Coţofeni-Kostolac culture on the territory of north-eastern Serbia
Authors: Kapuran Aleksandar , Bulatovic Aleksandar 
Published: January 2013

The settlement of the territory of north-eastern Serbia by the
representatives of the Co?ofeni culture began during the second half of the
IV millennium, probably under the pressure of invading tribes from Euroasian
steppe. This territory extended over Transylvania, Banat, Oltenia and
Muntenia (Map 2). On the territory of Serbia they settled from the Djrerdap
gorge up to the Mlava river to the west, and through Kucajske mountains, Bor,
Zajecar and further to the south, up to Nis. Aspecific symbiosis occurred on
the territory of Serbia between the Co?ofeni and the Kostolac cultures.
According to the results of the latest project of re-identification, the
number of Co?ofeni-Kostolac sites and settlements increased to 76. After all
the sites were re-identified and georeferenced, with consideration of the
surrounding landscape, hydrography, geomorphology of the terrain and the
character of the ceramic production finds, we believe that there is a need
for re-analyzing specific aspects of the cultural and geographic development
not only of settlements, but of the entire Co?ofeni-Kostolac cultural
phenomenon. In this paper we considered three archaeological sites in the
Nisava valley, given that re-identification work over the past several years
yielded new information (Bubanj-Staro Selo, Velika Humska cuka and Donja
Vrezina). The topography of Co?ofeni-Kostolac settlements on the territory of
north-eastern Serbia, the Serbian part of the Danube valley and its
hinterland, is characterized by diversity of position (location above sea
level and landscape placement), types of houses and economic survival. In the
70?s of the last century sites were identified that are located in very
inaccessible terrain, which in particular cases has an slope incline of 45?,
where the number of such settlements in the meantime increased to nine. They
are represented by Kulmja Skjopuluji in Klokocevac and Pjatra Kosti in
Crnajka (T. I/1-2; Map 1/9), followed by Vratna -Veliki most (T. I/ 7; Map
1/33), Bogovina-above a cave (T. I/ 4; Map 1/8), Jezero (T. I/ 3; Map 1/12),
Kljanc (T. I/3; Map 1/11), Turija-Stenje (T. I/ 6; Map 1/22), Mokranjske
stene-quarry (T. I/ 5; Map 1/39) and Bolvan (T. I/ 8; Map 1/66). These
settlements have several other common elements, the most important being that
each one of the elevated settlements is positioned on the rocky peak of a
canyon, in places where smaller rivers or brooks flow into a larger river. We
can suppose how the selection of such positions was of strategic importance,
given that in the mountainous area of north-eastern Serbia the system of
waterways and river valleys represents communicational links from prehistory
to modern times. The second common characteristic of these settlements is the
rocky massif which provided the foundation for their erection. The rock
foundation in the majority of cases is of limestone origin and is well suited
to artificial nivelation into terraces atop which surface structures could be
built using wood covered with mud (Jezero, Kulmja Skjopuluji, Pjatra Kosti,
Vratna, Bogovina). The third shared characteristic is that one or more caves
are usually located in the immediate vicinity of settlements. An example of
the symbiosis of cave and hill fort Co?ofeni-Kostolac settlements is the
vicinity of the Zavojsko jezero near Majdanpek. So far two hill fort
settlements, Jezero and Kljanc (T. I/3; Map 1/11-12), were identified in this
area, built on limestone cliffs above the Mali Pek river. The Rajkova cave
(Map 1/14), Paskova cave and Kapetanova cave (Map 1/13) are located in their
immediate vicinity, in which the remains of anthropogenic activity were
discovered. The Kapetanova cave provides stratigraphy of over 3 m high, which
represents a rare case for Co?ofeni-Kostolac cultural sites. This fact does
not only indicate its long-term use, but could provide the answer to the
genesis and duration of this cultural phenomenon on the territory of the
Serbian part of the Djerdap hinterland. The fourth shared characteristic
which links these settlements is their dominant position in the landscape.
Given that their position and appearance are readily visible from a
considerable distance, they probably were not used for hiding, but for making
their position prominent. We suppose that pastoral communities emphasized in
this manner their control of mountain crosspass and roads, particularly in
places where rivers exit narrow canyons in important communications paths to
the Crni and Beli Timok, Pek and Danuber rivers. The other Co?ofeni-Kostolac
type settlement on the territory of north-eastern Serbia is represented by
settlements that are positioned on smaller hills or on gentle slopes that on
the average range between 336 and 210 m above sea level. The only fortified
hill fort settlement discovered so far, Coka lu Balas near Krivelj (Map 1/3)
belongs to this group. The archaeological sites Velika Cuka i Neresnica (Map
1/23), Smiljkova glavica in Stubik (Map 1/31) and Cetace in Kovilovo (Map
1/38) are located on wide and flat, elevated plateaus that dominate up on
river valleys. Judging by the considerable surface that they occupy, their
position and surroundings for these two settlements, we can suppose that they
could have been used for wintering places or points for gathering of flocks
and shepherds during pauses between seasonal migrations. They are primarily
characterized by the natural surroundings of smaller hills and larger river
valleys, as well as the relatively low above sea level elevation on which
they are located. Such ?seasonal stations or checkpoints? on which larger
groups of shepherds could gather with their flocks during the winter months
represented important locations in the lives of pastoral communities. During
the warm summer period, homesteads with stable architecture are abandoned
because of migrations into mountain areas, where favourable grazing areas
area located. Certain groups of shepherds during autumn returned to these
settlements en route to lowlands and river terraces, while other groups
probably continued their journey to gathering centres in valleys near the
Danube and the Timok rivers. The next type of settlement belongs to high,
multi-layered settlements (Arija baba-Kosobrdo, Coka Kormaros, Field of Z.
Brzanovic, Varzari and Smedovac-Grabar-Svracar) which represent sunbathed
dominant positions, with a good view of the surrounding area, well suited to
long-term occupation. Settlements on high elevations of this type are usually
linked with landscapes that predominate in grazing areas and in which there
are no large forests. The last type of Co?ofeni-Kostolac settlement is
characteristic of lowland settlements positioned on river terraces. The
settlements on the right bank of the Danube, around Kljuc (Kladovo-
Brodoimpeks, Mala Vrbica, Zbradila-Fund, Korbovo- Obala, Vajuga-Pesak,
Jakomirski potok estuary, Velesnica, Ljubic evac-river bank,
Ljubicevac-Island, Brzi prun, Slatinska reka estuary, Knjepiste, Ruzenjka,
Kusjak-Bordjej, Kusjak-Motel, Kusjak-Vrkalj), represented points at which
shepherd?s flocks could remain for longer periods, waiting for favourable
conditions for crossing to the other side of the river. This assumption is
based on old maps predating the construction of the accumulation lake. These
maps indicate that in the immediate vicinity of these settlements were
located small sand islands linked to the river bank, pointing to shallows and
crossing points. These sections of the river bank, during prolonged droughts
or during cold winters, when ice was formed, could have been places where the
river was crossed from one side to the other. Residential architecture cannot
be precisely defined, given that the discovered remains of houses are very
meagre and lack sufficient elements for reconstruction. The most recent
excavations on the Bubanj-Staro Selo settlemant at Nis, indicate an identical
type of architectural construction as discovered at Gomolava and Bordjej
which represents structures that are characteristic for lowland areas. Houses
in hill fort settlements built on artificial terraces have been mostly
devastated by erosion, so that judging by the impressions of wooden
structures and wattle and daub, as well as the remains of hearths, it can be
asserted that these were residential structures. Numerous studies so far
noted that based on the stylistic and typological characteristics of ceramics
on archaeological sites in Timocka Krajina it is possible to distinguish
between two phases of the Co?ofeni group, where the first is dominated by
ornamental techniques of carving that are characteristic of the Co?ofeni
group, and a later phase in which this style is mixed with the furchenstich,
as well as other Kostolac cultural elements (furchenstich, certain types of
ceramics, etc.). The fact is that the majority of Co?ofeni-Kostolac group
sites in eastern Serbia have not been excavated, or have only been partially
excavated, and that no vertical stratigraphy had been observed, where no
stratigraphic relationship between stylistic-topological characteristics of
older ceramics (Co?ofeni) and the more recent phase (Co?ofeni-Kostolac) have
been established. These are mostly settlements in which ceramics were
observed with elements both of the Kostolac and the Co?ofeni group, or only
with elements of the Co?ofeni group, while settlements with only Kostolac
ceramics have not been identified. Therefore, in Serbia it is only possible
to distinguish between sites where furchenstich ornamentation has been
observed and those where this type of ornamentation still has not been
observed. Still, it is unclear whether this distinction can be applied to
period assignment, or whether it is in fact caused by settlement of different
populations in different regions of Eastern Serbia - the Kostolac region from
the west and the Co?ofeni group from the East. In Romania, however, vertical
stratigraphy was observed at several settlements where development phases
were observed of the Co?ofeni group, so that based on the stratigraphy at
those sites, with certain caution, it is possible to draw conclusions about
the development of the Co?ofeni-Kostolac group in eastern Serbia. Settlements
without any furchenstich ornamentation would be assigned to the older phase
(Co?ofeni group) where ceramics characteristic of the Co?ofeni group have
been observed, although observed shapes and ornaments are usually associated
with the furchenstich technique and the more recent phase of the group. The
most frequent type of vessels at sites in eastern Serbia are amphorae with
extended funnel shaped necks, ornamented below the neck with carved lines or
with stamped ornamentation (fig. 6, 21, 38, 64, 71, 89, 98-100, 104, 109,
115, 116, 134), fishbone shape impressions (fig. 4, 28), and in the more
recent period furchenstich ornamentation or point impressions (fig. 9, 20,
25, 140), with a tongue shaped or vertically perforated handle, tunnel shaped
or horse-shoe shaped handle below the rim (fig. 6, 9, 20, 21, 51, 63, 100,
126, 134, 88, 115 ). The second characteristic type of vessel are
semi-spherical bowls with deeper recipients, with flat rims (fig. 11, 12, 23,
27, 29, 52-54, 57, 59-60, 74, 79, 81, 82, 90, 91, 95, 113, 124, 125, 131 and
145), or with shallower recipients, with a slanted, triangular rim or
T-shaped profiled rim (14, 19, 133 and 146). Such vessels are characteristic
for both phases, because they are ornamented, besides vertical ribs, with
carves, and with furchenstich ornamentation (fig. 23, 68, 81 and 82). The
third type of vessels are semi-spherical bowls with contracted rims creating
a nearly spherical shape. They can be ornamented with vertical ribs on rims
(fig. 148) in combination with pinholes (fig. 17), carves (fig. 61, 84, 85)
or line impressions (fig. 132). Less frequent vessels on the territory of
northeastern Serbia are biconical or spherical goblets, followed by
pare-shaped goblets with a single handle, larger pare-shaped amphorae with an
extended or conical neck, with small handles below the rim, ornamented with a
series of carves (fig. 39, 86), as well as barrel or spherical pots
ornamented with carves, horizontal tapes or circular impressions (fig. 45-47,
141, 142). The appearance of ropeshape ornaments is very significant, given
that they appear in Rumanian finds in the second phase of the Co?ofeni group,
and most frequently in the third phase. This ornament was sporadically
observed in the far south, on the Dikili Tas site on the northern shore of
the Aegean sea, in level 6, which according to the author belongs
chronologically to the Bubanj-Hum II group and the Kostolac group. Its
presence at sites in eastern Serbia can be linked to the older phase at the
majority of settlements, except in the case of Grabar-Svracar, as these
ceramics were not found alongside ceramics with furchenstich. The largest
number of sites with only Co?ofeni elements on ceramics have been observed
(34), but it is indicative that only a few have been excavated. 28 sites with
Kostolac group elements were noted, while 17 unspecified sites in which the
period cannot be precisely defined have been identified. According to the
stratigraphy of several of the mentioned sites in western Bulgaria, in the
Morava valley and in southern Romania it can be concluded that the Co?ofeni
group (northeastern Serbia and Romania) and the Co?ofeni-Kostolac group
(Morava valley and western Bulgaria), in all of the mentioned regions, was
preceded by the Cernavoda III group, and was superseded by the Vucedol
culture and the Bubanj-Hum II group in the Morava valle and the Struma
valley, and the Glina II-Schnekenber group in Oltenija and the territory of
Transylvania and the southern Carpathians. Analysis of the distribution of
settlements and stylistictopological characteristics of ceramics from all of
the settlements led to the conclusion that the oldest settlements, without
ceramics with furchenstich ornamentation, were established in Kljuc in
Negotinska Krajina, leading to the assumption that the representatives of the
Co?ofeni group came from Oltenia and from the southern Carpathians. A large
number fo sites west of Kljuc, along the Danube, at which ceramics with
furchenstich ornamentation were noted, point to the direction of expansion of
Kostolac elements, from Banat, Branicevo and Stig. The influence of the
Kostolac group was very strong starting in the Co?ofeni II phase, even in
Romanian sites, given that in Transylvania and in the southern Carpathians a
large number of ceramic finds were found with furchenstich ornamentation,
while it is interesting that only sporadic appearances were noted in Oltenia.
It is clear that Co?ofeni group settlements represented a certain barrier to
the expansion of these elements to the east. With the formation of the
Co?ofeni-Kostolac group which was created through contacts between
representatives of the Co?ofeni to the east and the representatives of the
Kostolac group to the west and north-west a short period of coexistence
occurred on this territory. Absolute dating of the chronological framework of
the Co?ofeni-Kostolac group in the Danube valley and in eastern Serbia can
only be assigned indirectly, as there is no carbon dating available from
these sites. According to J. Bojacijev, phase II-III of the Co?ofeni group
(4400-4300 bp) can be assigned chronologically approximately to the same
period as the Kostolac group (4500-4100 bp), and if we suppose that the
Co?ofeni-Kostolac group occurred a little while after the occurrence of the
Kostolac group, it can be concluded that the Co?ofeni-Kostolac group existed
at the end of the IV and the first half of the III millennium BC, although it
is possible that it continued even later in particular regions. The results
for the oldest and the middle phase of the Kostolac cultural group at
Gomolava range between 3038-2903 BC and 3108-2877 BC, while the Kostolac
culture at the Streim and Vucedol sits was dated 3310-2920 BC, as is the
approximate dating of settlements of this group in Pivnica (3042-2857 BC).
All the dating of Kostolac group sites indicate that this cultural group
occurred and developed in the period of the last quarter of the IV and the
first half of the III millennium BC, which would chronologically assign the
Co?ofeni-Kostolac group in the Morava valley and Timocka Krajina to the end
of the IV and the start of the III millennium BC, and to the ensuing period.