Edited by:

Vesna Vučković
Vojislav Filipović
Branislav Stojanović
ISBN: 978-86-920553-2-4 Roberto Risch
Publisher:
Regional museum of Paraćin, Tome Živanovića 17, Paraćin

Editorial Board:
Branislav Stojanović, Vesna Vučković,Vojislav Filipović,
Martina Blečić Kavur, Rastko Vasić, Roberto Risch

Editors:
Vesna Vučković, Vojislav Filipović, Branislav Stojanović, Roberto Risch

Cover design by:

José Antonio Soldevilla

Graphic design by:

Stefan Jovičić

Printed by:
Tercija Bor

ISBN: 978-86-920553-2-4

This monograph is published thanks to the financial support of

the Ministry of Culture and Information of the Republic of Serbia.

The monograph is the result of the Crafter project - Crafting Europe in the Bronze Age and Today

5
2
4
6
Introduction
Vojislav Filipović
9
El Argar ceramics: preliminary results of an
interdisciplinary approach
Carla Garrido-García, Elena Molina Muñoz, Carlos Ve-
lasco Felipe, Bárbara Bonora, Eva Celdrán Beltrán, Mª
Inés Fregiero, David Gómez-Gras, Claudia Molero, Adrià
Moreno, Antoni Rosell Melé, Roberto Risch
33
On the Current State of Knowledge
of Únětice /Aunjetitz in central Germany
Bettina Stoll-Tucker
49
The Middle Bronze Age Füzesabony pottery style of the
Carpathian Basin
Vajk Szeverényi, Attila Kreiter, János Dani, László Gucsi,
Viktória Kiss, Gabriella Kulcsár, Péter Skoda, Ildikó Sza-
thmári
71
Vatin pottery: a petrographical approach
David Gómez-Gras, Roberto Risch, Jovan Mitrović,
Vojislav Đorđević, Vesna Vučković
101
Vatin culture pottery in settlements and necropoles of
Northeastern Serbia
Kapuran Aleksandar, Petar Milojević
121
Beakers with trapezoidal mouth as one of the most
specific type of Middle Bronze Age vessel in the Central
Balkans
Aleksandar Bulatović
149
Vatinska kultura u zapadnoj Srbiji: tradicionalne
postavke i činjenice u XXI veku (Vatin culture in
Western Serbia: traditional settings and facts in XXI c.)
Katarina Dmitrović, Marija Ljuština

5
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Introduction
The proceedings before us, comprised of seven papers, are
inspired by the subject of the almost completed CRAFTER
programme Creative Europe project. The full title of the
project is Crafting Europe in the Bronze Age and Today,
and in brief, the idea was to draw inspiration from Eu-
rope’s Bronze Age pottery to help revive modern-day ar-
tisanship. The project targets the appreciation of Europe's
cultural heritage as a shared resource and the reinforce-
ment of a sense of belonging to a common European space.
In particular, it hopes to make cultural heritage a source of
inspiration for contemporary creation and innovation and
strengthen the interaction between this sector and other
cultural and creative sectors. The main framework of the
project was the idea that four potters from Spain, Germany,
Hungary, and Serbia will draw on their skills to (re)create
ceramic vessels representative of some of the most out-
standing Bronze Age cultures of Europe: El Argar (south-
east Spain), Únětice (Central Europe), Füzesabony (east-
ern Hungary) and Vatin (Serbia).
The papers published within these proceedings are not
strictly related to the project itself, but the problems of
Bronze Age pottery in Europe in general. The problems
discussed in the presented papers and the inspirations are
drawn from the CRAFTER project. The original idea was
to delve into the content of the pottery and define its com-
position and quality. These are, in fact, the elements re-
sponsible for the final appearance of the ceramic vessel
and its function. Considering that out of four editors, two
have presented papers within the proceedings, I have been
honored to write this short introduction on their signifi-
cance and essence.
The thread that connects all of the papers, although their
concepts do not seem similar at the first glance, since some
of the papers are dwelling on interdisciplinarity while oth-
ers deal with certain chronological and cultural-historical
problems, is that the primary analytical material in all of
the papers is Bronze Age pottery, from beyond the Pyre-
nees, across Central Europe, to the Balkans, which is not
unexpected considering that a Serbian institution was cred-
ited for publishing. The positive aspect is that the pottery is

6
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

discussed in a manner uncommon for archaeology, while

on the other hand pottery studies have been more and more
neglected in the past few decades, as such subjects are con-
sidered as passé in archaeology. The ever-rising number
of specializations and specialists have pushed the pottery
and potters into an undeserved corner, even though without
such a set of analytic work the past can not be completely
and adequately perceived.
The pottery is “slow-moving”. It changes, circulates, and
exchanges at a slow pace and it enables the perception of
the beginning, development, decadence, and the end of
a certain society. The pottery has regional character and
reflects the primary contacts, esthetics of a community,
and the inspiration of the artist. Certainly, this implies to
prehistoric pottery and communities which do not func-
tion within centralized social systems, such as the Bronze
Age beyond Mediterranean Europe, which is indeed in the
focus of these proceedings. With the appearance of the
potter’s wheel, the production and distribution of pottery
merge with industry and economy, and at that moment a
puzzle of a small man from the past loses a piece. A piece
without which we are unable to perceive small communi-
ties through such an important, fruitful, and data-rich ob-
ject such as pottery and which we often tend to neglect as
a discipline. In order to identify the contacts, exchange,
and trade or reconstruct the communication routes in past,
we often reach to the so-called luxurious artifacts: met-
als, amber, glass, and artisan objects… Likewise, pottery
could narrate a story of one meal, one house, one potter,
one village, or one community in the past, which is, like
it or not, a fact that will make the interdisciplinary and
diverse analyses of prehistoric pottery one of the primary
archaeological methods.

Vojislav Filipović
Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade

7
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project.

Chalice-shaped vessel from grave 882 of El Argar (Antas, Almería)

(photo: J. A. Soldevilla, ASOME-UAB)

8
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

El Argar ceramics: preliminary results of an

interdisciplinary approach
Carla Garrido-García, Elena Molina Muñoz, Carlos Velasco Felipe,
Bárbara Bonora Soriano, Eva Celdrán Beltrán, Mª Inés Fregeiro Morador,
David Gómez-Gras, Claudia Molero Alonso, Adrià Moreno Gil,
Antoni Rosell-Melé, Roberto Risch

Abstract: In the Argaric society, developed during the

Early Bronze Age (c. 2200–1550 BC) in the south-east of
the Iberian Peninsula, a ruling class emerged, which con-
trolled the land and the basic means of production. In view
of the available evidence concerning the centralisation of
cereal surplus as well as other products in certain settle-
ments and buildings, we hypothesize that a group of high-
ly standardized ceramic repertoire of classical El Argar (c.
1900–1550 cal BC), distributed in 8 basic shapes, was pro-
duced by specialised potters and fulfilled specific functions
in the storage, distribution and transformation of subsis-
tence goods. In this research we have studied an import-
ant assemblage of vessels from the El Argar coastal areas
of Murcia and Almería (Spain) focusing on its production
and use, through petrographic, organic residues, volumet-
ric capacity, and use-wear analyses. This interdisciplinary
analytical approach to pottery is surprisingly rare in pottery
studies but seems crucial in order to better understand the
social, political and economic dimension of the El Argar
pottery.

Keywords: El Argar, Early Bronze Age, archaeometry,

pottery

Archaeological background

El Argar refers to an Early Bronze Age society, which

spread over south-east Iberia between 2200–1550 BC. It
developed over c. 650 years into one of the first states in
Europe, organised mainly through a network of well-pro-
tected hilltop settlements. At the height of its political and
military expansion, it controlled a territory of c. 35,000
km2, equivalent to present day Belgium. The economy of
El Argar was mainly based on extensive dry-land farming
and the storage and distribution of barley in large hilltop
9
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

settlements (1 to 5 ha). Another feature of these settlements

is a highly normative intramural burial practice.
Specific grave offerings of pottery and metals where used
to differentiate individuals according to their sex, age, and
social class. Social inequality and political domination
reached its peak around 1650 BC. El Argar collapsed a
century later, probably due to social upheaval (Lull et al.
2011, 2013).
One of the most diagnostic features of the El Argar terri-
tory is a well burnished and undecorated pottery, in marked
contrast with the ‘Symbolic’ and Bell Beaker pottery of
the previous Copper Age. The Siret brothers already dis-
tinguished in their pioneer work eight main pottery types
(Siret & Siret 1890, 170 - 180; Cuadrado 1949), which re-
main the basis of present-day classification systems (Lull
1983; Aranda 2001; Schuhmacher and Schubart 2003). The
basic pottery shapes are open or closed bowls (form 1 and
2), globular vases (form 3), S-shaped oval to globular pots
(form 4), carinated cups with open rims (form 5), closed bi-
conical vessels (form 6), chalices (form 7), and cylindrical
cups (form 8) (Fig. 1b). These ceramics were used both in
settlement contexts and as offerings in intramural burials.
Here they appear indistinctively in male or female, as well
as in child burials, although by far the most common ce-
ramic grave-goods are the carinated cups of form 5.
Regarding their sizes, apart from the rather rare, middle
sized, and technically complex type 6, all other forms were
manufactured as small size pots with capacities ranging be-
tween 0,25-3 litres, Shapes 1, and specially, 2 and 3 were
also produced as middle-sized pots. While the open bowls
reach about 7 litres, the other two forms were shaped as
pots of up to 30 litres. Shapes 4 and to a certain extend
also 5, became the preferred form for large sized storage
vessels.
During the c. 650 years of El Argar, the pottery typology
underwent changes. During early El Argar (c. 2200-2000
BC), forms 1-5 seem to develop out of previous Copper
Age ceramic repertoire, generally achieving more rounded
and harmonious profiles (Lull et al. 2015). Another novelty
is the manufacture of pots, specially of form 5, with a low
foot (Fig. 1a, 13). After c. 1800 cal BC these feet will be
combined, mostly with Form 2 bowls and become more
stylized, resulting in the chalice known as form 7b (Fig.
1b, 12 and 13). A further trait of the early El Argar is a dec-
orative pattern made by a series of incised triangles filled

10
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Fig. 1 Main pottery types of the Argaric period: a (left column). Early El Argar (c. 2200–2000 cal BC). Gatas:
4, 10, 16, 18–19; Fuente Álamo: 8–9, 11–13; La Bastida: 20; Lugarico Viejo: 1–2, 5–7, 14–15, 17 (modified
after Lull et al. 2015, Fig. 12b); b. (right column) Classical El Argar (c. 2000–1550 cal BC). All types are
from La Bastida.

11
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

with dots or, less frequently, with lines, reminiscent of Late

Copper Age motives and which disappears after c. 2050
cal BC (Fig. 1a, 17). The carinated but lenticular medi-
um-sized form 6 was an uncommon production, very rare
in domestic contexts, and mainly associated with elite buri-
als after c. 2000 BC.

Fig. 2 Set of ceramics from the Argaric

One aspect which has frequently been highlighted with
apogee period (photo: Marcello Peres
regards to “classical” El Argar pottery production is its y Nicola Tagliabue).
high level of standardization (Lull, 1983; Castro et al.
1999; Aranda 2010; Lull et al. 2005, 2011; Santacreu y
Aranda 2014). Whatever provincial museum one visits
from Alicante to Jaén or Granada, the high quality pottery
dated between c. 2000–1550 cal BC, recovered throughout
the vast El Argar territory looks surprisingly similar (Fig.
2). Except for form 8, all the pieces develop from form
1, which already suggests the existence of a basic "matrix
form". For example, types 2 and 3 would be a form 1 with
an inward upper wall; and forms 5 and 6 would be a form 1
to which a separately modelled upper body was added, etc.
(Fig. 3). The absence of pottery workshops in the known El
Argar settlements prevents from identifying the economic
and even political forces behind this highly normative pro-
duction.

12
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Fig. 3. Classical El Argar set of ceramics (forms 2 to 7) with the "matrix form” (form 1) highlighted in grey.

Different mechanisms and social relations may have led

to such a formal and technical uniformity:

a) a highly specialised production in a limited number of

workshops, from where pots were circulated throughout
the El Argar territory;
b) itinerant potters, producing vessels demanded by differ-
ent communities;
c) the association of the eight forms to specific functions;
d) the adjustment of (certain) ceramic vessels to standard
capacities, as demanded for the centralization as well as
redistribution of cereal in the central Argaric settlements
and storage buildings;
e) the ideological and symbolic connotations assigned to
pottery production and use.

Surprisingly, these driving factors have not been tested

until recently through archaeometric approaches, such as
petrographic and technological analyses of pottery produc-
tion, the identification of organic residues inside the pots,
the volumetric standardization or use-wear analysis. Part of
these questions and approaches have been addressed during
the last years in the frame of the ‘La Bastida Project’. In
the present study we will try to show and combine the
first results of this interdisciplinary research carried out in
the settlements of La Bastida, Tira del Lienzo and La Al-
moloya, located in the present-day province of Murcia, in
order to address the political and economical organization
of pottery manufacture and use. Although the ceramic ev-
idence from other settlements of the core area of El Argar
has not been studied in this integrated way, it still provides
additional information on the social life of pots.

13
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Manufacture of the standard El Argar ceramics in the

light of petrographic analysis

The characterization of El Argar pottery fabric is carried

out through petrographic methods such as microscopic ob-
servation of thin sections and XRD. Along its mineral and
chemical composition, the size and morphology of temper
and the porosity of the fabric has been recorded system-
atically (see Risch & Gómez-Gras 2003 for a detailed de-
scription of the method used). So far, several hundreds of
vessels have been analysed though microscopic loupe, thin
sectioning and XRD in the frame of the La Bastida Project.
During early El Argar times two clearly pottery manufac-
turing technologies coexisted in La Bastida. About half of
the vessels of La Bastida Phase 1 (c. 2200–2000 cal BC)
were modelled with carbonate clays – mainly marine marls
of Miocene age – containing sedimentary and low-grade
metamorphic rock fragments, as well as grog. The diver-
sity of natural and added temper shows that a variety of
sources was used and points towards decentralized, rather
small-scale production. An oxidizing, low temperature fir-
ing resulted in yellowish-orange surfaces, mostly of small
to medium size. This technology already existed during the
Copper Age, but became marginal after 2000 cal BC in La
Bastida, as well as Tira del Lienzo (Garrido 2017). Instead,
the dominant pottery technology of El Argar used non-car-
bonate clays, rich in iron oxides, of Permian and Triassic
formations, which were mixed with a high percentage of
low to middle-grade metamorphic rock fragments, such
as slate, schist, psammitic schist, quartz-feldspar schist,
usually containing abundant quartz, muscovite and biotite.
According to its angular and subangular shape and min-
eral composition, this temper was prepared by crushing
metamorphic rocks and selecting specific fractions of the
resulting grit. Firing temperatures where usually low, but
the combination of reducing and oxidizing conditions al-
lowed the manufacture of dark coloured, usually small size
pots, as well as reddish, predominantly medium to large
size vessels.
These metamorphic rocks and non-carbonated clays have
a much more restricted geographical distribution than the
Miocene marls. El Argar potters increasingly specialised
on the use of these raw materials to manufacture the whole
range of pottery shapes. It is important to note, that the
same type of metamorphic temper has been observed in

14
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Fig. 4 Thin section of pottery fragment under polarised light. Qtz: quartz; Esq.mosc.: muscovite schist. Grt: garnet;
Mosc.: muscovite mica; Tur: tourmaline. Arcilla: Non-carbonate clay matrix. Graphic scale: 0,2 mm.

settlements of the Western (Contreras et al., 1987–1988;

Albrero and Aranda 2014) as well as in the Eastern part of
the El Argar territory (Seva Román 1995).
As such metamorphic rocks and non-carbonate clays are
rare or absent in the interior regions of Southeast Iberia
as well as in Alicante, the distribution of classic El Argar
pottery is indicative of the circulation either of pots, or
of raw materials, or of itinerant potters, transporting their
own clays and temper. While on-going petrographic and
mineralogical research will allow to further define these
networks, the technical and economic requirements of the
standard El Argar pottery production are unlikely to have
been met in typical small-scale, household type contexts
and rather point towards specialised potters and work-
shops. This sharing of a particular technological know-how
among specialists, possibly over the whole of the El Argar
territory, provides a first hint of the social and economic re-
lations behind the limited range of Argaric pottery shapes,
their high morphometric standardization and their limited
temporal and geographic variability.

15
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Pottery use according to organic residues analysis

The organic residues have been analysed through the ex-

traction of lipids from pottery samples of about 2 g (see
Fig. 5), following the methodology proposed by Evershed
et al., (1990) and modified by Molina (Molina, 2015). Be-
fore the extraction of ceramic powder, any possible con-
tamination due to handling and contact with plastic was re-
moved from the inner surface of the pottery with a manual
modelling drill (Spiteri-Debono, 2012). Samples were then
screened looking for the presence of lipids in the residue
organic extract using a gas chromatograph. Next, samples
where lipids occurrence had been confirmed were charac-
terized further by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
to identify biomarkers. Finally, if enough fatty acids were
preserved in the ceramic matrix, isotopic ratios of stearic
(C18:0) and palmitic (C16:0) fatty acids were measured
with a stable isotope mass spectrometer, hyphenated to a
gas chromatograph via a combustion interface (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5 Flowchart for the extraction and analytical methods applied in this
study of organic residues in Argaric pottery (modified after Molina 2015,
Fig. 4.16)

16
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

So far, over 85 pottery vessels recovered from 4 archae-

ological Argaric sites have been analyzed: La Bastida and
Tira del Lienzo (Totana, Murcia), La Almoloya (Pliego,
Murcia) and Gatas (Turre, Almería). From the 104 extract-
ed powder samples, 41 provided reliable data regarding
their uses and allowed to gain a better insight into the diet
and subsistence practices of these Argaric communities
(Molina 2015). To date it has been possible to detect lipids
from the following sources:
- rumiant and non - rumiant (pig) fats
- beeswax
- sparto grass wax1
- pine resin2
- higher plants
Although it was not possible to draw any specific correla-
tion between ceramic type and the organic residues detect-
ed inside, some trends were observed (Fig. 6). Beeswax,
which can be an indirect evidence of honey, is the most fre-
quently identified residue, and is particularly abundant in
forms F7 and F2. These results confirm the importance of
beekeeping and honey processing by certain Argaric com-
munities (Ache et al., 2017).

Fig. 6 Relationship between Argaric forms and the type of organic content. (modified after Moli-
na 2015, fig.7.23)

1 Identified in a small Form 5, of 5,5 cm high, from La Bastida (Molina 2015, annex
VII-76,BA-H54-174)
2 This substance is widely used in the production of ointments as well as in the prepa-
ration of resined wine. In the case of El Argar pottery, it is expected that it was also used
as a waterproofing substance for the inner surfaces of closed pottery vessels (Molina
2015: 460).

17
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Different vessels were definitely used to prepare, serve

or store food. Moreover, thermo-alterations only detected
on the inner side of the base where often observed in pots
containing beeswax and animal fats, which are flammable
solid substances. This suggests that certain ceramics could
have also been used as lighting devices. This combination
of traces and residues has been detected in 4 out of 6 Form
2 samples analysed, one of which belongs to a multi-foot-
ed vessel, as well as in 4 out of 7 Form 7 samples. A wick
of string, cord or, even, wood would need to be inserted
in the wax or fat. Interestingly, undefined vegetal residues,
which could derive from such wicks, were identified in one
form 2 and one form 7.The formal characteristics of most
of these vessels also ensure their stability and suggest that
they were portable objects, easily placed on flat surfaces.
Bee’s products are absent or rare in forms 1, 4 and 5. In-
terestingly, these shapes have also provided a large number
of negative results. Organic compounds associated with ce-
reals or legumes are very unlikely to be identified with lipid
analysis, unless they have been cooked or part of the leaves
and stems preserved in the vessel (Maffei 1996, 53–54;
Molina 2015, 542, 544, 576). These products were most
likely preserved in large forms 4 and 5 jars, as has often
been confirmed through the botanical analysis of sediments
recovered from these vessels. However, this function does
not explain the absence of residues in many small bowls of
type 1.Volumetric and use-wear analyses provide a possi-
ble clue to the functional relationship between these shapes
and sizes.

Outcomes of the volumetric capacity estimations

Regarding the study of the capacities of Argaric vessels,

a study carried out on 80 containers from the site of Gatas
(Turre, Almeria) suggested, for the first time, a patterned
distribution of volumetric capacities3 (Colomer 1995: 336-
354; Lull and Risch 1995: 105). This contribution was the
first hint of a possible system of weights and measures de-
signed to control the storage and distribution of production,
mainly of agricultural-cereal origin.
In order to continue with this line of research and given the
impossibility to make direct measurements of capacities,
especially on broken or incomplete vessels, a digital calcu-
lation method was devised using 2D drawings of ceramics
by means of the 360º revolution of the inner profile and its

18
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

physical properties, both tools available in AutoCAD®

(Velasco and Celdrán 2019). This method has also been
proven to be reliable after being checked against direct
measurements with both handmade and wheel-made com-
plete vessels (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7 Steps involved in the generation of a three-dimensional model of a vessel (BA-40-9) from a 2D design using
AutoCAD® (Velasco and Celdrán 2019: fig 3).

Based on this method, on-going studies of ceramics from

the Argaric sites of La Bastida and Tira del Lienzo (Totana,
Murcia) have provided support to a standardized pattern of
capacities (Velasco 2012).
3 This, according to the analysis, would be determined by a constant division factor of
4.2 in the case of vessels smaller than 35 liters. From this volume, in addition, the con-
tainers would increase their capacity approximately one and a half times, up to approxi-
mately 53 liters and, finally, they would triple it from that value, until reaching 105 liters.

19
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Form 5 vessels have proven to be the most versatile pots,

both in terms of the diversity of contents (Fig. 6) and capac-
ities. Up to five volumetric groups have been suggested: the
large containers, with a volume of c. 30 litres could be used
both to store and to process food; the next group, between 1
and 1.5 litres, seems to represent vessels for cooking; final-
ly, the smallest ones, ranging from 75 to 250 cm3, could be
employed to keep special or concentrated substances such
as esparto wax (Molina 2015, 401). Residues were absent
in three out of eight, large as well as small Form 5 pots.
Regarding the large pithoi (form 4), 43% of the analysed
samples did not present any organic residues (Fig. 6). In
terms of capacity measurements, they show a marked trend
towards large sizes and high capacities, from 100 up to 300
litres, with few exceptions of higher capacity. Therefore,
all the available information suggests that these vessels
served as static containers for long-term storage. In histor-
ical terms, these larger pithoi have to be viewed in relation
to the ending of the Neolithic and Copper Age tradition of
underground pits -silos- and, hence, to a change in the or-
ganization of staple food storage (Delgado & Risch 2015).
Although silos can hold larger volumes over long periods
of time, they must remain sealed until the cereal is distrib-
uted and consumed in a relatively short period of time.
Instead, the Argaric pithoi involve a much larger replace-
ment rate. Consequently, from c. 1950 cal BC onwards, just
when the Argaric potters were technically ready to produce
those large containers massively, pithoi started to be used
to organize and control the everyday storage and distribu-
tion of staple food (Lull et al. 2015, 382) and increasingly
(re)used, also, as funerary urns for single or double burials
(Lull et al. 2005).
But, how to guarantee a correct accounting record and
distribution of this surplus? The answer may be found in a
specific group of bowls of form 1 and 2. They show consid-
erably uniform metric attributes and significant volumetric
clusters, specially between 300 and 400 cm3, which sug-
gests the existence of either standard vessels for a highly
normalised individual food consumption or of ration bowls,
i.e. units of measurement. This latter option would also ex-
plain the absence of organic residues in many bowls, es-
pecially regarding form 1 (42,8%). As already mentioned,
unprocessed food such as cereals or water leaves no resi-
dues in the pots.

20
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Spatial associations and use-wear traces

Some finds of stacked bowls in settlement contexts such

as El Argar (Antas, Almeria) or La Bastida (Totana, Mur-
cia) reinforce the suggestion that most of the vessels would
have been manufactured in series and following metric pat-
terns (Fig. 8). The use of such units of measurement make
sense in centrally organised redistributive systems, where
standard amounts of cereal, pulses, etc. are distributed to
the community according to age, sex, class and tasks per-
formed by each individual (Dolce and Zaccagnini 1998).
The existence of such a system in El Argar is further sup-
ported by the presence of fine striations on the outer surfac-
es, running downwards from the rim or on the maximum
diameter on many bowls of form1 and 2 (Fig. 9; Velasco,
2012: 40; Delgado-Raack and Risch, 2013, 29). These use-
wear traces were already noticed by the Siret brothers, who
related them to scooping out movements of products stored
in large pithoi, such as liquids or dry food (Siret and Siret,
1890: 172).

Fig. 8 Stacked vessels of form 1 found in El Argar site, on the left (Siret & Siret 1990; Fig. XVII, 8), and La Bastida,
on the right (Lull et al. 2015a, 106; photo J.A. Soldevilla).

21
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

On-going studies are correlating the volumetric clusters of

those bowls with these use-wear traces, suggesting again the
existence of a very clear pattern which seems to have been
shared among several settlements, placed at considerable
distances from each other. According to the data recorded
so far on complete or nearly complete vessels, the main
group of small bowls with marked striations running down
from the rim (form 1) or placed at the maximum diame-
ter (form 2) have a capacity range between 340-400 cm3.
As can be expected, the height and maximum diameter of
these bowls is also highly uniform.

Conclusions

The combination of petrographic, chemical, volumetric

and use-wear analyses over an important collection of arga-
ric vessels from the areas of Murcia and Almería provides a
deep insight into the organisation and the socio-economic
role of pottery crafting for the El Argar society. Neither the
manufacturing process nor the use of a substantial part of
the Argaric pottery fits the common traits of domestic pot-
tery production (e.g., Leeuw 1993). The standardisation of
the El Argar pottery over centuries is clearly not related to
a specialised use of the different shapes, as the residue anal-
ysis has shown. Even outstanding vessels, such as the chal-
ice form 7, contained a variety of products and were used
in different ways, even as lighting lamps. Clearly, the mo-
notony of El Argar pottery over more than six centuries and
a territory of up to 35.000 km2 cannot just be explained in
strictly functional terms, but in the realm of the socio-eco-
nomic and ideological fabric of this Bronze Age society.
Making use of a concept proposed by Ignacio Ramonet to
define the present day hegemonic and uniform world view
imposed on society, we could think of Argaric pottery as
an expression of a “pensée unique”, through which specif-
ic social, economic and political practices became fixed in
space and time, suppressing diversity and creativity4.
The uniformity of a considerable group of pottery ves-
sels, at least in the studied areas of Almería and Murcia,
appears to have been achieved through specialised pottery
workshops or itinerant potters, using specific raw mate-
rials coming from metamorphic deposits of Permian and
Triassic age. The standardisation of raw materials, shapes
and sizes, as well as the very limited changes observed in
manufacture over 650 years would be difficult to achieve

22
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

without relatively few and interconnected specialists.

A major change was the gradual disappearance of large,
open and often shallow bowls and dishes after 2000 BC.
These vessels were replaced by smaller and generally also
deeper bowls (forms 1 and 2), which points towards a shift
from communal to individual consumption (Lull et al.
2015: 382). Moreover, the identification of a volumetric
cluster among these bowls around 300–400 cm3 and the
presence of use-wear traces related to a repeated scoop-
ing activity, strongly support their use as measurement and
re-distribution devices. Simultaneously, the production of
large containers (form 4 and, to a certain extent, form 5)
increased, indicating an intensification of storage practices
after c. 1950 BC. Large pithoi must have been manufactured
massively, as is suggested not only by the large number of
funerary vessels but also by their abundance in settlement
contexts. As indicated by use wear analysis, both develop-
ments seem to have been functionally and economically re-
lated: an specific group of form 1 and 2 bowls are likely to
have served to scoop and measure standard units of goods
–mainly barley– extracted from the large containers.

Acknowledgement

We wish to thank Cristina Rihuete Herrada and Rafael

Micó for their comments on a preliminary version of the
manuscript. This research was financially supported by the
Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (grant
number HAR2017-85962-P), the Catalan Direcció General
de Recerca (grant number AGAUR 2017SGR1044), and
the ICREA Academia program.

4 We take this idea from the permanent exhibition on El Argar Montserrat Menasanch
created in the the Archaeological Museum of Catalonia, Barcelona.

23
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

References: • Delgado-Raack, S. and Risch, R. 2015. Social

change and subsistence production on the Ibe-
• Ache, M., Delgado-Raack, S., Molina, E., Risch, rian peninsula during the 3rd and 2nd millennia
R., Rosell-Melé, A. 2017. Evidence of bee prod- BCE, en Kneisel, J., dal Corso, M., Kirleis, W.,
ucts processing: A functional definition of a spe- Scholz, H., Taylor, N. y Tiedtke, V. (Eds.), The
cialized type of macrolithic tool. Journal of ar- Third Food Revolution? Setting the Bronze Age
chaeological science: reports, 14, 638-650. doi. table: common trends in economic and subsis-
org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.06.025 tence strategies in Bronze Age Europe. Verlag
• Albero Santacreu, D. and Aranda Jiménez, G. Dr. Rudolph Habel GmbH, Bonn, 21-46 - ISBN:
2014. Elección tecnológica y expresión social: 9978-3-7749-4003-1.
Análisis arqueométrico de cerámicas funerarias • Dolce, R. and Zaccagnini, C.1989 (eds.). Il Pane
argáricas del Cerro de San Cristóbal (Ogíjares, del Re: accumulo e distribuzione dei cereali
Granada). Complutum, 25, 109-127. nell’Oriente Antico, Clueb, Bologna.
• Aranda Jiménez, G. 2001. El análisis de la rel- • Evershed, R.P., Herona,C., Goada,L.J. 1990. Ef-
ación forma-contenido de los conjuntos cerámi- fects of migration of soil lipids on organic resi-
cos del yacimiento arqueológico del Cerro de la dues associated with buried potsherds, JAS 18,
Encina (Granada, España). British Archaeolog- 641-659.
ical Reports. Internacional Series 927. Oxford. • Garrido-García, C. 2017. Análisis petrográfico
• Aranda, G. 2010. Entre la tradición y la inno- de las cerámicas del yacimiento argárico de
vación: el proceso de especialización en la pro- Tira del Lienzo (Totana, Murcia), Master Thesis,
ducción de la cerámica argárica. Menga, Revista Unpublished work, Autonomous University of
de Prehistoria de Andalucía, 77-252. Barcelona.
• Contreras Cortés, F., Capel Martínez, J., de la • Leeuw, S. van der. 1993. Giving the potter a
Torre Peña, F., Molina González, F.R., Esquivel choice: conceptual aspects of pottery techniques,
Guerrero, J.A. 1987-1988. Los ajuares cerámi- en Lemonnier, P. (ed.), Technological Choices.
cos de la necrópolis argárica de la Cuesta del Transformations in material cultures since the
Negro (Purullena, Granada): Avance al estudio Neolithic, London: Routledge,238-288.
analítico y estadístico, Cuadernos de prehistoria • Lull, V. 1983. La “Cultura” del Argar. Un mod-
y arqueología de la Universidad de Granada, Nº elo para el estudio de las formaciones económi-
12-13, 135-155. co-sociales prehistóricas, Madrid: Akal.
• Cuadrado Ruiz, J., 1949, Una visita al Museo • Lull, V., Micó, R., Rihuete, C., Risch, R.
Arqueológico Provincial de Almería. Avance al 2011. Property Relations in the Bronze Age of
catálogo definitivo de sus fondos y colecciones. South-western Europe: an archaeological anal-
Almería: Imprenta Caparrós. ysis of infant burials from El Argar (Almeria,
• Debono Spiteri, C. 2012. Pottery use at the Spain) , In Proceedings of the Prehistoric Soci-
transition to agriculture in the western Med- ety, 71, 247-268.
iterranean: evidence from biomolecular and • Lull, V., Micó, R., Rihuete, C., Risch, R. 2011.
isotopic characterisation of organic residues ElArgarandtheBeginningof Class Society in
in Impressed/Cardial Ware vessels, PhD thesis, the Western Mediterranean, en: Hansen, S. y
University of York. Müller, J. (eds.). Sozialarchäologische Pers-
• Delgado-Raack, S.; Lull, V.; Martin, K.; Micó, pektiven: Gesellschaftlicher Wandel 5000-1500
R.; Rihuete, C.; Risch, R.2015. The silversmith v.Chr. zwischen Atlantik und Kaukasus. Berlin:
workshop of Tira del Lienzo (Totana, Murcia) in Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Von Zabern,
the context of the Iberian Bronze Age metallur- 381-414.
gy. Archaeometry. 57.

24
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

• Lull, V., Micó, R., Rihuete-Herrada, C., Risch, • Seva Román, R. 1995. Caracterización cerámi-
R. 2013. Political collapse and social change ca y relaciones culturales en la Prehistoria Re-
at the end of El Argar, in: H. Meller / F. Berte- ciente de Alicante, Tesis Doctoral, Universidad
mes / H.-R. Bork / H. Meller / R. Risch (eds.). de Alicante.
1600 Cultural change in the shadow of the • Siret, E., Siret, L. 1890. Las primeras edades del
Thera-Eruption?. Landesmuseum für Vorges- metal en el Sudeste de España. Resultados ob-
chichte 9, Halle, 283-302. tenidos en las excavaciones hechas por los au-
• Lull, V., Micó, R., Rihuete, C., Risch, R. 2015. tores de 1881 a 1887, Barcelona.
Transition and conflict at the end of the 3rd mil- • Schuhmacher, T.X.; Schubart, H. 2003. Fuent-
lennium BC in south Iberia, in: Harald MELL- eÁlamo. Die Siedlungskeramik der Grabungen
ER, Helge W. ARZ, Reinhard JUNG y Roberto 1985-1991. Untersuchungen zur Chronologie
RISCH (eds.), 2200 BC. A climatic breakdown und zum Siedlungsschema der ElArgar-Kultur.
as a cause for the collapse of the old world? Stratigraphisch geordnete Keramik der ElAr-
Tagungen des Landesmuseum fur Vorgeschichte gar-Zeit aus den Grabungen 1977 bis 1982. Ibe-
von Sachsen-Anhalt, Halle , nº 12 (1), 365-407. ria Archaeologica 4, Mainz.
ISBN: 978-3-944507-29-3. • Velasco Felipe, C. 2012. Valoración y viabil-
• Lull, V., Micó, R., Rihuete, C., Risch, R. 2015. idad de la estandarización de las capacidades
La Bastida - Tira del Lienzo (Totana, Murcia), volumétricas argáricas a partir de los contextos
Ruta Argárica. Guías Arqueológicas, 1. (ed.). In- cerámicos de los yacimientos de la Bastida y la
tegral, Sociedad Para el Desarrollo Rural. Bul- Tira del Lienzo (Totana, Murcia), Master Thesis,
las (Murcia). Unpublished work, University of Barcelona.
• Molina Muñoz, E. 2015. La producción cerámi- • Velasco Felipe, C., Celdrán Beltrán, E. 2019. To-
ca en el sudeste de la península ibérica durante wards an optimal method for estimating vessel
el III y II milenio ane (2200-1950 cal ANE): in- capacity in large samples, in: Journal of Archae-
tegración del análisis de residuos orgánicos en ological Science: Reports 27. 101966.
la caracterización funcional de los recipientes
argáricos, Doctoral Thesis, Departamento de
Prehistoria, Autonomous University of Barcelo-
na.
• Risch, R. 2002. Recursos naturales, medios de
producción y explotación social. Un análisis
económico de la industria lítica de Fuente Ála-
mo (Almería), 2250-1400 ANE, P. von Zabern,
Mainz.
• Risch, R. 2008. From production traces to so-
cial organisation: towards an epistemology of
Functional Analysis, in: L. Longo y N. Skakun
(eds.).“Prehistoric Technology” 40 years later:
Functional Studies and the Russian Legacy. Pro-
ceedings of the International Congress, Verona
(20th-23rdApril 2005), B.A.R., IS 1783, Ox-
ford: Archeopress, 513-521.
• Risch, R., Gómez-Gras, D. 2003. La producción
alfarera en época talayótica, in: Castro , P., Es-
coriza, T. y Sanahuja, Mª.E. (eds.), Mujeres y
hombres en espacios domésticos . BAR, Int. Ser.
1162, Oxford: Archeopress, 190-216.

25
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Carla Garrido-García
Doctoral Researcher
Department of Prehistory
Autonomous University of Barcelona
08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Spain
E-mail: [email protected]

Carla Garrido-García graduated in Archaeology at the Complutense University of Ma-

drid and the University of Granada. She achieved her MA degree in Prehistoric Ar-
chaeology at Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB). Since 2019 she is a Ph.D.
researcher at the Department of Prehistory (UAB), focusing on petrographic analysis
of El Argaric pottery contexts from three different archaeological sites: La Bastida, La
Almoloya, and Tira del Lienzo, all of them located in the region of Murcia (Spain). The
main goals of her research are the detection of different pottery productions from those
sites through the analysis of the raw materials, as well as the identification of the main
clay sources, in order to understand the variability between settlements and chronolog-
ical phases.

Elena Molina Muñoz

Postdoctoral researcher.
Department of Prehistory, UAB Barcelona
Edifici B, 08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Spain
E-mail: [email protected]

Elena Molina Muñoz was born in Granada, and obtained her PhD in 2015 at the Prehis-
tory Department, Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB). Focusing her research
in the application of biochemical techniques for functional characterization of ceramic
vessels and lithic artifacts in archaeological contexts. She has also specialized in the
study of bronze age complex argaric societies of southeastern Spain. Throughout her
professional career, she has worked as head of the archaeological analysis service of
the Autonomous University of Barcelona in the area of organic residues analysis, where
she has collaborated with both national and international institutions such as the Uni-
versities of Granada or Girona, the Archaeological Museum of Alicante (Spain) and the
Halle State Museum of Prehistory (Germany) Finally, her postdoctoral work has been
carried out in institutions such as the Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technol-
ogy (UAB) and the University of Sassari (Italy). Currently she combines her work as a
researcher with teaching.

26
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Carlos Velasco Felipe

Doctoral Researcher
Department of Prehistory
Autonomous University of Barcelona
08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Spain
E-mail: [email protected]

Carlos Velasco Felipe currently works at the research group Social ArcheoEcology of
the Mediterranean (ASOME), Prehistory Department, Autonomous University of Bar-
celona (Spain). His research focusses on the Early Bronze Age and the origins of com-
plex societies. His main field of study revolves around the political, social and economic
aspects of the ceramic contexts of Argaric society. He obtained his BA in History in
2002, and his MA in Archeology in 2012, both at the University of Barcelona. He has
more than 20 years of experience in both terrestrial and underwater excavations. He has
written numerous publications both in books and specialized magazines. He is also Pres-
ident of the Association of Friends of the Archaeological Site of La Bastida (ASBA),
that led the CRAFTER project, supported by the Creative Europe initiative between
2018 and 2019.

Bárbara Bonora Soriano

Doctoral Researcher
Department of Prehistory
Autonomous University of Barcelona
08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Spain
E-mail: [email protected]

Bárbara Bonora Soriano is currently a PhD researcher at the Autonomous University of

Barcelona (UAB). Her main interests are funerary archaeology, the microspatial study of
graves, and the application of statistical methods in archaeology. Her research revolves
around the Late Prehistory of Southeast Iberia, and specifically the Early Bronze Age
group of El Argar. Her PhD project investigates the archaeological materials found in
funerary contexts in the archaeological site of El Argar. Her study of the funerary world
focuses on the still relatively unexplored spatial dimension of graves. A specific meth-
odology, encompassing microspatial and statistical analysis, aims at a detailed spatial
study of graves, their skeletal remains, and the funerary materials they contain.
Since 2013, she collaborates with the research group Social Archeo-Ecology of the
Mediterranean (ASOME) and the projects developed by this group: The Rise of Milita-
rized Warfare, Political power and violence in the society of El Argar and the Economy
and ideology of the first European power centers. In this context, she has participated
in archaeological excavations at the Argaric sites of La Almoloya (Pliego), La Bastida
(Totana), and El Morrón (Moratalla), and at the Talayotic site of Son Fornés (Montuïri).

27
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Eva Celdrán Beltrán

Doctoral Researcher
Department of Prehistory
Autonomous University of Barcelona
08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Spain
E-mail: [email protected]

Eva Celdrán Beltrán is currently a doctoral researcher of the ASOME (Social Ar-
cheo-Ecology of the Mediterranean) research group, at the Department of Prehistory of
the Autonomous University of Barcelona. She earned her BA (Licenciatura) in History
(with specialisation in Prehistory, Ancient History and Archaeology) at the University of
Murcia. She directed several excavations and surveys in the Region of Murcia (Spain)
and participated in various national and international archaeological projects. Since
2008, she is a member of the “Bastida Project” (Autonomous University of Barcelona),
which is devoted to the investigation of the Bronze Age El Argar society of south-east
Iberia. She is also a field co-director of the excavations at the archaeological sites of La
Bastida (Totana) and La Almoloya (Pliego) since 2013. Her main field of research is the
architecture and urbanism of El Argar and her publications include several book chapters
and specialised journal articles.

Maria Inés Fregeiro Morador

Archaeologist, Anthropologist
Department of Prehistory
Autonomous University of Barcelona
08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Spain
E-mail: [email protected]

María Inés Fregeiro Morador graduated in Anthropological Sciences, specializing in Ar-

cheology, at the University of the Republic (Uruguay) (1996). In 1998, she got an AECI
scholarship, granted by the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and completed her stud-
ies obtaining a MA degree in Prehistoric Archeology at the Autonomous University of
Barcelona (UAB) in 2000. The same year, she also obtained a MA degree in Social Ar-
cheology of Ibero-America from the International University of Andalusia. Since 2009
she is a member of the research team of the “Bastida Project” (UAB), in which she has
specialized in the excavation of argaric funerary contexts. Her research focuses on the
significance of death in the argaric society, one of the most dynamic archaeological en-
tities of Later European Prehistory. She is also co-founder of initiative ASBA (Murcia),
devoted to the public promotion of the “Bastida Project”. Since 2013, she is a member
of its coordinating board of the project.

28
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

David Gómez-Gras
Full-time professor
Department of Geology, Facultat de Ciències,
Autonomous University of Barcelona,
08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Spain
E-mail: [email protected]

David Gómez-Gras is professor of Sedimentary Petrology at the Autonomous Univer-

sity of Barcelona. His research interests are mainly focused on Sedimentary Petrology.
He is currently working on provenance analysis of clastics as a powerful method for
verifying models concerning tectonic setting, temporal and spatial evolution of uplifted
source regions, sediment routing and volumes of sediment delivered to basins. He is
also currently working on characterization and provenance of pottery specially focused
in Bronze Age cultures.

Claudia Molero Alonso

Head of the Conservation/Restoration Department (Bastida Project)
Department of Prehistory
Autonomous University of Barcelona
08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Spain
E-mail: [email protected]

Claudia Molero Alonso has a degree in Fine Arts, specializing in Restoration of Works
of Art from the University of Seville (2009). She completed her studies in conservation
and restoration of archaeological materials at L’Accademia di Belle Arti di Roma (Eras-
mus grant, 2007-2008), and the University of Barcelona (Seneca grant, 2008-2009).
Between 2009 and 2010, she got a grant as a research support assistant from the Auton-
omous University of Barcelona, developing conservation and restoration works on ar-
chaeological materials from the Argaric sites of La Bastida and La Tira del Lienzo (To-
tana), in the frame of “Bastida Project” Since 2011 onwards, she has been carrying out
monitoring, management, conservation, and restoration work on archaeological mate-
rials from those sites and also from La Almoloya (Pliego), since 2013. Finally, she has
participated in the design and preparation of different archaeological exhibitions and
also in projects such as CRAFTER, supported by the initiative Creative Europe.

29
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Adrià Moreno Gil

Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology;
Martin Luther University Halle Wittenberg.
Advokatenweg 36,
06114 Halle
Germany
E-mail: [email protected] .de

Adrià Moreno Gil is a PhD researcher of the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropol-
ogy and of the Martin Luther University, Halle. His main research interests are spatial
and landscape archaeology using GIS in order to study borders and frontier regions in
prehistoric societies. His research focuses on Later Prehistory, more specifically on the
Early Bronze Age of Southeast Iberia and the archaeological group of El Argar. His PhD
project investigates the prehistoric frontier of El Argar, and aims at reconstructing the
historical dynamic of a prehistoric border at a spatial and socio-political level. As part of
his PhD project he directed an extensive archaeological survey of the northern Murcia
and Granada, and in southern Albacete. Since 2013 he collaborates with the ASOME
research group of the Autonomous University of Barcelona. He participated at several
excavation campaigns conducted by the ASOME laboratory as a field technician on the
Argaric sites of La Almoloya, La Bastida and El Morrón (Murcia, Spain), and on the
Talaoitic site of Son Fornés (Mallorca, Spain). He also participated in the day to day-
activities of the research centre of La Bastida, that included the study and inventory of
archaeological materials recovered in the excavations.

Antoni Rosell Melé

ICREA Research Professor
ICREA and ICTA-UAB, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Edifici Z, Campus de la UAB, 08193, (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Spain
E-mail: [email protected]

Born in Barcelona, moved to England in 1990 to earn a PhD in the School of Chem-
istry at the University of Bristol (completed in 1994). In 1994 he joined the group of
J. Maxwell as a post-doctoral researcher also in the School of Chemistry of Bristol. In
1996 he moved as a NERC fellow to the University of Newcastle, England. In 1999 he
became a lecturer in the Department of Geography at Durham University, England, until
2001, when he moved back to Barcelona as an ICREA Research Professor. The main
focus of his work is the study of Earth’s climate natural variability. Applying an organic
geochemical techniques that allow the quantitative reconstruction of past climates. His
work develops in three main areas i) the development of novel biomarker methods of
climate reconstruction; ii) their application to reconstruct the dynamics and role of the
ocean on climate over the last 5 million years; and iii) the use of such information to
validate and constrain the sensitivity of climate models. A second area of research is
the study of the impacts of anthropogenic activities in natural environments. Applied
environmental forensics approach to study the origin and fate of organic pollutants in
remote environments, like the deep sea or the Amazonian rainforests. A third area of re-
search is the study of organic matter in an archaeological context, mainly to reconstruct
palaeodiets of ancient cultures and the use or function of archaeological artifacts.

30
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Roberto Risch
Full-time professor
Departament de Prehistòria
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Edifici B, 08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Spain
E-mail: [email protected]

Roberto Risch is professor of Prehistoric Archaeology at the Autonomous University

of Barcelona, and ICREA Acadèmia Research Fellow. He has been a visiting scholar at
numerous European institutions including U. of Cambridge, U. di Padova, U. Freiburg
and, recently, the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History (Jena). His re-
search is mainly concerned with the economy and ecology of Prehistoric societies. In his
more than 20 years of experience, he has investigated several prehistoric sites in Spain,
Germany and India, and conducted ethnoarchaeological fieldwork in Ghana and Mali.
The introduction of new approaches to the study of archaeological artefacts has been an
indispensable part of his investigation of prehistoric economies.

31
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Classic Únětice cups from Bottendorf (Thuringia)

J. Lipták, LDA Szász-Anhalt

Classic Únětice cups from Bottendorf (Thuringia)

(photo: J. Lipták, LDA Szász-Anhalt)

30
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

On the Current State of Knowledge

of Únětice /Aunjetitz in central Germany
Bettina Stoll-Tucker

Abstract: Since the discovery of the Nebra Sky

Disc in 1999 much research has been under-
taken in central Germany concerning the early
Bronze Age Únětice or Aunjetitz culture. This
first phase of the Bronze Age from 2200 to 1575
BC marks the transition from the Neolithic to
the Metal Ages. This article provides a brief
overview on domestic settlement and social or-
der with particular emphasis on the pottery.

Keywords: Aunjetitz – Únětice – Nebra Sky

Disc – Poemmelte – pottery – type forms

Introduction to the archaeological entity

(“culture”)

With the discovery of the Nebra Sky Disc in

1999 on the Mittelberg hill above the Unstrut
Valley in southern Saxony-Anhalt, a large part of
the archaeological research in the German state
of Saxony-Anhalt was redirected to the Early
Bronze Age. Particularly since 2002, when the
hoard of bronze and gold (in addition to the disc
it consists of two swords, two axes, one chisel,
and two arm spirals - see Fig. 1) went on show in
the State Museum of Prehistory in Halle (Saale),
the Early Bronze Age has been a thematic prior-
ity in all relevant research areas on hoarding and
burial practices, anthropology and genetics, met-
allurgy, settlement and architecture, nutrition,
social welfare and society, through to environ-
ment and trade in raw materials. In the past 20
years, a great number of new insights have been
gained and older ones deepened or rejected.
The Nebra Sky Disc dates from the first half
of the 2nd millennium BC. Its deposition in the
ground can be determined – on the basis of the
more or less newly manufactured swords –

33
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Fig. 1 Nebra hoard with Sky Disc, swords, axes, chisel, and arm
spirals; (photo: Juraj Lipták)

to the time around 1600 BC. Since the five phases which
can be recognised within the image on the disc represent a
quite significant change in content information (from the
image of the night sky to the narration of the sun’s course),
the origin of the artefact is likely to be several generations
older. The duration of this unique work of art coincides
with a large part of the Early Bronze Age Únětice (in Ger-
man “Aunjetitz”) culture. The burial of the Nebra hoard
marks the end of this era.
In central Europe, the “Únětice culture” lasts from 2200
to 1575 BC and represents the transition from the Neo-
lithic to the Metal Ages. Since 1975 BC it is characterised
by a highly hierarchical society, which is reflected in the
grave inventories.
From around 2200 BC, something completely new
emerged in Middle Germany and neighbouring areas
through the amalgamation of the two most important pop-
ulation groups based in the region (Corded Ware and Bell
Beaker cultures). Local elites are formed, who are closely
interlinked suggesting they had very similar traditions.
The decoration on pottery vessels disappears almost
overnight, and the dead are laid to rest in burial grounds
according to a strictly uniform, gender-independent rite.
The bodies of the deceased are buried in earthen graves, in
some instances also in stone cists, still in the Neolithic tra-
dition of a crouched position, aligned north–south (head in
south), lying on their right side and thus facing towards the
rising sun. Exceptions are the burials of chiefs or “princes”
in huge burial mounds, where the corpse lies supine look-
ing upwards towards the sky.
34
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Fig. 2 Distribution map of Únětice culture (orange areas) in central Europe with outline of Saxony-Anhalt;
(illustration Nora Seeländer)

The Únětice culture is named after the site of two cem-

eteries that were excavated in 1879 by the local district
physician and early archaeologist Čeněk Ryzner and pub-
lished in an exemplary manner in 1880: Únětice / Aun-
jetitz, northwest of Prague in Bohemia (Ryzner 1880).
On the basis of the publication, comparable discoveries
could be quickly assigned and a definition of the culture
developed. The main criteria were, and still are, the burial
rites, the types of pottery, and the bronze grave goods and
hoards.
Typical objects made of copper and early bronze are
short triangular dagger blades, eyelet needles, awls, wire
spirals, “Noppenringe” (spirally folded lock rings), arm-
lets and, mostly in hoards, flanged axes and halberd blades.
There are also necklaces made from amber beads and
small spiral coils, as well as rod-shaped rings, which, due
to their size and weight, may also have served as ingots
or proto-money rings. In “princely” tombs are found rings
and pins made of gold, and the gold finds from Dieskau
(Fig. 3) even include an axe of this rare precious metal.

35
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Based on the number and the type of grave goods (pot-

tery vessels, one or two bronze pins, dagger, Noppen-
rings, armlet, gold regalia), at least five social ranks can
be distinguished (Schwarz 2014, Fig. 1 a + b) (Fig. 4).
The so-called “princes” occupy the highest position with a
rich repertoire of grave goods including standardised gold
insignia in the form of pins, hair rings, and one armlet.
They were each buried in a tent-like timber structure with
a stone covering under large mounds of earth. These giant
artificial hills were visible from afar and dominated the
landscape. They may have marked the domain and power
of leading families who owed their wealth to the excel-
lent arable soils, the salt springs, and the trade in copper,
tin, and amber, possibly defended with the help of early
“armies” (Meller 2015). Large finds of axe blades (weap-
on hoards) indicate the latter. With the help of imports and
exports, trade routes can be identified that extend across
Europe from Cornwall to the Mediterranean region or Fig. 3 Dieskau, Saalekreis, golden hoard,
even the Near East. Knowledge and handicraft techniques discovered 1874; (photo: Juraj Lipták)
are also likely to have spread along these routes.
The predominantly peasant society needed arable and
pasture land for their livelihood, as well as forests to
supply timber and wild game for food supplements. The
Únětice people sited their unfortified settlements in flood-
free areas, but always near flowing water. We know of
individual farmsteads, hamlets, and small villages (for
instance Schloßvippach, Thuringia, with 13 house plans:
Küßner/Walter 2019, 51–56). However, the hierarchical
stratification of the population that can be seen in the buri-
als is not apparent in the settlements.
Due to large-scale excavations within the state of Sax- princely
graves
Fürsten
ony-Anhalt over the last twenty years we can now create Gräber
burials with
a better picture of the Early Bronze Age (EBA) settlement mit goldenen
golden hair rings
Schläfenringen
landscape. More than 50 complete ground plans of houses
of the Únětice culture have been excavated so far and pro-
burials with weapons
Gräber mit Waffenbeigabe

vide the measurements and plan of an EBA standard long-

burials
Gräber mitwith bronzes
Bronzebeigaben
house for our region (Fig. 5): two-aisled, erected as a post
frame construction with wattle and daub walls, orientated burials
Gräber mitwith ceramics
Keramikbeigaben
more or less east-west. The long sides measure up to 36 m,
the narrow sides between 5 and 7 m. The western narrow burials without grave
Beigabenlose goods
Gräber
end has the shape of a rounded apsis, probably with a hip
roof, whereas the eastern end provided a sheltered open Society of the Únětice Culture of Central Germany

anteroom for an entrance. Further entrances can be found Fig. 4 Social organisation in the
along the sides. These longhouses represent the core of the Mittelelbe-Unstrut group of the Únětice
settlements. Other features are water wells, waste pits, and culture; (graphic: Ralf Schwarz)

36
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

sometimes even parts of wooden boardwalks.

One especially fine example of an EBA longhouse was
discovered at Benzingerode, Harz district, of which a digi-
tal model was created – see Fig. 5. Within the ground plan
the domestic and probably also the stabling area could be
identified. Activities which could be evidenced are related
to everyday life, for instance: processing of cereals and
meat (grinding stones, cut and slit marks on animal bones),
storage (pits and silos), weaving (loom weights), saltmak-
ing (briquetage), metal working (clay tuyeres), feeding
livestock (watering places and “pot wells”). So far hardly
ever attested are fireplaces, hearths, ovens, and, surpris-
ingly, any defensive structures, such as earthen ramparts,
fences, or palisades. Tracks of a standard width of 1.10
m (Meller/Schunke 2016, 449f) and general observations
suggest the use of traction in the form of cattle teams pull-
ing carts and wagons for transport.
We even know of impressive ritual sites at Poem-
melte-Zackmuende and Schoenebeck, both Salzland dis-
trict, in Saxony-Anhalt.

4931 N

5007

2350

0 5m

Fig. 5 Benzingerode, Harz district. A 2005 reconstruction of

building BR_01 with a hip roof in the west, two entrances in the
south and a gable end flanked by antae in the east; illustration
Jens Brauer 2005 and CAD plan of the Benzingerode house
BR_01; (graphic: Jens Brauer and Udo Ewers)

37
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

The Poemmelte henge monument, built from earthen

banks and palisades made of thousands of wooden posts in
six concentric circles in immediate proximity to an EBA
settlement comprising several longhouses (Fig. 6), was
excavated by archaeologists from Halle University and
dates to about 2350–2050 BC. It was begun by Bell Bea-
ker people and continued into Únětice times. Today it is
reconstructed on the original site and is the latest addition
to the touristic “Sky Paths” route (Himmelswege http://
www.himmelswege.de/index.php?id=136) in Saxony-An-
halt (Fig. 7).

Pottery forms/types

The structure of the Aunjetitz culture (AK) is based pri-

marily on its (grave) pottery (Zich 1996; Schwarz 2015
and forthcoming). The typical guiding forms are cups, jars,
bowls, jugs or pitchers, lugged and eared beakers, and stor-
age vessels (Fig. 8). These generic terms are generally un-
derstandable and therefore require no further explanation.

Fig. 7 Poemmelte, Salzlandkreis. Aerial view of the circular ditched complex in 2018; (drone photo: Olaf
Schröder)

38
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Fig. 6 Poemmelte, Salzlandkreis. House Ralf Schwarz (Schwarz 2015 and forthcoming) uses the
plans of the Bell Beaker culture (yellow) position of the handle on cups to define a total of eight
and Únětice culture (blue) settlement
phases plus one proto-Aunjetitz stage within the late Bell
south of the ring sanctuary. In the western
area a Bell Beaker and Únětice culture Beaker culture (Glockenbecherkultur - GBK 3) with a
cemetery was uncovered. Overview at end rim-attached handle (GBK 3, AK 1a, AK 1b, AK 2a, AK
of excavation campaign 2019; (graphic: 2b, AK 3a, AK 3b, AK 4, AK 5). Through time, the han-
Matthias Zirm) dles slowly sink from the rim across the shoulder to the
point of maximum girth (Fig. 9). Classic, shoulderless
cups with a sharply profiled body and those with a rudi-
mentary shoulder belong to stage AK 3, where handles sit
low on the carination.
With the beginning of the Únětice culture, almost all dec-
oration on pottery ceased abruptly. Only rarely sparse em-
bellishments are found in the form of fine lines of scoring
as fringes, zigzag bands, and chevrons, and on the slim,
tall storage vessels finger strokes enliven the rough slurry
coating. An essential design element are, however, grips in
the form of strap or beaded handles, lugs, moulding, knobs
and tangs, sometimes decorated with fingertip dabbing or
notches. In addition to knobs, storage vessels also have
applied strip cordons, decorated with dabs of fingertips or
notches, which separate the neck from the body of the ves-
sel (Fig. 10).

39
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Fig. 8 Type forms of Únětice pottery in Saxony-Anhalt (not to scale): 1 – 5 cups, 6 – 10 large cups, 11 – 12 jugs,
13 – 15 jars, 16 eared beaker, 17 eyelet beaker, 18 lugged beaker, 19 beaker, 20 small bowl, 21 bowl, 22 lugged
bowl; (drawings: Lutz Kaudelka)

40
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Fig. 9 Pottery phase division according to Ralf Schwarz; (graphic: Ralf Schwarz)

41
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Raw materials and technology

To date, very little has been published on pottery man-

ufacturing technology in the EBA in Germany. As far as
analyses have taken place (see below), local clays were
used for Únětice pottery. Tempering is predominantly
mineral and consists of grus, mica, quartz, but sometimes
also some vegetal elements are recognisable. Apart from a
smooth rim, the storage vessels usually have a slurry coat-
ing with granite grus temper, while the thin-walled fine
wares have very well smoothed surfaces. Classic cups are
often polished to a high glossy sheen.
All pottery is built by hand (slab or coil technique), the
potter’s wheel is still unknown. The handles and grips are
either plugged into the wall of the vessel or applied. Fabric Fig. 10 Únětice storage vessel with strip
colour ranges between grey-brown and dark grey, some cordon and warty slip with finger strokes,
classic cups appear metallic black (Fig. 11). Salzmuende, Saalekreis district, feature
Pottery ovens have not yet been identified, which sug- 4084 (it had been dug into the ground next
to the southern wall inside house SM_01),
gests that the firing probably took place in pits or as an pottery scale 1:4; (drawing: K. Walter)
open bonfire with temperatures up to 800° C. Both surface
oxidizing (light brown) and reducing (black) firing can be
postulated.
At the henge and settlement site Poemmelte (Spatzier
2017), Corded Ware ceramics were predominantly sand
tempered, whereas Bell Beaker and proto-Únětice wares
were tempered with lithic particles. Surfaces are coarse
but even, sometimes polished. The colour of the sherd fab-
ric is dark (95% dark grey to black) and only rarely grey
or red.
At the Únětice cemetery of Wanzleben (Saxony-Anhalt)
(Schmidt 2009) the following properties were recorded: Fig. 11 Classic cup of the Únětice culture,
all 20 vessels were tempered with mineral material (mica, from Uftrungen, Mansfeld-Suedharz dis-
quartz, iron ore, sand, or a combination thereof), the ma- trict; (photo: Juraj Lipták)
jority of the vessels (13) have a polished surface, the fab-
ric is dark grey and only two are reddish in colour. The
exterior shows red and black hues from irregular firing. It
is assumed that all 20 vessels were specially produced for
the burials as no signs of use or wear could be detected.
At the large Early Bronze Age settlement of Zwenkau
(Saxony) (Schunke 2009, 278) analysis of sherd fabrics
revealed that 90% of the ceramics were intentionally tem-
pered with granite grit. The dominating felspar as well as
biotite and muscovite inclusions („mica“) point to the use
of local material from the Elster gravel terraces. The fab-
ric colour of the fine wares shows a range of grey-browns

42
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

whereas the rough wares show a decidedly pinkish hue of

grey-brown, especially on the interior of the vessel. Typi-
cal are slipped rough wares with oblique finger strokes and
a warty quality of the slip.
In addition to the characteristic everyday and grave pot-
tery, briquetage should be mentioned as technical ceramics
which are repeatedly found in settlements in the form of
tubs. Salt production is clearly attributable to housekeep-
ing; no large, and thus perhaps transregionally important,
brine boiling plants have been identified.

Social uses of pottery

The most complete vessels of the Únětice culture come

from grave contexts, on the basis of which the pottery ty-
pology could be established. Many of these wares appear
to be so fresh from the potter that they probably were only
finished shortly before burial. Obviously ceramic grave
goods were an essential part of the funeral custom.
In the early phases of the Únětice culture whole sets of
crockery consisting of jug/pitcher, cup/jar, beaker, and
large bowl were placed in the grave (Fig. 12). Later the
burial ritual changed to the offering of a single cup or one
small bowl, or offerings of ceramic vessels were even dis-
pensed with entirely.
With few exceptions, no storage vessels were placed in
graves. They formed the characteristic settlement com-
modity. This changed around 1775 BC when a new burial
custom arose, in which the dead were buried in round pits,
the filling of which, among other things, was interspersed
with shattered settlement ceramics (and are therefore in-
correctly referred to as settlement burials).
Fig. 12 Ceramic grave ensemble from Ober-
It can be assumed that cups and mugs were used for
moellern, Burgenlandkreis, consisting of drinking and scooping and large or small bowls for serving
jug, cup, beaker, jar, and bowl; food, while jugs were used for storing and pouring liquids.
(photo: Juraj Lipták) Some of the surprising results regarding the use of certain
types of pottery have been brought about by recent set-
tlement excavations in Saxony-Anhalt. They supplied all
sorts of ceramic forms, but predominately storage, scoop-
ing, and collecting vessels - amongst them also classic
cups. They were found both in and around houses as well
as in various workplaces and even in wooden box wells
(lost scoops). (Deffner et. al. 2019, 37 Fig. 30 and Schunke
2019, 145, Fig. 17).

43
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Lipid analyses were carried out on some vessels from

Merseburg-Beuna (ME), Saalekreis and Esperstedt-Obhau-
sen (ES), Saalekreis (Schüler et al. 2019). It turned out that
the classic cup ME 19-5 apparently served as a container
for lard, while traces of a milk product plus a mixture of
different animal fats could be detected in the larger storage
container ES 19-2. Thus, storage vessels were apparently
not only used for storing dry goods, but also for finished
dishes (soup, stew, porridge) or possibly also as cookware.
A similar example was recorded in Poland, where traces of
milk fat (milk, buttermilk, or cottage cheese), vegetables,
and meat could be found in a classic cup from a “prince’s Fig. 13 Guesten, Salzlandkreis. The vessel
grave” (Pokutta 2014, 147–148). whose base had been struck off filled up
Storage vessels of larger sizes (rim diameter up to 30 cm) with water even during the excavation;
were sometimes discovered directly inside or outside the (photo: Kathrin Ulrich)
long sidewalls of houses and sometimes still partially bur-
ied in the temperature-balancing soil, which would favour
longer storage (Merseburg-Beuna, Saalekreis feature 103
and 105, Schüler et al. 2019, Fig. 3b).
At Güsten (Salzlandkreis) (Schunke 2019, 145f), some
vessels without bases were found in situ in a damp place.
Shortly after being unearthed, they filled with clear wa-
ter and that probably indicates their original purpose: to
collect drinking water (Fig. 13). Such pot wells in damp
depressions could have served as cattle troughs for sheep
or goats, but also for humans. The stepping stones that are
also present at the Güsten site may indicate the latter.

Summary

All in all, the examination of Únětice ceramics provides

a composite picture of domestic and social purposes. In
addition to being used as a grave good, the vessels are de-
ployed multifunctionally in the home and at workplaces, Fig. 14 Compilation of Únětice ceramic
both as containers and as appliances (i.e. briquetage, pot vessels from various sites (models for the
wells). While they form the ideal basis for a chronological CRAFTER ensemble);
structure of the Únětice/Aunjetitz culture, the hierarchy of (photo: Andrea Hörentrup)
Early Bronze Age society which is clearly visible in the
graves cannot be reproduced on the basis of the pottery
(Fig. 14).

44
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Acknowledgement • Ryzner, Č. 1880. Řadové hroby blíž Únětic.

The author would particularly like to thank Památky archaeologické a Místopisné. Or-
her colleague Ralf Schwarz for his support and gan Archaeologického sboru Musea království
generous sharing of knowledge on ceramic Českého a Historického spolku v Praze, Volume
type forms and chronology. All figures ©LDA 11, 1878–1881, Issue 7. 289–336 (15.01.1880)
Sachsen-Anhalt. http://www.digitalniknihovna.cz/mzk/view/
uuid:083164f0-e875-11e4-a794-5ef3fc9bb-
22f?page=uuid:8c1e3e80-e908-11e4-a5115ef
References 3fc9ae867 (24.05.2020).
• Schmidt, C. 2009. Das Gräberfeld der Aunjetitzer
• Deffner, A., Peters, E., Raczkowska-Jones, M., Kultur von Wanzleben, Lkr. Börde. Jahresschrift
Schmidt, H. 2019. Die urgeschichtlichen Brun- für mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte Band 91, Halle
nen von Güsten und Ilberstedt. In: H. Meller/V. (Saale), 103–200.
Dresely/S. Friederich (eds.), Archäologie an der • Schunke, T. 2009. Die frühbronzezeitliche Sied-
B 6n im Salzlandkreis – Vom Steinzeithaus zur lung von Zwenkau, Ldkr. Leipziger Land. Unter-
Zuckerfabrik. Archäologie in Sachsen-Anhalt, suchungen zur Chronologie und Beobachtungen
Sonderband 23, Halle (Saale), 27–43. zur Wirtschaftsweise und sozialen Differen-
• Küßner, M. und Walter, D. 2019. Siedlung und zierung anhand der keramischen Funde. In: M.
Besiedlung Thüringens im Endneolithikum und Bartelheim/H. Stäuble, (eds.), Die wirtschaftli-
der frühen Bronzezeit zwischen 2500 und 1500 chen Grundlagen der Bronzezeit Europas. For-
v. Chr. In: H. Meller/S. Friederich/M. Küßner/H. schungen zur Archäometrie und Altertumswis-
Stäuble/R. Risch (eds.), Siedlungsarchäologie senschaft, Band 4, Rahden/Westf., 273–319.
des Endneolithikums und der frühen Bronzezeit. • Schunke, T. 2019. Siedlungen und Landschaft
11. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 18. bis der Aunjetitzer Kultur in Sachsen-Anhalt - die
20. Oktober 2018 in Halle (Saale), Tagungen der Siedlungselemente, ihre Strukturierung und
Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle, Band Lage. In: H. Meller/S. Friederich/M. Küßner/H.
20, Halle (Saale), 33–78. Stäuble/R. Risch (eds.), Siedlungsarchäologie
• Meller, H. 2015. Armeen in der Frühbronzezeit? des Endneolithikums und der frühen Bronzezeit.
In: H. Meller/M. Schefzik (eds.), Krieg – eine 11. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 18. bis
archäologische Spurensuche. Begleitband zur 20. Oktober 2018 in Halle (Saale), Tagungen der
Sonderausstellung im Landesmuseum für Vor- Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle, Band
geschichte Halle (Saale), Halle (Saale), 243–252. 20, Halle (Saale) 2019, 127–207.
• Meller, H. und Schunke, T. 2016. Die Wieder- • Schüler, J., Eichentopf, J., Molina, E.,
entdeckung des Bornhöck – Ein neuer früh- Planert, M., Friederich, S. 2019. Frühbronze-
bronzezeitlicher “Fürstengrabhügel” bei Raßnitz, zeitliche Häuser ohne Hausgrundriss-Strukturen?
Saalekreis. Erster Vorbericht. In: H. Meller/H. P. Merseburg-Beuna und Esperstedt-Obhausen,
Hahn/R. Jung/R. Risch (eds.), Arm und Reich – beide Saalekreis. In: H. Meller/S. Friederich/M.
Zur Ressourcenverteilung in prähistorischen Ge- Küßner/H. Stäuble/R. Risch (eds.), Siedlungs-
sellschaften. 8. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag archäologie des Endneolithikums und der frühen
vom 22. bis 24. Oktober 2015 in Halle (Saale), Bronzezeit. 11. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag
Tagungen der Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte vom 18. bis 20. Oktober 2018 in Halle (Saale),
Halle, Band 14/II, Halle (Saale), 427–466. Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte
• Pokutta, D. A. 2014. Food and Cooking in the Halle, Band 20, Halle (Saale), 475–489.
Únétice Culture. APULUM Archaeologica et An-
thropologica 51, 2014, 135–159.

45
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

• Schwarz, R. 2014. Goldene Schläfen- und Lock-

enringe – Herrschaftsinsignien in bronzezeitli-
chen Ranggesellschaften Mitteldeutschlands.
Überlegungen zur Gesellschaft der Aunjetitzer
Kultur. In: H. Meller/R. Risch/E. Pernicka (eds.),
Metalle der Macht – Frühes Gold und Silber. 6.
Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 17. bis 19.
Oktober 2013 in Halle (Saale), Tagungen des
Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle, Band
11, Halle (Saale), 717-742.
• Schwarz, R. 2015. Kultureller Umbruch oder
Kontinuität? - Mitteldeutschland im 23. Jh. v.
Chr. In: H. Meller/H. W. Arz/R. Jung/R. Risch
(eds.), 2200 BC – Ein Klimasturz als Ursache
für den Zerfall der Alten Welt? 7. Mitteldeutscher
Archäologentag vom 23. bis 26. Oktober 2014
in Halle (Saale), Tagungen des Landesmuseums
für Vorgeschichte Halle, Band 12, Halle (Saale),
671–713.
• Schwarz, R. 2018. Typentafeln zur Chronologie
in Mitteldeutschland – Die Aunjetitzer Kultur.
Forschungsberichte des Landesmuseums für
Vorgeschichte Halle (Halle [Saale] in Vorb.). in
press.
• Spatzier, A. 2017. Das endneolithisch-frühbronze-
zeitliche Rondell von Pömmelte-Zackmünde,
Salzlandkreis, und das Rondell-Phänomen des
4.–1. Jt. v. Chr. in Mitteleuropa. Forschungs-
berichte des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte
Halle 10. Halle (Saale).
• Zich, B. 1996. Studien zur regionalen und
chronologischen Gliederung der nördlichen Aun-
jetitzer Kultur (= Vorgeschichtliche Forschun-
gen, Band 20). Berlin.

46
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Bettina Stoll-Tucker
Head of Department “State Museum” at the State Office for Her-
itage Management and Archaeology Saxony-Anhalt,
-State Museum of Prehistory-
Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt
-Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte-
Richard-Wagner-Straße 9, 06114 Halle (Saale), Germany
E-mail: [email protected]

She is a graduate of Erlangen University (1986 MA Disserta-

tion: Early Bronze Age settlement, Beilngries, Bavaria; 1994
PhD Dissertation: Human use of caves, Pegnitz, Bavaria) and a
German prehistorian with expertise in excavation, surface sur-
vey, and finds management practiced mostly in Germany and on
projects in England, Iraq, Jordan, and Turkmenistan. Since 1993
employed at the State Office for Heritage Management and Ar-
chaeology Saxony-Anhalt, starting as curator of the collections
and since 2015 Head of Department of the State Museum (Halle,
Germany). Current interests: cultural resource management and
communication, and the long-term accessibility of the archaeo-
logical record.

47
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Richly decorated pedestalled handled jug (site: Polgár-Kenderföld,

Majoros-tanya MBA cemetery) (photo: I. Czinegéné Kiss, Déri Museum, Debrecen)

46
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

The Middle Bronze Age Füzesabony pottery

style of the Carpathian Basin
Vajk Szeverényi, Attila Kreiter, János Dani,
László Gucsi, Viktória Kiss, Gabriella Kulcsár,
Péter Skoda, Ildikó Szathmári

Abstract: The present paper is a short review of Middle

Bronze Age Füzesabony style pottery from the northeast-
ern part of the Carpathian Basin. We briefly sketch research
history, main cultural features, vessel forms, decorative
motifs and manufacturing technology through petrograph-
ic analysis. Füzesabony pottery is identified as one of the
most flamboyantly decorated and formed ceramic style of
the Bronze Age in Europe. Even though vessel shapes and
decorations show high skill and elaboration, the raw mate-
rials of these vessels do not seem to be standardised. Raw
materials show high variability and there is no correlation
between vessel types/forms and choices in particular raw
materials. In the light of this, there seems to be no central-
isation in the organisation of ceramic production and even
the most elaborately decorated and burnished vessels were
manufactured locally by skilled, most probably specialised
potters both for everyday purposes and special occasions.

Keywords: Middle Bronze Age, Carpathian Basin, pottery,

ceramic technology

The ‘Otomani-Füzesabony Cultural Complex’

The label Füzesabony (after the town of Füzesabony, NE

Hungary) refers to a specific ceramic style: a combination
of unique vessel forms, very rich ornamentation and a spe-
cific manufacturing technique, used in the northeastern part
of the Carpathian Basin from c. 1950/1900 to 1500/1450
BC (Fig. 1). The eponymous site, Füzesabony-Öregdomb
(HU) is a multilayered tell settlement, excavated first in the
1930s by Ferenc Tompa. After further archaeological re-
search on Middle Bronze Age communities in eastern Hun-
gary and western Romania, and mainly the first excavations
of the Otomani-Cetăţuie (Hung. Ottomány-Várhegy) and
Otomani-Cetatea de pământ (Hung. Ottomány-Földvár)
(RO) tell sites in the late 1920s by Márton Roska (Roska
49
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

1926-28; 1930; 1942, 215), the ceramic style was referred Fig. 1 Distribution of Middle Bronze Age
to as Otomani culture (Nestor 1932 [1933]). Nowadays, pottery styles in the Carpathian Basin
(after P. Fischl et al. 2013, Fig. 2)
most Hungarian, Slovakian, Romanian and Polish scholars
call the whole stylistic group ‘Otomani-Füzesabony Cultur-
al Complex’, covering a vast territory from the hilly Lesser
Poland to the plain Bihar/Bihor and Körös/Criş regions in
eastern Hungary and northwestern Romania (Bader 1998;
Gancarski 1999; 2002; P. Fischl and Kienlin 2019) (Fig. 2).
Otomani-Füzesabony type material is known from an
abundance of settlement and burial sites. These commu-
nities founded the most extended cemeteries in the Mid-
dle Bronze Age Carpathian Basin. The first burials with
Füzesabony type material were excavated in the downtown
of Egyek (sites Bodajcs-oldal and Rókahát) in 1903 by
Tivadar Lehoczky, founder of the collection of the Munkács
(Mukačevo) Museum (Lehoczky 1912, 20-22) (Fig. 3), and
a few years later, in 1906 at the same site by Lajos Zoltai, the
first curator of the City Museum of Debrecen (Fig. 4).
The largest and richest burial places, such as Nižná Myšľa
in eastern Slovakia (Olexa and Nováček 2013; 2015;
2017) and, most recently, Encs in northeastern Hungary
(Mengyán and Dávid 2019), may have over 1,200 graves.
Other significant cemeteries include Hernádkak (Schalk
1992), Tiszafüred (Kovács 1992) and Megyaszó (Schalk

50
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Fig. 2 Overall distribution of the sites of the ‘Otomani-Füzesabony Cultural Complex’

(after P. Fischl and Kienlin 2019)

51
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

1994) in northeastern Hungary. The burials are charac-

terized by a very strict, gender specific inhumation ritual:
everyone was placed in a crouched position, men on their
right side, with their head to S/SW, while women the oppo-
site way, on their left side, oriented to N/NE (Bóna 1975;
Schalk 1992; Thomas 2008).
Cremated burials appeared in the late, so-called Streda
nad Bodrogom/Bodrogszerdahely Phase (Koszider Period,
c. 1600–1450 BC), and became more frequent over time
(e.g. Polla 1960; Kőszegi 1968; Pfannenschmidt 1999–
2000). The cemeteries associated with contemporaneous
trade routes (mainly river valleys) often include extreme-
ly rich burials accompanied by gold or amber jewels and
bronze tools and weapons (Dani et al. 2016).
The largest settlements of the ‘Otomani-Füzesabony Cul-
tural Complex’ were the so-called tells: multilayer settle-
ments created by a special, intensive, sedentary way of
Fig. 3 Füzesabony style bowl from Egyek-
life, where houses were regularly burnt – for profane or
Bodajcs-oldal collected by T. Lehoczky
ritual reasons (Szeverényi 2013) – and then rebuilt in the (after Kobály 2004, 71, Nr. 169)
same location, thereby creating many layers of debris, of-
ten many meters thick (Gogâltan 2002). Tell settlements
situated at the choke points of trade routes have a forti-
fied, stratified inner core (enclosed by simple or multiple
walls and ditches), often surrounded by an extensive, sin-
gle-layer settlement part. Larger fortified settlements (e.g.
Trzcinica – the most intensively researched site: Gancarski
2009 – or Trepcza and Maszkowice in the Polish part of the
Western Carpathians) were identified in the higher, moun-
tainous areas (Jaeger 2018, Fig. 1). Even stone defensive
walls have been attested at two sites: Spišský Štvrtok (SK)
(Vladár 1973; 1975; but comp. Jaeger 2014) and Maszko-
wice (PL) (Przybyła 2016; Jędrysik and Przybyła 2019).
Houses were usually timber-framed structures with wattle-
and-daub walls. In most cases, the cemeteries were located
within 1 km from the tell settlements, but always outside
the fortified residential area, and sometimes separated by
natural landmarks (e.g. a brook) (Dani et al. 2019, 860-
862, Fig. 12-13). At many sites, the Füzesabony occupation
levels overlay earlier tells of the so-called Hatvan culture
(e.g. Kienlin et al. 2018).

52
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Fig. 4 Füzesabony style vessels from the cemetery of Egyek-Bodajcs-oldal excavated by

L. Zoltai in 1911 (original drawing: L. Zoltai, Déri Museum, Debrecen)

Füzesabony shapes and decorative motifs

The most characteristic feature of Füzesabony style pottery

is the use of plastic, often organic, channelled or smoothed1
ornamental motifs, and pointed knobs (Fig. 5).
Due to the large variability of ornaments and forms, and
the hand-made technique, we find identical vessels only in
exceptional cases within the Füzesabony style. Elaborate
forms and decorations are indicative of highly skilled pot-
ters, but the variability most probably also shows that many
local individuals made these vessels. This assumption is also
attested by the high variability in raw materials of vessels
within a site (see below). The shapes and decorative motifs
of Füzesabony style pottery went through some observable
changes throughout the almost half millennium while it
was in use, and the style may be divided typologically into
roughly three major phases within the Middle Bronze Age
Fig. 5 Füzesabony style bowl with chan-
nelled and smoothed decoration and (Bóna 1975; Kovács 1982; 1984; Schalk 1992; Thomas
pointed knobs from Polgár-Kenderföld, 2008).
Majoros-tanya (photo: I. Czinegéné Kiss, Vessel forms of the early phase include larger storage ves-
Déri Museum, Debrecen) sels with tunnel-shaped neck, large belly, decorated with
1 We use the term ‘smoothed’ instead of ‘incised’. On Füzesabony style pottery, the
lines are created with the help of a tool with a rounded point, held at an obtuse angle. The
potters seem to have taken special care not to leave a barb along the edge of the lines, as
53 opposed to other periods (e.g. Neolithic or Copper Age), where incisions are made with
a sharp, pointed tool that left a barb along the edges of the lines.
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Fig. 6 Füzesabony style bowl with fluted knobs and running spirals
from Polgár-Kenderföld, Majoros-tanya (photo: I. Czinegéné Kiss,
Déri Museum, Debrecen)

smoothed zigzag lines, similar to the preceding Hatvan style

in northern Hungary, or simple barrel-shaped vessels with
finger-impressed rims. A series of vessels, such as ‘Swed-
ish helmet’ type bowls and jugs with funnel-shaped neck,
either straight or everted rim and wide strap handle also
have their ancestry in the Hatvan style. Spherical vessels
with strongly everted rim and two handles on the shoulder,
shallow bowls with inward turning rim, and deep, jar-like
bowls can be traced back to the Košťany style of eastern
Slovakia. Characteristic decorations include smoothed or
impressed garlands, running spirals and half spirals, small
knobs surrounded with channelling and hatched triangles
(Fig. 6).
Short incisions between parallel smoothed lines, im-
pressed or smoothed zigzag lines and horizontal rows of
impressed dots on the shoulder or belly of vessels are also
common. The developed phase of the pottery style is char-
acterized by very similar vessel forms; the main changes
can be observed in the decoration. Forms include ampho-
rae with cylindrical or funnel-shaped neck and 2-4 handles
on their shoulder, flowerpot and barrel-shaped vessels, and
bowls with inverted rim or with arched neck and strongly
everted rim. Jugs and cups have long, funnel-shaped neck,
everted rim, and wide strap handles connecting the rim and Fig. 7 Füzesabony style cylindrical,
the shoulder. The strap handles of barrel-shaped, one-han- one-handled jug (a so-called ‘beer mug’)
dled cups also start from the rim. A unique form is the cy- from Polgár-Kenderföld, Majoros-tanya
(photo: I. Czinegéné Kiss, Déri Museum,
lindrical, one-handled jug (Fig. 7).
Debrecen)
Decoration becomes even more diverse, with numer-
ous new combinations of the known decorative motifs.
54
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Fig. 8 Richly decorated, late Füzesabony style bowl from Egyek; left: original drawing after Zoltai 1908, 36; right:
(photo: I. Czinegéné Kiss, Déri Museum, Debrecen)
The number of spirals and garlands increases. Knobs with
multiple fluting surrounding them and horizontal and
oblique channelling become more frequent. Previously,
horizontal fluting covered the whole shoulder of jugs and
cups, now it serves more as a separator of fields on the
vessels.
In the final phase, two major trends become visible
throughout the Carpathian Basin, not just in the distribu-
tion area of the ‘Otomani-Füzesabony Cultural Complex’.
One is the adoption of a series of vessel forms throughout
the entire area of the basin, decreasing the differences be-
tween final Middle Bronze Age pottery styles. The other
is the increasingly flamboyant decoration of vessels every-
where, especially with fluting and knobs (Fig. 8).
One-handled jugs with short, arched neck on a ring foot or
a short pedestal become quite common (Fig. 9).
Most earlier forms continue with very slight variations.
With regard to decoration, smoothed line bundles be-
come frequent, just like horizontal cordons, small knobs
surrounded by fluting and a circle of impressed dots (‘ro-
sette’), a row of dots running around the neck, or impressed
wide lines. Bowls have strongly everted rim, two or four
Fig. 9 Füzesabony style one-handled jugs handles, and larger, pointed knobs with multiple fluting.
from the Koszider Period from Polgár-Ken-
derföld, Majoros-tanya (photo: I. Czinegéné
Horizontal fluting on the neck of jugs continue.
Kiss, Déri Museum, Mention should also be made of special vessels made for
Debrecen) cooking purposes, such as portable ovens, cooking pots,

55
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

baking plates, ‘fish-frying pans’, ember covers and strain-

ers, which are present in all phases of the pottery style.
Generally, the outstanding designs of Füzesabony style
pottery are still mesmerizing for the modern beholder as
well. The well-balanced proportions and clear contours of
the forms, the wide range of decorations and their harmony
and elaboration with surface treatment and the light-shad-
ow effect on the best vessels reflect a highly sophisticated
aesthetic that could have been attained only by skilled arti-
sans with professional technological knowledge.

Raw materials and technologies

Füzesabony style pottery was made by hand from locally

available clays, with slab and coil building techniques. Fine
pottery is always a highly polished, dark ware (fired un-
der reducing conditions). The clay for such jugs, cups and
ornamental bowls was tempered with grog (finely ground
pottery fragments) and/or different size ranges of sand.
Coarse ware (e.g. cooking pots, amphorae or deep bowls)
are never polished. They are manufactured from clay also
tempered with grog and/or different size ranges of sand.
Petrographic analysis of a larger series of Füzesabony
style pottery sherds has recently taken place within the
framework of a larger project aimed at the complex study
of the social, economic and political organization and so-
cial strategies of Bronze Age communities in Hungary
(Momentum Mobility Research Group of the Institute of
Archaeology of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences) (Kiss
2016). As part of this project, ceramic technology at a num-
ber of sites has been investigated through the petrographic
analysis of pottery finds. One of the investigated sites is
Füzesabony-Öregdomb, one of the eponymous sites of the
‘Otomani-Füzesabony Cultural Complex’ (Stanczik 1978;
Szathmári 1990; 1992; Szathmári et al. 2019).
We analysed the ceramic technology of Füzesabony-Öreg-
domb all through the five construction episodes (layers)
of the tell. Ceramics were analysed by microscopic fabric
analysis of conventional thin sections. 313 ceramics were
chosen for thin section analysis including 51 cups, 15 jars,
102 bowls, 3 mugs, 56 amphorae/storage vessels, 69 pots,
4 so called fermenting vessels, 2 spouts, 5 portable ovens,
1 pedestalled bowl and 5 clay discs.
The aim of microscopic thin section analysis was to
understand how ceramic technology changed through

56
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

the construction episodes of the tell, and whether there was

specialisation in the production of certain vessel types, in
particular in table wares in terms of their raw materials and
tempers.
The analysed ceramics were divided into 16 fabric groups
but within some of the fabrics, subgroups could also be
distinguished. As a result, altogether 41 subgroups could
be distinguished indicating that a wide variety of local raw
materials were used for potting. Even though vessel forms
and decoration show high skill and labour input, at this
stage of research, the variability in raw materials does not
show centralised organisation in ceramic production, not
even within the elaborately decorated and highly burnished
table wares. Thus, the majority of the analysed vessels do
not show correlation with a particular raw material or tem-
pering practice. Even though a representative number of
samples were analysed from Füzesabony, including all ma-
jor vessel forms, vessels do not seem to have been made
by centrally organised specialists. Rather, the variability in
raw materials suggest production on a household level by
highly skilled potters. It must be noted that earlier analy-
ses of Bronze Age ceramics also showed only few sam-
ples that would indicate increased organisation in ceramic
production. These vessels had very fine, well-sorted, dense
fabrics. It must be noted that technological signs, such as
well-sorted raw materials, indicating increased organisa-
tion in ceramic production, are very scarce in the Bronze
Age (Kreiter 2009; Earle et al. 2011). So far, when we ob-
served well-sorted raw materials, they always appear in ta-
ble wares.
Some of the analysed vessels from Füzesabony did not
show tempering, while other vessels were tempered with
different size ranges of sand, but rarely grog tempering was
also observed. Previous analyses of Bronze Age household
vessels (squat shaped vessels and amphorae) showed that
grog tempering was the most common, in particular it was
used in very little amounts (Kreiter 2007a). In the vessels
at Füzesabony also little amounts of grog were used in the
majority of cases, however grog was used less often than
at other previously analysed Bronze Age sites (Kreiter and
Viktorik 2016; Kreiter and Skoda 2017a; Kreiter and Sko-
da 2017b; Kreiter et al. 2020). The majority of the anal-
ysed vessels from Füzesabony represent table wares and it
seems that grog was not commonly used for table wares, at
least at this site.

57
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Concerning changes in potting traditions, according to the

construction episodes of the Füzesabony tell, towards the
younger periods more and more types, or differently tem-
pered raw materials were used. The ceramic technology of
Nagyrév and Vatya style vessels at Százhalombatta, central
Hungary also showed a similar pattern in that the earliest
ceramic technology of the tell showed the least variability
in raw materials/tempers (Kreiter 2007b, 127, Table 19).
At Füzesabony, table wares show more variability in their
raw materials; it seems that they were more prone to change
than other ceramic products. In particular, bowls and cups
show the highest variability in their raw materials. It must
be noted that even the most elaborately decorated and high-
ly burnished bowls were made from medium to coarse raw
materials all through the existence of the tell. The use of
such coarse raw materials for fine table wares must have
been challenging for potters because the coarse inclusions
hindered the process of elaborate decoration and high bur-
nishing. For cups, jugs and mugs very fine to fine, even
untempered raw materials were also used, but these ves-
sels also appear with medium/coarse tempering similarly to
bowls. Our figures (Figs. 10-13) show the two ends of the
used raw material spectrum for cups and bowls from very
fine to coarse raw materials. The high variability in raw
materials most probably indicates increased ceramic pro-
duction when vessels were made by several local potters.
Based on these analyses, the pottery at Füzesabony was
manufactured locally, from a number of different clay sourc-
es. This indicates that vessels were not made in specialized
workshops, but rather by numerous highly skilled potters at
the domestic level. Nevertheless, the complexity in vessel
forms and elaborate decorations indicate that these vessels
were most probably made by several non-centrally organ-
ised specialists. Quite possibly this is one of the reasons
for the formal and decorative richness of the pottery style
and the extreme variability in raw materials. The results
somewhat contradict our preliminary preconceptions, as in
the case of such high quality pottery we expected the ex-
istence of specialized workshops. The results also indicate
that the society of these communities was not as strongly
stuctured as we supposed, at least from the point of view
of pottery production, because it did not have a specialized
pottery manufacture under central control. But rather, the
results show that there were no strong cultural regulations
in place determining the recipes for pottery manufacture,

58
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Fig. 10 Very fine fabric of a cup from Füzesabony-Öregdomb (HNM Inv. No. 82.5.2059) (40x,
XN) (photo: A. Kreiter, Hungarian National Museum, Budapest)

Fig. 11 Medium/coarse fabric of a cup from Füzesabony-Öregdomb (HNM Inv. No.

83.951.141) (40x, XN) (photo: A. Kreiter, Hungarian National Museum, Budapest)

59
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Fig. 12 Very fine fabric of a bowl from Füzesabony-Öregdomb (HNM Inv. Nr. 82.5.1663) (40x,
XN) (photo: A. Kreiter, Hungarian National Museum, Budapest)

Fig. 13 Medium/coarse fabric of a cup from Füzesabony-Öregdomb (HNM Inv. Nr.

56.15.864) (40x, XN) (photo: A. Kreiter, Hungarian National Museum, Budapest)

60
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

and potters had an opportunity to explore new methods and

used fairly wide range of available technological choices.

The social uses of Füzesabony pottery

Füzesabony style pottery is used in a series of contexts

other than everyday household utensils. Beyond the dai-
ly purposes (such as storage, preparation, presentation or
food consumption), such vessels, especially the richly dec-
Fig. 14 Ceramic wagon model from the
orated tableware, must have been used at special occasions
fortified tell settlement of Pocsaj-Leányvár for feasting, as well. We suggest that assemblages, such as
(photo: Á. Vágó, Déri Museum, the hoard of jugs discovered in the debris of a house at
Debrecen) Nižná Myšľa (Gašaj 2002, 28, Photo 12), or the special set
of vessels from a house from Level 2 at the settlement of
Túrkeve-Terehalom (belonging to the southern, Otomani
branch of the ‘Otomani-Füzesabony Cultural Complex’:
Csányi and Tárnoki 2013), represent feasting equipment,
that were either deposited after the event or left in a house
to be burnt down.
Special uses of Füzesabony ware also include special ce-
ramic vessels, such as clay wagon models. Such wagons
appear in increasing numbers during the Middle Bronze
Age throughout the Carpathian Basin, and specifically in
the distribution area of Füzesabony style pottery as well
(e.g. Füzesabony and Tiszafüred: Kovács 1984, 240-
241; Nižná Myšľa: Gašaj 2002, 50, Photo 55; or Pocsaj-
Leányvár [from the south]: Fig. 14).
Finally, a series of vessels were formed in the shape of
birds. These symbolic vessels include bird-shaped askoi and
bird-shaped rattles (Kovács 1989-90; 1990). They might
have played a role in various rituals (some involving blood
sacrifice, as indicated by blood remains in one of them:
Szathmári 2003) and may have formed part of a more
general cosmological mythology about the functioning of
the world (Guba and Szeverényi 2007).

Acknowledgements

This article was prepared within the framework of the

‘CRAFTER – Crafting Europe in the Bronze Age and
Today’ project, funded by the Creative Europe Programme,
Culture Sub-programme. The ceramic petrographic
analyses were carried out through the Lendület/Momentum
Mobility Research Project of the Institute of Archaeology
of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

61
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

References
• P. Fischl, K. and Kertész G.N. 2013. Bronzkori
• Bader, T. 1998. Bemerkungen zur Bronzezeit im szimbólumok és megnyilvánulásaik, avagy mit
Karpatenbecken. Otomani/Füzesabony-Kom- mesél nekünk egy bronzkori település szerkezete
plex. Überblick und Fragestellung. Jahresschrift [Bronze Age symbols and their manifestations, or
für mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 80, 43-108. what does the structure of a Bronze Age settle-
• Bóna, I. 1975. Die mittlere Bronzezeit Ungarns ment tell us]. Gesta 12, 10-19.
und ihre südöstlichen Beziehungen. Archaeolo- • P. Fischl, K. and Kienlin, T. 2019. (eds.) Beyond
gia Hungarica 49. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Divides – The Otomani-Füzesabony Phenom-
• Csányi, M. and Tárnoki, J. 2013. A Dinner Set enon. Current Approaches to Settlement and
from a Bronze Age House in Level 2 of the Burial in the North-eastern Carpathian Basin
Túrkeve-Terehalom Settlement, in: Anders, A. and Adjacent Areas. Universitätsforschungen zur
and Kulcsár, G. (eds.) Moments in Time. Papers prähistorischen Archäologie 345. Bonn: Verlag
Presented to Pál Raczky on His 60th Birthday. Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH.
Ősrégészeti Tanulmányok/Prehistoric Studies 1. • Gancarski, J. (Hrsg.) 1999. Kultúra Otoma-
Budapest: L’Harmattan, 707-724. ni-Füzesabony – rozwój, chronologia, gospo-
• Dani, J., P. Fischl, K., Kulcsár, G., Szeverényi, V. darka. Materialy z konferencji archeologicznej,
and Kiss, V. 2016. Visible and invisible inequal- Dukla, 27-28.11.1997/Die Otomani-Füzesabo-
ity: changing patterns of wealth consumption ny-Kultur – Entwicklung, Chronologie, Wirtschaft.
in Early and Middle Bronze Age Hungary, in: Materialen der archäologischen Konferenz, Duk-
Meller, H., Hahn, H.-P., Jung, R. and Risch, R. la, 27-28.11.1997. Krosno: Muzeum Okręgowe
(eds.) Arm und Reich – Zur Resourcenverteilung w Krośnie.
in prähistorischen Gesellschaften. Tagungen des • Gancarski, J. (ed.) 2002. Między Mykenami a
Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle 14. Bałtykiem. Kultúra Otomani-Füzesabony/Be-
Haale (Saale): Landsamt für Denkmalpflege und tween Mycenae and the Baltic Sea. The Oto-
Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt, Landesmuseum für mani-Füzesabony Culture. Krosno & Warsaw:
Vorgeschichte, 219-241. Muzeum Podkarpackie/Państwowe Muzeum Ar-
• Dani, J., P. Fischl, K., Kiss, V., Kulcsár, G. and cheologiczne.
Szeverényi, V. 2019. Dividing space, dividing • Gašaj, D. 2002. Osady warowne i życie gospo-
society: fortified settlements in the Carpathian darcze/Fortified settlements and their economic
Basin (c. 2300–1500 BC), in: Meller, H., Fried- life, in: Gancarski, J. (ed.) Między Mykenami a
erich, S., Küßner, M., Stäuble, H. and Risch, R. Bałtykiem. Kultúra Otomani-Füzesabony/Be-
(Hrsg.) Siedlungsarchäologie des Endneolithi- tween Mycenae and the Baltic Sea. The Oto-
kums und der frühen Bronzezeit/Late Neolithic mani-Füzesabony Culture. Krosno & Warsaw:
and Early Bronze Age Settlement Archaeology. Muzeum Podkarpackie/Państwowe Muzeum Ar-
11. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 18. bis cheologiczne, 21-51.
20. Oktober 2118 in Halle (Saale)/11th Archae- • Gancarski, J. 2009. Trzcinica – Karpacka Troja.
ological Conference of Central Germany Octo- Krosno: Muzeum Podkarpackie w Krośnie.
ber 18–20, 2018 in Halle (Saale). Tagungen des • Gogâltan, F. 2002. Die Tells der Bronzezeit im
Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle 20. Karpatenbecken. Terminologische Fragen, in:
Halle (Saale): Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Rustoiu, A. and Ursuţiu, A. (Hrsg.) Interregio-
Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt, Landesmuseum für nale und kulturelle Beziehungen im Karpaten-
Vorgeschichte, 851-868. raum (2. Jahrtausend v.Chr. – 1. Jahrtausend
• Earle, T.K., Kreiter, A., Klehm, C., Ferguson, J. n.Chr.). Cluj-Napoca: Nereamia Napocae, 11-45.
and Vicze, M. 2011. Bronze Age ceramic econo- • Guba, Sz. and Szeverényi, V. 2007. Bronze Age
my: the Benta valley, Hungary. European Jour- bird representations from the Carpathian Basin.
nal of Archaeology 14/3. 419-440. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae
2007, 75-110.

62
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

• Jaeger, M. 2014. The stone fortifications of the • Kovács, T. 1984. Füzesabony-Kultur, in: Tasić,
settlement at Spišský Štvrtok. A contribution to N. (Hrsg.) Kulturen der Frühbronzezeit des Kar-
the discussion on the long-distance contacts of patenbeckens und Nordbalkans. Balcano-Pan-
the Otomani-Füzesabony culture. Prähistorische nonica, Sonderausgabe 22. Beograd: Balkanološ-
Zeitschrift 89 (2), 291-304. ki Institut SANU, 235-255.
• Jaeger, M. 2018. Fortified Settlements of the • Kovács, T. 1989-90. Menschen- und Tierdarstel-
Early Bronze Age in Poland, in: Hansen, S. lungen an der bronzezeitlichen Siedlung von
and Krause, R. (Hrsg.) Bronzezeitliche Burgen Füzesabony-Öregdomb. Agria 25-26, 31-51.
zwischen Taunus und Karpaten. Beiträge der Er- • Kovács, T. 1990. Eine bronzezeitliche Rarität:
sten Internationalen LOEWE-Konferenz vom 7. Askos mit menschlichem Gesicht von Tiszafüred
bis 9. Dezember 2016 in Frankfurt/M. Universi- und seine südöstlichen Beziehungen. Folia Ar-
tätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie chaeologica 41, 9-27.
319. Bonn: Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, • Kovács, T. 1992. Bestattungssitten der
265-296. Füzesabony-Kultur und das Gräberfeld von
• Jędrysik, J and Przybyła, M.S. 2019. Bronze Age Tiszafüred-Majoroshalom, in: Meier-Arendt, W.
Fortified Settlement on Zyndram’s Hill at Masz- (Hrsg.) Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in
kowicw (Polish Carpathians), in: P. Fischl, K. and Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss. Frankfurt
Kienlin, T. (eds.) Beyond Divides – The Otoma- a.M.: Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte –
ni-Füzesabony Phenomenon. Current Approach- Archäologisches Museum – Pytheas, 96-98.
es to Settlement and Burial in the North-eastern • Kőszegi, F. 1968. Mittelbronzezeitliches Gräber-
Carpathian Basin and Adjacent Areas. Universi- feld in Pusztaszikszó. Acta Archaeologica Aca-
tätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie demiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 20, 101-141.
345. Bonn: Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, 13- • Kreiter, A. 2007a. Kerámia technológiai tradíció
31. és az idő koncepciója a bronzkorban – Ceramic
• Kienlin, T., P. Fischl, K. and Pusztai, T. 2018. technological tradition and the concept of time in
Borsod Region Bronze Age Settlement (BOR- the Bronze Age. Ősrégészeti Levelek – Prehistor-
BAS). Catalogue of the Early to Middle Bronze ic Newsletters 8-9, 146-166.
Age Tell Sites Covered by Magnetometry and • Kreiter, A. 2007b. Technological choices and
Surface Survey. Universitätsforschungen zur material meanings in Early and Middle Bronze
prähistorischen Archäologie 317. Bonn: Verlag Age Hungary: understanding the active role of
Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH. material culture through ceramic analysis. Brit-
• Kiss, V. 2016. From bones, bronzes and sites to ish Archaeological Reports, International Series
society: Multidisciplinary analysis of human mo- 1604. Oxford: Archaeopress.
bility and social changes in Bronze Age Hungary • Kreiter, A. 2009. Bronzkori kerámiák petrográ-
(2500–1500 BC). The European Archaeologist fiai vizsgálata Bia-Öreg-hegy 1/4 (9965), Bia-
48 (spring), 18-21. Pap-réti-dűlő 1/26 (9987), Százhalombatta(Érd)
• Kobály, J. 2004. Magyarországi régészeti em- Külső Újföldek 9/3 (10270), Százhalombatta(Érd)
lékek ukrajnai közgyűjteményekben. Ungvár: Belső Újföldek 9/4 (10271), Sóskút-Barátház
Kárpátaljai Magyar Kulturális Szövetség. 26/4 (11438), Százhalombatta-Százhalom
• Kovács, T. 1982. Einige neue Angaben zur 27/1 (11472), Százhalombatta-Sánc-hegy 27/2
Ausbildung und inneren Gliederung der (11473), Százhalombatta-Dunafüred (27/14) és
Füzesabony-Kultur. in: Hänsel, B. (Hrsg.) Tárnok-Szőlő-hegy 31/1 (11814) lelőhelyekről.
Südosteuropa zwischen 1600 und 1000 v.Chr. Unpublished report (Archaeology Database Hun-
Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 1. garian National Museum, http://archeodatabase.
Berlin: Moreland, 287-307. hnm.hu/hu/node/77078, 15 September 2020).

63
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

• Kreiter, A., Máté, L. and Viktorik, O. 2020. Érd, • Olexa, L. and Nováček, T. 2015. Pohrebisko zo
Hosszú-földek alja és Diósd, Sas-hegy lelőhe- staršej doby bronzovej v Nižnej Myšli. Katalóg I
lyekről származó kora bronzkori (Makó és ha- (hroby 311–499). Archaeologica Slovaca Mono-
rangedényes) kerámiák petrográfiai vizsgálata. graphiae, Catalogi 15. Nitra: Archeologiczký ús-
Unpublished report (Archaeology Database Hun- tav SAV.
garian National Museum, https://archeodatabase. • Olexa, L. and Nováček, T. 2017. Pohrebisko zo
hnm.hu/en/node/3261, 15 September 2020) staršej doby bronzovej v Nižnej Myšli. Katalóg I
• Kreiter, A. and Skoda, P. 2017a. Petrograph- (hroby 500–792). Archaeologica Slovaca Mono-
ic analysis of Bronze Age ceramics from Ka- graphiae, Catalogi 18. Nitra: Archeologiczký ús-
kucs-Turján mögött. Unpublished report (Archae- tav SAV.
ology Database Hungarian National Museum, • Pfannenschmidt, E. 1999-2000. Urnengräber aus
https://archeodatabase.hnm.hu/hu/node/60900, Kontext der Füzesabony-Kultur und die Frage
15 September, 2020). der Kremation bei bronzezeitlichen Tell- und
• Kreiter, A. and Skoda, P. 2017b. Nagycenk – Urnenfelderkulturen. Acta Archaeologica Car-
Kövesmező és Nagycenk – Lapos-rét bronzkori patica 35, 49-60.
kerámiáinak petrográfiai vizsgálata. Unpub- • Polla, B. 1960. Birituelle Füzesabonyer Begräb-
lished report (Archaeology Database Hungarian nisstätte in Streda nad Bodrogom, in: Chrop-
National Museum, https://archeodatabase.hnm. ovský, B., Dušek, M. and Polla, B., Pohrebi-
hu/hu/node/13205, 15 September, 2020.) ská zo staršej doby bronzovej na Slovensku I./
• Kreiter, A. and Viktorik, O. 2016. Érd- Gräberfelder aus der älteren Bronzezeit in der
Hosszúföldek bronzkori (Vatya) kerámiáinak Slowakei I. Archaeologica Slovaca Fontes 3.
petrográfiai vizsgálata. Unpublished report Bratislava: Vydavateľstvo Slovenskej Akademie
(Archaeology Database Hungarian National Vied, 293-386.
Museum, https://archeodatabase.hnm.hu/hu/ • Przybyła, M.S. 2016. Early Bronze Age stone
node/3542, 15 September, 2020). architecture discovered in Polish Carpathians.
• Lehoczky, T. 1912. Adatok hazánk archae- Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 46, 291-
ologiájához, különös tekintettel Beregmegyére 308.
és környékére. II. kötet: Az őskortól a mag- • Roska, M. 1926-28. Cercetări la Cetăţuia de la
yarok bejöveteléig. Munkács: Grünstein Mór Otomani. Anuarul Comisiunii Monumentelor Is-
Könyvnyomdája torice Secţia pentru Transilvania 192-205.
• .Mengyán, Á. and Dávid, Á. 2019. Preliminary • Roska, M. 1930. Ásatások az ottományi Vár-
Report from a Middle Bronze Age Cemetery hegyen és Földvárban (Grabungen am Várhegy
at Encs (North-eastern Hungary), in: P. Fischl, und Földvár von Ottomány, Komitat Bihar). Dol-
K. and Kienlin, T. (eds.) Beyond Divides – The gozatok a m. kir. Ferencz József-Tudományegye-
Otomani-Füzesabony Phenomenon. Current tem Archaeologiai Intézetéből 6, 163-177.
Approaches to Settlement and Burial in the • Roska, M. 1942. Erdély régészeti repertóriuma
North-eastern Carpathian Basin and Adjacent I. Őskor. Cluj/Kolozsvár: Erdélyi Tudományos
Areas. Universitätsforschungen zur prähis- Intézet.
torischen Archäologie 345. Bonn: Verlag Dr. Ru- • Schalk, E. 1992. Das Gräberfeld von Hernád-
dolf Habelt GmbH, 159-164. kak. Studien zum Beginn der Frühbronzezeit im
• Nestor, I. 1932 [1933]. Der Stand der Vorges- nordöstlichen Karpatenbecken.Universitätsfor-
chichtsforschung in Rumänien. Berichte der Rö- schungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 9.
misch-Germanischen Kommission 22, 11-181. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH.
• Olexa, L. and Nováček, T. 2013. Pohrebisko zo • Schalk, E. 1994. Das Gräberfeld der frühbronze-
staršej doby bronzovej v Nižnej Myšli. Katalóg zeitlichen Füzesabony-Kultur bei Megyaszó,
I (hroby 1–310). Archaeologica Slovaca Mono- Nordost-Ungarn. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 69,
graphiae, Catalogi 14. Nitra: Archeologiczký ús- 152-174.
tav SAV.

64
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

• Stanczik, I. 1978. Vorbericht über die Aus- • Vladár, J. 1975. Mykenische Einflüsse im Karpat-
grabung der bronzezeitlichen Ansiedlung von engebiet. Die urgeschichtliche Siedlung Spišský
Füzesabony-Öregdomb. Folia Archaeologica 29, Štvrtok. Das Altertum 21, 92-97.
93-102. • Zoltai, L. 1908. Jelentés Debreczen sz. kir. város
• Szathmári, I. 1990. A Füzesabony-Öregdombi múzeuma 1907. évi állapotáról. Debrecen.
bronzkori tell-telep [The Bronze Age tell settle-
ment of Füzesabony-Öregdomb]. Unpublished
PhD Thesis, Budapest.
• Szathmári, I. 1992. Füzesabony-Öregdomb, in:
Meier-Arendt, W. (Hrsg.) Bronzezeit in Ungarn.
Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und
Theiss. Frankfurt a.M.: Museum für Vor- und
Frühgeschichte – Archäologisches Museum –
Pytheas, 134-140.
• Szathmári, I. 2003. Beiträge zu den Vogeldarstel-
lungen der bronzezeitlichen Tell-Kulturen, in:
Jerem, E. and Raczky, P. (Hrsg.) Morgenrot der
Kulturen. Frühe Etappen der Menschheitsges-
chichte in Mittel- und Südosteuropa. Festschrift
für Nándor Kalicz zum 75. Geburtstag. Archae-
olingua 15. Budapest: Archaeolingua Alapítvány,
513-523.
• Szathmári, I., Guba, Sz., Kulcsár, G., Serlegi,
G., Vágvölgyi, B. and Kiss, V. 2019. Füzesa-
bony-Öregdomb Bronze Age Tell Settlement
– New Insights on the Settlement Structure, in:
P. Fischl, K. and Kienlin, T. (eds.) Beyond Di-
vides – The Otomani-Füzesabony Phenomenon.
Current Approaches to Settlement and Burial in
the North-eastern Carpathian Basin and Adja-
cent Areas. Universitätsforschungen zur prähis-
torischen Archäologie 345. Bonn: Verlag Dr. Ru-
dolf Habelt GmbH, 295-315.
• Szeverényi, V. 2013. Bronzkori „háztűznéző”:
Szándékos házégetés és anyagi metaforák a
Kárpát-medence kora és középső bronzkorában
(Deliberate house-burning and material meta-
phors in the Early and Middle Bronze Age of the
Carpathian Basin). Ősrégészeti Levelek/Prehis-
toric Newsletter 13, 215-232.
• Thomas, M. 2008. Studien zu Chronologie und
Totenritual der Otomani-Füzesabony-Kultur.
Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 86.
Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt Verlag GmbH.
• Vladár, J. 1973. Osteuropäische und mediterrane
Einflüsse im Gebiet der Slowakei während der
Bronzezeit. Slovenska Archeológia 21, 253-357.

65
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Vajk Szeverényi
(1) Archaeologist-Museologist
Déri Museum, 4026 Debrecen, Déri tér 1.
[email protected]
(2)Postdoctoral Scholar Institute of Archaeology Research
Centre for the Humanities
1097 Budapest, Tóth Kálmán u. 4.
E-mail: [email protected]

Vajk Szeverényi is an archaeologist specialising in the study of

the European Bronze Age. He is currently an archaeologist at
the Déri Museum, Debrecen and a Postdoctoral scholar at the
Institute of Archaeology, Research Centre for the Humanities,
Budapest. His main interests include the study of settlement and
society in the Bronze Age of the Carpathian Basin, interregional
interaction and social change in the Bronze Age, the study of
human remains from settlements during the Bronze Age, prehis-
toric foodways, and archaeological theory.

Attila Kreiter
Head of Laboratory
Laboratory for Applied Research, Hungarian National Museum
1088 Budapest, Múzeum körút 14-16.
E-mail: [email protected]

Attila Kreiter is an archaeologist and ceramic specialist, and

Head of the Laboratory for Applied Research at the Hungari-
an National Museum. His research interests include utilization
of interdisciplinary analysis in archaeological interpretation and
the combination of interdisciplinary research with archaeologi-
cal theory, the origins and transmission of ceramic technologies,
continuity and change in ceramic technologies and the social
meaning/application of these processes. Apart from ceramic
petrography he employs a broad range of analytical techniques
to gather data including X-ray Diffraction (XRD), X-Ray Flu-
orescence (XRF), Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis
(INAA), Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and Laser Abla-
tion (LA-ICP-MS, LA-ICP-AES). He mainly conducts research
in Hungary analysing ceramics from the Neolithic to the Middle
Ages.

66
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

János Dani
Deputy Director
Déri Museum, 4026 Debrecen, Déri tér 1.
E-mail: [email protected]

János Dani is an archaeologist specialising in the study of Central

and South-East European Bronze Age. He is Senior Researcher
and Deputy Director of the Déri Museum responsible for archae-
ology. Since completing his PhD thesis on the Early Bronze Age
of the Upper Tisza region in 2006, he has focused his research
mostly on special interdisciplinary fields, such as bioarchaeol-
ogy, archaeometry, and metallurgy. He has organized several
smaller and larger archaeological exhibitions, and edited several
exhibition catalogues and conference volumes on the prehistory
of the Carpathian Basin. Recently he has been working in an
international interdisciplinary research project ‘The Yamnaya
Impact on Prehistoric Europe (YMPACT)’, funded by the Euro-
pean Research Council.

László Gucsi
Restaurator, potter
Budapest
E-mail: [email protected]

László Gucsi is a true artisan who first became interested in pot-

tery and replicating ancient pots at the young age of 12, when
he discovered his first archaeological pottery sherds and took
them to his local museum at Dunaújváros. László is a primarily
self-taught potter, archaeological technician, drawer and conser-
vator-restorer. He has participated at dozens of excavations and
made approximately 1,500 vessels by now – mainly replicas of
Bronze Age pottery found in Hungary. Being part of CRAFTER
Project has allowed him not only to recreate some visually and
historically important pieces, but it has also allowed him to study
each original more closely and focus on the techniques involved
in the making process.
His statement as a creative artist: let’s leave the shapes, motives,
surfaces and atmospheres prevail instead of words. Through his
artwork, he intermediates between the legacy of Bronze Age
people and contemporary society.

67
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Viktória Kiss
Senior Research Fellow
Institute of Archaeology, Research Centre for the Humanities
1097 Budapest, Tóth Kálmán u. 4.
E-mail: [email protected]

Viktória Kiss is an archaeologist specialising in Central Europe-

an Bronze Age. After completing her PhD in 2003, she became a
senior research fellow of the Institute of Archaeology, Research
Centre for the Humanities of the Hungarian Academy of Scienc-
es. She has written a book about Middle Bronze Age Encrusted
Pottery in Western Hungary, and edited several other volumes
concerning the Bronze Age archaeology of the region. In recent
years she has worked on pottery, metal production, bioarchaeol-
ogy and mobility, as the PI of the Momentum Mobility Research
Group granted by the Momentum Programme of the Hungarian
Academy of Sciences.

Gabriella Kulcsár
Head of Department of Prehistory, Senior Research Fellow
Institute of Archaeology, Research Centre for the Humanities
1097 Budapest, Tóth Kálmán u. 4.
E-mail: [email protected]

Gabriella Kulcsár is an archaeologist specialising in Central Eu-

ropean Bronze Age. She is senior research fellow and head of the
Department of Prehistory of the Institute of Archaeology, Re-
search Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sci-
ences Centre of Excellence. After completing her PhD in 2003
she has published a book about ’The Beginnings of the Bronze
Age in the Carpathian Basin’, and edited several other volumes
concerning the Bronze Age archaeology of the region. In recent
years she has worked on landscape archaeology, bioarchaeology
and mobility in several projects.

68
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Péter Skoda
geologist
Laboratory for Applied Research, Hungarian National Museum
1088 Budapest, Múzeum körút 14-16.
E-mail: [email protected]

Péter Skoda is a former geologist in the Laboratory for Applied

Research at the Hungarian National Museum. He specialized in
petrographic analysis of ceramics and stone artefacts. He uses
technological assessment and petrographic analysis to examine
production technology and raw material sources of ceramics. He
is particularly interested in the provenance of ceramic and stone
raw materials. Apart from ceramic petrography he employs a
broad range of analytical techniques to gather data including
X-ray Diffraction (XRD), X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF), Instru-
mental Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA), Scanning Electron
Microscopy (SEM) and Laser Ablation (LA-ICP-MS, LA-ICP-
AES).

Ildikó Szathmári
archaeologist-museologist
Hungarian National Museum,
1088 Budapest, Múzeum körút 14-16.
E-mail: [email protected]

Ildikó Szathmári is an archaeologist, senior museologist of the

Hungarian National Museum. Her main research interests are
the study of the social and economical organisation and material
culture of Bronze Age tell settlements in the Carpathian Basin.
In her PhD thesis in 1990 she processed the material of the tell
settlement of the eponymous site from 1976, and she is currently
working on the analysis of the finds from the excavations in the
1930s.

69
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Small two-handled kantharos, site of Omoljica. It served as models for the potter
(photo: N. Borić, Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade)

67
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Vatin pottery:
a petrographical approach
David Gómez-Gras, Roberto Risch, Jovan Mitrović,
Vojislav Đorđević, Vesna Vučković

Abstract: Vatin pottery is a symbol of Vatin society (2000

– 1500 cal BCE), which can be regarded as a highly rat-
ed work of art due to its quality, shapes and decorations.
So far, it was mainly approached by archaeology from a
chronological and cultural perspective, while an examina-
tion of a technology is still missing. In this study, the first
results of a petrographical analysis of the clays used by Va-
tin potters are presented. Five pots from the settlements of
Zlatica, near the modern village of Omoljica, and another
five from Najeva Ciglana, near the town of Pančevo, both
located on the northern side of the Danube, near Belgrade,
have been studied in terms of temper and clay composition.
The petrographic analyses show that clays were prepared
in slightly different ways in each settlement, but that all
shapes, including coarse as well as fine ware vessels, were
manufactured with fine-grained non-carbonate clays of lo-
cal origin.

Keywords: Early and Middle Bronze Age, Vatin culture,

pottery, petrographical analysis, ceramic technology

Introduction

Vatin culture (2000 – 1500 cal BC) occupied the south-

ern part of the Pannonian Plain (Vojvodina), including
the area along the lower Sava river and south of the Dan-
ube. It was identified at the beginning of the 20th century
by F. Milleker, and later defined as one of the main Mid-
dle Bronze Age cultures of southeast Europe (Garašanin,
1983a; Garašanin, 1983b; Tasić, 1974; Тасић, 1983; Tasić,
1984a; Ljuština, 2017).
The communities of the Vatin culture lived in an environ-
ment of deciduous forests (with evergreen trees at higher
elevations), grassy plains and swampy lowlands. The broad
alluvial plains surrounding the 1–3 ha large tell settlements
enabled a rich agriculture and husbandry. It is assumed that

71
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

this society was organised according to some sort of social

hierarchy. A network of fortified tell type settlements con-
trolled this strategic region, which lies on the main route
from central Europe to the Black Sea and the Mediterra-
nean. Metal finds are found in some abundance, while in-
tensive contacts with the Aegean world between 1750–1500
BC indicate a strong economy and circulation of goods and
people (Bankoff 2010).
Pottery represents a symbol of Vatin society, due to its
quality, shapes and decoration. The common shapes can be
classified as handled or handless beakers (kantharoi, jugs
and beaker-cup), bowls, small amphorae, pots, pithoi, am-
phorae, double vessels and elliptical boat-shaped vessels
(cf. Ljuština 2012). Based on regional pottery styles, Vatin
is normally divided into three regions (fig.1). The pottery
of Bubanj-Hum IV is similar to the Vatin pottery, but its
adscription to Vatin or to an independent culture is still a
matter of debate (Bulatović, Stankovski 2012, 337-347).
So far, Vatin pottery has only been approached from a
typological perspective in order to establish chronological
and cultural adscriptions. The excavations have not provid-
ed any information about pottery technology, while scien-
tific analyses are still missing. Modest data on the temper
suggest that various technological approaches were known.
Beakers, as the most recognisable type of this culture, were
mainly made of fine-tempered clay, bowls were fine as well
as rough-tempered, while pithoi, amphorae were mainly
coarse-tempered (Ljuština 2012). The aim of this study is
to offer a first petrographical analysis of the clays used by
Vatin potters as well as of the probable origin of the raw
materials. We have analysed five pottery fragments from
the settlements of Zlatica, near the modern village of Omol-
jica, and another five fragments of Najeva Ciglana, near the
town of Pančevo (Fig. 1; table 1). Both settlements lay only
c. 15 km apart from each other, on the northern side of the
Danube, close to the modern city of Belgrade. Moreover,
we visited the surrounding of both settlements and took
clay samples at four different locations. Thin sections and
XRD were carried out in the Laboratory of Geology of the
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Thin sections of both
clay sediments and pottery fragments were prepared and
stained using Na‐cobaltinitrite (Chayes, 1952) for suitable
identification of feldspar, and Alizarine red‐S staining for
distinction of carbonate composition, such as dolomite, an-
kerite and calcite. Observations were made under a Nikon

72
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Eclipse E400 polarizing microscope. In order to establish

the mineralogy of clay sediments, XRD analyses were
carried out using a PANalytical X’Pert Powder X-Ray dif-
fraction device equipped with a Cu-anode and X’Celerator
detector, operating at 1.5406 Å, 45 kV, and 40 mA. The
X-ray diagrams were processed and interpreted using the
PDF#2 del ICDD (PDF-2, 2013) and the program X’Per-
tHighscore Plus (version 2.2b (2.2.2) 2006, PANalytical).

Archaeological context and materials

Zlatica, Omoljica

Zlatica is the eponymous site of the Pančevo-Omoljica

phase (c. 1960-1760 cal BC) (Gogaltan 1999) and a region-
al group of the Vatin culture. It is located in the southern
Banat, on the left bank of the Nadela river, in the village of
Omoljica, and 15 km away from Pančevo. It occupies a low
forest plateau, which represents a bank of the unregulated
course of the Danube river. The settlement controlled the
entire wetland between the sites of Omoljica and Vinča,
on the right bank of the Danube. However, it was dam-
aged heavily by the construction of a drainage channel,
which might have destroyed possible traces of fortification
(Ljuština 2012, 67–68; idem 2015, 75–79). Karapandžić
(1888–1963), curator of the National Museum in Belgrade,
was the first who conducted excavations in 1922. This site
has been excavated again in 1959 – 1960 by the Institute
of Archaeology (Trbuhović 2012, 67; Radojčić 2013, 1–5;
Трбуховић 1968a, 175–176; Трбуховић 1968b, 94, 111;
Marinković 1996, 21; Mitrović 2013, 321–330)1.
Seven tranches of various sizes have been excavated so
far. However, the data on trench size has been omitted and
the exact extension of the explored surface cannot be de-
termined2. A field dairy from this campaign contains scarce
information, while the pottery was partly published in
Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum3 and the monography Vojvo-
dina I (Vulić, Grbić 1937, 5, 7; Pl. 20-23; Grbić 1939, 47-
60) provided some evidence of the archaeological contexts
detected during the first excavations4. The cultural layers
of 1 m thickness, yielded remains of three houses, seven
1 The finds are stored in the National Museum in Belgrade and in the National Museum
in Pančevo.
2 The field dairy suggested that the trenches A-B were 15 m long and 1 m wide. Based
on these data, we believe that the other five trenches were of similar in the size. The
assumption is based on the evidence that Karapandžić used the same excavation meth-
odology at the site of Zók near Pécs, 1920 (cf. J.Mitrović).
3 The finds are referred to style B, which is characterized by two-handle small pots/
beakers, with cannelures, garlands and stem (Vulić, Grbić 1937, 5, 7).
73
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Fig. 1 Map of the Vatin culture and its regional division and position of the sites: 1. Najeva Ciglana, Pančevo; 2.
Zlatica, Ooljica; cf. Ljuština 2012: 148 – 157.

74
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

pits and two deposits with discarded pottery5. According

to these results it can be suggested that Zlatica was a large
Bronze Age settlement. The pottery recording suggests a
dominance of monochrome pottery at the site of Zlatica.
Horizontal cannelures are common and can be combined
with plastic cone ornaments. Such decorative elements are
detected on biconical cups, with rounded handles above
a rim. The rims are mainly flat, rarely everted and rhom-
bical. Decoration has been omitt on deep, oval or conical
bowls, one handled, rounded or conical cups, as well as on
boat-shaped vessels (Ljuština 2012, 67–68). Incised spiral,
volute, and garlands appear on the biconical beakers with
ansa lunata handles, which are typical Pančevo-Omoljca
phase. Such beakers may have a rhombical, everted rim,
and oblique cannelures.
Biconical amphorae with a ring-shaped rim and plas-
tic cones positioned between conuses are also numerous.
Larger coarse-tempered vessels such as ovoid pots with
two handles and vessel-trivets complement a repertoire.
Miniature vessels repeat usually the shapes and decoration
of normal-sized objects (idem 2012, 68-69).
The analysed material was found in 1922 and includes
five fragments: a large pithoi, probably a vessel, with a pit-
ted, everted rim and a pitted plastic stripe on the funnelled

Fig. 2 Pottery sampled from settlement of Zlatica. . 1. SER-5; 2. SER-3; 3. SER-1,

4. SER-4; 5. SER-2. (drawings: Vesna Vučković, Stefan Jovičić)

4 D. Đ. Karapandžić left the National Museum in Belgrede in the winter of 1922,

due to professional (and personal) disagreements with new director of the Museum Dr
Vladimir Petković (1874–1956). This can be the main reason why Karapandžić has never
published the material.
5 1920, Field diary (Excavations in Omoljica), D. Dj. Karapandžić, Archive of the Na-
tional Mueum in Belgrade (АNМ), Document without number, Box N° 18.

75
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

ted, everted rim and a pitted plastic stripe on the funnelled

neck (Fig. 2/1; Fig. 7: SER-5), one bowl with an averted
rim and two horizontal cannelures (Fig. 2/3; Fig. 4: SER-
1), two finely decorated beakers, one of which is a biconi-
cal recipient, with a tongue-like handle and incised curved
ornaments below it (Fig. 2/4, 5; Fig. 6: SER-4; Fig. 8: SER-
2), and the small pot with a horizontal rim (Fig. 2/2; Fig. 5:
SER-3). Only the beakers and the bowl have a finely bur-
nished surface. All samples come from ditch G and belong
to a layer where the remains of a house were identified. The
finds such as fragments of vessels, spindle whorls, stone
tools and animal bones were found at a relative depth of
0.60 m6 .

Najeva Ciglana, Pančevo

The site of Najeva Ciglana is located in the western pe-

riphery of the town of Pančevo, c. 500 m west of the road
from Pančevo - Starčevo, and c. 1,5 km to the east of the
confluence of the Tamiš river and the Danube river (Fig.
1/2). It occupied an area of c. 500 x 500 m in a former
industrial brickyard, on the high bank of a swamp Topola,
one of the backwaters of the Tamiš river. This river out-
let surrounds and separates the site from the wetland in
north-east direction. Most of the site was destroyed by the
work of the brick factory. The site was discovered in the
second half of the 19th century. Excavations were carried
out by the National Museum in Belgrade (Mano-Zisi, Lju-
binković, Garašanin, Kovačević) and the National Muse-
um in Pančevo (Veselinović) in 1947. The cultural layers
produced different horizons, from the Bronze Age to the
modern period (Мано-Зиси, Љубинковић, Гарашанин,
Ковачевић и Веселиновић 1948: 53–95). In 2003-2004
an area of 300x150 m between the swamp Topola and
the industrial railway of a factory for nitrogen fertilizers
was explored by the National Museum in Pančevo (V.
Đorđević) and the Faculty of Philosophy in Belgrade (D.
Radičević). This excavation confirmed a presence of lay-
ers from different periods, including a Bronze Age hori-
zon. It produced 2 pits, 26 round or oval storage pits, one
hearth and a part of a deep trench (Ђорђевић 2007, 50–54;
Ђорђевић et al. 2008, 88–90). They belong to the Panče-
vo-Omoljica phase of Vatin culture (c. 1960-1760 cal BC).
The analysed fragments, which correspond to three pots
(Fig. 3/1, 3, 4; Fig. 11: SER-8; Fig. 10: SER-7; Fig. 12, 13:
6 1920, 19–21th of August, Field diary (Excavations in Omoljica), D. Dj. Karapandžić,
АNМ, Document without number, Kbr. 18. 76
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Fig. 3 Pottery sampled from settlement of Najeva ciglana. 1. SER-10, 2. SER-9, 3. SER-7, 4. SER-8, 5.
SER-6. (drawings: Vesna Vučković, Stefan Jovičić)

SER-10), one bowl (Fig. 3/2; Fig. 9: SER-6) and one small
pot/beaker (Fig. 3/5; Fig. 12: SER-9) were found within
structures 8 and 10, detected in trench I during campaign
2003. The rounded structure 8 was detected at the relative
depth of 1.45 m. It had been dug partly into sterile soil. A
flat bottom of this cylindrical structure is 1.7 m in diame-
ter and was detected on the relative depth of 2.08 m. Four
fragments from this structure have been analysed (Fig. 3/6,
8, 10; Fig. 9: SER-6; Fig. 11: SER-8; Fig. 12: SER-9; Fig.
12, 13: SER-10). The partially dug in structure 10 was de-
tected at the relative depth of 1.44 m. The flat, circular-oval
bottom of the feature is 1,3 m in diameter and was detected
at the relative depth of 2.07 m7. Only analysed fragment
3/7 (Fig. 10: SER-7) has been detected within this feature.

Clay samples from the river Tamiš and the Danube

In order to compare the Vatin pottery with the clays avail-

able in the surrounding of the prehistoric settlements a
total of four samples were taken from different locations.
The first two should represent clays derived from the river
Tamiš, while the other two samples characterise clays from
the Danube.

Sample 1: River Tamiš, near Pančevo, c. 300 m South of

the last bridge which crosses the river Tamiš before it joins
7 A documentation of the National Museum in Pančevo.
77
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

the Danube. Coordinates 44.8522-20.6345.

Sample 2: River Tamiš, near Pančevo, c. 100 m North of

the same bridge, at the beginning of a dam. Coordinates:
44.8547-20.6339.

Sample 3: River Danube, left bank, near Ivanovo (Skela

I.-Ritopek). Coordinates: 44.7444.20.659.

Sample 4: North of the river Danube, a mechanically ex-

posed ditch next to the road from Ivanovo to Stračevo. Co-
ordinates: 44.742-20.7193.

Results

Pottery from Zlatica, Omoljica

(Fig. 2; Fig. 4: SER-1; Fig. 5: SER-3; Fig. 6: SER-4; Fig.
7: SER-5; Fig. 8: SER-2)
In general, the Vatin pottery from Zlatica is made up of a
clay matrix (57-67%), temper of mixed composition (22-
40%), with carbonatic and siliciclastic grains, and 2-10%
of porosity (table 1). The size of the temper varies depend-
ing on its composition. The largest chamotte grains usually
measure 0.15-1.5 mm and they are usually angular to sub-
angular in roundness. Bioclasts can also be large because
they are fragments of bivalve and gastropod shells. On the
contrary, the siliciclastic grains and the non-bioclastic car-
bonate grains show sub-rounded shapes and much smaller
sizes, ranging from 0.01 to 0.8 mm, being the mode 0.3 mm.
Compositionally, the matrix of Zlatica potters is a
non-carbonate clay matrix, made up of minerals from the
clay group (essentially phyllosilicates) although it also
contains silt-sized quartz and feldspar grains. The temper
is widely represented by siliciclastic grains in all the sam-
ples. Carbonate grains and chamotte also occur in a large
number of them (table 1). The siliciclastic grains (5-35%)
are frequently quartz (classified as mono and polycrystal-
line), feldspars (both k-feldspar and plagioclase), and mi-
cas (biotite and muscovite). Rock fragments as quartzites
and granites are also observed in SER-2 (5%). Epidote and
tourmaline also often appear as accessory minerals (<1%).
Apatite occurs but it is difficult to distinguish from quartz
and to assess its proportion because their optical properties
are very similar. Carbonate grains (5-10%) are predomi-
nantly micritic grains (fragments of micritic limestones,

78
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

sometimes showing bioclasts) and shell fragments of bi-

valves and gastropods. Two types of chamotte (0-20%)
have been recognized: the brown fragments would have
compositional and textural characteristics very similar to
ceramics SER-1, 3, 4, 5 and 6, while the black fragments
would be very similar to the sample SER-2.
Based on the set of textural and compositional character-
istics described, two types can be distinguished in Zlatica.
Type 1, represented by SER-1, 3, 4 and 5 potters (Fig. 4,
5-7), has brown to dark brown colors and generally con-
sist of siliciclastic grains (quartz and feldspars), carbonate
grains (bioclasts and micritic limestones), and chamotte
(brown and black). The black colored SER-2 sample (Fig.
8) constitutes the type 2 and does not contain carbonate
grains, or brown chamotte. It consists of quartz and feld-
spars grains, some black chamotte and it is the only potter
sample where rock fragments of quartzites and granites are
easily observable.

Pottery from Najeva Ciglana, Pančevo

(Fig. 3; table 2; Fig. 9: SER-6; Fig. 10: SER-7; Fig. 11:
SER-8; Fig. 12: SER-9; Fig. 12, 13: SER-10)
Najeva Ciglana ceramic consists of 65-72% clay matrix,
25-32% mixed composition temper, including carbonat-
ic and siliciclastic grains, and 1-3% of porosity, which is
lower than in Zlatica (table 2). Temper sizes depend on
their composition; chamotte usually has the largest size,
between 0.15 and 1.5 mm, showing angular to subangu-
lar shapes. Bioclasts consist of large bivalve and gastropod
shell fragments, although they only appear in two of the
samples studied (SER-6 and 9; Fig. 9; Fig. 12). In contrast,
the size of the siliciclastic temper and the non-bioclastic
carbonate grains is much smaller and range between 0.01
and 0.7 mm. Both grain types show sub-rounded shapes
and their mode is 0.1 mm.
The matrix of the Najeva Ciglana pottery is composi-
tionally a non-carbonate clay matrix, essentially made up
of phyllosilicates, although silt-sized quartz and feldspar
grains are also present. The temper is generally finer than at
Zlatica and it consists of grains of siliciclastic composition
(mono- and polycrystalline quartz, k-feldspar, plagioclase
and muscovite), carbonate grains (bioclasts and fragments
of micritic limestone, only in SER-6 and 9), and also brown
and black chamotte, except in SER-9 (table 2). Epidote and
biotite may also appear as accessory minerals (<1%).

79
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Apatite also appears, although it is difficult to assess its

percentage because it has optical properties very similar to
those of quartz.
The described textural and compositional characteristics
allow us to infer that the potter samples of Najeva Ciglana
are all very similar and only show small differences in the
proportion of their components (table 2), presenting many
similarities with type 1 of Zlatica. In this sense, the SER-6
(fig. 9) sample could be included in Zlatica type 1 pottery.
It should be noted that none of the analyzed ceramics from
Najeva Ciglana contain fragments of quartzite and granite
rocks, while the muscovite content is clearly higher than at
Zlatica.

Table 1: Mineral composition of the pottery of the settlement of Zlatica. Lm: limestone rock fragments. Bioc:
bioclasts (mainly bivalve shells); Cham: chamotte fragments; Q: quartz; Fld: feldspar; Ms: muscovite; Ep:
epidote; To: tourmaline; Bi: biotite; Ap: apatite; Gr: granite rock fragment; Qzt: quartzite rock fragment; Acc
min: accessory minerals.

Table 2: Mineral composition of the pottery of the settlement of Najeva Ciglana. Lm: limestone rock frag-
ments. Bioc: bioclasts (mainly bivalve shells); Cham: chamotte fragments; Q: quartz; Fld: feldspar; Ms:
muscovite; Bi: biotite; Ep: epidote; Ap: apatite; Acc min: accessory minerals.

80
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

P
A

Clay
P
Q
Q

Lms
Q

Clay
P

Ch

P
B

Clay
P
Q
Q

Lms

Clay
P

Ch

Fig. 4 Optical photomicrographs of sample SER-1 corresponding to type 1 matrix from Zlatica.
It is noted the high content of silt- clay-sized matrix versus temper and porosity. A) General view
of sample SER-1 (plane polarized, PPL): Porosity (P); micritic limestone fragment (Lms); quartz
(Q); brown chamotte (Ch); clay matrix (Clay). B) Cross-polarized (XPL) view stands up the larg-
er limestone fragment. The scale bar is 0.5 mm.

81
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

A P
Clay
Clay Ch

Q Ch

Q Clay P
Lms
Ch

Clay
Ch

B P
Clay
Clay Ch

Q Ch

Q Clay
P
Lms
Ch

Clay
Ch

Fig. 5 Optical photomicrographs of sample SER-3 corresponding to type 1 matrix from Zlatica.
It is noted the high content of silt- clay-sized matrix versus temper and porosity. A) General view
of sample SER-3 (plane polarized, PPL): Porosity (P); micritic limestone fragment (Lms); quartz
(Q); brown and black colored chamotte (Ch); clay matrix (Clay). B) Cross-polarized (XPL) view
stands up the limestone and chamotte fragments. The scale bar is 0.5 mm.

82
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

A Clay

Q
Q

Bio

Clay
Lms P
Clay

Ch

A Clay

Q
Q

Bio

Clay
P
Clay Lms

Ch

Fig. 6 Optical photomicrographs of sample SER-4 corresponding to type 1 matrix from Zlatica.
It is noted the high content of silt- clay-sized matrix versus temper and porosity. A) General view
of sample SER-4 (plane polarized, PPL): Porosity (P); micritic limestone fragment (Lms); quartz
(Q); brown chamotte (Ch); clay matrix (Clay). B) Cross-polarized (XPL) view stands up chamotte,
micritic limestone and bivalve shell fragment versus the finer siliciclastic grains. The scale bar
is 0.5 mm.

83
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

A
P

Bio
Clay Clay
Q

Ch Ch

Clay

B
P

Bio
Clay Clay
Q

Ch Ch

Clay

Fig. 7 Optical photomicrographs of sample SER-5 corresponding to type 1 matrix from Zlatica. It
is noted the high content of silt- clay-sized matrix versus temper and porosity. A) General view of
sample SER-5 (plane polarized, PPL): Porosity (P); bioclast (Bio); quartz (Q); brown and black
colored chamotte (Ch); clay matrix (Clay). B) Cross-polarized (XPL) view stands up the larger
chamotte and bivalve fragments over the siliciclastic temper grains. The scale bar is 1 mm.

84
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Pl
A P
Q
Q
Clay

Qz
Gr

Gr Q

F
F
Clay Pl

Q Q
Clay

B P Pl

Q
Clay

Qz
Gr

Gr Q

F
F
Clay
Pl
Q Q
Clay

Fig. 8 Optical photomicrographs of sample SER-2 corresponding to type 2 matrix from Zlatica.
It is noted the largest size of siliciclastic temper and the scarce porosity. A) General view of sam-
ple SER-2 (plane polarized, PPL): Porosity (P); quartz mono- and poly-crystalline (Q); k-feld-
spar (F); plagioclase (Pl); quartzite rock fragment (Qz); granite rock fragment (Gr); clay matrix
(Clay). B) Cross-polarized (XPL) view stands up the coarse quartz and granite fragments showing
subrounded shapes. The scale bar is 0.5 mm.

85
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

A Q
Bio

P
Clay
P

Ch Q
P Ch

Ch Lms

Ch
Clay
Clay
Ch

B Q
Bio

P
Clay
P

Ch Q
P Ch

Ch Lms

Ch
Clay
Clay
Ch

Fig. 9 Optical photomicrographs of sample SER-6 from Najeva Ciglana. The high content of the
silt-clay-sized matrix versus temper and porosity should be noted. A) General view of sample SER-
6 (plane polarized, PPL): Porosity (P); bioclast (Bio); quartz (Q); brown and black colored cha-
motte (Ch); clay matrix (Clay). B) Cross-polarized (XPL) view: the larger chamotte and bivalve
fragments stands up over the finer-grained siliciclastic temper grains. The scale bar is 1 mm.

86
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

A
Clay

Clay
Ch
P
F

Clay

Clay

B
Clay

Clay
Ch
P
F

Clay

Clay

Fig. 10 Optical photomicrographs of sample SER-7 corresponding to potters from Najeva Cigla-
na. The high content of silt- clay-sized matrix versus temper and porosity should be noted. A)
General view of sample SER-7 (plane polarized, PPL): Porosity (P); quartz (Q); K-feldspar (F);
brown chamotte (Ch); clay matrix (Clay). B) Cross-polarized (XPL) view: the larger chamotte
fragment, the finer-grained siliciclastic temper grains, and the phyllosilicate-rich clay matrix are
clearly visible. The scale bar is 1 mm.

87
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

A
Q Ch
Clay

Ch

P
Q
Ch

Clay

Q
P

B
Q Ch
Clay

Ch

P
Q
Ch

Clay

Q
P
Fig. 11 Optical photomicrographs of sample SER-8 from Najeva Ciglana. The high content of
silt- clay-sized matrix versus temper and porosity should be noted. A) General view of sample SER-
8 (plane polarized, PPL): Porosity (P); quartz (Q); brown and black colored chamotte (Ch); clay
matrix (Clay). B) Cross-polarized (XPL) view stands up the larger chamotte fragments and the
siliciclastic temper grains. The scale bar is 0.5 mm.

88
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

A P
Q Lms
P

Q F
Clay
Lms

Clay
Bio
Q
Clay

B P
Q Lms
P

Q F
Clay
Lms

Clay
Bio
Q
Clay

Fig. 12 Optical photomicrographs of sample SER-9 corresponding to potters from Najeva Cigla-
na. It is noted the high content of silt- clay-sized matrix versus temper and porosity. A) General
view of sample SER-9 (plane polarized, PPL): Porosity (P); quartz (Q); K-feldspar (F); bioclast
(Bio); micritic limestone fragments (Lms); clay matrix (Clay). B) Cross-polarized (XPL) view
stands up the large bivalve shell fragment and the siliciclastic temper grains. The scale bar is 0.5
mm.

89
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

A
P
Q Clay

Ch
Ch

Clay Q
P

Ch

A
P
Q Clay

Ch
Ch

Clay Q
P

Ch

Fig. 13 Optical photomicrographs of sample SER-10 corresponding to potters from Najeva Cigla-
na. It is noted the high content of silt- clay-sized matrix versus temper and porosity. A) General
view of sample SER-10 (plane polarized, PPL): Porosity (P); quartz (Q); brown and black colored
chamotte (Ch); clay matrix (Clay). B) Cross-polarized (XPL) view stands up the larger chamotte
fragments and the siliciclastic temper grains. The scale bar is 1 mm.

90
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Clay sediments from the Tamiš and Danube rivers

The Tamiš river mud samples 1 and 2 and those from the
Danube (samples 3 and 4) correspond to mud-sized sedi-
ments transported by both rivers and deposited on the ter-
races of their floodplains. Under the optical microscope,
the matrix of samples 2, 3 and 4 are characterized by a
predominantly phyllosilicatic composition. In contrast, the
sample 1 is much more marly and it is made up of a mixture
of phyllosilicates and carbonates (micrite). Analyzing these
clays by Rx diffraction it can be inferred that the compo-
sition of phyllosilicatic clay matrix mainly correspond to
muscovite group minerals while the composition of sample
1 is enriched in carbonates (mainly calcite) (table 3). This
compositional difference is probably related to the fact
that the sedimentation took place in a lagoon environment,
which would produce the deposition of more marly muds.

Table 3: XRD mineral composition data of clay sediments from the Tamiš and Danube rivers.

Other main components of these muds are silt-sized to

medium sand sub-rounded grains. Compositionally, silici-
clastic grains are common, such as mono-crystalline quartz,
which dominates over poly-crystalline type, K-feldspar,
plagioclase, muscovite, apatite and some epidote (table
3). All of them could derive from granite source areas, al-
though fragments of micritic limestone and dolostones are
also present.
Considering the set of textural and compositional charac-
teristics analyzed in sediment samples 2, 3 and 4 collected
on the terraces of the Danube and Tamiš rivers, it can be-
asserted that they are similar to those used by the Omoljica
and Najeva Ciglana potters. According to the obtained data,
sample 2 shows the most suitable composition because it is
the richest in phyllosilicates (48%) and the least carbonat-
ic (2%). Consequently, both Vatin settlements could have
used these clay muds as raw materials to manufacture their

91
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Fig. 15 Rx diffractograms of samples 1 and 2 corresponding to sediments from Tamiš river.

92
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Fig. 16 Rx diffractograms of samples 3 and 4 corresponding to sediments from Danube river.

93
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

pottery, which would logically present some variations in

the proportion of their components, depending on the place
of extraction. pottery, which would logically present some
variations in the proportion of their components, depending
on the place of extraction.
Conclusion

The Vatin potters of Zlatica and Najeva Ciglana used

non-carbonate clays, which can be found in the surround-
ings of both settlements. The main natural temper of these
clays is fine-grained quartz and feldspar grains (sand- to
silt-sized), and a limited amount of mica, mainly musco-
vite. Small fragments of micritic limestone are another nat-
ural component present in most of the samples, particularly
at Zlatica. The plasticity of this clay was usually corrected
through a limited amount (2-20%) of finely ground cha-
motte. The origin of the shell and bivalve fragments iden-
tified in most of the samples is uncertain. However, their
larger size, their sub-angular roundness and their absence
in the natural clay samples suggest that this was also an
intentionally added component.
Although both settlements used the same types of clay and
temper, some minor differences can be observed. At Zlat-
ica the clay composition is very similar in four of the five
samples and contains siliciclastic and carbonate grains, as
well as bioclasts and chamotte. Only one fragment (SER-2;
Fig. 8) is different, as it contains granite rock fragments and
no chamotte, limestone, nor bioclasts. As this sample be-
longs to a very well modelled and finely decorated beaker
(Fig. 2/5), it is possible that we are dealing with the product
of a specific, more specialized workshop using a slightly
different clay source. The ceramic from Najeva Ciglana
seems to have been more variable, and temper is generally
more fine-grained. Limestone fragments or shells are only
present in two of the three samples (SER-6, 9; fig.9; Fig.
12). Chamotte is also missing in one case (SER-9; Fig. 12)
and granite fragments are absent in all five vessels analysed
so far. The higher amount of muscovite in Najeva Ciglana
also supports the idea that each settlement produced its own
pottery. So far, only one pot (SER-6; Fig. 3/2) might be a
product from Zlatica used in Najeva Ciglana. The presence
and good preservation of small carbonatic components in
both settlements allows concluding that firing temperatures
were below 800º C (Hoard et al. 1995; Cultrone et al. 2001;
Risch, Gómez-Gras, 2003). Summarizing both neighbour-
94
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

ing communities used the same sort of raw materials and

firing strategies, but tended to produce its own pots. The
same clay types were used for different pottery shapes and
sizes. It can be noted however, that fine and well burnished
pottery, fired under oxidising atmosphere, tend to present
larger amounts of quartz, feldspar and/or granite fragments
(SER-2, 6 and 9; Fig. 8; Fig. 9; Fig. 12), than most of the
coarse ware vessels. These differences in temper and firing
conditions are further hints, that the fine Vatin pottery was
produced not only with slightly different clays but also by
different potters than the coarse ware.
In comparison to other Bronze Age pottery technologies of
the first half of the 2nd millennium BC, Vatin distinguishes
itself in terms of the fineness of the used clays, containing
relatively little and fine natural and added temper. In con-
trast, the pottery of El Argar or Unetice, for example, con-
tains a high quantity, often 50%, of coarse-grained natural
and added temper, composed of quartz, feldspar and mica.
The finer clays used by the Vatin potters seem to be more
adequate for the manufacture of a larger variety of shapes
and, particularly, to allow their prolific decoration.

Acknowledgments

Roberto Risch wishes to thank Jovan Čekić for his support

during the geo-archaeological survey along the banks of the
rivers Tamiš and Danube. This research has been support-
ed by the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (HAR2017-
85962-P), and by the ICREA Academia and the AGAUR
(2017SGR1044) programmes of the Generalitat de Cata-
lunya.

95
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

References: • Ljuština, M. 2015. The Danube Connects: Mid-

dle Bronze Age Settlements at Omoljica-Zlatica
• Bankoff, A. 2004. The Early and Middle Bronze and Pančevo-Najeva Ciglana vs. their Neigh-
Age of Southeastern Europe. in Ancient Europe bours from Vinča-Belo Brdo, North Serbia, Is-
8000 B.C.–A.D., in Bogucki, P. and Crabtree. tros XXI, Muzeul Brăilei ‘’Carol I’’. Brăila, 57-
P (eds.). 1000: Encyclopedia of the Barbarian 107.
World Vol. I and II. New York: Charles Scrib- • Ljuština, M. 2017. Vatin culture in scientific
ner’s Sons. opus of Miodrag Grbić, in: M.Vujović (ed.).
• Chayes, F. 1952. Notes of the staining of potash Ante portam auream: studia in Honorem Profes-
feldspar with sodium cobaltonitrite in thin sec- soris Aleksandar Jovanović, University of Bel-
tion. American Mineralogist 37, 337-340. grade, Faculty of Philosophy, 23- 44.
• Cultrone, G., Rodrígues-Navarro, C., Sebastian, • Маринковић, С. 1996. Керамика раног
E., Cazalla, O., de la Torre, M.J. 2001. Carbon- бронзаног доба из Музеја у Зрењанину.
ate and silicate phase reactions during ceramic Гласник музеја Банатa 7. Панчево, 21-27.
firing. European Journal of Mineralogy 13, 621- • Митровић, Ј. 2013. Допринос Душана
634. Карапанџића српској археологији на почетку
• Garašanin, M. 1983a. Vatinska grupa, in: Benac XX века Зборник Народног музеја 21–1,
A. (ed.). Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja IV. Београд, 321-330.
Bron-zano doba. Sarajevo, 504-519. • Радојчић, Н. 2013. Златица у Омољици и
• Garašanin, M. 1983b. Zapadnosrpska varijanta Најева Циглана у Војловици код Панчева:
vatinske grupe, in Benac, A. (ed.) Praistorija ju- керамички налази бронзаног доба, Београд.
go-slavenskih zemalja IV. Bronzano doba. Sara- • Risch, R., Gómez-Gras, D. 2003. La producción
jevo, 736-753. alfarera en época talayótica. Estudio petrográfi-
• Gogâltan, F. 2017. The Bronze age multilayered co y paleotecnológico de los materiales de Son
settlements in the Carpathian Basin (CCA. 2500 Ferragut (Sineu, Mallorca), in: P. Castro, T. Es-
– 1600/1500 BC). An old catalogue and some coriza y M.-E. Sanahuja (eds.). Mujeres y hom-
chronological problems. Journal of Ancient His- bres en espacios domésticos: trabajo y vida so-
tory and Archaeology 4.3., 28-62. cial en la Prehistoria de Mallorca (c. 700-500 cal
• Hoard, R.J., O’Brian, M.J., Ghazavy, M., Go- ANE), B.A.R., Oxford, 190-216.
palaratnam, V.S. 1995. A materials-science ap- • Tasić, N. 1974. Bronzano doba, in: B. Brukner,
proach to understanding Limestone-tempered B. Jovanović, N. Tasić (eds). PraistorijaVojvo-
Pottery from the Midwestern United States. dine, Novi Sad, 185-256.
Journal of Archaeological Science 22, 823-832. • Тасић, Н. 1983. Југословенско Подунавље од
• Ђорђевић, В. 2017. Налази из периода Сеобе индоевропске сеобе до продора Скита. Нови
народа са локалитета Доњоварошка (Најева) Сад, Београд.
циглана у Панчеву. Гласник музеја Баната • Tasić, N. 1984. Die Vatin-Kultur, u Kulturen der
19, 6-23. Frühbronzezeit das Karpatenbeckens und Nord-
• Грбић, M. 1939. Војводина I, Од најстаријих balkans. Beograd, 59-81.
времена до Велике сеобе. Нови Сад: Историско • Трбуховић В. 1968а. Проблеми порекла
друштво у Новом Саду, 47–60. и датовања бронзаног доба Србије.
• Ljuština, M. 2012. Stratigraphy of settlemtns Археолошки институт Београд, књига 6,
and periodisation of the Vatin culture in Vojvo- Београд, 59-70.
dina. University of Belgrade, Faculty of Philos- • Трбуховић, В. 1968 б. Нека разматрања о
ophy, Unpublished PhD thesis. стратиграфији на насељима бронзаног доба
у Војводини. Старинар XVIII. Београд, 175-
180.

96
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

• PDF-2, Powder Diffraction File. 2013. Interna-

tional Centre for Diffraction Data (ICDD). 12
Campus Boulevard., Newton Square, Pennsyl-
vania 19073-3273, USA. http://www.icdd.com.
• Vulić, N., Grbić, M. 1937. Corpus Vasorum An-
tiquorum Yougoslavie, fasc. 3. Beograd, 5, 7, Pl.
20-23.

97
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

David Gómez-Gras
Full-time professor
Department of Geology, Facultat de Ciències,
Autonomous University of Barcelona,
08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Spain
E-mail: [email protected]

David Gómez-Gras is professor of Sedimentary Petrology at the

Autonomous University of Barcelona. His research interests are
mainly focused on Sedimentary Petrology. He is currently work-
ing on provenance analysis of clastics as a powerful method for
verifying models concerning tectonic setting, temporal and spa-
tial evolution of uplifted source regions, sediment routing and
volumes of sediment delivered to basins. He is also currently
working on characterization and provenance of pottery specially
focused in Bronze Age cultures.

Roberto Risch
Full-time professor
Departament de Prehistòria
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Edifici B, 08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Spain
E-mail: [email protected]

Roberto Risch is professor of Prehistoric Archaeology at the

Autonomous University of Barcelona, and ICREA Acadèmia
Research Fellow. He has been a visiting scholar at numerous
European institutions including U. of Cambridge, U. di Padova,
U. Freiburg and, recently, the Max Planck Institute for the Sci-
ence of Human History (Jena). His research is mainly concerned
with the economy and ecology of Prehistoric societies. In his
more than 20 years of experience, he has investigated several
prehistoric sites in Spain, Germany and India, and conducted
ethnoarchaeological fieldwork in Ghana and Mali. The introduc-
tion of new approaches to the study of archaeological artefacts
has been an indispensable part of his investigation of prehistoric
economies.

98
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Jovan D. Mitrović
National Museum, Trg Republike 1a, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia
E-mail: [email protected]

He is an experienced archaeologist with substantial curatorial

knowledge and extensive field work experience. He is also a Phd
student (2018) at University of Primorska, Faculty of Human-
ities, Koper, Slovenia. His primary research interests include
museum collection and curation, (Early) Bronze Age ceramic
and metal analyses, archaeological field methods, history of the
Balkan archaeology, general archaeology of the Metal Ages and
Hellenistic era in the Central Balkans. He is currently working
on the analysis of the archaeological finds from the excavations
(Zók and Gradina- Bosut sites) in the 1920s and 1970/1980s.

Vojislav Đorđević
National Museum,
Trg kralja Petra I, 7, 26101, Pančevo, Serbia
E-mail: [email protected]

He is an archaeologist, senior curator of the National Museum

Pančevo, with extensive field work experience. He completed
postgraduate studies on the topic of medieval archeology in
southern Banat. His primary research interests include general
archeology and chronology of the ancient, Great migration and
the early medieval period in the region of Banat, and wider in
the Carpathian Basin. He is currently working on systematic and
extensive archaeological research of the ancient and medieval
settlement and necropolis in Dolovo near Pančevo (since 2013)
and on the development of an archaeological map and system-
atic field survey within the project „Archaeological Topography
of Banat” (since 2007), funded by Ministry of Culture of the
Republic of Serbia.

Vesna Vučković
Senior Custodian
Regional Museum Paraćin,
Tome Živanovića, 17, 35250, Paraćin, Serbia
E-mail: [email protected]

She is senior custodian- archaeologist at the Regional Museum

of Paraćin and a Postdoctoral scholar at the Zinman Institute
of Archaeology, Haifa, Israel. She presented her MA thesis
“Neolithic macro-lithic tools of the Middle Morava Valley” at
the University of Belgrade. She has recently finished her PhD
thesis on “Neolithic economy and macro-lithic tools of the
Central Balkans” at Autonomous University of Barcelona.

99
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Small two-handled kantharos, site of Omoljica. It served as models for the potter
(photo: N. Borić, Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade)

97
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Vatin culture pottery in settlements and

necropolises of Northeastern Serbia
Aleksandar Kapuran, Petar Milojević

Abstract: Almost five decades following the pioneer-

ing research of Bronze Age sites in Northeastern Serbia
(Timočka Krajina), several dozens of settlements and
solely five necropolises with incinerated deceased burials
have been recorded. Without the support of absolute dates,
those finds have been attributed with different cultural and
chronological determination in the archaeological litera-
ture. Relying on stylistic and typological characteristics of
ceramic production, forms and manners of decoration of
finds in question are characteristic for Middle Bronze Age
Vatin and Verbicioara cultures, as well as Paraćin culture
which has been dated to the Late Bronze Age. B. Jovanović
attributed the researched sites and necropolises to Paraćin
culture, while on the other hand D. Srejović and M. Lazić
defined a new cultural manifestation based on burial ritu-
als, the Gamzigrad group. The systematic research in the
vicinity of Bor, which sought to investigate the problem
of Bronze Age copper metallurgy, has resulted in a vast
amount of pottery finds characteristic for Vatin and Ver-
bicioara cultures, while a considerable portion of pottery
had the characteristics of Paraćin culture. The paper aims
to identify some of the crucial cultural attributions of Mid-
dle Bronze Age communities in Northeastern Serbia based
on new finds and absolute dates.

Keywords: Northeastern Serbia, Middle Bronze Age, Pro-

to Vatin, Vatin Culture, Verbicioara Culture, Paraćin Cul-
ture, pottery, metallurgy.

The Bronze Age of Northeastern Serbia has been in focus

of archaeological research since the 80s of the 20th cen-
tury when a cooperation between the Museum of Mining
and Metallurgy in Bor and the Institute of archaeology in
Belgrade resulted in systematic archaeological excavations
of a settlement and necropolis at the site of Trnjane near
Brestovačка Banja, 10 km west of Bor (Jovanović and
Janković, 1986 – 1990; Jovanović and Janković, 1996;
101
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Jovanović 1999; Капуран et al. 2014). Since the excava-

tions have determined a quite simple stratigraphic sequence
at the site: a shallow cultural layer devastated by intensive
plowing and erosion, the focus of the research was direct-
ed towards the necropolis with incinerated deceased which
was recorded directly next to the settlement. A set of pre-
viously unusual burial rituals were recorded on that occa-
sion, including urns with incinerated deceased which were
laid within the burial structures comprised of circular stone
constructions (Jovanović and Janković 1987-1990; Jova-
nović 1999). In their first detailed analysis of the necropo-
lis, B. Jovanović and I. Janković have concluded that both
the settlement and the necropolis are heavily influenced by
Vatin culture (Jovanović and Janković 1996). Later, based
on the burial ritual which included exclusively incinerated
deceased whose remains were stored in shallowly buried
ceramic vessels, B. Jovanović altered his opinion, as he at-
tributed the population buried at Trnjane necropolis to the
early period of the Urnfield Culture (Urnenfelderkultur)
and Paraćin cultural group (Jovanović 1999), an opin-
ion recently accepted by one of the authors of this paper
(Kапуран et al. 2013; Kapuran et al. 2017).
During the late 20th and the beginning of the 21st century, the
research on Bronze Age in the vicinity of Bor was lim-
ited to a necropolis at Bor Lake (Borsko jezero) (Лазић
2004, 113; Капуран и Миладиновић-Радмиловић 2011;
Капуран et al. 2014) and a previously unknown necropo-
lis was recorded at the site of Hajdučka Česma. Finally, a
renewed cooperation between the Museum of Mining and
Metallurgy in Bor and the Institute of archaeology in Bel-
grade was launched during 2011, and resulted in archaeo-
logical excavations of three new sites and one necropolis:
archaeometallurgical sites Ružana 1 and 2 in Banjsko Polje,
sites Kot 1 and 2 in Metovnica and the Kriveljski Kamen
– Bunar necropolis north of Bor (Kapuran and Jovanović
2013; Капуран et al. 2013; Kapuran et al. 2016; Капуран
и Јовановић 2013). The next phase of research marked a
new partnership between the mentioned institutions and the
OREA Institute of Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vien-
na during 2017. To this day, the latest phase of research
included a reexamination of Trnjane and Čoka Njica settle-
ments and new archaeological excavations at the Hajdučka
Česma necropolis, all located in the vicinity of Brestovačka
Banja. Thanks to Austrian partners, especially Dr. Mario
Gavranović, a series of absolute dates are acquired, which

102
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

now define a chronological framework for metallurgical

communities of the Bronze Age in the Timok Eruptive
Area (Bor Region).
Southern of Bor Region, on the right bank of Crni Timok
River and its tributaries, systematic archaeological exca-
vations of hilltop settlement at the site of Banjska Stena
(Срејовић и Лазић 1997; Лазић 1998; Лазић 2010; Lazić
2016), at the site of Miletov Bunar (Sladić i Ružić 2001)
and the site at the entrance to Zvezdan (Капуран 2009)
were conducted during the 80s and 90s of the 20th century.
During the same period, excavations were also conducted
at the necropolis with incinerated deceased at Magura Hill
and two graves were recorded within the Felix Romuli-
ana palace itself (Срејовић 1983; Васић 1993; Срејовић
и Лазић 1997; Лазић 2010; Lazić 2016). The research
cooperation between the Archaeological Institute in Bel-
grade and Free University in Berlin (Freie Universität) in
2007 and 2008, has conducted a new survey of the Seliški
Potok Valley and pointed out to the existence of several
dozens of Bronze Age sites in the close surroundings of
Felix Romuliana palace (Капуран и Шкундрић 2009; Ka-
puran 2014). In the region of Zaječar municipality, rescue
archaeological excavations at the site of Kotare-Ilino were
conducted in 2019 and yielded the remains of a settlement
concurrent with the one in the vicinity of Zaječar (forth-
coming). Based on the stylistic and typological characteris-
tics of urns and burial ritual from the necropolis of Magura,
D. Srejović and M. Lazić have concluded that a unique cul-
tural manifestation named the Gamzigrad group is formed
in the area of Crni Timok Basin (Срејовић и Лазић 1997;
Лазић 1998; Лазић 2010; Lazić 2016).
In the Knjaževac Region, systematic archaeological exca-
vations at the site of Kadijski Krst were conducted during
2003. The excavations have determined a cultural layer with
Bronze Age pottery and concurrent metal finds (Пековић и
Јевтић 2006). Surveys of the upstream of Beli Timok Riv-
er, as well as the confluence area of Trgoviški and Svrljiški
Timok rivers, were conducted in 2010 when several Bronze
Age sites were recorded (Капуран и Булатовић 2012).
Between 2011 and 2013, systematic archaeological re-
search was conducted in the Timočka Krajina Region, at
the site of Mokranjske Stene – Potkapina near the village
of Mokranje. Remains of almost all of the late prehistoric
horizons common for the Central Balkans were registered
at this multilayered site, including several potsherds which

103
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Fig. 1 1-11,13, Bowls from sites in vicinity of Bor and Zaječar; 12.Hajdučka Česma necropolis; 14 Trn-
jane necropolis; 15. Banjska stena hill fort. Thanks to A. Rakezić

104
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

can be attributed to Verbicioara culture. (Капуран и Јањић

2015).
The aforementioned brief history of research of Bronze
Age settlements and necropolises in Northeastern Serbia
points out to a relatively well-researched area that provides
sufficient material for a discussion on different cultural in-
fluences that have left traces on the material culture of pre-
historic communities from the first half of the 2nd millenni-
um BC (Map 1). A decade ago, A. Kapuran has published
finds which represent the results of the systematic survey
in the area of Roman Imperial palace of Felix Romuliana
(Капуран 2010). The same author concluded that the in-
fluence of Vatin and Verbicioara cultures is quire apparent
and easily distinguished on local pottery production, which
is once again confirmed by a new phase of archaeological
research of several sites in the vicinity of Bor. A consid-
erable problem for a detailed discussion on cultural attri-
bution of populations that inhabited the Crni Timok Basin
and the vicinity of Bor are extensive and yet unpublished
excavations of settlement at the site of Banjska Stena and
Magura necropolis near Zaječar. Save for the lecture held
at an international conference in Čačak in 2015, M. Lazić
has not provided new evidence on the presumed indepen-
dent cultural manifestation, defined as Gamzigrad group
by him and D. Srejović (Срејовић и Лазић 1997; Лазић
1998; Lazić 2016).
The task of this paper is to collect ceramic finds from
earlier excavations as well as from excavations recently
conducted on new and published sites and to present one
vessel currently in private property, that originates from the
site of Banjska Stena. That does not represent a difficult
endeavor considering that pottery with characteristic deco-
rative techniques of Vatin and Verbicioara cultures is easily
discerned from other utilitarian pottery of the Bronze Age
in the Central Balkans.
The typology of vessels with elements of Vatin culture
starts with a presentation of bowls which represent the most
common ceramic form at the sites in the Timočka Kraji-
na Region. Bowls are most often conical or semi-globular
(Fig. 1/2, 11, 12), while a large number of bowls possesses
a T-profiled shape (Fig. 1/1, 2, 7, 11). The rim is decorated
with either triangular (one or coupled) (Fig. 1/1, 2, 3, 5, 6,
8, 9, 10, 12) or trapezoid extensions (Fig. 1/4, 13). Bowl
with one handle which served as a lid of the urn from grave
1 at the site of Hajdučka Česma possesses four triangular

105
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Fig. 2 1. Banjska stena hill fort; 2-4, 8-11, 16. Sites Ružana 1 and 2; 5-6., 12. Trnjane settlement;
7. Šarbanovac: 13-15. Mokranjske stene: 17. Trnjane necrolois.

106
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

extensions distributed solely on one half of the rim (Fig.

1/12). Less common form are S-profiled bowls with everted
rim, with a handle below the rim and triangular extensions
on the rim. This type of bowl has been recorded at Trnjane
necropolis (Jovanović and Janković 1996, Abb. 9a/4) (Fig.
1/14) and settlement (Fig. 1/1, 3) (forthcoming). New find
of a bowl from the site of Banjska Stena1, black polished
with tunneled handles and incised decoration represents the
best example of Verbicioara influence on the Bronze Age
ceramic production in Northeastern Serbia (Fig. 1/15).
The next type of vessel that indicates the influence of Va-
tin and Verbicioara cultures are beakers with rarely one and
more often two handles (Fig. 2/16, 17). Such beakers are
usually biconical, although there are certain examples with
the globular belly (Fig. 2/17). Rarely, beakers are decorated
with incisions forming doubled volutes, as is the case with
the beaker recorded at the Banjska Stena hill fort (Fig. 2/1)
which represents an example of classical phase of Vatin
culture in Banat (Срејовић и Лазић 1997; Радојчић 2013,
51/117; Ljuština 2012, Fig. 51/12). Handles of such beakers
are usually represented by wide ribbons with an indentation
in the middle, either circularly bent or ansa lunata and sur-
pass the rim of the beaker. Beakers originating from sites in
Northeastern Serbia posses Buckel decoration on the belly
(Fig. 2/2, 3, 4, 10, 13), and some examples are decorat-
ed with puncturing (Fig. 2/6,7), which is characteristic for
Bubanj Hum IV – Ljuljaci phase according to A. Bulatović
and J. Stankovski (Булатовић и Станковски 2012, 241,
Tab. 9 i 14). Similar to the bowls, the rims are decorat-
ed with one triangular (Fig. 2/1-4) or trapezoid extensions
(Fig. 2/5, 7, 10). Peculiar are examples of globular beakers
with extremely thin walls which have been recorded at the
site of Mokranjske Stene – Potkapina, with decoration typ-
ical for Verbicioara cultural domain (Fig. 2/13-15). Beakers
with one handle are represented by an example recorded
next to the metallurgical kiln at the site of Ružana 1 (Fig.
2/16) and a beaker with one ansa lunata handle recorded in
grave 14 at Trnjane necropolis (Jovanović i Janković 1996,
Abb. 8a).

1 The bowl was found by Aleksandar Rakezić from Pančevo, owner of a weekend cot-
tage near Banjska Stena. The bowl was scattered around a hole made by metal-deectors
on the foothill of the site. A. Rakezić collected the pieces and reconstucted the bowl.
The drawing was produced by the author of this paper A. Kapuran, by courtesy of A.
Rakezić, whom we thank on this occasion.

107
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

The final type of pottery analyzed in this paper are pots,

which could save for the storage function (Fig. 3/5, 6), uti-
lize the function of urns in burial rituals (Fig. 1-4, 8). Pot-
sare recorded in various forms such as bell-shaped (Fig.
3/1), pear-shaped (Fig 3/5), biconical (Fig. 2, 3, 8), or with
an accentuated (broad) body (Fig. 3/4, 6, 7).

Fig. 3 1-11, 13. Bowls from sites in vicinity of Bor and Zaječar; 12. Hajdučka Česma
necropolis; 14. Trnjane necropolis; 15. Banjska stena hill fort.

108
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Handles are knee-shaped (Fig. 3/1, 3) or wide ribbon-like

(Fig. 3/2, 6, 7). In certain cases handles are horizontally
positioned in the middle of the belly (Fig. 3/2, 4, 8). The
decoration is represented with finger impressions (Fig. 3/5)
or applied modeled band (Fig. 3/4, 8). Most of the pots are
undecorated and possess an extremely burnished surface
(Fig. 3/6, 7).
Besides M. Garašanin, during the last century, the idea of
influences of Vatin culture on Bronze Age cultures south of
Sava and Danube intrigued colleagues M. Bogdanović and
M. Stojić, while the greatest contribution on the subject fol-
lowing 2000 was provided in a monograph by A. Bulatović
and J. Stankovski (Булатовић и Станковски 2012). Their
contribution is provided by a collection of all relevant Va-
tin culture finds in the Južna Morava and Pčinja regions,
and the attributing of Bronze Age settlements and necrop-
olises in Northeastern Serbia to Bubanj Hum IV – Ljuljaci
phase (Булатовић и Станковски 2012, 345). However, the
greatest contribution in the research of Vatin culture in the
territory of the Central Balkans was provided by materials
collected in the course of systematic research of the site
of Ljuljaci near Kragujevac (Богдановић 1986). Three
stratigraphically different horizons have been recorded at
this prehistoric settlement, which provided a basis for the
classification of recorded ceramic finds (phases Ljuljaci
I-III). In that book, M. Bogdanović also provides two ab-
solute dates which position phase Ljuljaci I to 1950 BC and
phase Ljuljaci II between 1730 and 1690 BC (Богдановић
1986, 70).
The beakers represent one of the most suitable forms for
comparative analysis in our paper. Parallels between the
pottery at the site of Ljuljaci with the pottery which points
to influences of Vatin culture in Northeastern Serbia are
numerous. The beaker from the Banjska Stena hill fort is
quite analogous to finds from phase Ljuljaci III according
to M. Bogdanović (Богдановић 1986,33/38) and displays
similar stylistic and typological characteristics with beaker
from Vinča, originating from a horizon dated by N. Tasić to
1600 BC (Jovanović 1961, sl. 1/1; Тасић 1984, 83). Bea-
kers with trapezoid extensions on the rim from Podgorac,
Trnjane, and Kamenica, would without a doubt belong to
phase Ljuljaci I (Богдановић 1986, 34/22-24), similar to
finds of Vatin culture beakers from the sites of Sokolica
in Ostra near Čačak (Стојић 2000, сл.1; Ljuština 2011,
Fig. 3/1), Sarina međa near Jagodina (Стојић 1992, сл.7),

109
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Orašje near Kruševac (Тасић 2001), Gloždak in Paraćin

(Стојић 1992, сл. 12), and the site of Lazarev Grad in
Kruševac (Стојић и Чађеновић 2006). In the area of Juž-
na Morava Basin, A. Bulatović and J. Stankovski classify
beakers with trapezoid extensions to Type VI which corre-
sponds to Bubanj Hum IV – Ljuljaci phase of the Middle
Bronze Age (Булатовић и Станковски 2012, 241, Tab. 3/
VI i Tab. 14). The closest analogies are found in beakers
from the site of Bubanj in Novo Selo near Niš (Стојић и
Јоцић 2006, Т. LXXIV/190 – 192) and the site of Vitkovac
(Стојић и Јоцић 2006, T.X). Beaker with one handle re-
corded next to the metallurgical kiln at the site of Ružana
1 (Kapuran et al. 2016, T. 2/7) displays close parallels with
certain Early Bronze Age finds, as it is similar to beakers
from Belotić – Bela Crkva necropolises in Western Ser-
bia (Гарашанин 1973, 264, T. 44) and Vinkovci culture
beakers from the site of Bosut-Gradina (Tasić 1984, Taf.
IV/12; Поповић и Радојчић 1996, к 22). An absolute date
was acquired from the mentioned kiln, which falls between
1876 and 1765 cal BC (forthcoming). The other beaker with
one handle was recorded in grave 14 at Trnjane necropolis
(Jovanović and Janković 1996, Abb. 8a), and closest analo-
gies are found in Pančevo-Omoljica phase of Vatin culture
(Tasić 1974, 213/123; Радојчић 2013, 31/51, 57/133).
Besides the dwelling horizons in settlements, the bowls
were also recorded within the context of burial ritual, and
in several cases those represented lids for urns with the re-
mains of cremated deceased, as is the case with grave 33
at Trnjane necropolis (Jovanović i Janković 1996 Abb. 9a)
or grave 1 at Hajdučka Česma (forthcoming). For exam-
ple, S-profiled bowl with a triangular extension on the rim
from grave 33 at Trnjane necropolis is identical in form and
decoration with bowl from Vinča (Tasić 1984, Taf. XV/3)
or bowl recorded at the site of Novačka Ćuprija (Крстић e
al 1986, T. XII/3,4). The similar form can be noted on the
bowl from Slatina near Drenovac (Стојић 1992, сл. 14).
Semi-globular bowls with T-shaped cross-section have
analogies with finds of Pančevo-Omoljica phase of Vatin
culture (Радојчић 2013, 38/75). The finest example rep-
resents a bowl which originates from the foothill of Ban-
jska Stena. Based on form and decoration, this example is
typical for Verbicioara culture, which is also the case with a
fragment of globular pot from the site of Mokranjske Stene,
a lid from the site of Ružana 1 (Fig. 3/11) and a decorated
vessel belly from the same site (Fig. 3/10).

110
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

As previously noted, pots bearing characteristics of Vatin

culture on Bronze Age sites in Northeastern Serbia origi-
nate from two contexts. First context refers to necropolises
and the second context belongs to the material culture
from habitation horizons in settlements. A pot shaped like
an inverted bell with two knee-shaped handles, used as an
urn for the remains of incinerated deceased was recorded
in grave 21 at Trnjane necropolis (Jovanović and Jankov-
ić 1996, Abb. 9a1). Urn covered with a bowl described in
the previous chapter was recorded in grave 1 at Hajdučka
Česma necropolis. The neck of the urn was decorated with
an applied modeled triangle motif (Fig. 3/4), identical to
decoration recorded on pots from Donja Varoš in Panče-
vo (Grčki-Stanimirov 1996, T. IV/5). In tiple grave 5 at
the same necropolis, a vessel with two vertical ribbon-like,
two horizontal tunneled handles and a trapezoid extension
on the rim was utilized as an urn (forthcoming) (Fig. 3/2).
The other urn from the same grave is also biconical and
possesses four knee-shaped handles and a triangular exten-
sion on the rim (forthcoming) (Fig. 3/4). The other type of
pot which is common for settlement in Northeastern Serbia
possesses a biconical form with emphasized laterals, and
based on narrow neck and rim could represent an amphora.
Similar examples are known from Knjaževac and Kadijski
Krst (Fig. 3/6, 7). The closest analogies are found in pots
recorded at the sites of Feudvar (Grčki-Stanimirov 1991,
113, Taf. 28/3) and Ljuljaci (Богдановић 1986, 47, sl. 69).
Pot-urn from grave 63 at Magura necropolis is almost iden-
tical to a pot from the site of Vatin (Tasić 1974, sl. 151).

Conclusion

The joint results of excavations on several sites in the

vicinity of Bor: Ružana 1 and 2, Trnjane and Hajdučka
Česma, as well as newly acquired absolute dates from
enclosed contexts, provide us sufficient data to claim that
the chronological frame of settling during the Bronze Age
in the vicinity of Bor falls within the time interval between
the 19th and the 17th century BC (Bulаtović at al 2020 forth-
coming). This data certainly disprove B. Jovanović’s opin-
ion that Trnjane necropolis originates from the Late Bronze
Age, meaning Paraćin culture (Jovanović 1999). Likewise,
the presented chronological frame does not support the
opinion of M. Lazić that Trnjane necropolis was utilized
in a period between 1700/1600 BC and 1300 BC (Лазић

111
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

2004, 123).
At the moment, the most likely scenario is that the prehis-
toric populations that exploited copper ore in the vicinity of
Bor are slightly older that communities concentrated near
Banjska Stena and Magura necropolis near Zaječar. Bor are
slightly older that communities concentrated near Banjska
Stena and Magura necropolis near Zaječar. The presented
ceramic finds, which display elements of Vatin and Verbi-
cioara cultures, as well as absolute dates, reveal a distinct
chronological connection between Protovatin cultures from
the fringe of the Carpathian Basin and populations which
inhabited the region of Timočka Krajina. A find of Cyprian
type of pin at the site of Kadijski Krst also confirms the
Early Bronze Age influences from the Northern Balkans on
Bronze Age communities in Northeastern Serbia. But, this
is not solely the case in Northeastern Serbia, as seen from
sites located in adjacent regions such as southern banks of
Danube in front of the Iron Gates, numerous sites surround-
ing Požarevac (Стојић и Јацановић 2008)2, Viminacium
(Bulatović et al. 2019; Kapuran et al. 2019) and Novačka
ćuprija (Kрстић at al 1986) and valleys of Velika and Za-
padna Morava with sites Gloždak, Lešje, Drenovac, Majur
and Sarina Međa (Стојић 1992; Стојић 1986), Blagotin
(Николић и Капуран 2001), Sokolica in Ostra (Стојић
2000), Orašje and Lazarev Grad in Kruševac (Тасић 2001;
Стојић и Чађеновић 2006) (Map 2). Sites with finds at-
tributed to Protovatin culture have also been registered in
Južna Morava and Nišava valleys, such as Školska Gradi-
na in Rutevac (Стојић и Чађеновић 2006), Bubanj-Novo
Selo and Velika Humska Čuka near Niš (Стојић и Јоцић
2006; Булатовић и Станковски 2012), Vitkovac, Vrtište,
Kamenica and Striža (Стојић и Јоцић 2006) (Map 2).
The insight into the distribution of sites with elements of
Vatin culture south of Serbian part of the Danube Basin,
which has been thoroughly complemented since M. Stojić
dedicated a number of papers to the subject (Стојић 1986;
Стојић 1992; Стојић 1995; Stojić 1998), indicates that
the area of influence of Protovatin culture had shifted far
to the south compared to the territory of Vojvodina with
Pančevo-Omoljica, Corneşti-Crvenka and Syrmia-Sla-
vonia groups (surroundings of the confluence of Tisa and
Tamiš). Middle Bronze Age communities from the north of
the Balkan Peninsula had to be connected with metallurgic
2 Sites Trnjane kod groblja, Klenovi, Usje-Grad, Živinarska farma in Požarevac,
Batovac, Bratinac, Drmno-Lugovi, Drmno-Nad lugom, Ušće Tumanske reke,
Kličevac, Kličevac-kod zadružnog doma, Kravlji do-Izvor, Kurjače and Sestroljin in
Poljana. 112
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

communities in the Timok Region of Northeastern bia, es-

pecially due to the high demand for copper, which was es-
sential for bronze production. We may or may not agreewith
the claim that the material culture on Middle Bronze Age
settlements south of Danube is of Vatin origin, although
modest in terms of decoration compared to the pottery at-
tributed to the classical style of Vatin culture, developed in
the southern part of the Carpathian Basin. If it is not influ-
enced by classical Vatin culture, then we are dealing with
some sort of Protovatin, according to the absolute dates and
according to A. Bulatović. In the case of Magura necrop-
olis, based on the burial ritual and characteristic handles
on urns, D. Srejović, and M. Lazić define a unique mani-
festation - Gamzigrad group (Срејовић и developed in the
southern part of the Carpathian Basin. If it is not influenced
by classical Vatin culture, then we are dealing with some
sort of Protovatin, according to the absolute dates and ac-
cording to A. Bulatović. In the case of Magura necropo-
lis, based on the burial ritual and characteristic handles on
urns, D. Srejović, and M. Lazić define a unique manifesta-
tion - Gamzigrad group (Срејовић и Лазић 1997), yet urn
from the grave 63 still displays almost the same style and
decoration as a pot from Vatin (Tasić 1974, sl. 151). There-
fore, it seems logical to claim that each region possesses
certain local characteristics, yet the opinion that the Middle
Bronze Age should not be considered as a period of vast
cultural complexes, as claimed by M. Ljuština, does not
stand (Ljuština 2012, 187).
Pottery bearing characteristic of Verbicioara culture is
represented in far fewer numbers on sites in Northeastern
Serbia, but its presence should not be neglected. Besides on
the sites mentioned in this paper, finds with characteristics
of Verbicioara culture in Northeastern Serbia are known
solely from the site of Manastir in Đerdap George near
Gospođin Vir (Brukner 1969) and the site of Velika Hums-
ka Čuka near Niš (Булатовић и Милановић 2014). N. Ta-
sić could not provide an answer on the question of possible
coexistence of Vatin and Verbicioara cultures in southern
Banat, near Vršac and Vatin region (Тасић 1983, 68). The
same author considered that the cultures in question most
likely originated from the same cultural core, judging by
the characteristics represented on pottery and metal finds of
Vučedol and Vinkovci culture on one side and Transylva-
nia, Mureş and Tisa valleys on the other (Тасић 1983, 68).
According to the division proposed by E Nica, the elements

113
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

of Verbicioara culture that occur on vessels in Northeastern

Serbia, as well as beakers that resemble the ones from Vatin
culture, would belong to phase Verbicioara II of Middle
Bronze Age (Nica 1996). Based on the manner of decora-
tion common for our territory, the stylistic and typological
elements have analogies in vessels recorded at the site of
Curmătura-Măgura (Nica 1996, T. 7/9). Bearing in mind
that Crvenka - Corneşti (early phase of Vatin culture) and
Verbicioara cultures coexisted in southern Banat, it does
not come as a surprise that the same stylistic and typologi-
cal elements occur on finds in Northeastern Serbia, though
not in the same proportion.

Map 1: 1. Manastir-Gospođin Vir, 2. Kriveljski

Kamen-Bunar, 3. Čoka Njica, 4. Hajdučka Čes-
ma, 5. Borsko jezero, 6. Trnjane, 7. Ružana 1 i
2, 8. Magura, 9. Banjska Stena, 10. Site on the
entrance of Zvezdan, 11. Mokranjske stene, 12.
Kadijski Krst, 13. Kamenica.

114
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Map 2: 1. Požarevac i Viminacijum, 2. Vinča, 3. Novačka Ćuprija, 4. Glodak, 5. Lešje, 6.

Drenovac, 7. Sarina Međa, 8. Vecina mala, 9. Blagotin, 10. Sokolica-Ostra, 11. Orašje,
12. Lazarev Grad, 13. Školska gradina-Rutevac, 14. Bubanj, 15. Humska Čuka, 16.
Vitkovac, 17. Vrtište, 18. Kamenica, 19. Striža.

115
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

References: • Jovanović, B. 1961. Pojava keramike vatinsk-

og tipa na vinčanskom naselju. Vesnik muzejs-
• Богдановић, М. 1986. Љуљаци: Насеље ko-konzervatorskog društva 1-2, 5-14.
протоватинске и ватинске културе. • Jovanović, B. 1999. Funerary Rites and Tomb
Крагујевац: Народни музеј Constructions in Necropoles of the Paraćin and
• Brukner, B. 1969. Manastir, Gospođin vir - pra- Donja Brnjica Cultures. in: Petrova, E. (ed.),
istorijsko naselje. Arheološki pregled 11, 136- Macedonia and the neighbouring regions from
139. 3rd to 1st milenium B.C.: papers presented at
• Булатовић, А. и Милановић, Д. 2012. Велика the International symposium in Struga 1997,
Хумска чука, истраживања 2009. године – Skopje: Museum of Macedonia, 67-72.
прилог проучавању стратиграфије енеолита • Jovanović, B. and Janković, N. 1987-1990.
и бронзаног доба у југоисточној Србији. Nekropola paraćinske grupe u Trnjanima kod
Гласник Српског археолошког друштва 30, Brestovačke banje. Zbornik radova Muzeja ru-
163-188. darstva i metalurgije u Boru 5/6, 1-12.
• Bulatović, A., Jovičić, M., Milovanović, B. • Jovanović, B. Janković, I. 1996. Die Keramik
2019. Horizont ranog bronaznog doba na loka- der Nekropole der Paraćin-kultur-Trnjane bei
litetu Rit, u Kapuran at al. (eds.) Viminacijum Bor, in: Tasić, N. (ed.), The Yugoslav Danube
u praistoriji, iskopavanja 2005-2015. Beograd: Basin and the Neighbouring Regions in the 2nd
Arheološki institut, 57-78. Millenium B. C. (ur. N. Tasić). Belgrade: Serbi-
• Bulatović, A. Kapuran, A. Gavranović, M.. New an Academy of Science and Arts, Institute for
absolute dates for the Middle and Late Bronze Balkan Studies, 185-200.
Ages in central Balkans and some indications or • Капуран, А. и Шкундрић, Ј. 2009. Резултати
the local metallurgy and workshops, in: Jung, R. систематских рекогносцирања локалитета
and Popov, H. (eds.), Searching for Gold - Re- Ромулијана 2008/9 године. Саопштења XLI,
sources and Networks in the Bronze Age of the 245-263.
Eastern Balkans. Vienna: OREA in press. • Капуран, А. 2010. О утицајима Ватина
• Булатовић, А. и Станковски, J. 2012. Бронзано и Вербичоаре на налазима гамзиградске
доба у басену Јужне Мораве и у долини културе. Старинар LXI, 53-70.
Пчиње. Београд: Археолошки институт. • Капуран, А. и Миладиновић – Радмиловић,
• Гарашанин, М. 1973. Праисторија на тлу СР Н. 2011. Некропола на Борском језеру, нови
Србије, Београд: Српска књижевна задруга. прилози о сахрањивању у бронзаном добу.
• Grčki-Stanimirov, S. 1991. Eine bronzezeitli- Старинар LXI, 141-153.
che Vorratsgrube, in: Hänsel, B. and Me- • Капуран, А. и Булатовић, А. 2012.
dović, P. (eds.) Vorbericht über die jugoslaw- Праисторијски локалитети у долинама
isch-deutschen Ausgrabungen in der Sied- lung Сврљишког, Трговишког и Белог Тимока.
Feudvar bei Mošorin (Gem. Titel, Vojvodi- Гласник Српског археолошког друштва 28:
na) von. 1986-1990: Bronzezeit-Vorrömische 107-132.
Eisenzeit. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen • Капуран, А. и Јовановић, И. 2013.
Kommission, Band 72. Mainz: Philipp von Za- Археолошка истраживања праисторијских
bern, 110-116. локалитета у околини Бора у 2012. и 2013.
• Grčki-Stanimirov, S. 1996. Pančevo – „Don- години. Зборник радова Музеја рударства и
ja varoš“ – Horizont der ersten siedlungen der металургије у Бору 13/15, 1-16.
frühen Bronzezeit im südlichen Banat. in: Tasić,
N. (ed.), The Yugoslav Danube Basin and the
Neighbouring Regions in the 2nd Millenium B.
C. Belgrade: Serbian Academy of Science and
Arts, Institute for Balkan Studies, 69-80.

116
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

• Kapuran, A. and Jovanović, I. 2013. Ruža- • Крстић Д., Bankoff A., Вукмановић М.,
na-new Bronze Age Metallurgical Center in Winter F. 1986. Праисторијски локалитет.
North Eastern Serbia, in: Štrbac, N., Živkov- Новачка ћуприја. Зборник Народног музеја
ić, D. and Nestorović, S. (eds.), Poroceedings XII–1, 17-63.
of 45th International October Conference on • Лазић, М. 1998. Гaмзиградска култура –
Mining and Metallurgy, 16-19 October on Bor последње откриће Драгослава Срејовића, у:
Lake. Belgrade: University of Belgrade; Bor: Тасић, Н. (ур.), Рад Драгослава Срејовића
Technical Faculty in Bor and Mining and Met- на истраживању праисторије централног
allurgical Institute in Bor, 831-834 Балкана. Београд: Центар за научна
• Капуран, А., Булатовић, А., Јовановић, истраживања Српске Академије наука
И. 2014. Бор и Мајданпек, културна и уметности; Београд: Универзитета у
стратиграфија праисторијских локалитета Крагујевцу, 147-158.
између Ђердапа и Црног Тимока. Београд: • Лазић, М. 2004. Бор и околина у бронзнаом
Археолошки институт; Бор: Музеј рударства добу, у: Лазић, М. (ур.) Бор и околина у
и металургије. праисторији, антици и средњем веку, Бор:
• Kapuran, A. 2014. Praistorijski lokaliteti u sev- Музеј рударства и металургије; Београд:
roistočnoj Srbiji od neolita do dolaska rimljana. Центар за археолошка истраживања
Beograd: Arheološki institut. Филозофског факултета, 102-128.
• Kапуран, А., Миладиновић-Радмиловић, Н. • Лазић, М. 2010. Праисторијска насеља и
и Јовановић, И. 2013. Криваљски Камен – некрополе у Гамзиграду и његовој околини,
Бунар, Hекропола Урненфелдер Културе у у: Поповић, И. (ур.), Felix Romuliana –
околини Бора. Зборник Народног Музеја у Гамзиград. Београд: Археолошки институт,
Београду 21/1, 145-156. 21-28.
• Kapuran, A., Živković, D. and Štrbac, N. 2016. • Ljuština, M. 2011. Well Defined or Taken for
New Evidence for Prehistoric Copper Metal- Granted - the Bronze Age Vatin Culture a Cen-
lurgy in the Vicinity of Bor. Старинар LXVI, tury after, In: Magureanu, D., Măndescu, D.
173-191. and Matei, S. (eds.) Archeology: making of and
• Капуран, А. и Јањић, Г. 2015. Стратиграфија practice, studies in Honour of Mircea Babeş at
археолошког комплекса Мокрањске стене, у: his 70th anniversary. Bucureşti: Institutul de
Капуран, А. и Булатовић, А. (ур.) Мокрањске Arheologie “Vasile Pârvan”; Piteşti: Vasil Par-
стене, културна баштина Неготинске van & Editura Odrdessos, 103-113.
Крајине. Неготин: Музеј Крајине, 9-22. • Ljuština, M. 2012. Stratigrafija naselja i pe-
• Kapuran, A., Miladinović-Radmilović, N. and riodizacija vatinske kulture u Vojvodini, PhD
Vuković, N. 2017. Funerary Traditions of the thessis, unpublish. Beograd: Filozofski fakultet,
Bronze Age Metallurgical Communities in the Univerzitet u Beogradu.
Iron Gates Hinterland, in: Ložnjak-Dizdar, D. • Nica, M. 1996. Date noi privire la geneza şi
(ed.) Late Urnfeld Culture Between the South- evoluţia culturii Verbicioara. Drobeta VII. 18-
ern Alps and the Danube, International Confer- 34.
ence November 7-8, Zagreb. Zagreb: Institute • Николић, Д. и Капуран, А. 2001. Слој
of Archaeology, 131-141. енеолита и раног бронзаног доба на
• Kapuran, A. Bulatović, A. i Danković, I. 2019. Благотину, у: Тасић, Н. и Радуловић, Е. (ур.),
Horizonti bronzanog doba na lokalitetu Nad Археолошка налазишта Крушевца и околине.
Klepečkom, u: Kapuran A., Bulatović, A., Fi- Крушевац: Народни музеј Крушевац;
lipović, V., Golubović, S. (ur.), Viminacium u Београд: Балканолошки институт Српске
praistoriji, iskopavanja 2005-2015. Beograd: академије наука и уметности, 159-173.
Arheološki institut, 79-142. • Пековић, М. и Јевтић, М. 2006. Сондажна
археолошка истраживања налазишта
Кадијски Крст код Књажевца. Гласник
српског археолошког друштва 22, 111-122.

117
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

• Поповић, Д. и Радојчић, Н. 1996. Градина на • Стојић, М. и Јацановић, Д. 2008.

Босуту. Шид: Галерија “Сава Шумановић” Пожаревац, културна стратиграфија
• Радојчић, Н. 2013. Златица у Омољици и праисторијских локалитета u Браничеву.
Најева Циглана у Војловици код Панчева : Београд: Археолошки институт; Пожаревац:
керамички налази бронзаног доба. Београд: Народни музеј.
Народни музеј. • Tasić, N. 1974. Bronzano doba. u: Brukner, B.,
• Срејовић, Д. 1983. Гамзиград у праисторији, у: Jovanović, B. i Tasić, N. (ur.), Praistorija Vo-
Срејовић, Д. (ур.) Гамзиград: касноантички jvodine. Novi Sad: Institut za izučavanje istorije
царски дворац. Београд: Галерија Српске Vojvodine i Savez arheoloških društava Jugo-
академије наука и уметности, 18-21. slavije, 185-256.
• Срејовић, Д. Лазић, М. 1997. Насеља и • Тасић, Н. 1983. Југословенско Подунавље од
некрополе у Тимочкој Крајини, у: Лазић, М. индоевропске сеобе до продора Скита. Нови
(ур.) Археологија источне Србије. Београд: Сад: Матица српска, Одељење за друштвене
Филозофски факултет, Центар за археолошка науке; Београд: Балканолошки институт
истраживања, 225-248. САНУ.
• Стојић, М. 1986. Праисторијско насеље • Тасић, Н. 1984. Насеље ватинске културе,
Вецина мала у Мајуру код Светозарева. у: Ћелић, С. (ур.), Винча у праисторији и
Старинар XXXVI, 145-152. Тасић, Н. 1984. Насеље ватинске културе,
• Стојић, М. 1992. Налазишта ватинске у: Ћелић, С. (ур.), Винча у праисторији и
културне групе у среднјем подунављу. средњем веку. Београд: Српска академија
Зборник Народног музеја XIV -1, 213-220. наука и уметности, 76-83.
• Стојић, М. 1995. Однос Поморавља и • Tasić, N. 1984a. Die Vatin-Kultur, in: Tasić,
српског подунавља у бронзано и гвоздено N. (ed.), Kulturen der Frühbronzezeit das Kar-
доба, Зборник Народног музеја (Чачак) XXIV, patenbeckens und Nordbalkans. Beograd: Bal-
19-27. kanološki institut Srpske akademije nauka i
• Stojić, M. 1998. Lieux de trouvaille de la umetnosti, 59-81.
céramique de type Vatin en Serbie au sud de • Tasić, N. 1984b. Die Verbicioara-Kultur. in: Ta-
la Save et du Danube. in: Schuster, C. (ed.), sić, N. (ed.), Kulturen der Frühbronzezeit das
Die Kulturen der Bronzezeit in dem Gebiet Karpatenbeckens und Nordbalkans. Beograd:
des Eisernen Tores – Kolloquium in Drobe- Balkanološki institut Srpske akademije nauka i
ta-Turnu Severin (November 1997). Bukarest: umetnosti, 83-92
Rumänisches Institut für Thrakologie, 81-104. • Тасић, Н. 2001. Праисторијске културе и
• Стојић, M. 2000. Праисторијска керамика налазишта на подручју Крушевца, у: Тасић,
са локалитета Соколица у Остри. Зборник Н. и Радуловић, Е. (ур.), Археолошка
радова Народног музеја (Чачак) XXX, 15-20. налазишта Крушевца и околине. Крушевац:
• Стојић, М. и Чађеновић, Г. 2006. Крушевац, Народни музеј Крушевац; Београд:
културна стратиграфија праисторијских Балканолошки институт Српске академије
локалитета у зони састава Западне Мораве наука и уметности, 7-20.
и Јужне Мораве. Београд: Археолошки • Васић, Ч. 1993. Царски маузолеји и
институт; Крушевац: Народни музеј. консеркветивни споменици на локалитету
• Стојић, М. и Јоцић, М. 2006. Ниш, културна Магура (Караула), у: Серјовић, Д. (ур.)
стартиграфија праисторијских локалитета Римски царски градови и палате, Београд:
у нишкој регији. Београд: Археолошки Српска академија наука и уметности, 148-
институт; Ниш: Народни музеј. 163.

118
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Aleksandar Kapuran
senior research
Prehistory Department
Institute of Archaeology, Knez Mihajlova 35/IV,
11000 Belgrade, Serbia
E-mail: [email protected]

His scientific interest is focused on Bronze Age copper

metallurgy in Northeastern Serbia. Except this, he was a
member of the team on an exploration of a couple of mul-
tilayer Metal Ages sites on the territory of Central Bal-
kans. He collaborated with OREA Institute of Austrian
Academy of Science on prehistoric mining and metallur-
gy issues on the territory of Serbia.

Petar Milojević
Research associate
PrehistoryDepartment
Institute of Archaeology, Knez Mihajlova 35/IV,
11000 Belgrade, Serbia
E-mail: [email protected]

He researches paleoeconomy, settlement patterns and

material culture during the Bronze and Iron Ages of the
central Balkans. He participated in various archaeological
projects in the study of prehistory in southeastern Serbia,
where he also cooperates with regional museums. He is
the author of four books and several scientific articles.

119
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project.

Beakers with trapezoidal mouth as one of the

most specific type of Middle Bronze Age vessel
in the Central Balkans
Aleksandar Bulatović
Institute of archaeology, Belgrade

Two-handled kantharos, site of Omoljica. It served as models for the potter.

(photo: N. Borić, Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade.)

116
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Beakers with trapezoidal mouth as one of the

most specific type of Middle Bronze Age vessel
in the Central Balkans
Aleksandar Bulatović

I dedicate this article to my dear Abstract: The paper analyses the distribution, typology,
friend and collaborator Jovica and chronology of beakers with trapezoidal mouth. Be-
Stankovski, a long time archeologist sides this characteristic type of vessel that appeared during
and the director of Kumanovo the Bronze Age in the Central Balkans, vessels of similar
Museum, North Macedonia, who stylistic and typological characteristics appear simulta-
recently passed away. neously, indicating a particular cultural group, which the
author of this study has already defined a few years ago
as Bubanj-Hum IV - Ljuljaci group. The group was estab-
lished according to the absolute dates and the distribution
of these beakers and other finds. The group existed in the
area of Zapadna Morava, Velika Morava and Južna Mora-
va basins, Šumadija and partially Timočka Krajina in the
period from the 19/18th century BC to the 15/14th century
BC, when Brnjica and Paraćina groups were formed on its
bases in this area.

Key words: Beakers with trapezoidal mouth, Central Bal-

kans, 19/18th-15/14th century BC, Pannonian plain, the
Middle Bronze Age, Bubanj-Hum IV – Ljuljaci group.

Introduction

There were numerous types of vessels made of baked clay

that found their specific place in the everyday life of prehis-
toric populations in the Balkans. Some of them served for
drinking, cooking, production of dairy products, as well as
storing food or other kitchen or household activities. On the
other hand, due to certain characteristics, some of the ves-
sels were not suitable for the aforementioned purposes, and
rather represented a part of certain rituals or other unknown
activities. The first group of vessels is easily distinguished
both by its specific context and other characteristics (shape,
temper, size, coating, etc.), unlike the second group whose
characteristics usually do not fit within the mentioned pur-
poses. Such vessels have usually been defined as “ritual”
or “cult” vessels.
121
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

The vessels in the focus of this study belong to the sec-

ond group of pottery, represented by two-handled bicon-
ical or globular beakers of different proportions, color,
decoration, and other production characteristics. The only
common element for those beakers, besides two handles,
are two modeled trapezoidal extensions positioned on the
opposite sides of the rim, between handles (figs. 2 and 3).
Those extensions are mainly shaped as inverted trapezoids
with concave lateral sides and their base is connected to the
rim. They may vary in size and modulation as well as in
angle relative to the neck of the beaker. Also, the contexts
in which such beakers are recorded are different, ranging
from graves to settlements and waste pits.
Such beakers have been determined as an indicative
and distinguishable element of pottery production sever-
al decades ago by M. Bogdanović, who defined them as
proto-Vatin pottery (Bogdanović 1986), while M. Stojić
suggested that such vessels belong to Vatin culture (Stojić
1998).
Recently, Bulatović and Stankovski shared a thesis that
such pottery represents one of the most characteristic el-
ements of the Middle Bronze Age in the Central Balkans
(Bulatović 2011; Bulatović and Stankovski 2012), which
will be further discussed together with other aspects of
these beakers. Even though such beakers represent a dis-
tinguished type of pottery feature, easily recognizable and
suitable for a more detailed study, comprehensive studies
on this specific problem are still lacking.
This article will not discuss the purpose of these vessels,
but rather their distribution, chronological determination,
and possible cultural attribution.
The paper follows the catalogue of all sites where beakers
with trapezoidal mouth have been registered, except the
site of Pákozdvár.

Catalogue of sites1

1. Szoreg, Szeged
A large necropolis was discovered in Szoreg quart of
Szeged, Hungary, after which an eponymous group of
Perjámos culture was named (Tompa 1934/35, Taf. 28/1,
2; Bona 1975, 94). In the skeletal graves 95, 115, 116, 165,
183 and 215 of the necropolis (Bona 1975, Taf. 112/2, 3, 6,
10-12) a total of six two-handled beakers with trapezoidal
mouth were recorded. The beakers from the necropolis
are of the globular body and short neck with a distinctly
1 Numbers of sites in the catalogue correspond to the numbers of sites on the
map (fig. 1).
122
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

modeled trapezoidal mouth (Fig. 3/b). The handles are con-

cave profiled, the so-called ansa lunata type in literature,
and the ornaments are mainly comprised of horizontal or
vertical incised broad lines, shallowly grooved lines and
warty thickening on the belly. In both graves 95 and 215,
pairs of pins with a horizontal head made of twisted wire
were found besides beakers (Bona 1975, Taf. 126/1, 3).
This type of pin is dated to Br A2a phase (Kiss et al. 2015)
or Br A period according to R. Vasić (2003, Taf. 70). The
graves in witch these beakers were found belong to the so-
called “baroque” phase 4 of the Szöreg group (Perjámos
culture), which corresponds to layer XIII in Pecica (Pecica
C), phase 4 in Deszk A necropolis or phase B1 of Vatin
culture. Pecica C is dated into the period 1750-1600 cal
BC (OʼShea et al. 2011, Tab. 1), which is the advanced
phase of the Middle Bronze Age according to the Serbian
chronology.

2. Deszk A, Szeged
Necropolis of inhumed deceased is situated in the
southeastern periphery of Szeged, east of Szoreg
necropolis (Bona 1975, 85-86). Besides many differ-
ent grave goods, two-handled beakers with trapezoidal
opening were recorded in three graves (22, 43 and 71)
(Bona 1975, Taf. 90/13, 18, 20). Beakers are very similar
to the examples from Szoreg, with oval or globular belly
and short neck, with ansa lunata handles, and bellies orna-
mented with incised lines or plastic thickenings (Fig. 3/a).
Interestingly, graves with those beakers are situated on the
brim of the necropolis (Bona 1975, Plan 19). These graves
are dated to the same period as graves at Szoreg.

3. Pecica (Pécska), Arad

The famous Bronze Age tell in the lower Mureș region
which has been excavated since the early 20th century pro-
vides the basic chronological frame of the regional Bronze
Age. Besides many different types of vessels that were
found at this multilayered site, a beaker with trapezoidal
mouth was found in layer XIII (Gimbutas 1965, Fig. 120/
XIII). Both the shape and handles of the beaker are very
similar to the previously mentioned beakers from Szoreg
and Deszk A, although this one has more creative orna-
ments such as circular imprints in combination with zigzag
incised lines (Fig. 3/c). This layer is dated by numerous

123
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

absolute dates to a period of 1750-1650 cal BC (Bona 1975,

92; OʼShea et al. 2011, Tab. 1).

4. Čoka, Senta
A beaker with trapezoidal mouth and two ansa lunata han-
dles was found in a waste pit filled with ash at the site of
Ciglana na Dašinoj zemlji in Čoka (Girić 1958, 125, sl. 1).
It was decorated similarly as other beakers in the Panno-
nian plain. The beaker was dated to the Early Bronze Age
(Bronzano doba Srbije 1972, cat. no. 22).

5. Židovar, Vršac
On the multilayered site of Židovar near Vršac, in the
southeastern region of the Pannonian plain, a two-handled
beaker was recorded as well (Lazić 1997, sl. 10). The exact
context of the find remains unknown. Although found in
Pannonian plain, in its southeastern periphery, it distinctly
differs from other Pannonian beakers in terms of its shape,
handles, and ornaments. It is shorter, biconical and with
two handles oval in cross-section. Its mouth is not as in-
tensively modeled in trapezoidal shapes as is the case with
other Pannonian beakers, and it has no ornaments, except
for the slight thickening on the belly. The beaker was de-
fined as the inventory of the late stage of Vatin culture
(Lazić 1997, 26-27).

6. Omoljica, Pančevo
A beaker very similar to the example from Židovar was
found at the site of Zlata in Omoljica near Pančevo (Rado-
jčić 2013, cat. no. 9) (Fig. 2/c). Several authors attribute
this site as well as the earliest phase of Vatin culture (Panče-
vo-Omoljica phase) in Br A2-B1 period, which is the end
of the Early and the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age
(Garašanin 1983, 512; Hansel 1968, 134-135). The site of
Zlata was dated by the radiocarbon method in 3530±60 BP
(Gogaltan 1999, 224, Pl. 16) that is 1960-1760 cal BC in
calibrated values with the probability of 68.2%.

7. Moldova Veche
At the site of Ostrov in Moldova Veche on the southeast-
ern border of Banat, a two-handled beaker with trapezoidal
mouth was registered together with vessels characteristic
for Vatin culture (Guma 1997, 121-122, Pl. XLVIII/2). It
has a biconical shape, stands on a short foot and has two
handles with a plastic button-shaped extension on the top

124
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

(Fig. 2/f). It is both very rare and the northernmost speci-

men of this type of beaker with extensions on the top of the
handles.

8. Požarevac
A two-handled beaker with trapezoidal mouth originates
from the site of Živinarska Farma in Požarevac (Stojić, Ja-
canović 2008, T. LXXXVI/1, sl. 39), which is very similar
to beakers from Židovar and Omoljica, but with slightly
concaved top of the handles (the so-called pseudo ansa lu-
nata). The beaker is a chance find, with no precise data on
the context of origin.

9. Ljuljaci, Kragujevac
Eight two-handled beakers with trapezoidal mouth were
found during the excavations at the site of Milića Brdo in
Ljuljaci, Central Serbia (Bogdanović 1986, cat.no. 131-
138). The beakers were registered in all three cultural lay-
ers which are attributed to a period from the end of the Ear-
ly Bronze Age to the end of the Middle Bronze Age. They
are slightly biconical, very similar to each other, with two
handles oval in cross-section. Ornaments are represented
with thickenings on the belly, and a button-shaped exten-
sion is evidenced on top of the handles. One of them is
different in many ways. It is slimmer than the others, has a
globular body, low foot and handles which highly surpass
the rim (Fig. 2/h). The earliest layer in Ljuljaci is dated
to 3480±100 BP (Gogaltan 1999, 224, Pl. 16), which is in
calibrated values 1940-1680 cal BC, while the second layer
is dated to 3370±100 BP, or 1770-1520 in calibrated values
(with the probability of 64.6%).

10. Svetozarevo (nowadays Jagodina)

Two-handled beaker with trapezoidal mouth was regis-
tered as a chance find from an unknown site in Majur, Sve-
tozarevo (Stojić 1980, cat. no. 39). The beaker is biconical
with a higher upper cone and has no ornaments.

11. Gornja Gorevnica, Čačak

Аt multilayered site of Slatina in Gornja Gorevnica near
Čačak, Central Serbia, besides other, the Early/Middle
Bronze Age pottery, a two-handled beaker with trapezoidal
mouth was recorded (Dmitrović 2009, 7-8, T. 2/1). It has
a biconical shape, with handles oval in cross-section and
thickening on the belly.

125
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

12. Ostra, Čačak

Two beakers with trapezoidal mouth were revealed on
the hilltop site of Sokolica in Ostra near Čačak (Dmitrović,
Ljuština 2007, 11-12, T. III/1, 2). Both are biconical with
two handles oval in cross-section and thickenings on their
bellies. The other pottery indicates that the site belongs to
the end of the Early or the Middle Bronze Age.

13. Paraćin
Museum in Paraćin possesses three two-handled bea-
kers with trapezoidal mouth which are thought to origi-
nate from the site of Gloždak in Paraćin2. Two beakers
have globular form and short neck and two handles of oval
cross-section (Stojić 1998, 85, Pl. V/2, 6). The third one is
sharply biconical, ornamented with two incised horizontal
lines on the belly, with two parallel rows of pricked dots
in between (Stojić 1998, Pl. V/2, 6) (Fig. 2/b). The site of
Gloždak is a necropolis of the Late Bronze Age, so if the
beakers originate from that site, they would represent the
youngest finds of this type of vessel at all.

14. Lešje, Paraćin

A two-handled beaker with trapezoidal mouth originates
from the site of Baba in Lešje eastern of Paraćin (Stojić
1998, 85, Pl. V/7). The beaker is globular, with a short
neck. It is a chance find with no other information on its
context.

15. Podgorac, Bor

At the site of Strmljeno in Podgorac near Bor, Eastern Ser-
bia, a biconical two-handled beaker was found as a chance
find (Kapuran 2014, 110, T. 15/11). It is decorated with two
parallel rows of pricks on its belly.

16. Trnjane, Bor

A two-handled beaker with trapezoidal mouth was found in
grave 32 during the excavation of the Bronze Age necrop-
olis of cremated deceased in Trnjane near Bor (Jovanović,
Janković 1996, Abb. 9a/2). The beaker has a biconical form
and two handles of a strip cross-section. Other pottery from
the necropolis bears the characteristics of Vatin culture, as
well as Paraćin and Brnjica groups of the Late Bronze Age
in the Central Balkans (Jovanović, Janković 1996, 196-
197). New absolute dates show that the necropolis belongs
to the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age (Kapuran et al.
forthcoming).
2 The information was obtained from Vesna Vučković, curator of the Hometown 126
museum in Paraćin.
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

17. Kučajna, Bor

A two-handled biconical beaker with trapezoidal mouth
originates from the site of Kučajna in southwestern periph-
ery of Bor (Stojić 1998, Pl. V/11; Kapuran 2014, T. 15/10).

18. Orašje, Kruševac

A two-handled beaker with trapezoidal mouth was found
during the plowing in the village of Orašje near Kruševac
(Stojić 1998, Pl. V/1; Čađenović 2000, 167, sl. 2/3). The
handles are slightly concave in cross-section. Save for the
beaker, a large urn, a small cup and a considerable portion
of ash were all recorded, but the finder saved only the bea-
ker and the cup.

19. Poljna, Kruševac

In 2000, G. Čađenović published a two-handled slight-
ly biconical beaker with trapezoidal mouth decorated with
two rows of pricks filled with white paste on its belly and
stated the site of Lazarev Grad in Kruševac as its place of
origin (Čađenović 2000, 163-164, sl. 2/2). A few years af-
ter, the village of Poljna was named as the original site for
the same beaker (Stojić, Čađenović 2006, sl. 54). So it re-
mains unclear where exactly the beaker originates from,
but in both cases, it is connected with the area of Kruševac.

20. Lazarev grad, Kruševac

During the rescue excavations of the multilayered site of
Lazarev Grad in Kruševac, besides the numerous pottery
from the Early/Middle Bronze Age, a two-handled sharply
biconical beaker(s) with trapezoidal mouth was recorded
(Stojić, Čađenović 2006, sl. 12)3. The beaker is decorated
with two parallel rows of pricks filled with white paste at
the bottom of the upper cone and with four pricks in several
spots distributed above the rows.

21. Vitkovac, Aleksinac

From the unknown site in Vitkovac near Aleksinac origi-
nates a sharply biconical beaker (cup) with one handle and
a single trapezoidal extension on the rim (Praistorijske kul-
ture 1971, cat. no. 225; Stojić, Jocić 2006, T. X/1, sl. 86).
The bottom of the upper cone is decorated with groups of
two pricked rows framed with two incised parallel lines
(Fig. 2/d).
3 It could be two beakers if one of them does not originate from Poljna.

127
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

22. Velika Humska Čuka, Niš

During the excavations of the multilayered site of Velika
Humska Čuka near Niš, in feature 8/09, a pair of two-han-
dled slightly biconical beakers with trapezoidal mouth
were found, together with a flat bronze axe with thickened
rims (Randleistenbeil type) and other characteristic pottery
for the Middle Bronze Age (Bulatović, Milanović 2015,
170-171, T. III/58-60). The handles of one of the beakers
possessed button-shaped plastic extensions (Fig. 2/e). Ac-
cording to the type of the axe (Popov Salaš, Trućevac) (Ta-
sić 1984, 68, Abb. 7; Garašanin 1954, 1, T. IV), the feature
8/09 belongs to the Middle Bronze Age.

23. Bubanj, Niš

Three biconical two-handled beakers with trapezoidal
mouth and a beaker (cup) with one handle and one trap-
ezoidal plastic extension on its rim were found at the site
of Bubanj in Niš. The contexts and relative vertical stra-
tigraphy of the finds are uncertain (Garašanin, Đurić 1983,
cat. no. 167; Stojić, Jocić 2006, T. LXXIV/190-192). Oršić,
Slavetić stated that two of them were found 30 cm beneath
the surface (Oršić Slavetić 1940, 11, Abb. 6/2, 4), in a
mixed layer together with the Early Copper Age pottery.

24. Medijana, Niš

At the site of Motel within the antique site of Medijana
in Niš, a fragment of a biconical beaker with trapezoidal
mouth was registered together with other pottery typical
for the Middle Bronze Age (Jevtić 1975, T. XIV/8). The
beaker has a plastic button-shaped extension on the top of
the handle and a plastic thickening on its belly.

25. Kaštavar, Leskovac

A two-handled sharply biconical beaker with trapezoidal
mouth originates from the site of Kaštavar near Leskovac
(Stojić 1998, Pl. VI/4). The context of the find is unknown.

26. Štulac, Lebane

During the systematic excavations at the site of Svinjarička
Čuka in Štulac near Lebane three two-handled sharply bi-
conical beakers with trapezoidal mouth were recorded4.
The beakers were found next to a disturbed feature 1016
from the Middle/Late Bronze Age (Horejs et al. 2019, 164-
166), which was dated to 1743-1688 cal BC (68.4% prob-
4 The excavations, started in 2018, are carried out by the OREA Institute in Vienna and
the Institute of Archaeology in Belgrade.

128
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

bility), which corresponds to a general dating of such bea-

kers. One of the beakers was completely preserved and
the other was fragmented with almost all pieces in place,
which could indicate that they originate from feature 1016.
In 2019 fragments of similar beakers were found in a huge
pit together with pottery from the Middle Bronze Age. Ab-
solute dates from the pit are expected.

Discussion

It has been noted that this type of vessel is distributed

throughout the vast territory from Pannonian Plain to the
mountainous area of the southern part of the Central Bal-
kans, and from the Timok Basin to the Zapadna Morava
Basin. This territory measures ca 75000 km2, although it
does not represent a compact area since an “empty space”,
without any finds of these particular vessels, has been reg-
istered between the Sava and Danube confluence and Cen-
tal Panonia (Fig. 1). Interestingly, the northernmost find of
such beaker is in Pákozdvár near Balaton Lake in the Pan-
nonian Plain (Tompa 1934/35, Taf. 29/2; Bona 1975, Taf.
131/13), some 150 km far from the area in which these bea-
kers were registered in a considerable number (the Mureş
and Tisa confluence) (Fig. 1/1-3). This find is one of a kind
in this area and its characteristics differ from all other bea-
kers with trapezoidal mouth. It is sharply biconical with a
longer neck and a short foot (Fig. 3). Still, it is ornamented
with incised or grooved horizontal and vertical lines and
has ansa lunata type of handles, similar to the other Panno-
nian beakers. The beaker is attributed to the Middle Bronze
Age, phase Bz 3 (Bona 1975, 115).
Besides the lonely beaker from Pákozdvár and a certain
number of such beakers in the area of Mureş and Tisa con-
fluence, this type of vessels are numerous in the Central
Balkans, especially in the Južna Morava Basin, the Timok
Basin and the area between Zapadna Morava and Velika
Morava rivers.
Considering all of the characteristics of such beakers,
such as shape, type of handle, modeling of mouth, decora-
tion and other, they can be classified into two basic types
– Central Balkan type and Pannonian type, with various
subtypes and variants. The first type, marked as Central
Balkan, includes beakers from Timok Basin, Zapadna,
Južna and Velika Morava basins, as well as beakers from
sites in southern Banat (Fig. 1/5-26). This type of beakers

129
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

with handles which slightly surpass the rim or stand in line

with the rim and mouth discreetly modeled in the shape
of two trapezoidal extensions (Fig. 2). The decoration is
uncommon for this type and comes down to modeled thick-
ening on the belly (Fig. 2/c), or quite rarely, two horizontal
rows of punctuated dotted pricks on the lower portion of
the upper cone, which are occasionally filled with white
incrustation (Vitkovac, Podgorac, Lazarev Grad) (Fig. 2/b,
d). Button-shaped extensions on top of the handles are also
quite rare (Velika Humska Čuka, Ljuljaci, Medijana, Mol-
dova Veche) (Fig. 2/e, f). Based on certain characteristics
within this type, two subtypes can be distinguished: the so-
called southern subtype (identical form, mostly undecorat-
ed except for the button-shaped extensions on top of the
handles) (Fig. 2/a, e) and the Danube subtype (Moldova
Veche) (Fig. 2/f), characterized by elements of both Cen-
tral Balkan (proportions, form, extensions on handles) and
Pannonian type (short foot, emphasized modeling of the
mouth). The southern subtype encompasses examples from
the sites of Bubanj, Medijana, Velika Humska Čuka, Kašta-
var, and Svinjarička Čuka. It should be noted that save for
two-handled beakers, a variant with one handle (a cup) and
modeled trapezoidal mouth on one side is also recorded
(Bubanj and Vitkovac) (Fig. 2/d). Likewise, some of the
beakers in the Danube Region (southern Banat) differ from
typical Central Balkan type, since those possess a profiled
base which resembles a foot and the decoration represent-
ed by modeled triangular thickening on the belly (Židovar,
Požarevac) (Fig. 2/g), similar to the beakers of Pannonian
type. It seems as such differentiation could rather be ex-
plained by their younger chronological attribution, rather
than distribution, which will be discussed together with ab-
solute dates.
The other type, defined as Panonnian, possesses globu-
lar form, short neck and handles with a distinctly conical
cross-section (ansa lunata type) (Fig. 3). The mouth is
modeled in the shape of two distinctly trapezoidal exten-
sions, and the beakers are mostly decorated with shallow
vertical and horizontal grooves on the belly, which ofter
form a triangle (Fig. 3/a, c, d). Some of the beakers are dec-
orated with triangular of wart-like modeled thickenings on
the belly (Fig. 3/b, d), or rarely with incised zigzag lines and
stamps (Pecica) (Fig. 3/c). The example from Pákozdvár
could be separated as a subtype due to extremely biconical
belly, long neck, and short foot (Fig. 3/d).

130
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Fig. 1 Map of distribution of beakers with trapezoidal mouth (the background of the map
is provided by the courtesy of Mihailo Milinković)1. Szoreg, Szeged; 2. Deszk A, Szeged; 3.
Pecica, Arad; 4. Čoka, Senta; 5. Židovar, Vršac; 6.Omoljica, Pančevo; 7. Moldova Veche;
8. Požarevac; 9. Ljuljaci, Kragujevac; 10. Svetozarevo; 11. Gornja Gorevnica, Čačak; 12.
Ostra, Čačak; 13. Paraćin; 14. Lešje, Paraćin; 15. Podgorac, Bor; 16. Trnjane, Bor; 17.
Kučajna, Bor; 18. Orašje, Kruševac; 19. Poljna, Kruševac; 20. Lazarev grad, Kruševac;
21. Vitkovac, Aleksinac; 22. Velika Humska Čuka, Niš; 23. Bubanj, Niš; 24. Medijana,
Niš; 25. Kaštavar, Leskovac; 26. Štulac, Lebane.

131
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Fig. 2 The examples of the Central Balkan type of beakers with trapezoidal mouth

Although its shape clearly differs from other examples of

Pannonian type, its handles, decoration, and mouth are sim-
ilar to other examples of this type. It is quite interesting that
the proposed types of beakers with trapezoidal mouth dis-
play a quite homogenous distribution in certain geographic
areas, meaning that the Central Balkan type is characteris-
tic solely for the Central Balkans and the Pannonian mostly
for the Pannonian Plain and more precisely the confluence
area of Tisa and Mureş rivers.
The earliest dates for beakers with trapezoidal mouth
originate from the sites of Ljuljaci, Omoljica and Trnjani
necropolis. Classical beakers with trapezoidal mouth are
distributed in the first and second horizon at the site of Lju-
ljaci, (Bogdanović 1986, 59-62, cat.no.131-136), while the
example with foot and the example with button-shaped ex-
tensions on handles is recorded solely in the youngest,

132
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Fig. 3 The examples of the Pannonian type of beakers with trapezoidal mouth

third horizon (Bogdanović 1986, 59-62, cat.no. 137, 138).

The first horizon is dated to a period 1940-1680 cal BC
(with the probability of 68.2%), and the second horizon to
a period 1770-1520 cal BC (Gogaltan 1999, 224, Pl. 16)
(Fig. 4). Based on the stylistic and typological character-
istics of pottery, the last date would rather fit into the third
horizon, which is not dated according to the author (Bog-
danović 1986, 70).
Grave 32 at Trnjane necropolis, in which a beaker with
trapezoidal mouth is recorded, is not dated, but the necrop-
olis itself is dated by samples from two graves to a period
2016-1627 (95.4%), meaning 1947-1664 calBC (68.2%)
(Kapuran et al. forthcoming, Fig. 9/a, e, f) (Fig. 4). Tak-
ing into consideration the lowest date, the beaker certainly
originates prior to the 17th century BC, most likely from the
19-18th century BC.
133
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

One of the higher dates that could date the beakers comes
from Omoljica (Fig. 4). The date (2040-1690 cal BC, with
the probability of 95.4%, meaning 1960-1760 cal BC, with
the probability of 68.2%) (Gogaltan 1999, 224, Pl. 16)
certainly corresponds to the earlier horizon at the site, or
the so-called Pančevo-Omoljica phase of Vatin culture, to
which the beaker with trapezoidal mouth belongs as well.
These beakers have been indirectly dated at the site of
Svinjarička Čuka near Lebane (Fig. 4). Namely, the bea-
kers (one completely preserved, and one fragmented with
all pieces in place) were found immediately next to a dis-
turbed feature, dated to 1756-1643 cal BC (95.4%), mean-
ing 1743-1688 cal BC (68.2%) (Horejs et al. 2019), which
would correspond to their dating on other sites, especially
the younger horizon at the site of Ljuljaci.
According to the available absolute dates, the Pannonian
type of beakers with trapezoidal mouth is slightly younger.
All of the sites in which these beakers are registered corre-
spond to the Pecica C layer which is dated to 1750-1600 cal
BC (O’Shea et al. 2011, 69-70, Tab. 1), or more precisely
its earlier phase attributed to 1750-1650 cal BC.
According to all of the available absolute dates, this type
of vessel appears in the territory of Central Balkans in a
period between the end of the 20th and the beginning of the
17th century BC, and most likely in the 19-18th century BC.
Regarding chronology, types, and variants of beakers, it
has been noted that beakers with button-shaped extensions
on handles, as well as slender beakers on a foot from the
site of Ljuljaci, could be younger, especially considering
that both variants were recorded within the youngest layer
at the site of Ljuljaci, which could be dated between the
18th and the 16th century BC or slightly later. A beaker with
button-shaped extensions, almost identical to the example
from the site of Ljuljaci, was recorded at the site of Ve-
lika Humska Čuka (Fig. 2/e), in an feature together with a
Randleistenbeil type of axe. The identical type of axe was
recorded at the site of Popov Salaš, which is based on it
and a bronze winged pin (Tasić 1983, sl. 24), dated to a
Br B/C period according to Reinecke chronology (D. Ga-
rašanin 1983, 803; Vasić 2003, Taf. 70)5, even though the
site has previously been attributed to the earlier phase of
Vatin culture based on the axe and existing ceramic forms
5 This lower dating is also more consistent with the results of the analyses of chemical
composition of metal objects from the site of Popov Salaš, as well as the axe from the
site of Velika Humska Čuka. Namely, they were all made of tin bronze, indicating a
developed Bronze Age of the Central Balkans (the analyses were conducted within the
Jadar project, which is realised by the Brooklyn College, New York and the Institute of
Archeology, Belgrade).
134
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

(according to M. Garašanin, to Pančevo-Omoljica phase,

1983, 513-514; according to N. Tasić, to an early phase,
1983, 61-62 ).
Therefore, based on absolute dates, it seems as if this
type of beaker originated in the area of Central Balkans
and most likely in the central part of the Velika Morava
Basin or Južna Morava Basin. This area is also indicated
by the stylistic and typological elements registered on the
pottery of the Bubanj-Hum III cultural group (Garašanin
1983b), that preceded the appearance of beakers with trap-
ezoidal mouth. Save for beakers with two handles in line
with the rim, this group is also characterized by variously
profiled bowls, often decorated with modeled extensions
on the rim, which possess a triangular, horn-like, trape-
zoidal or other profile. The earliest absolute dates for this
group fall into the 25/24th century BC, from the site of Ve-
lika Humska Čuka (Fig. 4), where a group of pottery from
the Early Bronze Age layer in trench 1/15 (6th-8th technical
spits) has been dated. Save for pear-shaped two-handled
beaker, the group of pottery contained a bowl with a mod-
eled triangular extension on the rim (Fig. 5/1, 2). A similar
combination was recorded some 150 km to the south at the
site of Pelince, in a ritual pit Б28, in which a similar bowl
dated to the 24/23rd century BC has been recorded (Bula-
tović et al. 2020) (Fig. 4). A bowl with modeled extension
similar to the ones from beakers which are in the focus of
this paper has been recorded in a pit next to the previous
one (Fig. 5/10). A similar bowl has been recorded in a rit-
ual pit containing Early Bronze Age pottery at the site of
Davidovac near Vranje (Bulatović 2014, Pl. II/25-28, Pl.
III/29, 30) (Fig. 5/16), as well within a ritual space at the
site of Tatićev Kamen near Kumanovo (Bulatović 2014, Pl.
III/32). In terms of chronology, the closest finds of similar
bowls originate from a shallow pit (feature 1/08) at the site
of Bubanj near Niš. This pit, which contained numerous
bowls with trapezoidal, horn-like and triangular extensions
on the rim (Bulatović, Stankovski 2012, T. IX, X), is dated
to the 21/20th century BC (Bulatović, Vander Linden 2017)
(Fig. 4).
Two dates from two Early Bronze Age pits at the sites
of Rit and Nad Klepečkom are quite interesting, especially
since the sites are relatively close to the site in Omoljica,
where a beaker with trapezoidal mouth has been recorded.
The pits are dated to the 21/20th century BC, same as the
sites of the Bubanj-Hum III group in the southern parts of

135
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

the Central Balkans, yet contained no vessels with modeled

extensions (Fig. 4). The fact that besides numerous pottery
this pits concurrent with feature 1 at the site of Bubanj
did not contain modeled extensions on vessels, indicates
that the development of Early Bronze Age in this part of
the Danube Region was somewhat different, as there are
no stylistic or typological ceramic elements which could
evolve into beakers with trapezoidal mouth.
Perhaps the finest example for the evolution of bowls with
trapezoidal extensions into beakers with trapezoidal mouth
is the example of a bowl from the site of Zvezdan near
Zaječar in Eastern Serbia, where one part of the mouth is
modeled almost identical as the beakers, and the portion of
the rim above the handle is modeled in a manner typical for
bowls of Bubanj-Hum III group (Kapuran 2009, T. X/7)
(Fig. 5/15). Bowls with trapezoidal extension, similar to
bowls from the sites of Davidovac, Pelince or Kokino Selo,
were recorded together with it (Kapuran 2009, T. X/9, 10).
The site is not dated, and based on the similar pottery at
the site of Ružana 1 (Kapuran et al. 2016), which is dat-
ed to the 19/18th century BC (Bulatović et al. forthcom-
ing) (Fig. 4), it most likely originates from the end of the
Early and the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age. The
relatively low date for pottery of similar stylistic and typo-
logical characteristics as the pottery registered at the sites
of Bubanj, Pelince or Velika Humska Čuka, and which are
attributed to Bubanj-Hum III group dated to the 25-20th
century BC (Fig. 4), could indicate that such forms occur
later in Timočka Krajina Region, maybe together with bea-
kers with trapezoidal mouth.

Concluding remarks

Beakers with trapezoidal mouth have always attracted

the attention of archaeologists and were mostly attributed
to proto-Vatin or Vatin culture in the literature (Srejović
1997, 609-610; Bogdanović 1986; Stojić 1998). The first
authors who singled out these finds into a unique group
Ljuljaci I were N. Tasić and N.N. Tasić (2003, 98). Later,
A. Bulatović and J. Stankovski have based on the results
of the Early Bronze Age research in Južna Morava Basin
defined a new cultural group of that period, Bubanj-Hum
IV – Ljuljaci, whose most recognizable element are exact-
ly those beakers, along with other pottery which will be
further discussed (Bulatović, Stankovski 2012, 337-347).

136
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Fig. 4 Chronological table of beakers with trapezoidal mouth and previous cultural group (VHČ – Velika
Humska Čuka, one date from a group of Bubanj-Hum III pottery in the Early Bronze Age layer; Pelince –
one date from ritual pit Б28; NK – Nad Klepečkom, one date from feature 9, trench 77; Bubanj – one date
from feature 1/08; Rit – one date from feature 1, trench 18; Ljulj. – Ljuljaci, dates from I and II horizons;
Trnjane – two dates, graves 10 and 28; Omolj. – Omoljica, one date for the earlier horizon (Omoljica-Panče-
vo); Ruž. – Ružana 1; SČ – Svinjarička Čuka – one date from feature 1016; Pecica C – a group of dates
from Pecica C layer). Grey zones in images represent the probability of sigma 2 range and darker zones the
probability of sigma 1 range.
Namely, based on the analysis of finds from enclosed ob-
jects and available absolute dates, the authors came to a
similar conclusion that the ceramic inventory of the Middle
Bronze Age in the Morava Region can not be defined with-
in the Vatin culture, as some authors state (Stojić 1998, 81-
99), based solely on sporadic finds of Vatin elements and
neglecting much more common pottery at the sites, whose
stylistic and typological characteristics do not correspond
to Vatin culture. Even earlier, D. Garašanin has noted the
chronological gap between Early Bronze Age Bubanj-
Hum III culture and Late Bronze Age Paraćin group, and
proposed a prolonged duration of Bubanj-Hum III group,
based on the finds from the site of Ljuljaci and the territory
of Kosovo (D. Garašanin 1983, 801), without even men-
tioning the possibility of of marking the Middle Bronze
137
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Age material culture in this area as Vatin.

New finds of beakers with trapezoidal mouth, especial-
ly the examples from excavations, and the accompanying
pottery as well as absolute dates acquired in the last sev-
eral years, have actualized this subject and confirmed the
necessity for the existence of a particular group, recently
named as Bubanj-Hum IV-Ljuljaci group.
Therefore, according to the absolute dates, it has been
noted that the beakers with trapezoidal mouth have orig-
inated from the Central Balkans during the 19–18th cen-
tury BC, before the appearance of “Vatin elements“ in
the area. Such beakers are accompanied by pottery with
similar stylistic and typological characteristics such as
slightly biconical bowls or slightly S profiled bowls with
or without ribbon-like handles (Bulatović, Stankovski
2012, T. XXI/1, 2; Bogdanović 1986, cat.no. 44-49; Sto-
jić, Čađenović 2006, T. XLIII/63-66, Т. LXXXV/34),
semi-globular cups with one handle which surpasses
the rim (Bogdanović 1986, cat.no. 31-35), two-handled
sharply biconical beakers with handles which slightly sur-
pass the rim, sometimes decorated with horizontal rows
of dotted pricks (Bulatović, Stankovski 2012, T. XXII/1-
3; Stojić, Čađenović 2006, T. XXII/13, T. XLII/61, 62,T.
LXXXI/1, T. LXXXV/29-32; Stojić, Jocić 2006, T.
XV/43, T. LXXIV/188-194, T. LXXV/199-205; material
from a pit at the site of Svinjarička Čuka6), pear-shaped
two-handled beakers with handles in line with the rim or
slightly surpassing the rim (Bogdanović 1986, cat.no. 27,
29; material from a pit at the site of Svinjarička Čuka;
Stojić, Čađenović 2006, T. XXII/13), large pots with wide
mouth decorated with modeled bands with notches or
finger impressions, or finger impressions distributed in
rows on the upper portion of the vessel or the belly (Bu-
latović, Stankovski 2012, Kapuran et al. 2014, T. 3 i 4;
Bogdanović 1986, cat.no. 55-66; material from a pit at the
site of Svinjarička Čuka).
The stratigraphy at the site of Ljuljaci, in which Vatin
pottery occurs in small numbers in horizon II and slightly
more in horizon III, indicates that autochthonous forms
occur in all of the horizons, while the so-called “Vatin pot-
tery” is sporadic and younger than the beginning of hab-
itation at the site in phase I. A similar situation has been
registered in Timočka Krajina Region, where Verbicoara
culture elements are mixed with autochthonous elements,
which are based on the stylistic and typological charac-
6 The material from the Middle Bronze Age pit is unpublished.
138
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Fig. 5 Characteristic pottery of the Bubanj-Hum III group from which beakers with trapezoidal mouth
probably evolved (1-2. Velika Humska Čuka, Trench 1/15, group of pottery from the Early Bronze Age
layer; 3-8. Bubanj, feature 1/08; 9. Pelince, ritual pit Б28; 10. Pelince, ritual pit Г29; 11-13. Ružana 1; 14-
15. Zvezdan; 16. Davidovac)

139
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

teristics attributed to Bubanj-Hum IV-Ljuljaci group.

It seems as if certain elements of the Bubanj-Hum IV –
Ljuljaci group are younger and not concurrent with the
beakers with trapezoidal mouth. Those are handles which
imitate the ansa lunata type from the north, which occur
in the horizon III at the site of Ljuljaci (Bogdanović 1986,
cat.no. 39), and the button-shaped extensions on top of the
handles, which are also common for the final horizon at
the site of Ljuljaci, meaning the final phases of the Middle
Bronze Age (Br B according to Reinecke). Such dating
would correspond to the chronological attribution of fea-
ture 8/09 at the site of Velika Humska Čuka, in which a
trapezoidal beaker with button-shaped extensions on han-
dles was recorded. Interestingly, the imitations of ansa
lunata handle rarely occur far in the south of the Bubanj-
Hum IV – Ljuljaci group territory, in southern Morava
Region, while the button-shaped extensions on handles
are quite common in the south and remain in use even
during the Late Bronze Age, in Paraćin and Brnjica cul-
tures. The presence of the so-called ansa lunata type of
handles in the central Morava Region and Timočka Kra-
jina Region is apparently the result of contacts between
bearers of Bubanj-Hum IV-Ljuljaci group from this terri-
tory and Vatin group from Pannonia and the Danube Re-
gion. The interconnection is less observable in the south-
ern Morava Region, where beakers with slightly concave
handles, the imitations of ansa lunata type, occur sporad-
ically (Bulatović, Stankovski 2012, T. IV/29, T. XX/1).
However, it seems as if the button-shaped extensions on
handles are likely the result of interactions between bear-
ers of Bubanj-Hum IV-Ljuljaci group with the bearers of
the same group in Timočka Krajina Region, where ele-
ments of Verbicioara group are quite common starting
from the 19/18th century BC (Kapuran 2009; Kapuran et
al. 2016, T. 2, T. 5/6, 7). Also, the influence of the Verbi-
cioara group is to a lesser or greater degree present in most
of the territory attributed to the Bubanj-Hum IV-Ljuljaci
group, save for the southwestern periphery (the territory
of Kosovo). Therefore, lids and handles with plastic dec-
orations on top, ornamented with transversal notches or
zigzag incision in the middle, appear in horizon III at the
site of Ljuljaci, which is dated to a period after the 17/16th
century BC (Bogdanović 1986, cat.no. 183, 206). Those
are similar to examples of phase III of Verbicioara culture
in Oltenia (Craciunescu 2004, 227, Pl. LII/2, LVII/2, 3),

140
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

though Verbicioara elements are common in Timočka

Krajina Region even earlier. Numerous stylistic and ty-
pological elements of Verbicioara group are present on
pottery from the site of Velika Humska Čuka, yet it seems
from the end of the Middle and during the Late Bronze
Age (Bulatović, Milanović 2015, 170-171, Т. IV/61-64,
80-81). The ornament of dotted pricks (Podgorac, Paraćin,
Maskare, Marenovo, Globoder, etc.) (Fig. 2/b, d; Stojić,
Jocić 2006, T. XXII/13, T. LXXXI/1), which are often
filled with white incrustation (Lazarev Grad) (Stojić, Jo-
cić 2006, sl. 12, 54) could be considered as chronological-
ly relevant since it most likely originates as a consequence
of contacts with populations from the Danube Region,
where this represents a common ornament during the de-
veloped phase of the Middle Bronze Age (Br B), while
such manner of ornamentation is unknown in the Central
Balkans since the Late Eneolithic, meaning the Bubanj-
Hum II group.
Anyway, it can be assumed that the core of the Bubanj-
Hum IV-Ljuljaci group territory encompassed the area of
Central Balkans, expanding to the Danube Region, and
Timočka Krajina Region. This group originated from the
Bubanj-Hum III group, with almost no hiatus in between,
which is indicated by dates from the sites of Bubanj and
Ljuljaci and the similar stylistic and typological charac-
teristics of pottery registered in both groups. Based on
the stratigraphy, especially at the site of Ljuljaci, abso-
lute dates and stylistic and typological characteristics of
pottery, it is assumed that the groups lasted between the
19/18th century BC and the 15/14th century BC, (Bulatović
et al. 2018).
At the moment, the data on the housing of this group is
available based on the excavations at the sites of Ljuljaci
(Bogdanović 1986, 15-32) and Trnjani (Jovanović, Jan-
ković 1990, 1). The metal finds from this period in the
territory of Bubanj-Hum IV-Ljuljlaci group are rare (Ga-
rašanin 1983, 799-801), which is interesting, having mind
that traces of copper metallurgy have been registered on
several sites in Timočka Krajina Region in past few years
(Kapuran et al. 2016; Kapuran et al. forthcoming).Burial
practice is known solely for the Timočka Krajina Region,
where the deceased were cremated and buried beneath
the circular stone structures (Srejović, Lazić 1997, 233)
in specific urns, with horizontal cup-shaped handles. All
of the noted elements characteristic only for this region

141
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

indicate the possibility that the group had a specific devel-

opment in the geographically isolated region of Timočka
Krajina (isolated from the Morava Region; orographical-
ly opened to Oltenia and Northwestern Bulgaria), which
led Srejović and Lazić to define it as a separate, Gamzi-
grad culture (1997, 241). This question thoroughly argued
in the literature (Kapuran 2009; Bulatović, Stankovski
2012), requires the full attention of researchers, and sur-
passes the extension of this paper.
The early Vatin group, the so-called Pančevo-Omoljica
phase (a beaker with trapezoidal mouth was recorded at
the eponymous site of Omoljica) originated from simi-
lar traditions as Bubanj Hum IV-Ljuljaci group, from the
Bubanj-Hum III traditions, although under a certain influ-
ence of Pannonian Early Bronze Age cultures, especially
Mureş group. It is represented in forms of beakers of early
Vatin group, which resemble the pottery from the sites of
Rit and Nad Klepečkom in Viminacium (21/20th century
BC) (Bulatović et al 2019, 63, T. 1/11, T. 2/12; Kapuran et
al. 2019, 99, T. 4/14, T. 5/1-4, T. 7/18), where pottery with
stylistic and typological characteristics of both Bubanj-
Hum III and Mureş groups have been recorded in enclosed
features. A form similar to early Vatin beakers, with low-
ered and etage belly, often with four wart-like thickenings
is registered within the Mureş group (Girić 1971, T. XXV/
gr. 82, T. LXXXVI/2), which points to the certain cultural
basis for the formation of the early Vatin culture, which
develops its recognizable character in the later phase, due
to contacts with of encrusted pottery cultures, and trough
keeping the form of beakers from the earlier phase.
Numerous finds of beakers with trapezoidal mouth far
to the north, in the territory of Mureş group, are quite in-
teresting, considering that this territory and the Central
Balkans are separated by a “gap” represented by lack of
finds of such beakers. (Fig. 1). However, in terms of forms
and ornaments, such beakers completely correspond to the
Mureş group and resemble the ones from the Central Bal-
kans solely in the modeling of mouth, although the ones
from the north are of more emphasized modeling. The
idea that the origin territory for those beakers is Pannonia
was quickly discarded for several reasons, even though
a total of eleven beakers have been registered within the
relatively small area near Mureş and Tisa (Fig. 1). Firstly,
during the preceding period in the territory of the Mureş
group (approximately the 21-18th century BC, O’Shea

142
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

1996, Tab. 3.1), there are no elements that would indicate

an evolution towards those beakers, as is the case with
the Central Balkans. This primarily refers to the idea of
decoration with modeled extensions on the rim, which is
completely unknown in the Mureş group, yet one of the
most prominent characteristics of Bubanj-Hum III cul-
ture in the Central Balkans. Secondly, this type of beakers
appears in the Central Balkans in the 19/18th century BC
(possibly even earlier according to dating spans of Ljul-
jaci and Omoljica, Fig. 4), while the Pannonian examples
are dated to late Mureş group or Pecica C phase, a period
between 1750 and 1650/1600 BC, which negates the idea
of their origin in Pannonia.
However, it is interesting that during the earlier peri-
od, the Early Bronze Age, numerous finds of beakers of
Bubanj (Bubanj-Hum III group type) have been registered
in the same territories, including the same “gap” in finds
between certain regions. (Bulatović, Stankovski 2012,
345 i nap. 516). Such data indicate certain connections,
direct or indirect contacts (the process of cultural trans-
mission) of populations that inhabited the Central Balkans
and wider zone of Mureş and Tisa confluence during the
Early and Middle Bronze Age, and whose intensity and
character remain unclear.

Conclusion

The short analysis of beakers with trapezoid mouth and

the accompanying pottery has indicated several import-
ant points for the research of the Middle Bronze Age of
the Central Balkans. The distribution of such beakers has
shown their representation mostly in Morava Region, Šu-
madija Region, and Timočka Krajina Region, and sporad-
ically in southern Banat. The exceptions are numerous ex-
amples registered in the Mureş and Tisa confluence area,
which are, as it seems, younger and represent the result
of intensive contacts, processes of cultural transmission
between the population of the Central Balkans and this
part of Pannonia during the Middle Bronze Age. Through
the analysis of absolute dates, stylistic and typological
characteristics of beakers with trapezoidal mouth and
the accompanying pottery, as well as their distribution, it
has been concluded that those represent one of the most
recognizable form of the material culture of the Middle
Bronze Age in the Central Balkans, which is, in the lack

143
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

of a more appropriate term, marked as Bubanj-Hum IV –

Ljuljaci according to the eponymous sites and the fact that
it has evolved from the previous Bubanj-Hum III culture
almost without a chronological hiatus. The earliest finds
of beakers with trapezoidal mouth are registered in Šu-
madija, Morava Region and Timočka Krajina Region, and
originate from the 19/18th century BC, and therefore, it
can be assumed with a dose of the reserve, that the group
was formed in the area of Šumadija, the upper course of
Južna Morava River, central Morava Region, and (possi-
bly) Timočka Krajina Region, and spread far to the Dan-
ube Region in the north. The development of the group
in bordering regions was somewhat different due to the
presence of elements of different cultures from the neigh-
boring regions (Vatin, Verbicioara). It had an independent
development from Vatin culture, although certain Vatin
and Verbicioara elements formed through contacts of the
group with populations in the Danube Region and eastern
parts of the Central Balkans are recognized in its central
territory during later phases.
Bubanj-Hum IV – Ljuljaci group ceases to exist at the
end of the Middle Bronze Age, during the 15/14th century
BC, when it is replaced by younger cultures that originat-
ed from its traditions. Therefore, Paraćin group is formed
in the wider area of the central Morava Region, and Brnji-
ca culture in the territory of the Južna Morava Basin: both
groups retain numerous stylistic and typological elements
of pottery from the previous period and testify a certain
cultural continuity in the Central Balkans during the entire
Bronze Age.

144
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

References • Bulatović, A., Gori, M., Vander Linden, M.

2020. Radiocarbon Dating the 3rd Millennium
• Богдановић, M. 1986. Љуљаци, насеље BC in the Central Balkans: a re-examination of
протоватинске и ватинске културе, the Early Bronze Age sequence, Radiocarbon
Крагујевац. vol. 62, Nr5, 1163-1191.
• Bona, I. 1975. Die Mittlere Bronzezeit Ungarns • Bulatović, A., Kapuran, A., Gavranović, M.
und ihre Südöstlichen Beziehungen, Akadémia forthcoming. New absolute dates for the Middle
Kiadó, Budapest. and Late Bronze Ages in the Central Balkans and
• Bronzano doba Srbije 1972. у: Коларић, М. some indications of the local bronze metallurgy
(ур.), Бронзано доба Србије каталог изложбе, and workshops, Searching for Gold, Proceedings
Народни музеј у Београду, Београд. of Conference held in Vienna, in June 9-10th.
• Bulatović, A., 2011. Relations between Cultur- • Crăciunescu, G. 2014, Cultura Verbicoara în
al Groups in the Early Bronze Age in Southeast- jumătatea vestică a Olteniei, Craiova.
ern Serbia, Western Bulgaria and North-eastern • Дмитровић, K. 2009. Бронзано доба у
Macedonia, Archaeologica Bulgarica, XV, 2, So- чачанском крају, необјављен магистарски
fia, 81-94. рад одбрањен 2009. године на Одељењу
• Bulatović, A. 2014. New Finds as a contribu- за археологију Филозофског факултета у
tion to the study of the Early Bronze Age in the Београду.
southern part of the Central Balkans, Starinar n.s. • Дмитровић, К. и Љуштина, М. 2007. Керамика
LXIV, Београд, 57-75. из бронзаног доба на локалитету Соколица у
• Bulatović, A., Gori, M., Vander Linden, M. 2018. Остри код Чачка, Зборник Народног музеја
New Absolute Dates As A Contribution To The XXXVII, Чачак, 11-34.
Study Of The Late Bronze Age Chronology in • Гарашанин Д. 1954. Каталог метала I, Narod-
The Central Balkans, Гласник САД 34, 121-132. ni muzej, Beograd.
• Булатовић, А. и Милановић, Д. 2015. Велика • Garašanin, D. 1983. Posebni nalazi na central-
хумска чука, истраживања 2009. године - no-balkanskom području,u: A. Benac (ur.)Prais-
прилог проучавању стратиграфије енеолита torija jugoslovenskih zemalja IV, Sarajevo, 799-
и бронзаног доба у југоисточној Србији, 805.
Гласник Српског археолошког друштва 30, • Garašanin, M. 1983a. Vatinska grupa i Du-
Београд, 163-188. bovačko-Žutobrdska grupa. u: A. Benac (ur.)
• Булатовић, А. и Станковски, Ј. 2012. Бронзано Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja IV, Sarajevo,
доба у басену Јужне Мораве и у долини Пчиње/ 504-535.
Бронзено време во басенот на Јужна Морава • Garašanin, M. 1983b. Grupa Bubanj-Hum III, u:
и долината на Пчиња, Археолошки институт A. Benac (ur.) Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja
Београд и НУ Музеј, Куманово. IV, Sarajevo, 719-722.
• Bulatović, A., Vander Linden, M. 2017. Absolute • Гарашанин M. и Ђурић Н. 1983. Бубањ и
Dating of Copper and Early Bronze Age Levels Велика Хумска Чука, каталог изложбе, Ниш.
at the Eponymous Archaeological Site Bubanj • Gimbutas, M. 1965. Bronze Age Cultures in Cen-
(Southeastern Serbia), Radiocarbon 59/4, 1047– tral and Eastern Europe, Hague.
1065. • Гирић, М. 1958. Једна бронзанодопска посуда
• Bulatović, A., Jovičić, M., Milovanović, B. 2019, из Чоке, Рад војвођанских музеја 7, Нови Сад,
Horizont ranog bronzanog doba na lokalitetu Rit 125-126.
/ Early Bronze Age horizon at the site of Rit, u/ • Girić, M. 1971. Mokrin – nekropola ranog bron-
in: Kapuran, A., Bulatović, A., Filipović, V., Gol- zanog doba, Mokrin I, Beograd.
ubović, S. (ur./eds). Viminacijum u praistoriji / • Gogâltan, F. 1999. Bronzul timpurui şi mijlociu
Viminacium in Prehistory, Arheološki institut, în Banatul Românesc şi pe cursul inferior al
Beograd, 57-79. Mureşului, Chronologia şi descoperirile de met-
al, Timişoara.

145
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

• Gumă, M., 1997. Epoca bronzului în Banat – • V. Kiss, S. Fábián, T. Hajdu, K. Köhler, G.
The Bronze Age in Banat, Timişoara. Kulscár, I. Major, G. Szabó 2015. Contribu-
• Hänsel, B. 1968. Beiträge zur Chronologie der tions to the relative and absolute Chronology
mittleren Bronzezeit im Karpatenbecken I, Bonn. of the Early and Middle Bronze Age in western
• Horejs, B., Bulatović, A., Bulatović, J., Brandl, Hungary based on radiocarbon dating of human
M., Burke, C., Filipović, D., Milić, B. 2019. New bones, in: Németh, R.E., Rezi, B.(eds.), Bronze
Insights into the Later Stage of the Neolithisa- Age Chronology in the Carpathian basin, Târgu
tion Process of the Central Balkans. First Exca- Mureș, 23-36.
vations at Svinjarička Čuka 2018“Archaeologia • Лазић, М., 1997. Жидовар у бронзано доба,
Austriaca Band 103, Österreichischen Akademie ур. М. Лазић, Жидовар, насеље бронзаног
der Wissenschaften, Wien, 175-226. и гвозденог доба, Филозофски факултет у
• Jevtić, M. 1975. Trasa puta motel Medijana, Niš- Београду и Народни музеј у Вршцу, Београд-
ka Banja – eneolitsko i bronzano doba, Arheološ- Вршац, 21-36.
ki pregled 17, 26–28. • Oršić – Slavetić, A. 1940. Bubanj eine Prähis-
• Jovanović, B. i Janković, I. 1990. Nekropola torische Ansiedlung bei Niš, Mitteilungen der
paraćinske grupe u Trnjanima kod Brestovačke prähist. Kommission der Akademie Wissen-
banje, Zbornik radova muzeja rudarstva i metal- chaften, Wien, 1-42.
urgije u Boru 5/6, 1-20. • OʼShea, J. 1996. Villagers of the Maros, A Por-
• Jovanović, B. i Janković, I. 1996. Die Kera- trait of an Early Bronze Age Society, Springer
mik der Nekropole der Paraćin-Kultur-Trnjane, Science+Buisiness Media LLC, New York.
in: N. Tasić (ed.). The Yugoslav Danube basin • OʼShea, J., Barker, A., Motta, L., Szentmiklosi,
and the Neighbouring Regions in the 2 nd mil- A. 2011. Archaeological investigations at Pecica
lennium B.C. Simpozijum održan u Vršcu, Bel- „Şanţul Mare“ 2006-2009. Analele Banatului,
grade-Vršac, 185-200. Arheologie-Istorie XIX, 67-78.
• Капуран, А. 2009. О утицајима ватина • Дејановић, Д. (ур.) Праисторијске културе
и вербичоаре на налазима гамзиградске Поморавља и источне Србије 1971, каталог
културне групе, Старинар н.с. LIX, Београд, изложбе, Ниш.
53-69. • Радојчић, Н. 2013. Златица у Омољици и
• Kapuran, A. 2014. Praistorijski lokaliteti u sever- Најева циглана у Војловици код Панчева,
oistočnoj Srbiji, Arheološki institut, Beograd. керамички налази бронзаног доба, Народни
• Kapuran, A., Živković, D., Štrbac, N. 2016. New музеј, Београд.
Evidence for Prehistoric Copper Metallurgy in • Srejović, D. 1997. Ljuljaci, Arheološki leksikon,
the vicinity of Bor, Старинар LXVI, 173-191. Savremena administracija, Beograd, 609-610.
• Kapuran, A., Bulatović, A., Danković, I. 2019. • Срејовић, Д., Лазић, М. 1997, Насеља и
Horizonti bronzanog doba na lokalitetu Nad некрополе бронзаног доба у Тимочкој крајини,
Klepečkom / Bronze Age horizons at the site of Археологија источне Србије, Београд, 225-
Nad Klepečkom, u/in: Kapuran, A., Bulatović, 247.
A., Filipović, V., Golubović, S. (eds.), Viminaci- • Стојић, М. 1980. Старе културе и народи на
jum u praistoriji / Viminacium in Prehistory , Ar- тлу средњег Поморавља, Светозарево.
heološki institut, Beograd, 80-141. • Stojić, M. 1998. Lieux de trouvaille de la ce-
• Kapuran, A., Gavranović, M., Mehofer, M. 2011. ramique de type Vatin en Serbie au sud de la
Bronze Age settlement and necropolis Trnjanene- Save et du Danube. Die Kulturen der Bronzezeit
ar Bor – revision and new research results,Stari- in dem Gebiet des Eisernen Tores, Kolloquium in
nar n.s. LXI, 141-153. Drobeta Turnu Severin, November 1997. Bukar-
est, 81-104.
• Stojić, M., Jacanović, Д. 2008. Пожаревац,
културна стратиграфија праисторијских
локалитета у Браничеву, Београд-Пожаревац.

146
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

• Стојић, М., Јоцић, М. 2006. Ниш - културна

стратиграфија праисторијских локалитета
у нишкој регији, Београд-Ниш.
• Стојић, М., Чађеновић, Г. 2006. Крушевац,
културна стратиграфија праисторијских
локалитета у зони става Западне Мораве и
Јужне Мораве, Београд – Крушевац.
• Тасић, Н. 1983. Југословенско Подунавље од
индоевропске сеобе до продора Скита, Нови
Сад-Београд.
• Tasić, N. 1984. Die Vatin-Kultur, Kulturen der
Fruhbronzezeit des Karpatenbeckens und Nord-
balkans, Ed. N. Tasić, Beograd, 59-82.
• Tasić, N. N., Tasić, N. 2003. Serbian Prehistoric
Archaeology in the 1990s. in: Grammenos, D.V.
(ed.), Recent Research in the Prehistory of the
Balkans, Thessaloniki, 73-128.
• Tompa, F. V. 1934/35. 25 Jahre Urgeschichts-
forchung in Ungarn 1912-1936. Sonderabdruck
aus dem 24./25. Bericht der Romisch-German-
ischen Kommission, Mainz am Rhein, 27-127.
• Чађеновић, Г. 2000. Налазишта ватинске
културне групе у зони става Јужне Мораве
и Западне Мораве, Крушевачки зборник 14,
Крушевац, 161-179.
• Vasić, R. 2003. Die Nadeln im Zentralbalkan,
Prähistorische Bronzefunde XIII, 11, Stuttgart.

Aleksandar Bulatović
Principal Research Fellow
Institute of Archaeology, Knez Mihajlova 35/IV,
11000 Belgrade, Serbia
E-mail: [email protected]

Graduate from the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade (2005 MA

thesis: Topografija preistorijskih lokaliteta na teritoriji jugoistočne Srbije/To-
pography of Prehistoric Sites in the Territory of South-eastern Serbia; 2008
Ph.D. thesis: Nastanak i razvoj kultura bronzanog doba u basenu Južne Morave/
The Origin and Development of the Bronze Age Cultures in the South Morava
basin), Serbian expert for the stylistic and typological characteristics of pottery
and the absolute chronology of the Metal Ages in the central Balkans. Current
interests: Settlement patterns in the Eneolithic and the Bronze Age in the cen-
tral Balkans; Cultural interactions between the central Balkan communities and
communities of the neighboring regions during the Eneolithic and the Bronze
Age; Ritual and spiritual life of the central Balkans’communities in prehistory,
proto-hirstory and early history; Prehistoric tin sources in the central Balkans.

147
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Beaker from western Serbia (Jančići) ;

(photo: M. Bojović)
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Vatinska kultura u zapadnoj Srbiji:

tradicionalne postavke i činjenice u XXI veku
Katarina Dmitrović, Marija Ljuština

Apstrakt: U radu se navode dosadašnje činjenice o kul-

turnom razvoju vatinske i zapadnosrpske varijante vatinske
kulture, tradicionalne postavke i aktuelna znanja i stavovi.
Imajući u vidu navedenu građu, izvedene su činjenice koje
jasno ukazuju na odvojenost kulturnog razvoja zapadne Sr-
bije i južnog dela Karpatskog basena, što implicira i neo-
phodnost izmene naziva za kulture srednjeg bronzanog
doba u zapadnoj Srbiji, na način kojim se više ne bi pot-
crtavala veza između vatinske sa kulturnim razvojem u
centralnoj i zapadnoj Srbiji.

Ključne reči: Srednje bronzano doba, vatinska kultura,

zapadnosrpska varijanta vatinske kulture, tumuli, kultura
Bubanj Hum IV - Ljuljaci, naselja.

Abstract: The article summarises former facts on the cul-

tural development of the Vatin and Western Serbian variant
of the Vatin culture, traditional concepts as well as current
knowledge and attitudes. Having considered the available
material, it was possible to derive the facts that clearly in-
dicated separated cultural development of Western Serbia
in comparison with southern part of the Carpathian Basin.
It implies necessity to change terminology for the Middle
Bronze Age cultures in Western Serbia in accordance with
the situation in which there is no direct connection between
the Vatin culture and the cultural development in Central
and Western Serbia.

Keywords: Middle Bronze Age, Vatin culture, Western

Serbian variant of Vatin culture, tumuli, Bubanj Hum IV –
Ljuljaci culture, settlements.

Vatinska kultura predstavlja manifestaciju srednjeg bron-

zanog doba tipičnu za srpski deo Karpatskog basena.
Nazvana je po eponimnom nalazištu Bela Bara u Vatinu u
Banatu i u arheologiji predstavlja pojavu koja je odavno
poznata. Identifikovana je početkom XX veka zahvaljujući
istraživanjima koja je na eponimnom i drugim nalazištima

149
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

u južnom Banatu obavio Feliks Mileker, jedan od osnivača

i kustos muzeja u Vršcu (sl. 1). Početne korake i važan
doprinos u spoznavanju vatinske kulture kao posebne po-
jave u arheologiji načinio je Miodrag Grbić (sl. 2). Izdvojio
je vatinsku kulturu na osnovu nekropole sa spaljenim
pokojnicima u Vatinu, datirao je u srednje bronzano doba i u
njen opus svrstao nalaze koje danas, doduše, smatramo pred-
stavnicima belegiške kulture i kulture Kornešti-Crvenka.
Začetnik je i ideje o centralnosrpskom poreklu vatinske
kulture prema nalazima iz Ljuljaka, koje je opredelio u pre-
vatinski horizont (Ljuština 2017, 30-32), što su prihvatili
i razvili mnogi kasniji autori (Богдановић 1986; Стојић Sl. 1: Feliks Mileker (Medaković 2002).
1998; Garašanin 1983c, 738; Taсић 1983, 58). Nakon više
od pola stoleća i sistematizacije bogate građe, vatinsku gru- Fig. 1 Felix Milleker (Medaković 2002).
pu su u svojim sintezama detaljno opisali Garašanin i Tasić
(Гарашанин 1973; Garašanin 1983а; Tasić 1974; Тасић
1983).
Stavovi i definicije ranijih istraživača o raznim aspekti-
ma vatinske kulture, koji su bili u skladu sa onovremenim
znanjima i građom, oslikavajući duh tih vremena, činili
su polaznu osnovu za determinisanje mnogih drugih kul-
turnih manifestacija i pojava (npr. zapadnosrpska varijanta
vatinske kulture) koje u savremenoj arheologiji nose dru-
gačije nazive i odrednice. Moderna znanja i stavovi o va-
tinskoj kulturi su sada drugačiji, a mnoga pitanja o genezi,
rasprostranjenosti, karakteristikama keramike i hronologiji
još uvek traže odgovarajuća rešenja (Ljuština 2012) (sl. 3).
Kada je u pitanju hronološko pozicioniranje vatinske kul-
ture, imali smo velika očekivanja od rezultata istraživan-
ja višeslojnog lokaliteta Židovar u Banatu. Na žalost, do
sada nisu dobijene serije radiokarbonskih datuma. Dva
izolovana uzorka, jedan iz konteksta najranije faze razvoja
vatinske kulture, a drugi iz kasne, dala su rezultat (grubo
uzevši XVIII-XVII vek p. n. e.) koji je ukazivao na ve-
oma malu hronološku razliku između dva uzorka koji bi
Sl. 2: Miodrag Grbić (Гачић 2005).
trebalo da omeđe čitav period razvoja vatinske kulture na
Židovaru. Pa ipak, kada se uporede svi prikupljeni radio- Fig. 2 Miodrag Grbić (Гачић 2005).
karbonski datumi za vatinsku kulturu, postaje jasno da čak
i problematični datumi sa Židovara odgovaraju apsolutno
hronološkim okvirima predloženim od strane Gogltana
(Gogâltan 2008) koji bi pokrivali period oko 2000.-1500. g.
p. n. e. (Ljuština, Dmitrović 2015, 40-41), što je u saglasno-
sti sa opšteprihvaćenim hronološkim opredeljenjem perio-
da i kulture (cf. Boroffka 2013; Daróczi, Ursuţiu 2015).
Slično se kretao i istorijat kulturnog razvoja tokom bron-

150
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Sl. 3 Vatinska keramika, Omoljica - Zlatica (Vulić, Grbić 1937).

Fig. 3 Vatin culture pottery, Omoljica - Zlatica (Vulić, Grbić 1937).

151
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

zanog doba u zapadnoj Srbiji. Kulture bronzanog doba

na ovom prostoru obeležene su veoma markantnim i
značajnim fenomenom – razvijenim pogrebnim kultom
i podizanjem pogrebnih humki - koji predstavlja funda-
mentalnu osobenost celokupnog razvoja ovog dugotrajnog
perioda i nastavlja da traje i tokom gvozdenog doba.
Zahvaljujući upravo izražajnosti tumula u sklopu pejzaža,
ali i vrlo čestih i bogatih nalaza, istraživanja su započela
srazmerno rano, te se beleže pojedina iskopavanja s kraja
XIX veka u okolini Čačka, Valjeva i Loznice (Tројановић
1890; 1892; Валтровић 1890; 1893; Јовановић 1892),
brojni zapisi o izgledu, broju i rasporedu humki u zapad-
nom delu Srbije (Карић 1887; Ердељановић 1902; Каниц
1985).
Poseban uzlet u istraživanju humki zapadne Srbije, kao
i definisanju kulturnih zbivanja tokom bronzanog doba,
nastao je u posleratnom periodu i vremenu formiranja bro- Sl. 4 Draga i Milutin Garašanin (https://
jnih centralnih i lokalnih ustanova zaštite. U tom smislu, www.novosti.rs/vesti/naslovna/reportaze/
prvenstveno je važan rad Drage i Milutina Garašanina (sl. aktuelno.293.html:364158-Porodica-Garas-
anin-Stvarali-pet-Srbija).
4), koji su započeli sa beleženjem i iskopavanjem humki
zapadne Srbije (Kriva Reka, Ražana), a potom definisali, Fig. 4 Draga and Milutin Garašanin
shodno tadašnjim stavovima i znanjima, kulturne tokove (https://www.novosti.rs/vesti/naslovna/re-
na tom području (Гарашанин 1973; Garašanin 1983b, c; portaze/aktuelno.293.html:364158-Porodi-
Garašanin 1966). Njihove definicije i nazivi su i danas ak- ca-Garasanin-Stvarali-pet-Srbija).
tuelni, ali delimično izmenjeni prisustvom rezultata novih
iskopavanja i sistematizacije građe, o čemu će detaljnije
biti reči u daljem tekstu.
Rano bronzano doba je okarakterisano razvojem kulture
Belotić – Bela Crkva, koju je u osnovi definisao M. Garašanin
(Garašanin 1983b), a čije je trajanje određeno novijim
analizama građe u drugu polovinu trećeg i u početak dru-
gog milenijuma pre n. e. (Дмитровић 2016, 249-251). Na-
kon većeg vremenskog hijatusa, kulturni razvoj bronzanog
doba je nastavljen kroz kulturu poznatu po tradicionalnom
nazivu “Zapadnosrpska varijanta vatinske kulture” koju
je takođe svojevremeno izdvojio M. Garašanin (1983c).
Pogrebni kult je i dalje glavna odrednica i ove kulture, a
zapaženo je da nosioci zapadnosrpske varijante koriste
starije humke za sekundarno sahranjivanje ili osnivaju
nove tumule u okviru starijih nekropola (sl. 5).
Novinu predstavlja intenzivna pojava nakita izrađenog od
bronze – torkvesi, narukvice, igle, različite vrste privezaka,
nopenrinzi i tutuli uglavnom centralnoevropskih oblika i
uzora, među kojima su prepoznati jedinstveni primerci,
verovatno proizvodi lokalne manufakture (Васић 1997,
44) (sl. 6).
152
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Zapadnosrpska varijanta vatinske grupe izazvala je najviše

polemika i izmena, upravo zbog konstatacije o postojanju
vatinskih komponenti u zapadnim krajevima Srbije.
Na ovu činjenicu se prvo osvrnuo Nikola Tasić (1983,
97; 2002, 177-178,183-184), a zatim su usledili radovi
Filipovića (2013), Bulatovića (2012; 2018) i potpisnica
ovog teksta, koji su u osnovi ponovili konstataciju da ne bi
trebalo izjednačavati kulturni izraz u zapadnoj Srbiji kra-
jem srednjeg i početkom kasnog bronzanog doba sa znatno
ranijom vatinskom kulturom, niti sa njenim uticajem.
Navedene činjenice o istorijatu obeju kultura koje su se
razvijale u potpuno različitim geomorfološkim i kulturnim
preduslovima, do izvesne mere dopuštaju opravdanje
za njihovu svojevremenu povezivanost. Najpre, njiho-
va međusobna sličnost je formirana na osnovu formalnih
sličnosti pehara sa dve drške (sl. 7).
Međutim, razvojem arheologije je utvrđeno da predmetne
pehare iz Vojvodine ne treba svrstati u vatinsku, već u
kulturu Belegiš I, što i u hronološkom smislu potpuno
odgovara vremenu razvoja zapadnosrpske varijante. Ovu
činjenicu potvrđuje i nekoliko novijih datuma dobijenih
C14 metodom, koji ukazuju na vreme 14. - 13. veka pre
n.e. (Gligorić, Filipović, Bulatović, 2016; Bulatović, Gori,
Vander Linden 2018, 123), što je vreme tokom kog se više
ne može računati na egzistenciju populacija vatinske kul-
ture.
Mnogo je duži spisak međusobnih razlika, gde je kao
prva i najvažnija postojanje specifičnog pogrebnog kul-
ta razvijenog na zapadnom Balkanu, okarakterisanog
sahranjivanjem pod tumulima, što uopšte nije zabeleženo na
vatinskoj teritoriji.
Isto tako, uprkos intenzivnoj i kontinuiranoj prospekci-
ji terena zapaženo je da su naselja u zapadnoj Srbiji vrlo
retka pojava, dok se slika o vatinskoj kulturi na matičnoj
teritoriji gotovo isključivo stvara na osnovu naseobinskih
lokaliteta. Upravo u ovoj kategoriji pronalazimo još
jednu tradicionalno zasnovanu vezu sa vatinskom kultu-
rom, definisanu analogijama sa keramikom iz najpoznatijeg
i najpotpunije istraženog naselja u Ljuljacima (Garašanin
1983c; Богдановић 1986; Стојић 1998; 2000).
Kategoriji naselja pripada vrlo mali broj lokaliteta
koncentrisanih na istočnom obodu i graničnom području
fenomena sahranjivanja pod tumulima zapadnog Balka-
na prema kulturama karakterističnim za centralnu Srbi-
ju i basenu Velike Morave. Ovoj grupi pripadaju naselja

153
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Sl. 5 Grobne konstrukcije tipične za zapadnosrpsku grupu, Jančići - Dubac (Дмитровић 2016).

2
Fig. 5 Grave constructions typical for the Western Serbian group, Jančići - Dubac (Дмитровић 2016).

154
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Slatina u Gornjoj Gorevnici (Дмитровић 2009), Sokol-

ica u Ostri (Стојић 2000; Дмитровић, Љуштина 2007;
Ljuština, Dmitrović 2009) i Milića brdo u Ljuljacima
(Богдановић 1986). Zajedničku karakteristiku ovih naselja
čini postojanje bikoničnih pehara sa dve drške (sl. 8), koji
mogu imati plastične dodatke na vrhovima drški i lepezas-
to razgrnute obode, koji su označeni kao osnovna determi-
nanta veze sa Vatinom. U novije vreme, sveobuhvatnijom
analizom građe iz centralne i južne Srbije, A. Bulatović
i J. Stankovski su utvrdili da se i u ovom slučaju radi o
posebnoj kulturnoj manifestaciji, različitoj od vatinske
kulture, a osobenoj za centralnu Srbiju. Opisane pehare su
nazvali peharima tipa Ljuljaci, tipičnim za područja oko
Južne Morave, timočke regije, Velike Morave i Šumadije
(Булатовић, Станковски 2012, 241, 260, 343). Kao po-
jedinačni nalazi zapaženi su u Podunavlju od ušća Tamiša
do Đerdapske klisure, a sporadično čak i u basenima Tise i
Moriša (Булатовић, Станковски 2012, 337). Prema oblici-
ma i dekoraciji keramike, između ostalog i opisanih peha-
ra, navedeni autori su definisali kulturu tipičnu za centralnu
i delove južne i istočne Srbije početkom II milenijuma pre
n. e. i nazvali je Bubanj Hum IV – Ljuljaci. Zaključili su
i da je nasledila raniju, Bubanj-Hum III kulturu, sa ko-
jom je delila istu teritoriju (Булатовић, Станковски 2012,
337). Tipična keramika otkrivena na naseljima u Ostri u
G. Gorevnici je stilski veoma bliska sa Ljuljacima, što ih
generalno opredeljuje u Bubanj Hum IV – Ljuljaci kulturni
krug. Nalazimo da ovakva postavka ne isključuje uticaj
koji je na keramičku proizvodnju i razvoj stila Bubanj Hum
IV – Ljuljaci mogla imati keramička proizvodnja sa teri-
torije naseljene nosiocima vatinske kulture.
U poređenju sa keramikom iz nekropola, keramika iz
navedenih naselja je veoma različitih formi i izrade, što
ukazuje na potpuno različito poreklo, kulturnu pripadnost
i što je najvažnije, hronologiju (Dmitrović 2016, 238-240).
Raspored naselja na zapadnoj periferiji Šumadije prema
zapadnom Pomoravlju doveo je do pretpostavke da se
radi o potpuno drugačijem kulturnom supstratu od onog u
zapadnoj Srbiji i da njihove pozicije mogu da ukazuju na
određen odbrambeni sistem koji su formirali žitelji naselja
u Ostri, Ljuljacima i Gorevnici, nadirući sa istoka i poti-
skujući starije stanovništvo grupe Belotić-Bela Crkva pre-
ko venca planine Jelice na zapad (sl. 9). Na činjenicu da
se radilo o nesigurnim vremenima, mogu da ukažu tipovi
ovih naselja – dominantne pozicije u Ljuljacima i Ostri i

155
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Sl. 6 Кeramika i nakit od bronze

tipični za zapadnosrpsku grupu
(Дмитровић 2016, sa navedenom
literaturom).

Fig. 6 Pottery and bronze jewellery

typical for the Western Serbian group
(Дмитровић 2016, with cited litera-
ture).

Sl. 7 Pehari i amfore iz zapadne

Srbije (1,3 – Jančići, Dubac) i južne
Panonije (2,4 - Kaluđerske livade)
(Никитовић 1999; foto: M. Bojović;
Петровић 2006).

Fig. 7 Beakers and amphorae from

Western Serbia (1,3 – Jančići,
Dubac) and southern Pannonia (2,4
- Kaluđerske livade) (Никитовић
1999; photo: M. Bojović; Петровић
2006).

156
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

skrovitost naselja u G. Gorevnici, koje su im obezbeđivale

nadgledanje i odbranu. Uvid u keramički material sa
Ostre i Ljuljaka otkrio je da je na ovim naseljima život
trajao i dalje, drugom polovinom II milenijuma pre n.e.,
što potvrđuju nalazi razvijene vatinske i kulture Paraćin I,
što ih kulturno ponovo odvaja od istovremenih zbivanja u
zapadnoj Srbiji.
Već pominjana belegiška kultura koja se na samom
kraju srednjeg i u kasnom bronzanom dobu razvija-
la u Sremu nije jedina kultura koja je svoj pečat ostavi-
la na građi iz zapadne Srbije. Naime, u zapadnoj Srbiji je
zapažen uticaj vinkovačke, Šomođvar, Nađrev i drugih
kultura ranog bronzanog doba, dok je kasno obeleženo
delimičnim refleksijama kulture polja sa urnama (Dmitro-
vić 2014), kompleksa koji je u to vreme široko prekrivao
centralnu Evropu. Međutim, pomenuti kulturni uticaji ne
predstavljaju fizičko prisustvo nosilaca navedenih kultura,
već refleksije koje su vidljive na proizvodima materijalne
kulture. S druge strane, na osnovu specifičnih pogrebnih
običaja, materijalizovanih u podizanju grobnih humki sa
osobenim grobnim konstrukcijama sa biritualno sahranjen-
im pokojnicima, tragovima obavljenih rituala i prisustvu
grobnih priloga, kulturu srednjeg i kasnog bronzanog doba
u zapadnoj Srbiji možemo smatrati autohtonom pojavom,
čija materijalna kultura ne predstavlja import, već loka-
lni proizvod načinjen pod uticajima značajnijih kulturnih
centara na severu, koji su stizali uglavnom preko belegiške
kulture.
Uz navedene činjenice o keramici, jasno je da ne tre-
ba vezivati kulturu s kraja srednjeg i kasnog bronzanog
doba na zapadu Srbije za vatinsku kulturu i njene regio-
nalne grupe i lokalne varijacije, već da se radi o poseb-
nom kulturnom entitetu, u čijoj genezi učestvuju autohtona
komponenta i uticaji sa severa. Stoga bi trebalo preinačiti
tradicionalni naziv zapadnosrpska varijanta vatinske kul-
ture u onaj koji ne insistira na direktnoj paraleli sa Vatinom
u južnom delu karpatskog basena. Već je bilo predloga o
Sl. 8 Pehari sa dve drške i lepezasto razgr- preimenovanju ove specifične kulture, gde treba naves-
nutim obodom sa lokaliteta Sokolica u Ostri
kod Čačka (Стојић 2000; foto: M. Bojović).
ti s jedne strane sintagmu brezjačka grupa (Филиповић
2013,70; Bulatović, Gori, Vander Linden 2018, 126-127),
Fig. 8 Two-handled beakers with fan-shaped kao zapadnosrpska grupa srednjeg bronzanog doba (Dmi-
everted rim from the site of Sokolica in trović, Ljuština 2013, 156-158; Дмитровић 2016, 233;
Ostra near Čačak (Стојић 2000; photo: M. Ljuština, Dmitrović 2016, 45). Dok se ne postigne kon-
Bojović). senzus i usvoji jedinstven naziv, svakako ostaje činjenica
da je nedvosmisleno prepoznato i prihvaćeno da vatinska i

157
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

zapadnosrpska kultura međusobno nemaju direktnih do-

dirnih tačaka, počevši od hronoloških, budući da je vatinska
kultura osvedočeni kulturni fenomen prve polovine II
milenijuma p. n. e.

Sl. 9 Karta sa predloženim rasporedom kulturnih grupa u centralnoj Srbiji na početku II milenijuma pre n.e.
(Ljuština, Dmitrović 2016, Fig. 6).

Fig. 9 Map with proposed layout of cultural groups in Central Serbia at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC
(Ljuština, Dmitrović 2016, Fig. 6).

158
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Bibliografija • Garašanin, D. 1966. Skica periodizacije bron-

zanog doba Srbije. Materijali Arheološkog
• Богдановић, М. 1986. Љуљаци, насеље Društva Jugoslavije IV, 203-208.
протоватинске и ватинске културе, • Garašanin, M. 1983а. Vatinska grupa, in: Benac,
Крагујевац: Народни музеј. A. (ed.). Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja IV.
• Boroffka, N. 2013. Romania, Moldova, and Bul- Bronzano doba. Sarajevo: Svijetlost i ANUBiH,
garia, in: Harding, A., Fokkens (eds.) H. The 705-718.
Oxford Handbook of the European Bronze Age. • Garašanin, M. 1983b. Grupa Belotić – Bela Crk-
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 877-897. va, in: Benac, A. (ed.). Praistorija jugoslavenskih
• Булатовић, А., Станковски, Ј. 2012. Бронзано zemalja IV. Bronzano doba. Sarajevo: Svijetlost i
доба у басену Јужне Мораве и у долини Пчиње. ANUBiH, 504-519.
Београд: Археолошки институт – Куманово; • Garašanin, M. 1983c. Zapadnosrpska varijanta
Н.У. Музеј. vatinske grupe, in: Benac, A. (ed.). Praistorija
• Булатовић, А., Филиповић, В., Глигорић, Р. jugoslavenskih zemalja IV. Bronzano doba, Sara-
2017. Лозница. Културна стратиграфија jevo: Svijetlost i ANUBiH, 736-753.
праисторијских локалитета у Јадру, Рађевини • Gligorić, R., Filipović, V., Bulatović, A. 2016. An
и Азбуковици. Београд: Археолошки институт; AMS Dated Late Bronze Age Grave from Mound
Лозница: Центар за културу „Вук Караџић“, Necropolis at Paulje. Старинар LXVI, 103–109.
Музеј Јадра. • Gogâltan, F. 2008. Fortificaţiile tell-urilor epocii
• Bulatović, A., Gori, M., Vander Linden M. 2018. bronzului din bazinul Carpatic. O privire gener-
New Absolute Dates as a Contribution to the ală. Analele Banatului S.N., XVI, 81-100.
Study of the Late Bronze Age Chronology in the • Јовановић, Ђ. 1892. Табље, тумули, гомиле
central Balkans. Journal of the Serbian Archaeo- буковачког поља и ћелиска пећина. Старинар
logical Society 34, 121-132. IX (књ.2), 46-55.
• Daróczi, T. T. and Ursuţiu, A. 2015. Worship, • Каниц, Ф. 1985. Србија, земља и
Habitation, Rafuge. Bronze and Iron Age Sites становништво. Београд: Српска књижевна
of the Lower Feneş Valley. Cluj-Napoca: Mega задруга.
Publishing House. • Карић, В. 1887. Србија, опис земље, народа и
• Дмитровић, К. 2009. Насеље раног бронзаног државе. Београд: Краљевско-српска државна
доба на налазишту Слатина у Горњој штампарија.
Горевници. Зборник Народног музеја XIX/1 – • Ljuština, M. 2012. Stratigrafija naselja i period-
археологија, 103-117. izacija vatinske culture u Vojvodini – nepubliko-
• Dmitrović, K. 2014. Notes on the Urnfield Period vana doktorska disertacija odbranjena na Filozof-
in the Čačak Region, Serbia, in: D. Ložnjak-Diz- skom fakultetu u Beogradu.
dar, M. Dizdar (eds.). The Beginning of the Late • Ljuština, Đ. M. 2017. Vatin Culture in Scientif-
Bronze Age between the Eastern Alps and the ic Opus of Miodrag Grbić, in: Vujović, M. (ed.).
Danube. Proceedings of the International con- Ante Portam Auream. Studia in Honorem Profes-
ference in Osijek, October 20-22, 2011. Zagreb: soris Aleksandar Jovanović. Belgrade: Faculty of
Institut za arheologiju, 262-271. Philosophy, 23-44.
• Филиповић, В. 2013. Нова истраживања • Ljuština, M. and Dmitrović, K. 2009. The Bronze
некропола развијеног бронзаног доба у Age Vatin Culture in the West Morava Basin –
северозападној Србији, хронолошка и Case Study of Sokolica in Ostra, in Zanoci, A.,
терминолошка питања. Гласник Српског Arnaut, T., Băţ, M. (eds.). Studia Archaeologi-
археолошког друштва 29, 51-84. ae et Historiae Antiquae: Doctissimo viro Sci-
• Гачић, Д. 2005. Миодраг Грбић (1901-1969): entiarum Archaeologiae et Historiae Ion Nicu-
живот и дело. Музеј Града Новог Сада: Нови liţă, anno septuagesimo aetatis suae, dedicatur.
Сад. Chişinău:Universitatea de Stat din Moldova -
Casa Editorial-Poligrafică „Bons Offices”, 53-63.

159
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

• Ljuština, M., Dmitrović, K. 2015. Core vs. Pe- • Валтровић, M. 1893. Преисторијске старине у
riphery: Some Stratigraphical and Chronological ваљевском и подрињском округу. Старинар X,
Remarks on the Vatin Culture in Banat and West- 75-97.
ern Serbia, in Németh, R. E., Rezi, B. (eds.). • Васић, Р. 1997. Белешке о бронзаном добу у
Bronze Age Chronology in the Carpathian Basin: Србији. Зборник радова Народног музеја XX-
proceedings of the International Colloquium from VII, 37-47.
Târgu Mureş: 2-4 October 2014. Târgu Mureş: • Vasić, R. 2006. Notes on the Bronze Age Vatin
• Medaković, A. 2002. Felix Milleker (1858– Culture in Serbia, in: Tasić, N., Grozdanov, C.
1942.). Istraživač, publicista i kustos Gradskog (eds.). Homage to Milutin Garašanin, Belgrade:
muzeja u Vršcu. Gradski muzej u Vršcu: Vršac. Serbian Academy of Science and Arts, 449-453.
• Никитовић, Л. 1999. Резултати ископавања • Vulić, N., Grbić, M. 1937. Corpus vasorum anti-
праисторијске некрополе на локалитету Дубац quorum, Yugoslavie, Fasc. 3, Beograd.
у Јанчићима на Каблару, Зборник радова • https://www.novosti.rs/vesti/naslovna/reportaze/
Народног музеја XXIX, 5-21. aktuelno.293.html:364158-Porodica-Garas-
• Петровић, Б. 2006. Калуђерске ливаде, anin-Stvarali-pet-Srbija
некропола бронзаног доба. Београд: Музеј
града Београда.
• Стојић М. 1998. Културни хоризонт ватинске
културне групе у Србији јужно од Саве и
Дунава: Мојсиње – Добрача, у: Тасић, Н.
Рад Драгослава Срејовића на истраживању
праисторије централног Балкана. Меморијал
Драгослава Срејовића. Зборник радова I,
Крагујевац, 133-146.
• Стојић, M. 2000. Праисторијска керамика са
локалитета Соколица у Остри. Зборник радова
Народног музеја XXX, 15-20.
• Tasić, N. 1974. Bronzano doba, in: Brukner, B.,
Jovanović, B. Tasić, N (eds.). Praistorija Vojvo-
dine. Novi Sad: Institut za izučavanje istorije Vo-
jvodine; Savez arheoloških društava Jugoslavije,
185-256.
• Тасић, Н. 1983. Југословенско Подунавље од
индоевропске сеобе до продора Скита. Нови
Сад: Матица српска – Београд: Балканолошки
институт САНУ.
• Тасић, Н. 2002. Некропола у Белегишу и
проблем белeгишке културе, in: Вранић,
С., Белегиш, Стојића Гумно - некропола
спaљених покојника. Београд: Muzej grada
Beograda, 168-184.
• Тројановић, С. 1890. Преисторијске старине
из рудничког округа, Старинар VII, 101-107.
• Тројановић, С. 1892. Преисторијске старине
из рудничког округа. Старинар IX, 1-23.
• Валтровић, M. 1890. Бакрене и бронзане
старине из Србије. Старинар VII, 65-96.

160
Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe:
the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project

Katarina Dmitrović
Senior Consultant
National Museum, Cara Dušana 1, 32000, Čacak, Serbia,
E-mail: [email protected]

Diplomirala (2000. godine), magistrirala (2008) i doktorirala

(2015) na Odeljenju za arheologiju Filozofskog fakulteta u Beo-
gradu. Od 2001. godine je stalno zaposlena u Narodnom muzeju
u Čačku, gde vodi praistorijsku zbirku. Od 2015. godine dobila je
i stručno zvanje muzejski savetnik. Profesionalno je orjentisana
ka istraživanju mlađe praistorije u zapadnoj Srbiji. Učestvovala
je i rukovodila sa više stručnih i naučnih projekata i objavila
više desetina radova kod nas i u inostranstvu. Član je strukovnih
udruženja SAD i UISPP.

Marija Ljuština
Assistant Professor PhD
University of Belgrade, Faculty of Philosophy, Department of
Archaeology, Čika Ljubina 18-20, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia,
E-mail: [email protected]

Diplomirala je, magistrirala i doktorirala na Odeljenju za arhe-

ologiju Filozofskog fakulteta u Beogradu, na kome je zapos-
lena od 2000. godine. Kao docent na Odeljenju za arheologiju
učestvuje u izvođenju nastave na kursevima o mlađoj praistoriji
Evrope, kao i u individualnom mentorskom radu. Autor je više
radova publikovanih u domaćoj i stranoj periodici, kao i mono-
grafskim publikacijama, iz oblasti bronzanog i gvozdenog doba
jugoistočne Evrope. Član je Međunarodne unije preistorijskih i
protoistorijskih nauka (UISPP), Srpskog arheološkog društva, i
stipendista Tokio fondacije.

161
CIP - Каталогизација у публикацији
Народна библиотека Србије, Београд

903.023.08"637"(4)(082)
903.4"637"(4)(082)
904:738"637"(4)(082)

CRAFTING pottery in Bronze Age Europe : the archaeological background of the

CRAFTER project / editors Vesna Vučković ... [et al.]. - Paraćin : Regional Museum of
Paraćin, 2021 (Bor : Tercija). - 162 str. : ilustr. ; 27 cm

"This monograph is the result of the Crafter project - Crafting Europe in the Bronze Age and
Today " --> kolofon. - Radovi na srp. i engl. jeziku. - Tiraž 1.000. - Str. 6-7: Introduction /
Vojislav Filipović. - Beleške o autorima uz svaki rad. - Napomene i bibliografske reference uz
radove. - Bibliografija uz svaki rad.

ISBN 978-86-920553-2-4
а) Керамика -- Европа -- Бронзано доба -- Зборници б) Археолошки налази -- Србија --
Бронзано доба в) Археолошка налазишта -- Србија -- Бронзано доба

COBISS.SR-ID 29334537