The cultural and chronological context of sites of Bubanj and Velika Humska Cuka near nis (southeastern Serbia) and their significance for understanding the emergence and development of the central Balkans eneolithic

Significant surfaces covered with alluvial soils, suitable for agriculture and animal husbandry have been recorded in the vicinity of the site of Bubanj, as well as three toponyms that indicate saline soils and saltwater springs. The surroundings of the site of Velika Humska Cuka are dominated by meadow vegetation (vertisol) and forest soil types, as well as one toponym which indicates a surface with saline soils. In terms of geology and pedology, the site is located within an ecosystem quite suitable for the development of meadow biocenosis with pastures and forests, meaning a landscape rather suitable for animal husbandry than agriculture. A small area covered with eutric cambisol, a soil type which could according to its physical and chemical properties be utilized for agriculture, is located on the southern side of the site. However, most of the soil types represented in the surroundings of the site, formed on calcareous sediments, are unsuitable for cereal cultivation even in modern conditions, and therefore the region of Hum is even nowadays favorable for viticulture and animal husbandry, primary sheep and goats, rather than for agriculture.

Considering the character of the portion of the settlement excavated between 2008 and 2014 and the position of the site of Bubanj, within the central part of the lowland landscape, which is equally well connected with communications leading to the south and north through the South Morava Valley, to the east through the Nisava Valley and to the west through the Toplica Valley, it can be considered that the site had a function of a regional communication hub with an important role of agriculture and animal husbandry and an important place for the production of textiles and utilitarian object made of leather and fur, exchange and trade. The site in Hum was formed in the hinterland, distanced from river valleys rich in fertile alluvial soil types and in the vicinity of mineral resources, which indicates higher importance of animal husbandry, hunting, and organized supplying with copper and flint. The spatial proximity between the site of Bubanj and the site of Velika Humska Cuka, which had a visual control over a vast area of the course of South Morava, as well as their favorable mutual visual communication (fig. 4), confirms that both sites represented important spots for inhabitation, places for the control of the surrounding resources, main communication and the flow of resources and information. The complementarity in therms of soil resources, surrounding flora and fauna and topographic and geomorphological characteristics, the wealth in flint and to a lesser degree copper tools, recorded within the Eneolithic layers on both sites, as well as visual control of the site in Hum over the neighboring quality flint and copper deposits, firmly indicate that those settlements were economically cooperative and tightly connected, at least at one point, the period of 44^th/43^rd century BCE, as confirmed by absolute dates. Additionally, finds of tarabouki at the site of Velika Hum- ska Cuka point out that the sites could have also mutually communicated with sound. Similarly, finds of carbonized pinewood within the Early Eneolithic contexts at the site of Bubanj [53], suggest that the wood was acquired from locations at higher altitudes, such as the surroundings of the site of Velika Humska Cuka.

Significant changes in settlement patterns occur during the Early Eneolithic of the Central Balkans. The site of Bubanj was uninhabited during the Late Neolithic, and the first habitation following the Starcevo settlement is connected with the second half of the 5^th millennium BCE. The site of Velika Humska Cuka was inhabited for the first time during the Early Eneolithic, and similarly to the site of Bubanj, remains an often inhabited location during the younger phases of prehistory. Small excavated surfaces, compared to the overall sizes of those sites, suggest that certain horisons have been less represented and noted, which has been partially confirmed by the latest archaeological excavations and radiometric measurements. The assumption that the sites of Bubanj and Velika Humska Cuka were simultaneously inhabited during the Early Eneolithic [43], between 4350 and 4250 BC, is now con- firmed. Therefore, it is possible that during the summer, glades surrounding Hum were utilized for livestock grazing and hunting, prospection, collection and possible mining of flint, and even copper, while during the winter, the herds were taken to lowland settlement (Bubanj), where the agriculture represented a dominant economic activity. Continuous similarities in stylistic and typological characteristics of pottery between Bubanj and Velika Humska Cuka (Early, Middle, and Late Eneolithic and Bronze Age) speak in favor of it.

Fig. 4 / Рис. 4. View on Velika Humska Cuka from the site of Bubanj / Вид на Велика Хумска Чука с городища Бубань

Similarly, it is possible that the site in Hum was utilized as an alternative and temporary settlement in certain periods, when climate oscillations, migrations, conflicts, and/or other factors could have significantly affected the life of prehistoric populations within this micro-region. The higher social mobility is indicated by archaeozoological analysis on these two sites, which pointed out the appearance of a new type of stockbreeding during the Early Eneolithic, which is likewise recorded during the Middle and Late Eneolithic Bulatovic J. Arheozooloski aspekti drustvenih i kulturnih promena na centralnom Balkanu u petom milenijumu pre nove ere. Unpublished PhD thesis. Belgrade, 2018, p. 238.. Such a trend is represented by higher dependence on ovicaprines compared to the Late Neolithic [54], a higher degree of diversification and specialization regarding the animal management strategies, meaning that certain settlements were highly focused on ovicaprines, and others on the cattle breeding, pig breeding or hunting [55]. The pedological analysis of the Late Neolithic and Early Eneolithic sites in the Central Balkans suggested the increased spectrum of available soil types surrounding the Early Eneolithic settlements and an overall higher orientation of settlements towards those soils unsuitable for agriculture, as well as the complete lack of groups of settlements focused solely towards fertile forest soils, which are characteristic for the Vinca culture [13]. However, it is important to highlight that the decline in the importance of agriculture in certain settlements is followed by relatively numerous groups of settlements characterized by highly suitable conditions for various agricultural strategies [13]. The research of topographic characteristics of sites suggests a more frequent settling of topographically limited and naturally fortified elevated plateaus and hidden caves in the hinterland, which were often concurrent with adjacent settlements in lowlands Milanovic D. The interply between lowland and highland zones: Engaging the landscape of eastern Serbia

and western Bulgaria in the second half of the 5th millennium BCE. In: Gori M., Hellmuth-Kramberger A., Krapf T., Recchia G.,eds. Archaeology of Mountainous Landscapes in Balkan Prehistory. Universitдtsforschungen zur prдhistorischen Archдologie, Rudolf Habelt, Bonn (готовится к печати в 2022 г.). [12]. Additionally, the research indicated diversification, specialisation, and integration of local settlements and most likely groups of settlements in the neighboring micro-regions Там же. [13]. Further, the regional spatial distribution of settlements points out the process of abandonment of large and long-lasting Vinca settlements and the formation of small dispersed settlement on completely new locations, abandonment or scarce inhabitance of previously densely settled micro-regions, and the tendency to group settlements in the ore-bearing micro-regions of eastern Serbia [13].

According to the latest radiometric measurement of the youngest habitation horisons of large Vinca settlements, the abandonment process occurred in a period between 4700/4650 and 4400/4350 cal BCE Milanovic D. The Copper Age in the Central Balkans. In: Parkinson W. A., Gyucha A., Galaty M.,eds. Oxford Handbook of Balkan Prehistory. Oxford, Oxford University Press (готовится к печати в 2022 г.).. The process is followed by an increase in the number of settlements on plateaus of dominant elevations, which are naturally fortified, continuity in the construction of ditches and palisades, and frequent burnt settling horisons within the Late Vinca and BSK cultural complex settlements. The process was gradual and of uneven duration in different micro-regions of the Central Balkans, and the abundance of sites on naturally fortified elevations and additional enclosing indicate that the process was accompanied by smaller or greater conflicts. The earliest BSK settlements, which were significantly smaller than the Late Vinca settlements and have already embraced innovations in various economic and social aspects, appear during that period. Such settlements were often founded on dominant and naturally fortified elevations, such as Velika Humska Cuka, which reaffirms previous assumptions on their partially concurrent existence and the violent end of life in numerous Vinca settlements.

Therefore, the absolute dates indicate that the settlement at the site of Velika Humska Cuka was formed a century before the settlement at the site of Bubanj, already in the 45^th/44^th century BCE, which supports the idea that the earliest BSK settlements in the Central Balkans were formed on naturally fortified elevations and additionally fortified. During the 44^th/43^rd century BCE, settlements existed on both sites and probably formed some sort of coexistence. Yet, according to the existing data, the settlement at the site of Bubanj ceases to exist at the end of the 5^th millennium BCE, or at least the settling becomes less intensive, contrary to Velika Humska Cuka, where life continues undisturbed. There is an absolute date from that period from the site of Bubanj, although the sample (shell valve) is insecure since it originates from a younger feature that damaged the Early Eneolithic layer, and therefore it remains unclear whether the location of the sample is the result of human or animal activity. The portable finds whose stylistic and typological characteristics would be securely attributed to this period are lacking, save for several potsherds whose stylistic elements could indicate the latest phase of the Early Eneolithic.

On the other hand, the site of Velika Humska Cuka yielded numerous finds of vessels with the so-called Scheibenhenkel handles, characteristic for the Sдlcuta IV or Galatin groups (ornament formed of hatched summary incised lines, rows of crescent nail impressions, beakers decorated with narrow and densely positioned channels combined with punctuation, vessels on high foot with small tunneled handles on the junction of foot and the recipient, etc.) [56; 57; 58], which points to an active inhabitation of the site during this period. Likewise, the youngest horison of house 3 is dated to this period, with pits filled with lavishly decorated and multicolored painted vessels, including the golden coating, tarabouki, altar, 14 chipped stone tools, which all confirm that the life was intensive at the site during the first quarter of the 4^th millennium BCE. Otherwise, lavishly decorated Early Eneolithic pottery at the site has a higher representation compared to the site of Bubanj during their contemporary existence, which could indicate that the population at the site of Velika Humska Cuka had access to certain mineral deposits or other resources for the production of natural paint, or on the other hand possessed staple natural resources (flint, copper) suitable for exchange for lavishly decorated vessels.

The youngest phase of house 3 dated to the first quarter of the 4^th millennium BCE was destroyed in a fire with all of the vessels stored in two pits. It is not clear whether the house was intentionally burned due to a sacrifice ritual, mentioned by certain authors [59; 60], or perished in an accidental fire. The theory that the house was burnt amid a sudden conflict seems at the moment as the least possible, since access to the site is hard and the undetected intrusion is impossible. In case that the intrusion was detected, the inhabitants of the settlement would have time to carry some of the vessels that were, however, burnt with the house.

Following this period, both of the sites were inhabited for several centuries and during the third quarter of the 4^th millennium BCE, solely the site of Bubanj remains inhabited by the bearers of the Cernavodд III-Boleraz-Baden cultural phenomenon, whose material culture completely differs from the preceding Bubanj-Hum I group (Cental Balkans variant of the BSK complex), which indicates that the inhabitants are newcomers from the northeast, the mother territory of the group [61]. For some reason, these newcomers did not settle at Velika Humska Cuka, possibly since they had no need to fortify it and defend it. The settling of the aforementioned group lasted for approximately 80 years (63.7% probability) [38], as during the final quarter of the 4^th-millennium BCE bearers of the Cotofeni-Kostolac group settle at the site, with the material culture differing from both the preceding and the Bubanj-Hum I group. Bearers of this group are likewise of foreign origin [61], and their settling at the site of Bubanj is longer than their predecessors, judging by the absolute dates, stratigraphy, and the architecture of the settlement. According to Bayesian modeling, the bearers of the Cotofeni-Kostolac group inhabited Bubanj for between 265 and 461 years [40, p. 1175], yet the modeling of all of the dates from the previous and following periods indicate that the first date is more probable [37, p. 241-243].The stylistic and typological characteristics of their pottery are analogous within the entire territory of this group from Pannonia to the Southern Morava Region, although certain local elements have been noted at the site of Bubanj, especially within the latest phase of the group. Those local elements will provide a basis for the emergence of the following Bubanj-Hum II group, which both culturally and chronologically evolves from the Cotofeni-Kostolac group.

Identical local elements, together with the pottery typical for the Cotofeni-Kostolac group also occur at the site of Velika Humska Cuka, which points out that even after several centuries of hiatus, the site is once again inhabited by the bearers of the Cotofeni-Kostolac group. Unfortunately, the site yielded no period-related architecture or enclosed features suitable for radiometric sampling, which disables any comparisons of the sites during that period. Identical forms and ornamentation on both sites have been recorded in the following period, the Bubanj-Hum II group, which is by means of the house remains from Velika Humska Cuka dated to the second quarter of the 3^rd millennium. Humble remains of a residential structure from Velika Humska Cuka indicate that the residential architecture in this period was similar on both of the sites, while the comparisons of other spheres of life are impossible at the moment due to the lack of data.

Starting from this period, both of the sites remain continuously inhabited for several centuries, throughout the Bronze Age, with almost identical stylistic and typological characteristics of pottery, indicating prevailing close ties and contact between the inhabitants of these two sites during the Bronze Age.

In literature, the sites of Velika Humska Cuka and Bubanj are considered as one of the most important prehistoric sites in the Central Balkans. Owing to the results of the archeological excavation of the eponymous sites, M. Garasanin defined cultural groups Bubanj-Hum I-III more than half a century ago, and for the first time scientifically interpreted the cultural and chronological setting of the Central Balkans during the Eneo- lithic and the Early Bronze Age [30; 35]. After more than half a century, with all of the modern analyses and large-scale excavations of these sites and period-related sites in the Central Balkans in the last few decades, the definition set by M. Garasanin remains scientifically completely justified.

Conclusion

With their distinct stratigraphy, geostrategic position, continuity in settling, and the scale of research, the sites of Velika Humska Cuka and Bubanj represent one of the most important sites for the research of the Eneolithic and Bronze Age in the Central Balkans. Unfortunately, the site of Bubanj is completely devastated by human activities.

On the other hand, the site of Velika Humska Cuka, which is still being excavated, is only partially researched and could offer an abundance of important data on the emergence and the development of the Eneolithic in the region.

The opposed topographic characteristics of sites of Bubanj and Velika Humska Cuka and the complementarity of soil types and other resources suggest a high degree of integration and cooperation between adjacent settlements, emphasized territoriality, and high control of surrounding landscape, communications, and resources. The stated pattern of two adjacent concurrent and cooperative small settlements with complementary roles and functions Milanovic D. The interply between lowland and highland zones: Engaging the landscape of eastern Serbia

and western Bulgaria in the second half of the 5th millennium BCE. In: Gori M., Hellmuth-Kramberger A., Krapf T., Recchia G.,eds. Archaeology of Mountainous Landscapes in Balkan Prehistory. Universitдtsforschungen zur prдhistorischen Archдologie, Rudolf Habelt, Bonn (готовится к печати в 2022 г.). [13], was a constitutive element of the eneolithisation process (4700/4650-4400/4350 cal BCE), which coincides with the first steppe migration [6, p. 291-292; 62, p. 48; 63, p. 277-338), Varna 1 necropolis phenomenon [64; 65], formation of new social groups (e. g. BSK in Serbia, Bulgaria, and Romania, Tiszapolgar and Bodrogkerestur in Hungary, Karanovo VI in Bulgaria and Rachmani in Greece), the adoption of a series of social and economic innovations and the parallel lasting of strong Late Neolithic traditions Milanovic D. The Copper Age in the Central Balkans. In: Parkinson W. A., Gyucha A., Galaty M.,eds. Oxford Handbook of Balkan Prehistory. Oxford, Oxford University Press (готовится к печати в 2022 г.)., that took place on a vast territory between the Middle Danube Region and the banks of the Black Sea.

References

1. Garasanin М. Centralnobalkanska zona. In: Benac А., ed. Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja II, Neolitsko doba. Sarajevo, 1979, pp. 79-212.

2. Jovanovic B. Gradac Phase in the Relative Chronology of the Late Vinca Culture. In: Старинар, 1994, vol. 18, pp. 1-10.

3. Tasic N. Eneolithic cultures of Central and West Balkans. Belgrade, 1995. 205 p.

4. Boric D. The End of the Vinca World: Modelling the Neolithic to Copper Age Transition and the Notion of Archaeological Culture. In: Hansen S., Raczky P., Anders A., Reingruber A., eds. Neolithic and Copper Age between the Carpathians and the Aegean Sea. Chronologies and technologies from the 6^th to the 4^th millennium BCE, Archдologie in Eurasien 31. Bonn, 2015, pp. 157-217.

5. Nikolova L., Manzura I., Schuster C. The Balkans in Later Prehistory, Periodization, Chronology and Cultural Development in the Final Copper and Early Bronze Age (Fourth and Third Millennia BC). Oxford, 1999. 442 p.

6. Todorova H. Prehistory of Bulgaria. In: Gramenos D. V., ed. Recent Research in the Prehistory of the Balkans. Thessaloniki, Athens, 2003, pp. 257-317.

7. Georgieva P. Periodization of the Krivodol - Salcuta - Bubanj culture. In: СрервиЬ Д., ТасиЬ Н., eds. Винча и пен свет, Мескуп, Подучаете измену 6000 и 3000 г. пре нове ере. Београд, 1990, pp. 167-173.

8. Boric D. Absolute Dating of Metallurgical Innovations in the Vinca Culture of the Balkans. In: Kien- lin L., Roberts B. Weds. Metals and Societies, Studies in honour of Barbara S. Ottaway.Vol. 169. Bonn, 2009, pp. 191-245.

9. Radivojevic M., Grujic J. Community structure of copper supply networks in the prehistoric Balkans: An independent evaluation of the archaeological record from the 7^th to the 4^th millennium BCE. In: Journal of Complex Networks, 2018, no. 6, pp. 106-124.

10. Bulatovic A., Bankoff А., Powell W, Filipovic V. Some remarks on the genesis of the Early Eneolithic in the Central Balkans. In: Старинар, 2020, vol. 70, pp. 9-40.

11. Топографско-хронолошке карактеристике насела винчанске културе на територій In: Гласник Српског археолошког друштва, 2005, vol. 21, pp. 71-112.

12. Kapuran А., Bulatovic A., Milanovic D. Settlement pattern changes during the Central Balkans Copper Age. In: Deitz S., Mavridis F., Tankosic 2., Takaoglu T., eds. Communities in Transition: The Circum-Aegean later Neolithic stages (5000/4800-3200/3000 BCE). Vol. 20. Oxford, Philadelphia, Oxbow books, 2018, pp. 77-88.

13. Milanovic D. Insight into the regional distribution and geographic setting of the Vinca and Bubanj-Sдlcupa- Krivodol settlements in the Central Balkans and its implication. In: Старинар, 2019, vol. 69, pp. 61-84.

14. ТрипковиЬ Б. Домаинство и заедница. Куе и насеобинске историке у касном неолиту Централног Балкана. Београд, 2013. 319 p.

15. Boric D., Hanks B., Sljivar D., Kocic M., Bulatovic J., Griffiths S., Doonan R., Jacanovic D. Enclosing the Neolithic World. A Vinca Culture Enclosed and Fortified Settlement in the Balkans. In: Current Anthropology, 2018, no. 59 (3), pp. 336-346.

16. Chapman J., Gaydarska B., Hardy K. Does enclosure make a difference? A view from the Balkan. In: Harding A., Sievers S., Venclov6 Neds. Enclosing the Past: Inside and Outside in Prehistory. Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 15. Sheffield, 2006, pp. 20-43.

17. Ivanova M. Tells, Invasion Theories and Warfare in fifth millennium B.C. North-Eastern Bulgaria. In: Pollard T., Banks Ieds. War and Sacrifice, Studies in the Archaeology of Conflict. Leiden & Boston, Brill, 2007, pp. 33-48.

18. Zдuner S. P. The Dark Side of the Chalcolithic. Evidence for Warfare at Tell Yunatsite? An anthropological approach. In: Boyadzhiev J., Terzijska-Ignatova S., eds. The Golden Fifth Millennium. Thrace and its Neighbour Areas in the Chalcolithic. Sofia, NIAM-BAS, 2011, pp. 49-56.

19. Sherratt A. G. Plough and pastoralism: aspects of the Secondary Products Revolution. In: Hodder I., Isaac G., Hammond N., eds. Pattern of the Past. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1981, pp. 261-306.

20. Demoule J-P, Perles C. The Greek Neolithic: a new review. In: Journal of World Prehistory, 1993, no. 7, pp. 355-416.

21. Jovanovic B. Metalurgija eneolitskog perioda Jugoslavije. Beograd, Arheoloaki institut, 1971. 119 p.

22. Parkinson W. A., Yerkes R. W, Gyucha A. The Transition from the Neolithic to the Copper Age: Excavations at Vesztц-Bikeri, Hungary, 2000-2002. In: Journal of Field Archaeology, 2004, no. 29 (1/2), pp. 101-121.

23. Hansen S. Innovative Metals: Copper, Gold and Silver in the Black Sea Region and the Carpathian Basin During the 5^th and 4^th Millennium BC. In: Burnmeister S., Hansen S., Kunst M., Mьller Scheessel Neds. Metal Matters: Innovative Technologies and Social Change in Prehistory and Antiquity. Rahden, Verlag Marie Leidorf, 2013, pp. 137-167.

24. Kienlin T. L., Aspects of metalworking and society from the Black Sea to the Baltic Sea from the fifth to the second millennium BC. In: Roberts B. W, Thornton C. P., eds. Archaeometallurgy in Global Perspective: Methods and Syntheses. New-York, Springer-Verlag, 2014, pp. 447-472.

25. Antonovic G., Mrvic V Zemljista sliva Nisave. Beograd, Institut za zemljiste, 2008. 33 p.

26. Калуерови З. Кременац код Ниша: Палеолитско налазиште, хроника ископавана. In: Старинар, 1996, no. 47, pp. 289-290.

27. Богосаваеви-Петрови В. Праистори;ски рудници на централном Балкану. In: Зборник Народног uy3eja, 2005, no. 18/1, pp. 79-113.

28. Saric J. Lower Paleolithic Site Kremenac near Village Rujnik. In: Старинар, 2011, vol. 61, pp. 7-31.

29. Гарашанин М., Бубан и Велика Хумска Чука. Ниш: Народни музей, 1983. 39 p.

30. Garasanin M. Ausgrabungen in Bubanj bei Nis (Serbisches Moravagebiet). In: Germania, 1957, vol. 35, Heft 3-4, pp. 198-207.

31. Garasanin M. Kontrollgrabung in Bubanj bei Nis. In: Praehistorische Zeitschrift, 1958, no. 36, pp. 223244.

32. Гарашанин М. Ископавааа на Бубау код Ниша, претходни извешта; за 1954-1956. годину. In: Старинар, 1958, vol. 7-8, pp. 269-274.

33. Garasanin M. Neolithikum und Bronzezeit in Serbien und Makedonien. In: Bericht der Rцmisch-Germanischen Kommission, 1958, vol. 39, p. 1-130.

34. Garasanin M., Bubanj kod Nisa-Naselje ranog bronzanog doba. In:Arheoloski pregled, 1959, vol. 1, pp. 26-30.

35. Garasanin M. Zur Chronologischen und Kulturellen Wertung der Bubanj-Funde. In: Jahrbuch des Rцmisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz, 1982, vol. 26, pp. 154-166.

36. Bulatovic A., Milanovic D. Bubanj, the Copper and the Early Bronze Age Tell in Southeastern Serbia. Mitteilungen der Prдhistorischen Kommission, Band 90. Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, Wien 2020, 418 p.

37. Bulatovic A., Vander Linden M. Absolute Dating of Copper and Early Bronze Age Levels at the Eponymous Archaeological Site Bubanj (Southeastern Serbia). In: Radiocarbon, 2017, vol. 59 (4), pp. 10471065.

38. Bulatovic A., Gori M., Vander Linden M. New AMS dates as a contribution to the absolute chronology of the Early Eneolithic in the central Balkans. In: Старинар, 2018, vol. 68, pp. 19-32.

39. Bulatovic A., Gori M., Vander Linden M. Radiocarbon Dating the 3^rdMillennium BC in the Central Balkans: a re-examination of the Early Bronze Age sequence. In: Radiocarbon, 2020, vol. 62, no. 5, pp. 1163-1191.

40. Fewkes V. J. Neolithic sites in the Moravo Danubian area (Eastern Yugoslavia). In: Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research, 1936, no. 12, pp. 5-81.

41. Гарашанин M., Гарашанин Д. Нова ископавааа на Велико; Хумско; Чуки код Ниша. In: Старинар, 1959, vol. 9-10, pp. 243-254.

42. Orssich De Slavetich A. Bubanj: eine prдhistorische Ansiedlung bei Nis. Mitteilungen der Prдhistorischen Kommission, Band 4/1-2. Wien, 1940. 65 p.

43. Bulatovic A. Corded Ware in the Central and Southern Balkans: A Consequence of Cultural Interaction or an Indication of Ethnic Change? In: Journal of Indo-European Studies, 2014, vol. 42, pp. 101-143.

44. Миланови Д. Насеае Чернавода III културе на локалитету Бубаа. In: Старинар, 2011, vol. 61, pp. 101-119.

45. Milanovic D. Cultural and chronological position of the Chalcolithic horizons III and IV at Bubanj site: excavations from 1954. In: Archaeologia Bulgarica 2013, no. 17/2, pp. 1-16.

46. Jovanovic B. Obredi sahranjivanja u kostolackoj grupi. In: Godisnjak Centra za balkanoloska ispiti- vanja ANUBIH, 1976, vol. 13, pp. 131-142.

47. Nikolic D. Kostolacka kultura na teritoriji Srbije. Beograd, 2000. 108 p.

48. Апуран А., БулатовиЬ А. Културна група Коцофени-Костолац на територій источне Срби^е. In: Старинар, 2012, vol. 62, pp. 63-94.

49. Petrovic J., Jovanovic B. Gomolava, naselja kasnog eneolita. Beograd, Novi Sad, 2002, 387 p.

50. Bulatovic J. Preliminary Report on Animal Bones from Bubanj. In: Bulatovic A., Milanovic D. Bubanj, the Copper and the Early Bronze Age Tellin Southeastern Serbia. Mitteilungen der Prдhistorischen Kommission, Band 90. Wien, Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, 2020, pp. 329-337.

51. Sorensen 0stergaard J. Animal bones. In: Merkyte I. Liga Copper Age strategies in Bulgaria. Acta ar- chaeologica, 2005, vol. 76 (1), pp. 132-139.

52. Berciu D. Contributii la problemele neoliticului in Rominia in lumina noilor cercetari. Bucure^ti, Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Romine, 1961. 593 p.

53. Roman P. Strukturanderungen des Endaneolithikums im Donau-Karpaten-Raum. In: Dacia, 1971, vol. 15, pp. 31-169.

54. Георгиева П. Материали от претходния период между каменномедната и бронзовата епоха от Северна България. In: Археология, 1987, vol. 1. pp. 1-15.

55. Stevanovic M. The Age of Clay: The Social Dynamics of House Destruction. In: Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 1997, vol. 16, pp. 334-395.

56. Chapman J. Deliberate house-burning in the prehistory of central and eastern Europe. In: Glyfer och arkeologiska rum: En vдnbok till Jarl Nordbladh. Gцteborg, University of Gцteborg Press, 1999, pp. 113-126.

57. Bulatovic A., Kapuran A. Cultural contacts between communities of southwestern Romania and the central Balkans in the fourth millennium BC. In: Cristian I. P., ed. The Carpathian Basin and the Northern Balkans between 3500 and 2500 BC: Common Aspects and Regional Differences, Annales Universitatis Apulensis: Series Historica, 2017, vol. 20/II, pp. 183-201.

58. Anthony D. W The Rise and fall of Old Europe. In: Anthony D. W, Chi J. Y., eds. The Lost World of Old Europe: The Danube Valley, 5000-3500 BC. Princeton University Press, 2010, pp. 29-57.

59. Gimbutas M. The first Wave of Euroasian Steppe Pastorialists into Copper Age Europe. In: Journal of Indoeuropean Studies, 1977, vol. 5. pp. 277-338.

60. Chapman J., Higham T., Slavchev V., Gaydarska B., Honch N. The Social Context of the Emergence, Development and Abandonment of the Varna Cemetery, Bulgaria. In: European Journal of Archaeol- ogy,2006, no. 9 (2-3), pp. 159-183.

61. KrauЯ R., Schmid C., Kirschenheuter D., Abele J., Slavchev V., Weninger B. Chronology and development of the Chalcolithic necropolis of Varna I. In: Documenta Praehistorica, 2017, vol. 44, pp. 282-305.

Размещено на Allbest.ru