Radovanović (eds.) The Iron Gates in prehistory: New perspectives. BAR I-1893. Oxford: Archaeopress, 175–204.

Borić, D. 1996. Social dimensions of mortuary practices in the Neolithic: a case study. Starinar XLVII: 67–83.

Borić, D. In press. The end of the Vinča world: Modeling the Neolithic to Copper Age transition and the notion of archaeological culture. (To appear in: P. Raczky and S. Hansen (eds.) Chro nologies, Lithics and Metals. Late Neolithic and Copper Age in the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin and in the Balkans. Budapest and Berlin).

Chapman, J. 1983. Meaning and illusion in the study of burial in Balkan prehistory. In A. Poulter (ed.), Ancient Bulgaria. Volume 1. Nottingham: University of Nottingham Press, 1–45.

Chapman, J. 1989. Demographic trends in Neothermal south-east Europe, In C. Bonsall (ed.) The Mesolithic in Europe. Edinburgh: John Donald, 500—515.

Chapman, J. 1999. Deliberate house-burning in the prehistory of Central and Eastern Europe. In A. Gustafsson and H. Karlsson (eds.) Glyfer och arkeologiska rum — en vänbok till Jarl Nordbladh. Göteborg: Institute of Archaeology, University of Göteborg, 113–126.

Chapman, J. 2000a. Tensions at funerals. Mortuary archaeology in later Hungarian prehistory. Budapest: Archaeolingua.

Chapman, J. 2000b. Fragmentation in archaeology: People, places and broken objects in the prehistory of South Eastern Europe. London: Routledge.

Chapman, J. 2010. ‘Deviant’ burials in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic of Central and South Eastern Europe. In K. Rebay-Salisbury, M.L.S. Sørensen and J. Hughes (eds.) Body parts and bodies whole. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 30–45.

Chapman, J. 2013a. From Varna to Brittany via Csõszhalom — Was There a «Varna Effect»? In A. Anders and V. Kulcsár (eds.) Moments in time. Papers Presented to Pal Raczky on His 60th Birthday. Budapest: L’Harmattan, 323–335.

Chapman, J. 2013b. Expansion and social change at the time of Varna. In S. Bergerbrant and S. Sabatini (eds.) Counterpoint: essays in archaeology and heritage studies in honour of Pro-fessor Kristian Kristiansen. International Series 2508. Oxford: Archaeopress, 309–320.

Chapman, J. 2013c. A tale of two cemeteries — Cernica and Vărăşti. In A. Comşa, C. Bonsall and L. Nikolova (eds.) Facets of the past. The challenge of the Balkan Neo-Eneolithic. Bucureşti: The Publishing House of the Romanian Academy, 273–311.

Comşa, E. 1974. Die Bestattungssitten im rumänischen Neolithikum. Jahresschrift für mit tel-deutsche Vorgeschichte 58: 113–156.

Comşa, E. 1990. Complexul neolitic de la Radovanu. Cultură şi Civilizaţie la Dunărea de Jos VIII. Călăraşi.

Comşa, E. and Cantacuzino, Gh. 2001. Necropola neolitică de la Cernica. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei Române.

Dimov, T. 2002. Die Gräberfelder der frühen Hamangia-Kultur in der Dobrudscha und im Varnabereich. In H. Todorova (ed.) Durankulak, Band II. Die prähistorischen Gräberfelder. Teil I. Sofia: DAI, 293–296.

Dombay, J. 1939. A Zengővárkonyi őskori telep és temetö. Archaeologica Hungarica 23: 47–88.

275


Dombay, J. 1960. Die Siedlung und das Gräberfeld in Zengővárkony. Budapest: Ungarische Akademie der Wissenschaft.

Garašanin, M.V. 1956. Sahranjivanje u balkansko-anadolskom kompleksu mladeg neolita. Glasnik Zemaljskog Muzeja u Sarajevu N.S. XI: 205–236.

Gaydarska, B., Gurova, M., Chernakov, D., Blake, E. and Chapman, J. 2011. A place to live, a place to bury and a place to hoard. Understanding deposition on and off the Bulgarian tell of Kosharna. Archaeologia Bulgarica XVI (2): 27—58.

Georgiev, G.I. and Angelov, N. 1952. Razkopki naselishnatamogila do Ruse prez 1948—1949 g. Izvestiana Arheologicheskiya Institut XVIII: 119–194.

Georgiev, G.I. and Angelov, N. 1957. Razkopki na selishnata mogila do Ruse prez 1950—1953 g. Izvestiana Arheologicheskiya Institut XXI: 41–129.

Gheorghiu, D. 2002. Towards pyroarchaeology. In D. Gheorghiu (ed.) Fire in archaeology. BAR I-1089. Oxford: Archaeopress, 1–6.

Gimbutas, M. 1978. The first wave of steppe pastoralists into Copper Age Europe. Journal of Indo-European Studies V (4): 277–338.

Gimbutas, M. 1979. The three waves of the Kurgan people into Old Europe, 4500—2500 BC. Archives Suissesd’ Anthropologiegénérale 43 (2): 113–137.

Gligor, M. 2009. Aşezarea neolitică şi eneolitică de la Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă în lumina noilor cercetări. Cluj-Napoca: Mega.

Goldstein, L.G. 1981. One-dimensional archaeology and multi-dimensional people: spatial organization and mortuary analysis. In R. Chapman, I. Kinnesand and K. Randsborg (eds.) The archaeology of death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 53–69.

Haşotti, P. 1997. Epoca Neolitică în Dobrogea. Constanţa: Muzeul de Istorie Naţională şi Arheologie.

Hegedűs, K. and Makkay, J. 1987. Vésztő-Mágor — a settlement of the Tisza culture. In P. Raczky (ed.) The Late Neolithic in Eastern Hungary. Szolnok: Szolnok County Museums, 85–104.

Hertz, R. 1907. Contribution à une étude sur la répresentation collective de la mort. Année Sociologique 10: 48–137.

Higham, T., Chapman, J., Slavchev, V., Gaydarska, B., Honch, N., Yordanov, Y. and Dimitrova, B. 2007. New perspectives on the Varna cemetery (Bulgaria) — AMS dates and social impli-cations. Antiquity 81: 640–654.

Ivanova, M. 2007. Tells, invasion theories and warfare in fifth-millennium BC North-Eastern Bulgaria. In T. Pollard and I. Banks (eds.) War and sacrifice. Studies in the archaeology of conflict. Leiden: Brill, 33–49.

Kogălniceanu, R. 2008. Dove sonogliuomini? Si puòparlare di «pratiche funerarie» nellaciviltà di Cucuteni? In N. Ursulescu, R. Kogălniceanu and C. Creţu (eds.) Cucuteni. Tesovi di una civiltà preistorica dei Carpazi. Iaşi: Universităţii ‘Alexandru Ioan Cuza’, 201–216.

Kogălniceanu, R. 2012. Human remains from the Mesolithic to the Chalcolithic period in southern Romania. An update on the discoveries. Archaeologica Bulgarica XVI (3): 1–46.

Korek, J. 1960. Vonaldíszes kerámia kultúra elterjedése az Alföldön. A Mora Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 1958–9: 19–52.

Korek, J. 1989. Die Theiss-Kultur in der mittleren und nördlichen Thiessgegend. Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae III. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum.

276


Korvin-Piotrovskiy, A., Chabaniuk, V. and Shatilo, L. 2012. Tripolian house construction: con-ceptions and experiments. In F. Menotti and A.G. Korvin-Piotrovskiy (eds.) The Tripolye culture giant-settlements in Ukraine: formation, development and decline. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 210–229.

Krychevskij, E.Y. 1940. Rozkopky na Kolomyishchyni i problema Trypilskyh ploshchadok. In M.I. Yachmenov, T.S. Passek and L.M. Slavin (eds.) Trypilska kultura. T. 1. Kiev: Drukarnia-litografiya AN URSR.

Kruts, V. 2003. Tripolskie ploshchadki — rezul’tat ritual’nogo sozhzheniya domov. In A.G. Korvin-Piotrovskiy, V.O. Kruts and S.M. Ryzhov (eds.) Tripil’ski poselennya-giganty. Materialy mizhnarodnoi konferentsii. Kiev: Korvin-press, 74–76.

Kruts, V. 2012. The latest stage of development of the Tripolye culture. In F. Menotti and A.G. Korvin-Piotrovskiy (eds.) The Tripolye culture giant-settlements in Ukraine: formation, development and decline. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 230–253.

Kurinnoi, P. 1926. Monumental sites of Tripolye culture. In V. Kozlovska and P. Kurinnoi (eds.) Tripolye culture in Ukraine. Vol. I. Kiev, 67–96.

Kurucz, K. 1994. Újkőkori sírok Tiszavasvári határából. In J. Pap (ed.) Festschrift Otto Trogmayer. Szeged: A Mora Ferenc Múzeum, 125–134.

Lazăr, C. (ed.) 2012. The catalogue of the Neolithic and Eneolithic funerary findings from Romania. National History Museum of Romania Monographic Series No. VII. Târgovişte: Cetatea de Scaun.

Lazarovici, C.-M. and Lazarovici, Gh. 2007. Arhitectura neoliticului şi epocii cuprului din Romania. Tom II. Epoca cuprului. Iaşi: Trinitas.

Lazarovici, Gh. and Lazarovici, C.-M. 2003. The Neo-Eneolithic architecture in Banat, Transylvania and Moldovia. In D.V. Grammenos (ed.) Recent research in the Prehistory of the Balkans. Thessaloniki: Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece, 370–486.

Lichter, C. 1993. Untersuchungen zu den Bauten des südosteuropäischen Neolithikums und Chalkolithikums. Buch am Erlbach: Marie L. Leidorf.

Lichter, C. 2002. Untersuchungen zu den Bestattungssitten des südosteuropäischen Neolithikums und Chalkolithikums. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Mantu, C.-M., Dumitraoaia, Gh. and Tsaravopoulos, A. (eds.). 1997. Cucuteni. The last great Chalcolithic civilization of Europe. Thessaloniki and Piatra Neamţ: Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki and Neamţ County Museums.

McPherron, A. and Christopher, K. 1988. The Balkan Neolithic and the Divostin Project in perspective. In A. McPherron and D. Srejović (eds.) Divostin and the Neolithic of Central Serbia. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 463–492.

Monah, D., Dumitraoaia, Gh., Monah, F., Preoteasa, C., Munteanu, R. and Nicola, D. 2003. Podu -ri — Dealul Ghindaru. Troieîn Subcarpaţii Moldovei. Piatra Neamţ: Muzeul de Istorie.

Osztás, A. Zalai-Gaál, I. and Bánffy, E. 2012. Alsónyék-Bátaszék: a new chapter in the research of Lengyel culture. Documenta Praehistorica 39: 377–396.

Paul, I. 1967. In legătură cu problema locuinţelor de suprafaţăcu platformă din aşezările culturilor Petreşti şi Cucuteni-Tripolye. Studii şi Cercetări de IstorieVeche 18 (1): 3–24.

Popovici, D.N. 2010. Copper Age traditions North of the Danube river. In D.W. Anthony and J.Y. Chi (eds.) The lost world of Old Europe. The Danube Valley, 5000—3500 BC. New York: Institute for the Study of the Ancient World, 91–111.

Porčić, M. 2012. De facto refuse or structured deposition?: house inventories of the Late Neo-lithic Vinča culture. Starinar 62: 19–43.

277


Raczky, P. 1982—1983. Origins of the custom of burying the dead inside houses in south-east Europe. Szolnok Megyei Múzeumi Évkönyv 1982–3: 5–10.

Raczky, P., Domboróczki, L., and Hajdú, Zs. 2007. The site of Polgár-Csőszhalom and its cultural and chronological connections with the Lengyel culture. In J.K. Kozłowski and P. Raczky (eds.) The Lengyel, Polgár and related cultures in the Middle/Late Neolithic in Central Europe. Kraków and Budapest: Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences and Eötvös Loránd University Institute of Archaeological Sciences, 49–70.

Radosavljević-Krunić, S. 1986. Résultats de l’étude anthropologique des squelettes provenant du site Ajmana. Djerdapske Sveske 3: 51–58.

Resch, F. and Germann, K. 1995. Schmuck aus Spondylus-Muscheln von Parţa. Acta Musei Napocensis XXXII: 351–358.

Russell, N. 2012. Social zooarchaeology: humans and animals in prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Saxe, A.A. 1970. Social dimensions of mortuary practices. PhD: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Stevanović, M. 1997. Production of architecture in the age of clay. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16: 334–395.

Stevanović, M. 2002. Burned houses in the Neolithic of south-east Europe. In D. Gheorghiu (ed.) Fire in archaeology. BAR I-1089. Oxford: Archaeopress, 55–62.

Şerbănescu, D., Nica, T., Comşa, Al. and Mecu, L. 2008. Sultana, com. Mănăstirea, jud. Călăraşi, Punct: Valea Orbului. In M.V. Angelescu and F. Vasilescu (eds.) Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice din România. Campania 2007. Bucureşti: Institute of Archaeology, 294–295.

Tringham, R. 1984. Architectural investigation into household organization in Neolithic Yugoslavia. Paper presented to 83rd Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Denver, CO.

Tringham, R. 1990. Conclusion: Selevac in the wider context of European prehistory. In R. Tringham and D. Krstić (eds.) Selevac: a Neolithic village in Yugoslavia. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 567–616.

Tringham, R. 2005. Weaving house life and death into places: a blueprint for a hypermedia narrative. In D. Bailey, A. Whittle and V. Cummings (eds.) (Un)settling the Neolithic, Ox-ford: Oxbow Books, 98–111.

Wallduck, R.J. 2014. Post-mortem body manipulation in the Danube Gorges’ Mesolithic and Neolithic: a taphonomic perspective. Unpublished PhD thesis: University of Cambridge.

Whittle, A., in preparation. The Times of Their Lives (ERC Advanced Investigator Grant).

Wobst, H.M. 1974. Boundary conditions for Palaeolithic social systems: a simulation approach. American Antiquity 39: 147–178.

Documents

THE CUCUTENI–TRYPILLIA CULTURAL COMPLEX AND ITS …community.dur.ac.uk/j.c.chapman/tripillia/pdf/13_Chapman, 2015.pdf · Культурний комплекс Кукутень–Трипілля