Volume XI
●
Issue 1/2020
●
Pages 9–19
INTERDISCIPLINARIA ARCHAEOLOGICA
NATURAL SCIENCES IN ARCHAEOLOGY
homepage: http://www.iansa.eu
XI/1/2020
Identifying Early Neolithic Settlements in the Šumadija Region of Serbia
Through Combined Pedestrian Survey and Archaeological Geophysical
Prospection
Miroslav Kočića,c, Bryan Hanksa*, Marija Kaličanin Krstićb,
Marc Bermanna, Petra Basara, Michael Mlynieca
a
University of Pittsburgh, Department of Anthropology, 3302 WWPH Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA
Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments, Kragujevačkog Oktobra 184, 34000, Kragujevac, Republic of Serbia
c
Archaeological Institute of Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Knez Mihailova 35/4, 11000 Belgrade, Republic of Serbia
b
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Article history:
Received: 25th January 2020
Accepted: 8th July 2020
The development of Neolithic lifeways represented fundamental shifts in social organization and
human-environment relationships within local ecological settings. An understanding of this process
in the Balkans peninsula has remained intriguing and challenging in the broader context of European
prehistory. Evidence for Neolithization processes in the Balkans begins around the seventh millennium
BC in the south-east at important tell sites such as Nea Nikomedia and Sesklo where rectangular
house structures and other elements of the “Neolithic package” strongly resemble those of the Levant.
The northern zone of the Balkans peninsula, however, presents a different situation, with small flat
sites with intrusive later occupation making patterns of early Neolithization difficult to discern. This
paper reports recent field research in Central Serbia (Šumadija region, Gruža River valley) where
Early Neolithic occupation related to the Starčevo culture has been found at the newly identified
site of Kneževac through systematic pedestrian survey, artifact spatial analysis, and near surface
archaeological geophysics. The results of this research are discussed in the context of other Early
Neolithic settlement evidence in the region, along with their implications for understanding early
agricultural populations in Central Serbia.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24916/iansa.2020.1.1
Key words:
Early Neolithic
Starčevo culture
geophysical prospection
pedestrian survey
1. Introduction
Research on the Early Neolithic Starčevo culture in Central
Serbia began in the 1950s (Garašanin, 1954; Gavela, 1961).
A new phase of international cooperation was carried out
from 1968–1971 (McPherron and Srejović, 1988) at the site
of Grivac (Figure 1), where the earliest stage of the settlement
was identified with pit features containing Starčevo artifacts
(considered “Proto Starčevo” by the excavators, Bogdanović,
2004). These excavations were followed in the 1970s
by additional research at the settlements of Divostin and
Kusovac by an international project directed by D. Srejović
and A. McPherron (McPherron and Srejović, 1988). Site
stratigraphy at Divostin indicated that the earliest occupation
dated to the Early/Middle Neolithic and was characterized by
Starčevo culture pottery and other artifact types characteristic
*Corresponding author. E-mail: bkh5@pitt.edu
of this period. Five above-ground domestic structures, pits
of various dimensions and shapes, some interpreted as “pitdwellings”, and open-air fire installations were identified
(Divostin, subphases Ia–c).
Eleven radiometric dates of different contexts associated
with the Divostin I phase were produced (McPherron and
Srejović, 1988). A re-analysis and calibration of these dates
indicates that Early/Middle Neolithic occupation began by
6,000 cal BC and that the site might have been abandoned
by around 5,800 cal BC (Borić, 2009). The site was then
reoccupied by 4,700 cal BC (Vinča culture occupation)
and then re-abandoned around 4,540 cal BC. Based on this
chronology, a potential occupation gap existed of nearly
one millennium between the end of the Starčevo occupation
and the beginning of the Vinča culture occupation. This
chronological phasing is intriguing when considering the
interpretations of the original excavators who emphasized
that some domestic structures associated with Phase II were
9
IANSA 0 0
I/1
–1
Miroslav Koči , Bryan Hanks, Marija Kaličanin Krsti , Marc Bermann, Petra Basar, Michael Mlyniec: Identifying Early Neolithic Settlements in the umadija Region
of Serbia Through Combined Pedestrian Survey and Archaeological Geophysical Prospection
found exactly above earlier Starčevo “pit-house” features
(McPherron and Srejović, 1988). Unfortunately, due to heavy
weathering of the early Phase I deposits, and subsequent
intrusive occupation of the Divostin II phase, Phase I does
not provide much additional information on the organization
of early Starčevo culture settlements.
Important new information about the Early Neolithic in the
Central Balkans was generated in the 1980s by excavations
at the site of Blagotin, situated in the Morava River valley
(Stanković and Leković, 1993). There were large scale
excavations completed in the 1980s at the sites of Paljevine
and Grobnice, which are now located in the submerged zone
of the Gruža Lake. Unfortunately, these sites (450 square
meters of excavated area) were not published and the
associated field reports are not available. The most recent
archaeological excavation in the Morava River valley is the
large-scale project at Drenovac; however, this is a multiperiod site with a very significant Vinča stratigraphic layer
overlying the earlier phases/occupations at the site (Perić,
2016). Apart from these sites, other reported Early Neolithic
sites are covered by later Vinča phase occupation and have
only been subject to very limited excavation. This situation
challenges any interpretation of the spatial organization
of Early Neolithic sites in central Serbia and any attempts
to reconstruct the important Starčevo to the later Vinča
transition.
Currently, one of the best sources of information on
the organization of Starčevo communities in Serbia is the
salvage excavation at the site of Jaričište I (Marić, 2013). A
large expanse of this site was exposed through excavation,
revealing concentrically grouped subterranean pit-houses
and details of their construction, use, and maintenance
(Marić, 2013). The site of Jaričište I indicates that
Starčevo pit-houses were durable constructions, supporting
interpretations that these were fixed, permanent occupations
rather than ephemeral camp sites in the landscape. These
early sites, therefore, represent important early domestic loci
for examining emergent Neolithization trends in the Balkans.
However, much more research is needed to better understand
these early occupations, the community organization and
regional settlement patterning, and use of local resources.
It is important to note that there are indeed many similarities
among Starčevo-Körös-Criș settlements across the central
Balkans, including their spatial organization. Important field
research, including archaeological geophysics, pedestrian
survey, and stratigraphic excavation, has been completed at
several Early Neolithic sites in Hungary and Romania and
provide an important foundation of comparative data for
interpreting early settlement sites in central Serbia (Bánffy,
2000; Green and Lawson, 2018; Bánffy, 2013). However,
there also exist strong regional characteristics and patterns
and it is difficult to make direct comparisons of central
Serbian sites to contemporaneous sites in the Panonian
Basin, which are over 400 kilometres away and in a
completely different geomorphological zone. More research,
therefore, is needed to examine such settlement patterning
in Serbia and to address the many open questions regarding
10
these Early Neolithic sites. In response to this, in 2016, the
University of Pittsburgh and the Institute for the Protection
of Cultural Monuments in Kragujevac, Serbia, initiated
a new program of cooperation focusing on systematic
pedestrian survey coupled with multi-method archaeological
geophysical surveys in the Šumadija region of central
Serbia. To date, a total area of 102.47 km² has been surveyed
through systematic field walking (Kočić, 2019, doctoral
dissertation research) and five Neolithic settlements have
been investigated with multi-method geophysical surveys
(total of 52 ha) through the Šumadija Regional Geospatial
Archaeology Project (SRGAP). In the following sections,
we discuss research at the site of Kneževac, which was
identified through pedestrian survey and surface collection
and spatial analysis by M. Kočić in 2017. Subsequent multiinstrument geophysics was conducted at the site by SRGAP
in 2018 to further characterize the archaeological potential
of the site. Further investigation and ground truthing will be
conducted at Kneževac in 2020.
2. Pedestrian survey methods
The methods employed for the regional scale pedestrian
survey followed those associated with North American field
archaeology traditions, which have been long influenced
by a comparative focus on the emergence of sedentism
and animal and plant domestication processes in different
locations around the world. Reconstruction of settlement
patterning as a way of interpreting demographic processes,
catchment zones, and settlement hierarchies has been a
common element in such studies (Carneiro, 1970; Earle,
1997).
Historical property inheritance practices within the
Šumadija region have led to the splitting of land parcels,
resulting in virtually no large, open tracts of land to survey.
The field methods utilized in the regional scale pedestrian
survey drew on previously published methods (MacNeish
et al., 1975; Hirth, 1980; Feinman and Nicholas, 1990)
and more recent statistical approaches to sampling sites
with dense concentrations of surface artifacts (Drennan and
Peterson, 2011). The survey team maintained an objective
target of approximately 50 ha of coverage per day but this
varied depending on the sites encountered and density of
associated surface artifacts.
Most of the survey zone was made up of open tilled fields
and field walking was done over the course of a calendar
year and multiple seasons. This ensured that the surface
visibility of artifacts was excellent in fields that had been
recently tilled or left fallow through the winter. The survey
team was comprised of a line of five members who walked
together systematically while spaced 20 m apart. Handheld
GPS units were utilized to record the beginning and end of
each transect. The primary collection units were 1-hectare
cells, which were further divided into sub-cell collection
units of 20×20 m. These units were sampled using a 1.81 m
radius “dog-leash” collection circle, which provided a 10 m2
IANSA 0 0
I/1
–1
Miroslav Koči , Bryan Hanks, Marija Kaličanin Krsti , Marc Bermann, Petra Basar, Michael Mlyniec: Identifying Early Neolithic Settlements in the umadija Region
of Serbia Through Combined Pedestrian Survey and Archaeological Geophysical Prospection
0
500 km
Figure 1. Map showing geographic zones for Early to Late Neolithic archaeological sites within the Balkans region and location of regional survey and
associated Neolithic sites.
sample, thereby limiting the total number of artifacts that
needed to be collected for spatial analysis (Drennan and
Peterson, 2011).
In total, 27,754 artifacts were collected during the regional
survey and this included full coverage of two large Neolithic
settlements (Grivac and Kusovac, each approximately 35 ha)
with evidence of Early to Late Neolithic occupation (Starčevo
and Vinča) and a third site, Kneževac (approximately 6 ha
in size), which displayed only Early Neolithic occupation
(Starčevo) (Figure 1). In the following sections, we detail
the results of research at Kneževac as this was the only Early
Neolithic site identified with no later intrusive Neolithic
occupations.
3. The Kneževac settlement
This site was largely undocumented in the scientific literature
other than from verbal reports of Neolithic potsherds being
found in fields by local villagers (Bogdanović, 1983).
No subsequent archaeological survey or test excavations
were undertaken in the area to try and locate the site. The
regional pedestrian survey in 2017 identified a spatial cluster
of Starčevo type pottery near the northernmost part of the
historical Kneževac village. The site is situated along a
gentle slope that represents the first outcrops of the foothills
of the Rudnik Mountain. There is one active freshwater
spring within the site, another in the immediate vicinity, and
two small creeks running on both sides. The soil on the site
is vertisol-smonitza, which is also found in the immediate
vicinity of the site, and the adjacent creek areas. The
surrounding higher flatlands are comprised of the cambisol
gajnjača soil type, which has a relatively low agricultural
production yield. Even today, higher flatland crops are more
dispersed than in the lower parts of the valley where the soils
are more productive.
A total of 436 artifacts were recovered at Kneževac through
pedestrian survey and surface collection, with pottery (75%),
lithics (15%) and daub (10%) being represented (Figures 2
and 3). Artifact density over the site was surprisingly high
11
IANSA 0 0
I/1
–1
Miroslav Koči , Bryan Hanks, Marija Kaličanin Krsti , Marc Bermann, Petra Basar, Michael Mlyniec: Identifying Early Neolithic Settlements in the umadija Region
of Serbia Through Combined Pedestrian Survey and Archaeological Geophysical Prospection
0
100 m
Figure 2. A – distribution and density of Starčevo ceramic sherds across Kneževac site area collected within “dog-leash” samples per artifact count;
B – distribution and density of Starčevo ceramic sherd weights across Kneževac site area collected within “dog-leash” samples per artifact weight;
C – distribution and density of lithic artifacts across Kneževac site area collected within “dog-leash” collection circles per artifact count.
for a Starčevo period settlement (median of ~12 artifacts
per 10 sq. meter dog leash circle). The estimated area
of the entire site is approximately 6 ha, as measured both
by the size of the surface artifact scatters and geophysical
prospection. The central zone of the site contains what are
tentatively interpreted as a circle of pit anomalies. It is likely
0
12
that these represent Starčevo architectural elements known
as pit houses (Figures 2 and 4). This arrangement is similar
to the site of Jaričište I, as discussed above. This circular
organization could be indicative of the “communal” site
type organization suggested for Early Neolithic sites in the
Levant (Kuijt, 2006). Soil coring with a 10 cm diameter
7 cm
Figure 3.
Artifacts collected during
pedestrian survey over the Kneževac site: a
– Schist polished adze from the central area
of Kneževac; b – Honey coloured, non-local
chert from Kneževac; c – Mudstone polished
axe from the southeastern area of the site;
d – Pottery fragment exhibiting rosetta
circular ornamentation from Starčevo area at
Kusovac site; e – Pottery fragment showing
same circular rosetta ornamentation from the
central area of Kneževac.
IANSA 0 0
I/1
–1
Miroslav Koči , Bryan Hanks, Marija Kaličanin Krsti , Marc Bermann, Petra Basar, Michael Mlyniec: Identifying Early Neolithic Settlements in the umadija Region
of Serbia Through Combined Pedestrian Survey and Archaeological Geophysical Prospection
auger indicated that the stratigraphy of the site was less than
1 m in depth between the subsurface magnetic anomalies.
Soil coring was not undertaken within the areas of the
geomagnetic anomalies at the time of the surveys.
Surface artifact densities at the site likely correlate with
settlement layout as the greatest density of ceramic sherds
were found adjacent to and between clustered magnetic
anomalies. Another apparent pattern was seen in the location
of flint working and other possible lithic industries. The
presence of two large clusters of lithic artifacts could reflect
communal activities by the inhabitants of this settlement
(Figures 2 and 3). Lithic artifacts recovered from the site
demonstrate substantial variability in flint source material,
including raw materials that are absent from the rest of the
valley. This is well represented by the recovery of a schist
adze (Figure 3).
4. Geophysical survey methods
Multi-method geophysical surveys are preferred to single
method prospection as different methods will respond to
different dimensions of surface and subsurface properties,
which may help to identify specific anomalies associated
with human activities and anthropogenic change in the local
environment (Kvamme et al., 2006). Geophysical survey at
Kneževac utilized three methods: (i) high resolution single
axis fluxgate gradiometry with a Bartington 601-2 dual
probe instrument; (ii) low frequency electromagnetics with
a GF Instruments CMD Mini-Explorer; and (iii) surface
soil magnetic susceptibility with a Bartington MS2 meter
combined with a MS2K Surface Sensor probe. These
methods were selected to provide a rapid form of site
characterization and potential identification of prehistoric
subsurface features (e.g. pits, pit-houses, trenches or
ditches), traces of burnt features (e.g. kilns, hearths, burned
structures), and enhanced soils (e.g. midden deposits, animal
pen areas, domestic structures).
4.1. Fluxgate gradiometry
The Bartington Grad 601-2 can be utilized to detect minute
variations in the earth’s magnetic field due to archaeological
and geophysical subsurface features (parameters set at ±0.03
to 100 nT). The fluxgate gradiometry method has been found
to be highly useful in identifying subsurface pits, ditches or
trenches, and fired or burnt features such as hearths, kilns
and ovens (Gaffney and Gater, 2003; Aspinall et al., 2008).
It offers a rapid method for quickly assessing archaeological
sites for magnetic responses. Parallel transects were
walked with this instrument using fiberglass standing rods
for path alignment within the established 20×20 m grids.
Measurements were taken with transects spaced every 1 m
with 160 measurements collected along each transect (every
12.5 cm). Data were downloaded to a laptop computer
and processed with Terrasurveyor, a dedicated processing
software for geophysical instruments. Minimal processing
was necessary to correct data, with destriping, despiking,
interpolation of the Y axis (resulting in a resolution of
0.50×0.125 m), and data clipping used to enhance contrast.
Two survey blocks were completed over the site
(Figure 4). The northern rectangular survey block was
20×60 m and comprised 0.84 ha. This area contained
33 principal monopolar positive anomalies that, prior to data
clipping, ranged from 1.0 to 11.0 nT. These are interpreted
as representing possible subsurface pit house and/or pit
features. Additionally, 2 dipolar simple anomalies were
encountered that, prior to data clipping, ranged from –25
to 45 nT and one additional simple dipolar anomaly that
ranged from –58 to 64 nT. These anomalies are interpreted
as possible subsurface burned areas or high temperature
archaeological features. In addition, we distinguished a
possible trench feature in the western area of the survey and
a possible enclosure zone running northwest to southeast
across the centre of the survey.
A second survey block was completed to the south and
was of an irregular form that comprised 1.28 ha. This area
contained 46 monopolar positive anomalies that, prior to data
clipping, ranged from 1.0 to 11.0 nT. These are interpreted as
representing possible subsurface pit house and/or pit features.
Additionally, 5 dipolar simple anomalies were encountered
that, prior to data clipping, ranged from –27 to 10 nT. These
also are interpreted as possible subsurface burned areas or
high temperature archaeological features. One additional
dipolar anomaly was encountered that ranged from –100
to 100 nT and likely represents an intrusive ferrous object
of a modern or historic date. A possible trench feature was
also identified in the western area of the survey, a possible
enclosure zone running northwest to southeast across the
eastern zone of the survey (seen also in the northern survey
zone), and a negative linear feature running from northwest
to southeast across the survey zone that is likely generated
by a modern dirt track and related compacted soil.
Clusters of anomalies were identified in each survey zone.
These two areas are detailed in Figure 5 (Area A and Area B).
Previous archaeological excavations of Starčevo settlements
have identified similar clusters of pit houses, pits, and high
temperature features (McPherron and Srejović, 1988; Marić,
2013). Additional geophysical methods (low frequency
electromagnetics and magnetic susceptibility of surface
soils) were completed in Area A to produce complimentary
data for interpreting the fluxgate gradiometry survey and
surface collection of artifacts.
4.2 Low frequency electromagnetic (EM) method
Apparent conductivity and magnetic susceptibility changes in
the soil were mapped using the low frequency electromagnetic
(EM) method (CMD Mini-Explorer, GF Instruments). The
low-frequency EM system measures subsurface variations of
both geophysical properties simultaneously by operating on
the principle of electromagnetic induction under low induction
values (<300 kHz) (Thiesson et al., 2009). Even though lowfrequency EM systems, also known as Slingram or FDEM
(frequency-domain electromagnetic induction) instruments,
have been used in archaeology since the 1960s (Tabbagh,
13
IANSA 0 0
I/1
–1
Miroslav Koči , Bryan Hanks, Marija Kaličanin Krsti , Marc Bermann, Petra Basar, Michael Mlyniec: Identifying Early Neolithic Settlements in the umadija Region
of Serbia Through Combined Pedestrian Survey and Archaeological Geophysical Prospection
Figure 4. Upper – Grey-scale plots of
fluxgate gradiometer surveys (red line
denotes spatial boundaries of collected
surface artifacts); Lower – interpretation of
magnetic gradient anomalies.
0
50 m
1986), the multi-sensor CMD Mini-Explorer has recently
been introduced to European archaeological prospection
(Bonsall et al., 2013; Wunderlich et al., 2015; Basar, 2018).
14
The quadrature component of this instrument reflects
apparent electrical conductivity measured in millisiemens
per meter (mS/m) (Abdu et al., 2007). Electrical conductivity
IANSA 0 0
I/1
–1
Miroslav Koči , Bryan Hanks, Marija Kaličanin Krsti , Marc Bermann, Petra Basar, Michael Mlyniec: Identifying Early Neolithic Settlements in the umadija Region
of Serbia Through Combined Pedestrian Survey and Archaeological Geophysical Prospection
Figure 5. Grey-scale plots of Area A and
Area B from fluxgate gradiometer surveys
with interpretations of primary anomalies.
0
20 m
0
mapping is suitable for detection and investigation of earthen
structures (ramparts, embankments, artificial terraces, turf
building remains, barrows) and larger negative archaeological
features (ditches, pits, etc.) (Bonsall et al., 2013; Wunderlich
et al., 2015; Basar, 2018). Previous research indicates that
low-frequency EM methods can also identify high resistance
materials (e.g. walls, bricks, wooden structures) if their
properties demonstrate sufficient contrast compared to the
natural background (Ates, 2002; Basar, 2018).
Magnetic susceptibility variations are equivalent to changes
of the in-phase component (Simon et al., 2015). Mapping
magnetic susceptibility on archaeological settlements and
their surroundings can be useful for discovering features of
potential archaeological interest (e.g. dwellings, furnaces
and pits with slag or ceramic material) (Tabbagh, 1986).
Even negative archaeological features, such as ditches, can
be detected based on in-phase results, owing to the magnetic
properties of sediments with which they are filled (Simpson
et al., 2009; Basar, 2018).
Surveys with the low-frequency EM CMD Mini-Explorer
method were conducted over a 20×60 m area, which was
selected according to the results of previous surveys with
gradiometry (Figure 4, Area A; Figure 5; Figure 6). The
instrument was set to the Hi depth (HCP) coil orientation
allowing the three receiver coils (Rec 1–3) to acquire data
within different maximum depth levels (0.5 m, 1 m and 1.8 m)
(Bonsall et al., 2013). Measurements were taken manually in
0.5 m intervals across profiles positioned 0.5 m apart. The
data were interpolated using the Minimum Curvature method
20 m
and 0.25×0.25 m resolution. Data processing included the
following: de-spiking, edge correction algorithm, (vertical
and horizontal) de-stripping and low pass filter.
4.3 Soil magnetic susceptibility method
In addition to the EM method discussed in the section
above, we employed a magnetic susceptibility survey of
surface soils in Area A (Figures 4 and 6) utilizing the same
20×60 m grid. The instrument used to collect this data was
a Bartington MS2 meter combined with a MS2K Surface
Sensor probe. A small shovel probe (approximately 25 cm
diameter and 15 cm in depth) was utilized for sampling to
penetrate below the root level of the agricultural ground
cover. Three readings were taken at each probed location.
Data were downloaded to a laptop computer and a mean value
was calculated for each sampled location. Data were then
plotted using Golden Software Surfer 13 software. Magnetic
susceptibility of the surface soils survey was completed as
an exploratory method to see whether enhanced areas could
be identified spatially across the horizontal plane of the site
through analysis of surface soils only. It was expected that
these data could represent enhanced soils associated with
subsurface archaeological features and activity zones due to
vertical movement of soils through agricultural tilling and
other forms of bioturbation. Association of surface magnetic
susceptibility with subsurface features would also provide
a comparative framework for better understanding how
artefacts collected through the pedestrian survey may relate
spatially to subsurface archaeological features.
15
16
IANSA 0 0
I/1
–1
Miroslav Koči , Bryan Hanks, Marija Kaličanin Krsti , Marc Bermann, Petra Basar, Michael Mlyniec: Identifying Early Neolithic Settlements in the umadija Region
of Serbia Through Combined Pedestrian Survey and Archaeological Geophysical Prospection
Figure 6. All figures taken from enhanced geophysical surveys in Area A. Left – fluxgate gradiometer grey-scale plot of magnetic gradient anomalies; Centre – grey-scale plot of magnetic susceptibility
measurements from surface soils; Right – grey-scale plots of electromagnetic conductivity (quadrature) measurements at 0.5 m, 1 m and 1.8 m from surface level and in-phase magnetic susceptibility measurements
at 0.5 m, 1 m and 1.8 m from surface.
IANSA 0 0
I/1
–1
Miroslav Koči , Bryan Hanks, Marija Kaličanin Krsti , Marc Bermann, Petra Basar, Michael Mlyniec: Identifying Early Neolithic Settlements in the umadija Region
of Serbia Through Combined Pedestrian Survey and Archaeological Geophysical Prospection
5. Results and Discussion
Multi-method geophysical survey, combined with
pedestrian survey and artifact spatial analysis, has produced
significant results at the Kneževac site. These methods
work exceptionally well in tandem as they can provide two
or more different forms of data that aid in supporting the
interpretation of the other. For example, surface collection
can provide an excellent proxy for overall site area size and
more detailed spatial characterizations of activity zones, but it
can be difficult to account for other processes that may affect
the distribution of artifacts (e.g. agricultural cultivation and
other topsoil post-depositional processes). Early Neolithic
sites within Central Serbia have been difficult because of
their small size and intrusive damage from later occupations.
Although Kneževac is the smallest of the three Neolithic
sites identified through pedestrian survey in the Gruža River
valley, it still measured 6 ha and was a single component,
with no Vinča occupation. Strikingly, the area around the
site was devoid of artifacts of any period, except for a locale
designated Zbegovište (tr. Refugium) to the northeast from
which two green, glazed, Ottoman-period pottery sherds
were recovered. One additional locale occurred in a 10×10 m
area adjacent to the spring below the site where a few pottery
sherds dating to the Iron Age were identified. On the Early
Neolithic Kneževac site itself, surface artifact distributions
(Early Neolithic) show correspondence with subsurface
features and other components of village layout (Figures 2
and 4).
The fluxgate gradiometry survey at Kneževac provided
good results in distinguishing a range of monopolar and
dipolar magnetic anomalies. These likely correspond to
pit house, pit, trench, compact soils lenses associated with
dwelling floors, and burned soils and/or high temperature
anomalies associated with Early Neolithic occupation. The
overall geological background of the site is magnetically
“quiet” and anomalies in the range of ±1 to 5 nT are easily
identified (Figures 4 and 5). Although no targeted ground
truthing has been completed at this site, the anomalies
encountered and their spatial characteristics can be compared
to excavated Early Neolithic sites within Central Serbia that
have been excavated. As has been previously published for
the site of Divostin, the spatial dimensions of excavated
Starčevo pit houses, surface huts, and pit features fall within
the approximate size of the magnetic anomalies identified
at Kneževac (Table 1). Early Neolithic features excavated
at Divostin also indicate that the overall dimensions of
such features can vary substantially (Figure 7). As a result,
it is difficult to distinguish with much certainty magnetic
anomalies that are pits versus house pits, or surface hut
features, without employing ground truthing. We have made
these distinctions in Figures 4 and 5 based principally on
the overall size and shape of the anomalies; however, future
ground truthing is needed to verify these characterizations.
Excavations at the Jaričište I site have also identified
ovens associated with a Starčevo settlement and therefore
we are not surprised by the identification through fluxgate
gradiometry of potential burned areas or high temperature
features at Kneževac (Marić, 2013).
Our geophysics results also indicate that conductivity
data (EM method) has a strong correlation with surface soil
magnetic susceptibility measurements reflecting changes
within the topsoil (Figure 6). The low magnetic susceptibility
area in the middle part of the second grid (Unit 2) is
marked as an elongated low conductivity area flanked by
anomalies with high conductivity and high surface magnetic
susceptibility. The western-most part of the survey exhibits
an area of high conductivity distributed in a north-south
direction. The same area shows predominantly low surface
magnetic susceptibility. We should also note that the first
receiver for in-phase data (0.5 m max) indicates noise in
the data as a linear anomaly in the north-west corner of the
survey area. This was due to a switch of operators using the
instrument, which occurred during the survey (Figure 6,
lower plots, Unit 3, in CMD Mini-Explorer data).
Overall, our results show strong positive correlations with
both measurements of soil surface magnetic susceptibility
and magnetic gradiometry. Anomalies in the eastern and
central part of the survey area (Units 1 and 2) are observed
in the results from all three methods, which suggests that
archaeological material or debris with magnetic properties
could be located close to the surface. The distribution of
anomalies within the results of the in-phase component
from the second and third receiver (maximum measurement
depth 1–1.8 m) is similar to the fluxgate gradiometry data
(Figure 6). However, the bipolar anomalies overlap both
with anomalies of high and low in-phase values. The shapes,
sizes and orientation of the anomalies indicate that anomalies
Table 1. Comparative data on huts, houses, and pits associated with
Starčevo stratigraphic levels at Divostin settlement. Source: McPherron and
Srejovic, 1988; Tables 5.1 and 5.2.
Starcevo Huts (N=6)
Length (cm)
Width (cm)
Min
220,0
150,0
Max
680,0
480,0
Mean
481,7
306,7
Std. Dev.
158,3
130,3
Starcevo Houses (N=6)
Length (cm)
Width (cm)
Min
400,0
50,0
Max
800,0
500,0
Mean
481,7
306,7
Std. Dev.
158,3
130,3
Starcevo Pits (N=25)
Length (cm)
Width (cm)
Min
80,0
50,0
Max
1054,0
470,0
Mean
302,7
173,1
Std. Dev.
233,5
104,7
17
IANSA 0 0
I/1
–1
Miroslav Koči , Bryan Hanks, Marija Kaličanin Krsti , Marc Bermann, Petra Basar, Michael Mlyniec: Identifying Early Neolithic Settlements in the umadija Region
of Serbia Through Combined Pedestrian Survey and Archaeological Geophysical Prospection
Figure 7. Box plots of Starčevo huts, houses
and pits from Divostin settlement. Whiskers
represent 2 standard deviations. Raw data
were taken from McPherron and Srejovic,
1988; Tables 5.1 and 5.2.
with low in-phase values could represent traces of Starčevo
dwellings, whereas smaller anomalies in the immediate area
can represent smaller adjacent areas of anthropogenic activity
(e.g. waste pits, hearths or clay floors). It should be noted that
there is a possibility that the results of the in-phase parameter
have been affected by polarity shifts which are known to
appear in the results of low-frequency EM methods (Bonsall
et al., 2013). The overlap of low in-phase anomalies with
high magnetic areas supports this interpretation; however,
the causes of this phenomenon cannot yet be explained in
more detail for this particular instrument. Further testing of
these interpretations can be done by coring and examining
the sediment with which the dwellings are filled. Recent
studies with the low-frequency EM method indicate that
pit house features may produce negative anomalies on the
results of the in-phase parameter with higher conductivity
values (Basar, 2018). One possibility is that the CMD MiniExplorer instrument is detecting the negative imprint of the
anthropogenic structures that cut into the original ground
surface of the archaeological activity area. Floor features
associated with pit house structures may also exhibit
compacted soil lenses, thus influencing the response of the
conductivity measurement.
6. Conclusion
Results of the pedestrian and geophysical surveys at the
site of Kneževac have been highly productive and represent
the implementation of a novel multi-method approach to
examining the spatial characteristics of Early Neolithic
settlements in Central Serbia. These methods are comparable
to other recent programs of research on Early Neolithic
sites, for example, in Hungary and Romania as discussed
above. Further research will be needed to ground truth the
anomalies that have been identified through this research
and to test current interpretations of the geophysical data.
Important comparative work has been completed and
published on Starčevo period architectural features at
Divostin I and at the Jaričište I settlement. This will provide
18
an important framework for further interpretations of the
Kneževac settlement. There is still much to understand
about the emergence of the Early Neolithic in Central
Serbia and its chronological and spatial characteristics.
An important first step in this process is the identification
and rapid characterization of associated settlements. This
paper has indicated that an approach that utilizes pedestrian
survey, spatial artifact analysis, and multi-instrument
geophysical prospection, can offer a highly effective way of
identifying the surface distribution of artifacts and possible
related subsurface features for further research and ground
truthing. The results obtained at Kneževac indicate that
this an important settlement for extended study as it may
be one of the earliest villages of its type in this region of
the Balkans that is undisturbed by later prehistoric and/or
historic occupations.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully recognize the support of colleagues
M. Grković and S. Perić and institutional support from
the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments
(Kragujevac, Serbia) and the Institute of Archaeology of the
Serbian Academy of Science (Belgrade, Serbia). We also
gratefully acknowledge funding support from the National
Science Foundation (DDRIG, BCS #1741667), Institute
for the Protection of Cultural Monuments, and the Dietrich
School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pittsburgh.
References
ABDU, H., ROBINSON, D., and JONES, S., 2007. Comparing Bulk Soil
Electrical Conductivity Determination Using the DUALEM-1S and
EM38-DD Electromagnetic Induction Instruments. Soil Science Society
of America Journal, 71, 189–196.
ASPINALL, A., GAFFNEY, C., and SCHMIDT, A., 2008. Magnetometry
for Archaeologists. Plymouth: AltaMira Press.
ATES, A., 2002. Archaeogeophysical Investigations Around the Bilge
Qagan Monument in Khosho Tsaidam, Mongolia. Archaeological
Prospection, 9, 23–33.
IANSA 0 0
I/1
–1
Miroslav Koči , Bryan Hanks, Marija Kaličanin Krsti , Marc Bermann, Petra Basar, Michael Mlyniec: Identifying Early Neolithic Settlements in the umadija Region
of Serbia Through Combined Pedestrian Survey and Archaeological Geophysical Prospection
BÁNFFY, E., 2000. The Late Starčevo and the Earliest Linear Pottery Groups
in Western Transdanubia. Documenta Praehistorica, 27, 173–185.
BÁNFFY, E., ed., 2013. The Early Neolithic in the Danube-Tisza Interfluve.
Oxford: Archaeopress.
BASAR, P., 2018. Geofizikalne Raziskave Prazgodovinskih Najdišč
z Nizkofrekvenčno Elektromagnetno Metodo CMD Mini-Explorer.
Unpublished thesis (MSc), University of Ljubljana.
BOGDANOVIĆ, M. 2004. Grivac: naselja protostarčevačke i vinčanske
kulture. Kragujevac: Centar za naučna istraživanja SANU, Univerziteta
u Kragujevcu.
BOGDANOVIĆ, M., 1983. Arheološka istraživanja na području centralne
Srbije, “Staništa” Kragujevac, I/1983, br. 1, 9–26.
BOGDANOVIĆ, M., 2008. Grivac: Settlements of Proto-Starčevo and
Vinča Culture. Kragujevac: Center for Scientific Research of Serbian
Academy of Sciences and Arts and University of Kragujevac and
National Museum of Kragujevac.
BONSALL, J., FRY, R., GAFFNEY, C., ARMIT, I., BECK, A. and
GAFFNEY, V., 2013. Assessment of the CMD Mini-Explorer, a New
Low-frequency Multi-coil Electromagnetic Device, for Archaeological
Investigations. Archaeological Prospection, 20, 219–231.
BORIĆ, D., 2009. Absolute dating of metallurgical innovations in the
Vinča Culture of the Balkans. In: T.L. Kienlin, and B.W. Roberts,
eds. Metals and Societies: Studies in honour of Barbara S. Ottaway,
Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie, 169. Bonn:
Habelt, pp. 191–245.
CARNEIRO, R.L., 1970. A theory of the origin of the state: Traditional
theories of state origins are considered and rejected in favor of a new
ecological hypothesis. Science, 169(3947), 733–738.
DRENNAN R.D., and PETERSON, C.E., 2011. Methods for Regional
Demographic Analysis in Settlement Patterns in the Chifeng Region.
In: Chifeng International Collaborative Archaeological Research
Project. Pittsburgh: Center for Comparative Archaeology.
EARLE, T.K., 1997. How chiefs come to power: The political economy in
prehistory. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
FEINMAN, G.M., and NICHOLAS, L.M., 1990. At the margins of the
Monte Alban state: Settlement patterns in the Ejutla Valley, Oaxaca,
Mexico. Latin American Antiquity, 1(3), 216–246.
GARAŠANIN, D.,1954. Starčevačka kultura. Ljubljana: Univerza
v Ljubljani, Arheoloski Seminar.
GAFFNEY, C., and GATER, J., 2003. Revealing the Buried Past:
Geophysics for Archaeologists. Gloucestershire: Tempus.
GAVELA, B., 1951. Iskopavanja na paleolitskom lokalitetu Pećina pod
Jerininim brdom u Gracu kod Kragujevca. Glasnik SANU, 3(2), Beograd:
SANU.
GREENFIELD, H.J., and LAWSON, K.S., 2018. Defining activity areas
in the Early Neolithic (Starčevo-Criş) of southeastern Europe: A spatial
analytic approach with ArcGIS at Foeni-Salaş (southwest Romania).
Quaternary International, 539, 4–28.
HIRTH, K., 1980. Eastern Morelos and Teotihuacan: a settlement survey.
Nashville: Vanderbilt University.
KAVAMME, K., JOHNSON, J., and HALEY, B., 2006. Multiple Methods
Surveys: Case Studies. In: J. Johnson, ed. Remote Sensing in Archaeology:
An Explicitly North American Perspective. Tuscaloosa: The University of
Alabama Press, pp. 251–267.
KOČIĆ, M. 2019, Emergence of Social Complexity and Community
Building in the Late Neolithic (5400–4600 cal. BCE) of the Central
Balkans. Unpublished Thesis (PhD), University of Pittsburgh.
KUIJT, I., ed., 2006. Life in Neolithic farming communities: social
organization, identity, and differentiation. Berlin: Springer Science &
Business Media.
MACNEISH, R.S., FOWLER, M.L., COOK, A.G., PETERSON, F.A.,
NELKEN-TERNER, A. and NEELY, J., 1975. Excavations and
Reconnaissance. The Prehistory of the Tehuacan Valley, vol. 5, Austin
and London: University of Texas Press.
МARIĆ, M., 2013. Zaštitna arheološka istraživanja na lokalitětu Jaričiště 1.
In: V. Filipović, and D. Antonović, eds. Rezulteti novih arheoloških
istraživanja u Severozapadnoj Srbiji i susednim těritorijama. Srpsko
Arheološko Društvo.
MCPHERRON, A., and SREJOVIĆ, D., 1988. Divostin and the Neolithic of
central Serbia. Vol. 1. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.
PERIĆ, S., 2016. The Neolithic in the Middle Morava Valley. Vol. 2.
Arheološki Institut SANU.
SIMON, F.-X., SARRIS, A., THIESSON, J. and TABBAGH, A., 2015.
Mapping of Quadrature Magnetic Susceptibility/Magnetic Viscosity of
Soils by Using Multi-frequency EMI. Journal of Applied Geophysics,
120, 36–47.
SIMPSON, D., MEIRVENNE, M., SAEY, T., VERMEERSCH, H.,
BOURGEOIS, J., LEHOUCK, A., COCKX, L., and VITHARANA,
U., 2009. Evaluating the Multiple Coil Configurations of the EM38DD
and DUALEM-21S Sensors to Detect Archaeological Anomalies.
Archaeological Prospection, 16, 91–102.
STANKOVIĆ, S., and LEKOVIĆ, V., 1994. Neolithic Settlement at
Blagotin. Glasnik Srpsko Arheološkog Društva, 9, 177–179.
TABBAGH, A., 1986. Applications and Advantages of the Slingram
Electromagnetic Method for Archaeological Prospecting. Geophysics,
51, 576–584.
THIESSON, J., DABAS, M. and FLAGEUL, S., 2009. Detection of
Resistive Features Using Towed Slingram Electromagnetic Induction
Instruments. Archaeological Prospection, 16, 103–109.
WUNDERLICH, T., WILKEN, D., ANDERSEN, J., RABBEL, W.,
ZORI, D., KALMRING, S., and BYOCK, J., 2015. On the Ability of
Geophysical Methods to Image Medieval Turf Buildings in Iceland.
Archaeological Prospection, 22, 171–186.
19