T h e I n T r a s e T T l e m e n T s PaT I a l s T r U C T U r e o f e a r ly n e o l I T h I C s e T T l e m e n T s

I n T e m P e r aT e s o U T h e a s T e r n e U r o P e : a V I e w f r o m b l a g o T I n , s e r b I a

Haskel Greenfield and Tina Jongsma

Haskel J. Greenfield, University of Manitoba, Department of Anthropology, Fletcher Argue 435, Winnipeg,
Manitoba R3T 5V5, Canada.
Tina Jongsma, University of Manitoba, Department of Anthropology, Fletcher Argue 435, Winnipeg, Manitoba
R3T 5V5, Canada.

a b s Tr aC T

This paper will examine the spatial organization of early neolithic settlements
in temperate southeastern europe. as
early agricultural settlement moves
north from the mediterranean into a
more temperate central european climate, the nature of sites and by implication settlement and economy change.
In the southern or mediterranean
half of the balkan Peninsula (greece,
macedonia, and southern bulgaria),
most early neolithic settlements are
represented by tell-like deposits, with
rectilinear above-ground and free-standing architecture. In the northern or
temperate half of the peninsula and extending across the rest of southeastern
europe, early neolithic tell-like settlements are almost non-existent. Instead,
most sites appear to be composed of
laterally displaced horizontal deposits
associated with pit house deposits. for
almost 100 years, archaeologists have
been arguing about whether the pits in
such sites represents the remains of pit
houses or borrow pits for free-standing houses that have subsequently been
destroyed by ploughing and other disturbance processes. In this paper, we
will present the results of our research Figure 1.
at the early neolithic starevo culture
site of blagotin to demonstrate that the
pits are the remains of pit houses. a

Map of northern Balkans showing location of Early Neolithic

sites in the region mentioned in the text. Insert map shows
climatic divisions of the Balkan Peninsula (cf. Pounds, 1969).

69

new and unexpected spatial distribution of remains are

discernible from the archaeological record at blagotin
with the recognition of the location of early neolithic.
Two types of pit houses are distinguishable. a smaller and shallower set of pit houses is distributed in a
circle around a large open space. The second larger and
deeper type is found at the centre of the large open
space. This pattern has now been recognized at three
sites in the region (blagotin, foeni-sala, and Vin abelo brdo). The function of the central pit house is
clearest at blagotin because of the nature of preservation at the site. It is clearly very different from those
surrounding it. Two large (30 cm) idols were found on
the loor of the larger pit house. analysis of the distribution of animal remains also indicates substantial differences in the types of remains between central and
peripheral structures. The spatial organization of pit
houses, the heavily domesticated fauna, lack of storage facilities, and low frequencies of domestic lora
from the site imply that early agricultural societies in
this region were fundamentally different from those
of the mediterranean littoral (greece and southern
bulgaria). These represent short-term occupations by
a relatively mobile society, primarily relying upon their
domestic animals for subsistence. This analysis is another step towards a more systematic investigation of
early neolithic community patterning in the temperate
southeastern europe.
Archaeological research in temperate southeastern
Europe (also known as the central or northern Balkans)
has been ongoing for more than 100 years (Figure 1).
Most research on the Early Neolithic societies of the
region has been concerned with the intra- and interregional chronologies and culture history (Ehrich and
Bankoff 1991). While many issues of this nature remain
to be resolved, enough is known to allow scholars to
begin to investigate the nature of Early Neolithic societies. Yet relatively little of this research has focused
upon the spatial nature and organization of the earliest
agricultural settlements. Attempts at reconstructing
the community spatial patterning of Early Neolithic
sites in the northern Balkans has been frustrated by
both the paucity of large-scale excavations and the inability to define houses. A few large-scale excavations
of Early Neolithic sites have been undertaken over
the course of the last century (Divostin, Vina, FoeniSala, and Blagotin). These yielded a wealth of spatial
data that is only beginning to be absorbed into the literature. Most importantly, they have allowed compari70

son of the spatial distribution of features on sites, both

within and between regions. These large scale excavations have allowed for the recognition of differences
in the nature and distribution of architectural features
between southern Balkans and central Europe, on the
one hand, and the northern Balkans, on the other. It
is clear that, as early agricultural settlement moves
north from the Mediterranean into a more temperate central European climate, the nature of structures
and their spatial structure changes. These differences
have implications for the settlement and economy. Not
only are the types of structure difficult to identify and
appear different, but also their nature or function is
subject to controversy.
In order to increase our understanding of the nature
of early agricultural societies in southeastern Europe,
this paper will undertake the following tasks: 1) to
review the differing nature of Early Neolithic site
deposits, types of structures, and the evidence for
spatial patterns in the distribution of structures from
the southern Balkans, northern Balkans, and central
Europe; and 2) to attempt to reconstruct the spatial
structure of Early Neolithic settlements in the northern Balkans (of temperate southeastern Europe). Data
from the excavations at the Early Neolithic Starevo
culture site of Blagotin will be used to demonstrate the
distribution and nature of structures in Early Neolithic
sites from temperate southeastern Europe.

e a r ly n e o l I T h I C s I T e s a n d
a rC h ITeC T U r e I n Th e so U Th e r n
balkans

In the southern or Mediterranean half of the Balkan

Peninsula (Greece, Macedonia, and southern
Bulgaria), most Early Neolithic settlements are represented by tell-like deposits, with vertically superimposed deposits. On the basis of archaeological features
and clay model structures recovered from archaeological contexts, researchers have described the dwellings as rectilinear surface dwellings, often organized
in rows. The structures are timber-frame dwellings
with wattle-and-daub walls and clay-plastered floors.
Surface houses are generally small in size, with a
single room, and without any evidence for internal divisions. Most surface houses are single story. However,
some structures appear to have two floors. The second

s PaC e a n d s PaT I a l a n a ly s I s I n a rC h a e o lo g y

floor may not have been a full storey, but may have
been used as a loft or granary. The average size appears to be 710 m long and 46 m wide. In general,
the shape of surface houses is rectangular or square in
shape. All surface houses have postholes in and around
the floors to support the wattle-and-daub walls. The
roofs either were thatch or gabled (Chapman 1989;
Gimbutas 1976, 1991; Gimbutas et al. 1989; Runnels
and Murray 2001).

e a r ly n e o l I T h I C s I T e s a n d
a rC h ITeC T U r e I n C e nTr a l e U ro Pe

Very different kinds of archaeological deposits are

found in the major Early Neolithic archaeological culture (Linearbandkeramik or LBK) of central Europe.
Most sites are very shallow, with little if any vertical
superposition of deposits. They are largely characterized by laterally displaced deposits. The architectural
forms in LBK sites tend to be very rectangular surface
structures. Characteristically, they are extremely long
and easily identifiable by the distribution of post molds
in the soil. In LBK sites where settlement has been
short term and the distribution of features is visible,
long houses are placed parallel to each other, although
it is difficult to perceive the presence of any clear rows
(Bogucki 1988, 1996; Milisauskas and Kruk 1989).

e a r ly n e o l I T h I C s I T e s a n d
a r C h I T e C T U r e I n T h e n o rT h e r n
balkans

The northern half of the Balkans has a more temperate continental climate, and takes on characteristics of
a central European regime (Figure 1) (Greenfield 1991;
Pounds 1969). It extends across northern Bulgaria,
Serbia, southern Hungary, eastern Bosnia, and southern Romania. This is the spatial extent of the Early
Neolithic Starevo-Cri-Krs culture (Dumitrescu
1983; Garaanin 1983; Tringham 1971). Recent research has indicated the presence of similar sites in
Greek Macedonia, as well (Halstead 1999).
In the northern or temperate half of the Balkans
and extending across the rest of southeastern Europe,
Early Neolithic tell-like settlements are extremely

rare. Instead, most sites appear to be composed of laterally displaced horizontal deposits.
The architecture in the northern half of the Balkans
stands in contrast to the regions to the north and south.
The evidence for surface rectilinear houses, such as
those found in the Mediterranean cultures, disappears
as one moves inland across the mountainous divide
into the northern Balkans. What appears in its place is
less clear. Instead of surface houses, an abundance of
pits are found. There are no unambiguous surface architectural features until the end of the Early Neolithic
period (Bogdanovic 1988; Horvath 1989).
For almost 100 years, archaeologists have been arguing about whether the pits in these sites represent
the remains of pit houses or borrow pits for free-standing houses. Borrow pits have been identified in southern Balkan sites, such as Achilleion (Gimbutas et al.
1989), and in central European sites, such as Olszanica
(Milisauskas 1986). But they are always immediately
adjacent to surface houses. There is no such obvious spatial relationship from northern Balkan Early
Neolithic sites. Most local prehistorians assume that
these pits were domestic dwellings or were semisubterranean dwellings (e.g., Bogdanovic 1988; Garaanin
1979, 1983; Lazarovici 1979; Makkay 1978, 1992;
Srejovic 1988). Some, however, attempt to demonstrate
the evidence for such dwellings, rather than make the
assumption (Greenfield and Draovean 1994; Jongsma
1997; Jongsma and Greenfield 2000).
A small, but vocal minority of prehistorians advocate that occupation was in the form of surface houses.
Those who argue against the presence of pit houses in
these sites have offered a variety of explanations to account for the absence of surface houses. The absence
of surface houses is usually explained to be either a
function of destruction by later ploughing or erosion
of sites, or result of poor and unsystematic excavations
that have failed to uncover architectural evidence for
either surface or pit occupation (Ehrich 1977; Tringham
1971). The presence of many pits on sites is explained
to be a result of their use for a variety of non-habitation
functions, such as refuse, storage, or borrow pits (e.g.,
Horvath 1989:8586; Tringham 1971, 2000). Until the
nature of dwellings has been established, however, it is
difficult to progress to more behavioural levels of analysis, such as household and community pattern studies, and issues of colonization.
It is impossible and inaccurate to begin a study
of community patterns, including activity areas and

C h a p t e r e i g h t T h e I n T r a s e T T l e m e n T s P aT I a l s T r U C T U r e o f e a r ly n e o l I T h I C s e T T l e m e n T s

71

Figure 2.

Topographic map of the Blagotin site, showing grid system and location of trenches.

Figure 3.

Topographic map of site showing location of auger holes

and extent of Star evo and Halstatt sites at Blagotin.

household clusters (Winter 1976), until it is understood what an Early Neolithic house is composed of.
Are houses surface structures made of wattle-anddaub walls or semisubterranean pit dwellings? Are
these pits simply refuse areas? The general opinion
until now has been not to discuss these issues in too
much detail because of the uncertainty of the function
72

of these pits. However, until these questions

are answered it is impossible to accurately
reconstruct the community organization on
a sociopolitical or economic level.
A few scholars have attempted to look at
the spatial organization of Early Neolithic
communities. Srejovi attempted to look
at the social organization of the Mesolithic
and Early Neolithic horizons from Lepenski
Vir (Srejovi 1972) and Vlasac (Srejovi and
Letica 1978) by examining the layout of the
houses across the site. Unfortunately, the
excavation and recovery techniques were
not systematic enough to yield an accurate
picture of the site. More recently, Chapman
(1989) examined the spatial arrangement of
structures in Early Balkan villages (Serbia,
Bulgaria, and Romania) to determine the
social organization of sites. But, most research on the spatial organization of Early
Neolithic communities has been hampered
by the lack of systematic and extensive excavations of single sites.
Greenfield has attempted to rectify this
problem in the overall database through extensive excavations at two Early Neolithic
sites: one in central Serbia Blagotin
(Greenfield 2000), and one in the Banat section of southwestern Romania Foeni-Sala
(Greenfield and Draovean 1994). At both
sites, the excavations have been systematic
and over a large enough area that it is possible for the first time to determine community organization and household clusters.
It was finally possible to determine house
location and the surrounding features that
can be associated with these Early Neolithic
houses. In the rest of this paper, some of the
data from Blagotin will be presented.

b l a g o T I n , a n e a r ly n e o l I T h I C s I T e

The site

Blagotin is located in the heart of Serbia, in an area

known as umadija. The region is characterized by a

s PaC e a n d s PaT I a l a n a ly s I s I n a rC h a e o lo g y

Figure 4.

Map of center of site showing the distribution of 1989-1993 excavated trenches

Figure 5.

Photograph of the fill deposits of

the pit feature profile (ZM 2).

and Early Neolithic pit-structures. Light

shading represents the basal level and
the dark shading represents the upper
edge of the pit structures. Trench A
with ZM 1 is not shown on the map.

southern variant of the Central European temperate

climatic regime (Pounds 1969). The site is located on
the northern outskirts of the village of Poljna, 12 km
north of the slightly larger village of Velika Drenova,
and about 50 km northeast of the town of Trstenik (in
the county or optina of Trstenik). It is on a gently sloping terrace, above an incised stream valley at the base
of a mountain (Figure 2). The surface of the site was
entirely cultivated during the period of field research.
Blagotin is a multi-period and stratigraphically complex site. It was initially inhabited during the Early
Neolithic (Starevo culture, ca. 61005100 B.C.), reoccupied during the Eneolithic (Baden-Kostolac culture,
ca. 33002500 B.C.), and occupied again during the
Early Iron Age (Halstatt culture, ca. 1000700 B.C.).
It was not occupied again until modern times. Each of
the occupations only partially overlapped the other, resulting in both lateral displacement and vertical super-

position of cultural stratigraphy. Recent radiocarbon

dates place it among the earliest sites in the Starevo
culture ca. 6100 B.C., cal. (Whittle et al. 2002).
On the basis of the magnetometer, coring, and surface collection, the dimensions of the Early Neolithic
Starevo occupation at Blagotin was determined
(Figure 3). It was limited to an ellipse with maximum
dimensions of ca. 80 m east to west by 50 m north to
south. Blagotin was a relatively small and insignificant
settlement (Greenfield 2000).
Systematic excavations at Blagotin were opened
by Svetozar Stankovi of the University of Beograd
in 1989. In 1991, a joint team from the Universities of
Manitoba and Beograd applied a variety of systematic
surface and subsurface reconnaissance techniques to
the site and excavated additional trenches (Greenfield
1995, 2000; Radoman 1994; Redzi and Zeevi 1996;
Stankovi and Greenfield 1992; Stankovi and Lekovi

C h a p t e r e i g h t T h e I n T r a s e T T l e m e n T s P aT I a l s T r U C T U r e o f e a r ly n e o l I T h I C s e T T l e m e n T s

73

Figure 6.

Photograph of distribution of postholes around ZM 2.

1994; Stankovi and Runi 1990). These trenches were

extended in 1992 and 1993 by the Stankovi team
during the period of the embargo against Yugoslavia.
Excavation of a deep trench in the northeastern corner
of the site occurred in 1994 and 1995, but there is little
information about the exact location and information
derived from this trench (not shown on the maps).
Research at the site came to a halt with the premature
death of the director, Svetozar Stankovi, in 1996.
Excavation results

Excavations of the Early Neolithic horizon at the site

uncovered a series of small pit features (ZM 1 through
6 and OB 1) (Figure 4) encircling a larger and more
centrally located semisubterranean structure Early
Neolithic pit house feature and clay platform (ZM 7)1.
The features can be divided into secular and ceremonial types.

(basal) cultural horizon, a sterile middle horizon of

variable thickness, and a thick upper (capping) cultural horizon each of which was described above.
The upper horizons of nearly all of the pit features
excavated have relatively dense artifact concentrations, about 1020 cm thick, and composed mostly of
ceramics, with a small quantity of stone (normally of
a mica schist composition), and a few animal bones.
They seem to be purposefully created deposits. The
synchroneity between the boundaries of the upper
level(s) with the artifact concentrations and the pit
edges is very close. The near absence of artifacts in
the middle horizon would argue for its creation after
the site was abandoned. The basal horizon tends to be
thin and appears to be the living floor.
What is the meaning of the concentrations above
the pits? Do they represent the foundations of later
dwellings that were placed above the earlier semisubterranean structure or simply middens? The simplest
explanation is one that is seen on pit house sites from
the Canadian British Columbia area (Hayden 1997).
There, it appears that the durable rubbish was often
added to the roof of the structure in order to better
insulate it or waterproof it. Objects, such as bones,
stone, and ceramics could easily be added to the roof
structure, slowly throughout its lifetime. Otherwise,
it would be necessary to hypothesize that the artifact concentrations in the capping horizons reflect a
habit on the part of the occupants of the earlier horizon to throw their garbage into open pits and periodically clean their living floors of accumulated debris.
However, there is always an intervening low artifact
density horizon within the pit. This would imply that
the pits were abandoned for a period of time, and the
roof subsequently collapsed.

Secular Star evo architecture

Superstr ucture

Several depressions filled with and covered over by

dense concentrations of Starevo cultural remains
were excavated (ZM 1 through 7, and OB 1 and 2).
They were dug during the initial occupation of the
site, into the sterile substrates formed during the
later Pleistocene and subsequently during the early
Holocene.
The Star evo pit feature internal horizons

The fill deposits of the depressions can always be divided into three major horizons (Figure 5): a thin lower
74

Is there any evidence for roofing over the depressions?

Postholes were found around and inside of several of
the pit features during excavation (Figure 6). The surrounding postholes were largely vertical in orientation,
and narrow in dimensions. This would imply that the
walls were mostly upright, and the roofs were not substantial. The walls were probably made of the branches
of small saplings and the roofs were probably covered
by light-weight materials, such as thatch or brush.
This is the kind of reconstruction that has been proposed for sites such as Lepenski Vir and Divostin, and

s PaC e a n d s PaT I a l a n a ly s I s I n a rC h a e o lo g y

Figure 7.

Photograph of ZM 7. Note division be-

Figure 8.

Photograph of idols from ZM 7.

tween daub floor and depression.

which can be found used through the region today.

This reconstruction is supported by the type of wattling evident in the daub from Blagotin. At Blagotin,
we find only parallel wattle impressions, implying
that the complex interweaving of substantial vertical
and insubstantial horizontal wattle structure of later
Vina (Late Neolithic) period houses was not in use.
The kinds of superstructure suggested for other semisubterranean houses (e.g., Bogdanovi 1988; Srejovi
1972) may be appropriate models thin branches or
thatch leaning over the pits and occasionally being
covered by daub. The daub would preserve only if
the structure burnt down. Only the central depression
shows evidence for final burning and daub preservation. Otherwise, few daub remains were found, reinforcing indications that there was little investment in
the construction of substantial superstructure architecture. Hence, the presence of architectural features
would indicate that these were residential structures
of some sort.
Size of pit house features and population
estimates

The pit features at Blagotin can be divided into groups:

the central depression versus those distributed around
the edge of the site. The pit features around the periphery tend to be relatively small. On average, they
are 3 m wide and 6 m long. The central pit feature is
much larger. It is approximately 10 m wide and 8 m
long. They are all shaped in the form of an ellipse or
rough trapezoid.
Floor areas of pit houses (zemunicas) can be used to
predict population size of each household (LeBlanc

1971; Narroll 1962). While there is no ethnographic

data on population/m2 of floor area for zemunicas, the
standard formula for agriculturalists is 10 m2/person.
Using this quotient yields an unacceptably low value
(2.5 persons/structure). But, the formula is 3 m2/person
for mobile hunter-gatherers, which would yield a nuclear family sized unit (5 persons/structure). At present,
5 pit house features have been excavated around the
large central structure. In addition, integrated surface
survey indicates the presence of others. If a total of 10
structures are assumed to be occupied contemporaneously, then the total population of the site would be in
the range of 50 persons.
Star evo ritual space

In the area beneath trenches F and G, a large structure

called ZM 7 was excavated. It was also covered by the
thick capping horizon. Beneath the capping horizon,
the feature was divided into a northern and southern
zone (Figure 7). The southern zone was a thick daub
platform at the entrance of the structure. On the floor,
two large (30 cm high) figurines and altars were found
(Figure 8). The northern zone was the core of the depression. It contained a variety of artifacts, including ceramics, figurines, animal bones, grain-shaped
offerings, and an early example of a map of the site.
The map would represent one of the earliest, if not
the earliest map in Europe. Beneath the daub floor, a
thick ash deposit and pit were found. In the ash, the
remains of a human infant were interred. The remains
from the pit also included extremely large numbers of
the bones of young animals. The presence of the large
figurines, thick bone deposits of very young animals,

C h a p t e r e i g h t T h e I n T r a s e T T l e m e n T s P aT I a l s T r U C T U r e o f e a r ly n e o l I T h I C s e T T l e m e n T s

75

and a human internment reinforce the interpretation

of this depression as a ritually oriented structure or
shrine (Stankovi 1993, 1995).
Open space

The space between the central pit feature (ZM 7)

and surrounding pit house features had extremely low
Early Neolithic artifactual densities on the surface and
had extremely low subsurface densities of artifacts. It
would argue that rubbish was not simply thrown out
into the open space between depressions. Instead,
this surface was kept relatively clean of debris. This
pattern is seen in other sites from the region. Most of
the remains are found in or immediately around the
pit features.

d I s C U s s I o n h o U s e s Pa C I n g I n
o T h e r s Ta r e V o - k r s - C r I s I T e s

A re the pits all contemporar y?

Superficially, it would appear that the spatial pattern

of Early Neolithic features is a circular one. But in
order to determine if this spatial pattern corresponds
to behavioural correlates, it must be demonstrated
that the features are contemporary. A program to systematically date each of the pit features with absolute
dating techniques was interrupted by the Balkan wars
and consequent embargo. In its absence, other sources of evidence have to be used. Based on the following evidence, it would appear that the structures are
indeed contemporary:
1)
2)

3)

4)

76

They are arranged in a circular pattern

and not randomly placed around the site.
There is no disturbance by
contemporary deposits (earlier
pits do not cut into later pits).
All of the peripherally positioned pits
are of a similar depth and contain
similar deposits (three horizons).
There is at least one ceramic join
between two pit houses.

All of the features contain similar ceramic types, and

all date to the same ceramic subperiod of the culture
(Starevo IIB) (Stankovi and Greenfield 1992). Given
all of the above, it would be logical to conclude that
the structures at Blagotin are all contemporary.
Spatial str ucture of Early Neolithic sites

Due to the dearth of large-scale horizontal excavations, there is little detailed information on the spatial
distribution of features within Starevo-Krs-Cri
sites. Only a few sites have been spatially excavated.
These enable us to better understand the internal
structure of these sites and to interpret areas of activities. At each of these sites, almost all of the structures
excavated were semisubterranean.
One of the sites, presented above, is Blagotin. It
reveals a circular distribution of structures around
a larger centrally positioned structure. Another
site, Foeni-Sala, has also been spatially excavated
(Jongsma 1997; Jongsma and Greenfield 2001). Five
small structures were found distributed in a semicircle around a larger structure. The distance between
each of the small structures was more or less the same
(about 20 m), and the distance between the central
and peripheral structures was about 10 m. Such a distribution of Early Neolithic features was found long
before this, albeit it was not recognized as such. Vasi
(1936:Tabla VI and LVIII, Slika 8 and 209) in his early
excavations in the basal levels at Vina found a similar
distribution of Starevo pit features a large central
pit house surrounded by an open space of about 10 m
and a ring of peripheral smaller pit houses.

e x P l a n aT I o n f o r d I f f e r e n C e s I n
a r C h I T e C T U r e b e T w e e n T h e n o rT h
and soUTh balk ans why PIT
h o U s e s a n d n oT s U r faC e h o U s e s ?

House form is not simply the result of physical forces

or any single causal factor, but is the consequence of
a whole range of sociocultural factors seen in their
broadest terms. Form is in turn modified by climatic
conditions (the physical environment which makes
some things impossible and encourages others) and
by methods of construction, materials available, and

s PaC e a n d s PaT I a l a n a ly s I s I n a rC h a e o lo g y

the technology (the tools for achieving the desired

environment). Rapoport considers the sociocultural
forces to be primary, and the others secondary or modifying (1969:47).
All of the Early Neolithic cultures of the southern
Balkans and central Europe have surface houses. The
appearance of pit houses in the intervening StarevoCri-Krs culture area obviously is not related to the
particulars of the environment of this culture because
the environment is essentially similar to that of the
neighbouring cultures.
The essential reason that pit houses appear and
become the common architectural form for the northern Balkan Early Neolithic cultures must be sought in
the nature of occupation, not the environment. Short
occupation spans seem to generally be the rule based
on the thickness of deposits (characteristically thin horizons), the lack of overlapping deposits, and lower frequencies of internal features (i.e., ovens, hearths, etc.)
(Jongsma 1997; Jongsma and Greenfield 2000). If environment is not a sufficient reason to explain the differences, then other reasons must be considered.
One hypothesis is that the architectural form is
a function of mobility. Pit houses are cross-culturally associated with cultures that have high mobility
(Jongsma and Greenfield 2000). If this is accepted,
then the question becomes why did the cultures of
the northern Balkans have higher mobility patterns
than those to the north or south? This leads to the
second hypothesis, which is that the occupants of the
Early Neolithic sites would be considered similar to
or descendants of the indigenous hunter-gatherers of
the Balkans. How else can one explain the penchant
toward mobile house patterns, the lack of evidence
for cultivated crops, and the reliance upon a mixture
of domestic and wild stock? The rapidity with which
the Early Neolithic cultures of the northern Balkans
spread would be a testimonial to the widespread adoption of the trappings of an agricultural lifestyle by indigenous hunter-gatherers rather than the simple migration of sedentary agriculturalists from the south.

ConClUsIon

In summary, a new and unexpected spatial distribution of remains is discernible from the archaeological
record at Blagotin with the recognition of the loca-

tion of Early Neolithic. The remains of nine pit house

features were excavated across the site. Two types of
pit houses are distinguishable. A smaller and shallower set of pit houses is distributed in a circle around a
large open space. The second larger and deeper type
is found at the centre of the large open space (ZM 7)
and is associated with a daub platform and large idols.
Surrounding this feature was a large open space, approximately 10 m wide. A ring of smaller pit house
features surrounded the central pit house and plaza.
Based on the differences in artifactual contents, it
would appear that the function of the central and peripheral pit house features differed. Suggestions have
been made that the peripheral features were domestic in nature, while the central pit house was a shrine
(Stankovi 1993, 1995). Analysis of the distribution of
animal remains also indicates substantial differences
in the types of remains between central and peripheral
structures (Greenfield and Jongsma 2003).
In conclusion, there is no evidence for Starevo surface houses at Blagotin. Nor from the study of surface
remains and distribution of artifacts is there any evidence that they were eroded downslope. It can be safe
to state that they never existed. The only evidence for
architectural elements in the Starevo horizon is associated with the large pits. In the face of this evidence,
we cannot simply continue to maintain that the pits
on Starevo sites are the borrow pits for above ground
wattle-and-daub houses. Enough sites have been excavated to be able to conclude that if surface houses
were present, they would have been found. The fact
is that they have not been found. Similar structures
in similar spatial patterns have also been identified at
Vina and Foeni-Sala. All of this leads to the conclusion that we are indeed dealing with semisubterranean
dwellings or pit houses.
It would appear that we are only beginning to
identify the spatial nature of Early Neolithic sites.
Archaeologists have been looking for a pattern that did
not exist. Instead of rectilinear surface structures, we
have found circular distribution of subsurface dwellings. Linear arrangements of structures do not appear
until the end of the Early Neolithic in Starevo-Cri
sites.
This pattern has now been recognized at three
sites in the region (Blagotin, Foeni-Sala, and VinaBelo Brdo). The function of the central pit house is
clearest at Blagotin because of the nature of preservation at the site. It is clearly very different from those

C h a p t e r e i g h t T h e I n T r a s e T T l e m e n T s P aT I a l s T r U C T U r e o f e a r ly n e o l I T h I C s e T T l e m e n T s

77

surrounding it. Two large (30 cm) idols were found on

the floor of the larger pit house. Analysis of the distribution of animal remains also indicates substantial differences in the types of remains between central and
peripheral structures. The spatial organization of pit
houses, the heavily domesticated fauna, lack of storage
facilities, and low frequencies of domestic flora from
the site imply that early agricultural societies in this
region were for the most part fundamentally different
from those of the Mediterranean littoral (Greece and
southern Bulgaria). These represent short-term occupations by a relatively mobile society, primarily relying upon their domestic animals for subsistence. This
analysis is another step towards a more systematic investigation of Early Neolithic community patterning
in the temperate regions of southeastern Europe.

referenCes CITed
Bogdanovi, M.
|1988| Architecture and Structural Features at Divostin.
In Divostin and the Neolithic of Central Serbia, edited by
A. McPherron and D. Srejovi, pp. 35142. Ethnology
Monographs No. 10. University of Pittsburgh,
Department of Anthropology, Pittsburgh.
Bogucki, P.
|1988| Forest Farmers and Stockherders: Early Agriculture
and its Consequences in North-Central Europe. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
|1996| The Spread of Farming in Europe. American
Scientist 84(3):242253.
Chapman, J. C.
|1989| The Early Balkan Village. In Varia Archaeologica
Hungarica I: Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and its Near
Eastern Connections, pp. 3353. Archaeological Institute,
Budapest.
Dumitrescu, V.
|1983| The Prehistory of Romania from the Earliest
Times to 1000 B.C. In The Cambridge Ancient History, vol.
3, part 1, 2nd ed., pp. 174. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Ehrich, R.
|1977| Starevo Revisited. In Ancient Europe and the
Mediterranean, edited by Vladimir Markoti, pp. 5967.
Aris and Phillips, Warminster, England.
Ehrich, R., and H. A. Bankoff
|1991| East-Central Europe. In Chronologies in Old World
Archaeology, vol. 1, 3rd ed., edited by R. Ehrich, pp.
375394. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

78

Garaanin, M.
|1979| Centralbalkanska zona. In Praistorija
Jugoslavenskih Zemalja II: Neolitsko Doba, edited by
D. Basler, A. Benac, S. Gabrovec, M. Garaanin, N.
Tasi, B. ovi, and K. Vinska-Gasparini, pp. 79212.
Akademija Nauka i Umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine,
Sarajevo.
|1983| The Stone Age in the Central Balkans. In The
Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 3, part 1, 2nd ed., pp.
75135. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Gimbutas, M.
|1976| Neolithic Macedonia. University of California,
Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles.
|1991| The Civilization of the Goddess: The World of Old
Europe. Harper Collins, New York.
Gimbutas, M., S. Winn, and D. Shimabuku
|1989| Achilleion: A Neolithic Settlement in Thessaly, Greece,
64005600 BC. Monumenta Archaeologica 14. Institute
of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Greenfield, H. J.
|1991| Fauna from the Late Neolithic of the Central
Balkans: Issues in Subsistence and Land Use. Journal of
Field Archaeology 18:161186.
|1995| Systematic Surface Collection from Blagotin.
Glasnik Srpska Arheoloka Drutvo (Journal of the Serbian
Archaeological Society) (Belgrade, Yugoslavia) 10:8999.
|2000| The Application of Integrated Surface and
Subsurface Reconnaissance Techniques to Later
Prehistoric SE European Sites: Blagotin Serbia.
Geoarchaeology 15:167201.
Greenfield, H. J., and F. Draovean
|1994| An Early Neolithic Starevo-Cri Settlement in
the Romanian Banat: Preliminary Report on the 1992
Excavations at Foeni-Sala. Annale Banatului: Journal of
the Museum of the Banat (Timioara, Romania) 3:4585.
Greenfield, H. J., and T. L. Jongsma
|2003| Preliminary Report on the Faunal Remains
from Blagotin. Unpublished manuscript on file in the
Department of Anthropology, University of Manitoba.
Halstead, P.
|1999| Neolithic Society in Greece. Sheffield Academic
Press, Sheffield, England.
Hayden, B.
|1997| The Pithouses of Keatley Creek: Complex HunterGatherers of the Northwest Plateau. Harcourt Brace College
Publishers, Fort Worth, Texas.
Horvath, F.
|1989| A Survey on the Development of Neolithic
Settlement Pattern and House Types in the Tisza
Region. In Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and its Near
Eastern Connections, pp. 85103. Varia Archaeologica
Hungarica 2. Institute of Archaeology, Academy of
Sciences, Budapest.
Jongsma, T. L.
|1997| Distinguishing Pits from Pit Houses through
Daub Analysis: The Nature and Location of Early
Neolithic Starevo-Cri Culture Houses at Foeni-Sala,
Romania. Unpublished masters thesis, Department
of Anthropology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg,
Manitoba.

s PaC e a n d s PaT I a l a n a ly s I s I n a rC h a e o lo g y

Jongsma, T. L., and H. J. Greenfield

|2000| Architectural Technology and the Spread of
Early Agricultural Societies in Temperate Southeastern
Europe. In On Being First: Cultural Innovation and
Environmental Consequences of First Peopling, edited by
J. Gillespie, S. Tupakka, and C. de Mille, pp. 181200.
Chacmool Archaeological Association, University of
Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.
Lazarovici, G.
|1979| Neoliticul Banatului. Bibliotheca Musei
Napocensis, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Leblanc, S.
|1971| An Addition to Narolls Suggested Floor Area and
Settlement Population Relationship. American Antiquity
36:210211.
Makkay, J.
|1978| Excavations at Bicske I. The Early Neolithic
The Earliest Linear Band Ceramic. Alba Regia
(Szekesfehervar, Hungary) 16:960.
|1992| Excavations at the Krs Culture Settlement of
Endrd-regszlk 119 in 19861989. In Cultural and
Landscape Changes in South-East Hungary: Report on the
Gyomaendrd Project, edited by S. Bknyi, pp. 121194.
Archaeolingua, Budapest.
Milisauskas, S.
|1986| Early Neolithic Settlement and Society at Olszanica.
Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology No. 19.
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Milisauskas, S., and J. Kruk
|1989| Neolithic Economy in Central Europe. Journal of
World Prehistory 3:403446.
Naroll, R.
|1962| Floor Area and Settlement Population. American
Antiquity 27:587589.
Pounds, N.
|1969| Eastern Europe. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Radoman, A.
|1994| Blagotin, the Configuration of Features:
Microdrillings, Geomagnetometer Measurements and
Excavation. Glasnik Srpskog Arheolokog Drutvo (Journal
of the Serbian Archaeological Society) (Belgrade, Yugoslavia)
10:100103.
Rapoport, A.
|1969| House Form and Culture. Prentice Hall, New
Jersey.
Redi, M., and Zeevi, J.
|1996| The Neolithic Settlement Blagotin: 1993
Excavations. Glasnik Srpskog Arheolokog Drutvo (Journal
of the Serbian Archaeological Society) (Belgrade, Yugoslavia)
10:169180.
Runnels, C., and P. M. Murray
|2001| Greece Before History: An Archaeological Companion
and Guide. Stanford University Press, Stanford
Srejovi, D.
|1972| Europes First Monumental Sculpture: New
Discoveries at Lepenski Vir. Stein and Day, New York.
|1988| Neolithic of Serbia. Centre for Archaeological
Research, University of Belgrade, Belgrade.

Srejovi, D., and Z. Letica

|1978| Vlasac. Sprski Akademija Nauka i Umetnosti,
Belgrade.
Stankovi, S.
|1993| Ritual Places and Artifacts in Early Neolithic
Cultures of the Central Balkans. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Yugoslavia.
|1995| Anthropomorphic Sculptures from Blagotin,
Glasnik Srpskog Arheolokog Drutvo (Journal of the Serbian
Archaeological Society) (Belgrade, Yugoslavia) 10:714.
Stankovi, S., and H. J. Greenfield
|1992| Arheoloka istraivanja vieslojnog praistorijskog
lokaliteta Blagotin u selu Poljna (iskopovanja 1991
godine). Glasnik Srpsko Arheoloko Drutvo (Journal of
the Serbian Archaeological Society) (Belgrade, Yugoslavia)
8:4650.
Stankovi, S., and V. Lekovi
|1994.| Neolithic Settlement at Blagotin. Glasnik Srpsko
Arheoloko Drutvo (Journal of the Serbian Archaeological
Society) (Belgrade, Yugoslavia) 9:177179.
Stankovi, S., and D. Runi
|1990| Vieslojno naselje u Poljni (iskopovanja u 1988
godini). Glasnik Srpsko Arheoloko Drutvo (Journal of
the Serbian Archaeological Society) (Yugoslavia, Belgrade)
6:6467.
Tringham, R.
|1971| Hunters, Fishers, and Farmers of Eastern Europe,
60003000 BC. Hutchinson University Library, London.
|2000| Southeastern Europe in the Transition to
Agriculture. In Europes First Farmers, edited by T.
D. Price, pp. 1956. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Vasi, M. M.
|19321936.| Prehistoriska Vina, vol. 2. Dravne
tamparija Kraljevine Yugoslavije, Beograd.
Whittle, A., L. Bartosiewicz, D. Bori, P. Pettitt, and M.
Richards
|2002.| In the Beginning: New Radiocarbon Dates for
the Early Neolithic in Northern Serbia and South-East
Hungary. Antaeus 25:63117.
Winter, M.
|1976| The Household Cluster. In The Mesoamerican
Village, edited by K. V. Flannery, pp. 2531. Academic
Press, New York.

n oTe s
1 ZM and OB is an abbreviation for the Serbian words,
zemunica and objekat. They are commonly translated
as semisubterranean or pit house feature and an archaeological feature, respectively. OB 1, in this case,
turned out to be another semisubterranean dwelling.

C h a p t e r e i g h t T h e I n T r a s e T T l e m e n T s P aT I a l s T r U C T U r e o f e a r ly n e o l I T h I C s e T T l e m e n T s

79