The chronological frame of Bubanj-Hum I group and the Cultural and chronological position of its sites within the Timok Valley

ЕТНО-КУЛТУРОЛОШКИ ЗБОРНИК Књига XXVI Book XXVI ETHNO-CULTURAL ANNALS for the study of the culture of eastern Serbia and the adjacent areas EASTERN SERBIA AS AN INSPIRATION AND RESEARCH CHALLENGE a collection of works in honor of Prof. Dr. Sreten Petrović Editors Vojislav Filipović Ivica Todorović Editorial Board Mihaj Radan (Romania), Mirko Blagojević, Milina Ivanović Barišić, Gordana Blagojević, Dragan Žunić, Stanka Janeva (Bulgaria), Vladimir Petrović, Aleksandar Bulatović, Aleksandra Papazovska (Macedonia), Irena Ljubomirović, Zoran Vučić, Nina Aksić, Ana SavićGrujić, Slaviša Milivojević, Žarko Veljković, Ognjen Mladenović Svrljig 2023 Књига XXVI ЕТНО-КУЛТУРОЛОШКИ ЗБОРНИК за проучавање културе источне Србије и суседних области ИСТОЧНА СРБИЈА КАО НАДАХНУЋЕ И ИСТРАЖИВАЧКИ ИЗАЗОВ зборник радова у част проф. др Сретена Петровића Уредници Војислав Филиповић Ивица Тодоровић Редакција Михај Радан (Румунија), Мирко Благојевић, Милина Ивановић Баришић, Гордана Благојевић, Драган Жунић, Станка Янева (Бугарска), Владимир Петровић, Александар Булатовић, Александра Папазовска (Македонија), Ирена Љубомировић, Зоран Вучић, Нина Аксић, Ана Савић-Грујић, Славиша Миливојевић, Жарко Вељковић, Огњен Младеновић Сврљиг 2023 УДК 008:39(082.1) ЕТНО-КУЛТУРОЛОШКИ ЗБОРНИК Зборник је покренут 1995. године на иницијативу проф. др Сретена Петровића и Етно-културолошке радионице Сврљиг Издавач: Центар за туризам, културу и спорт, Боре Прице 2, Сврљиг За издавача: Драган Савић Рецензенти: др Ана Савић-Грујић, академик др Јелена Јовановић, др Милина Ивановић Баришић, др Јована Бајовић Јоксимовић, др Александра Павићевић, др Татјана Трајковић, др Биљана Савић, др Ивица Тодоровић, др Александар Булатовић, др Александар Капуран, др Владимир Петровић, др Војислав Филиповић Припрема и штампа: Галаксијанис, Ниш Тираж: 150 ISBN 978-86-6233-555-5 Етно-културолошки зборник XXVI THE CHRONOLOGICAL FRAME OF THE BUBANJ-HUM I GROUP AND THE CULTURAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL POSITION OF ITS SITES WITHIN THE TIMOK VALLEY Aleksandar Bulatović Institute of archaeology, Belgrade Igor Jovanović Museum of Mining and Metallurgy, Bor Maja Gajić Kvaščev Institute of nuclear Sciences, Vinča Ognjen Mladenović Institute of archaeology, Belgrade e-mail: abulatovic3@gmail.com Abstract: The goal of this paper is to determine the cultural and chronological relations between the Early Eneolithic sites in the Timok Valley and the sites of the Bubanj – Salcuţa – Krivodol complex in other regions of the central Balkans through new absolute dates and the analysis of stylistic and typological elements of pottery that originates from the Timok Valley, with a particular focus on the site of Kmpije in Bor. Key words: central Balkans, Early Eneolithic, Kmpije site, absolute dates, XRF analyses of pottery, interactions of BSK bearers. Апстракт: Циљ чланка је да се дефинишу културни и хронолошки односи између раноенеолитских локалитета у Тимочкој Крајини и локалитета Бубањ – Салкуца – Кривидол комплекса у другим регијама централног Балкана помоћу нових апсолутних датума и анализе стилско-типолошких елемената керамике из Тимочке Крајине, са посебним освртом на локалитет Кмпије у Бору. Kључне речи: централни Балкан, рани енеолит, локалитет Кмпије, апсолутни датуми, XRF анализа керамике, међусобне везе носилаца БСК комплекса. Етно-културолошки зборник XXVI The relative chronology of the Early Eneolithic in the central Balkans The cultural milieu of the Eneolithic is not unique in the entire territory of Serbia due to different geographical features and socio-cultural characteristics. According to N. Tasić, the Eneolithic period in Serbia can be divided into Early, Middle, and Late, while some of these phases have several sub-phases (Tasić 1995, 18, 28-35). The Early Eneolithic in the central Balkans, according to this author, is represented by the Bubanj ISalcuţa II culture, the Middle Eneolithic is represented by the Černavoda III and Kostolac – Kocofeni cultures, and the Late Eneolithic by the Vučedol culture. The given relative chronology is mostly confirmed by the results of recent excavations at the sites of Bubanj and Velika Humska Čuka, save for the Late Eneolithic, where instead of the Vučedol culture, the approximately simultaneous Bubanj-Hum II culture is represented, whose stylistic and typological characteristics of pottery have elements reminiscent of the Vučedol culture pottery (Bulatović, Milanović 2020; Bulatović, Gori, Vander Linden 2020). Such relative chronology is not uniform in all regions of the Balkan Peninsula. Therefore, the period that corresponds to the Early Eneolithic in Serbia is marked as the Late Eneolithic in Bulgaria (Todorova 2003, 288-289), yet similarly culturally defined in both regions. Namely, the terms used to mark this cultural complex are almost identical, with the main difference being the order of the eponymous sites in the name. Thus, Garašanin and Simoska mark the complex as Bubanj-Hum I – Krivodol – Salcuţa (Garašanin, Simoska 1976, 9), Garašanin and Đurić define it as Salcuţa – Krivodol – Bubanj (Garašanin, Đurić 1983, 12), and within the Serbian archaeological literature the term Bubanj – Salcuţa – Krivodol is commonly used (Tasić 1995, 29). On the other hand, in Bulgaria, this complex is defined as the Krivodol- Salcuţa -Bubanj (Todorova 2003, 288-289), or Krivodol – Salcuţa – Bubanj Hum Ia (Georgieva 2005, 144). According to numerous authors, the Bubanj-Hum Ia culture, which is the representative of thew BSK complex in most of Serbia, is parallel to the Salcuţa II phase (Garašanin, Simoska 1976, 20; Tasić 1995, 27). Judging by the stratigraphy and finds from new excavations at the sites of Bubanj and Velika Humska Čuka, the Bubanj-Hum I cultural group lasted longer than previously thought and was apparently contemporaneous with several phases of the Salcuţa culture. Although experts have been dealing with problems of the Early Eneolithic in Serbia for more than half a century, there were no answers to the questions regarding the absolute dates related to the beginning and end of this culture up until recently, as well as its chronological relation to the neighboring cultures in terms absolute chronology. *** According to N. Tasić, as well as other contemporary authors, the Early Eneolithic in the central Balkans is marked by the Bubanj – Salcuţa – Krivodol complex (Tasić 1979, 87-114; Tasić 1995, 29; Bulatović, Milanović 2020), which encompassed 72 Bulatović et al. The chronological frame of the Bubanj-Hum I group and the cultural and chronological... the territory of almost the entire present-day Serbia south of Sava and Danube, presentday North Macedonia, northwestern Albania, the northern Aegean coast, Oltenia and present-day western Bulgaria. In Serbia, this complex is represented by the Bubanj-Hum I group, which was defined several decades ago (Garašanin 1958). Absolute chronology of the BSK complex Until recently, the absolute chronology of the Early Eneolithic culture in the central Balkans, i.e. the BSK complex, was based exclusively on absolute dates from sites in western Bulgaria, mostly with a very high unreliability up to 280 years, which made it difficult to define a more precise chronological scope of this period in absolute dates (Boyadziev 1995, 184-185, tab. 5; Bojadziev 1998). Shortly thereafter, however, the first dates for this complex appeared with minor deviations (Lazarovici 2006, 282), which, on the other hand, were quite contradictory since the relative chronology of the Salcuţa group, which was defined earlier by stratigraphy, did not match with the absolute chronology.1 The Salcuţa group, which is the regional “representative” of the BSK complex in the territory of Oltenia, can be positioned between the 46th and the 43rd-century calBC according to the aforementioned dates (Lazarovici 2006, 282, Figs. 10 and 11). A similar situation is observed in northwestern Bulgaria, where the lower chronological frame of the BSK complex, i.e. the beginning of the Galatin and Salcuţa IV groups, which marked the end of the unity of the BSK complex, was defined on the basis of more recent absolute dates. Dates from northwestern Bulgaria (Valentinova 2016; Ganetsovski 2016) indicate that these new cultural groups certainly existed in the 40thcentury calBC, in which, apart from some sherds attributed to the BSK complex, ceramics with different stylistic and typological characteristics dominate, which led some authors to define the particular groups Salkuca IV (Berciu 1961; Roman 1971) and Galatin (Georgieva 1987). The upper chronological frame for the BSK complex in northwestern Bulgaria could be defined by the absolute date from Djakovo (5620±100 BP) although it has an extremely high uncertainty of 100 years (Boyadzhiev 1995, tab. 5). This date in calibrated dates is 4704-4326 BC (93.8% probability),2 which would statistically mostly correspond to the period of 46th-45th century BC, which approximately fits to the time of the beginnings of the Salcuţa group in Oltenia (Lazarovici 2006). Therefore, according to the available absolute dates, the BSK complex in western Bulgaria lasted from the 46th-45th century calBC to the 40th century calBC. 1 Namely, according to absolute dates, the phase Salcuta III is older than the Salcuta IIb (Lazarovici 2009, Figs. 10 and 11). 2 The date is calibrated by OxCal v4.4 method (https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/oxcal/OxCal.html# accessed on November 4th 2023.). 73 Етно-културолошки зборник XXVI No 1 Site Spasovine Lab. cod AA 113502 BP 5706±25 2 3 VHČ Vinča 5666±41 5650±30 4 Grivac DeA-42045 NOSAMS -67686 Z-1507 5600±100 5 Velika humska čuka Bodnjik DeA 21482 5571±39 OxA-? ? Velika humska čuka Kmpije, Bor DeA 26775 5539±32 Dea-42906 5513±34 6 7 BC 4577-4509 (68%CalPal) 4607-4440 (89.4%) 4519-4463 (CalPal 68%) 4557-4367 (68%, CalPal) 4447-4373 (68% CalPal) 4468-4347 (95%) 4448-4369 (68.2%) 4450-4340 (95.4%) Published Culture Bulatović et al. Late Vinča/BH I 2020 This article BH I Tasić et al. 2015 Late Vinča Borić 2009 Late Vinča Bulatović et al. 2020 Živanović 2013 BH I 12 Vinča OxA-24922 5451±35 Bulatović, Milanović 2021 4445-4270 sigma 2 This article 4368-4332 (75.4%) 4450-4270 sigma 2 This article 4403-4329 (80.2%) 4362-4329 (92%) This article 4450-4260 sigma 2 4351-4257 sigma 2 Bulatović, Vander Linden 2017 4354-4244 sigma 2 Borić 2015 13 Bubanj MAMS 31460 5445±24 4344-4260 sigma 2 14 Bubanj Lyon 13690 5440±30 4346-4246 sigma 2 15 Bubanj Lyon 13689 5435±30 4343-4245 sigma 2 16 Bubanj SUERC 50670 5433±30 4342-4245 sigma 2 17 DeA 26774 5416±38 18 Velika humska čuka Vinča OxA-24923 5335±34 4350-4070 sigma 2 4304-4250 72,6% 4314-4048 sigma 2 19 Bubanj 8 9 10 11 Begov most, Dea-43028 Staničenje Velika humska DeA-32630 čuka Bubanj SUERC 50666 20 Viminacium, Rit 21 Viminacium, Rit 22 Bubanj 23 Viminacium, Rit 24 25 5511±26 5499±30 5452±28 5300 ± 26 4240-4040 sigma 2 4179-4046 (71.8%) 5271±31 4230-3990 68.2% Ua-63955 4230-3980 sigma 2 5111±34 DeA-14237 3866-3812 (62%) 3980-3800 sigma 2 MAMS 31463 5087±25 3960-3800 sigma 2 3881-3800 (61.8%) 5080±33 3877-3804 (76.1%) DeA-14234 3960-3797 sigma 2 5064±36 3960-3780 sigma 2 DeA-19350 DeA-43018 Velika humska čuka Mokranjske MAMS 31467 stene 4875±23 BH I BH I BH I BH I BH I BH I Tisapolgar/ Bodrogkereštur Bulatović et al. BH I 2018 Bulatović et al. BH I 2018 Bulatović et al. BH I 2018 Bulatović, BH I Vander Linden 2017 Bulatović, BH I Milanović 2021 Borić 2015 Tisapolgar/ Bodrogkereštur This article BH I Bulatović et al. BSK/Tisapolgar 2019 (?) Bulatović et al. Salkuca IV 2019 Bulatović et al. B-H I (?) 2018 Bulatović et al. Salkuca IV 2019 Bulatović, BH I Milanović 2021 3698-3638 sigma 2 Bulatović et al. BH I/Salcuta IV/ 2018 Galatin groups Table 1. Absolute dates of the Late Neolithic and the Early Eneolithic sites in the central Balkans. 74 Bulatović et al. The chronological frame of the Bubanj-Hum I group and the cultural and chronological... The absolute chronology of the Bubanj-Hum I group As aforementioned, during the Early Eneolithic, the territory of present-day Serbia south of the Danube and the Sava rivers was inhabited by a population that was the bearer of the BH I group,3 which is one of the three main cultural groups of the so-called BSK complex. Although there was no absolute date for this complex in the territory of Serbia up until recently, through several different projects,4 we currently possess dozens of absolute dates, some of which are presented in this paper in order to provide an appropriate picture of the absolute chronology of the BSK complex and its chronological relations to the Early Eneolithic cultures outside this territory. According to these dates, the chronological beginnings of the BH I group, meaning the BSK complex in the central Balkans, could be positioned into the period of the second half of 46th century calBC, or the first half of the 45th century calBC (tab. 1/2). The date from the site of Spasovine (tab. 1/1) could also be treated as a date for the beginning of the BH I group since some of the ceramic vessels from a dated structure already possess stylistic and typological elements of the BH I group. In that case, the genesis of the BH I group began as early as the middle of the 46th century calBC. According to the currently available dates, the lower chronological frame of the BH I group is somewhat lower than that of the BSK complex in Oltenia or western Bulgaria. A date from the site of Velika Humska Čuka in the South Morava Valley (tab. 1/24), acquired from the most recent floor of house 3, from which the finds of pottery corresponding to the BH I group originate, indicates that the population that used pottery of these stylistic and typological features occupied the site even during the 39th century calBC. However, there is an even lower date for the cultural layer with ceramic finds that still possess characteristics of the BH I group within the Timok Valley, which will be discussed in the following chapter. Cultural and Chronological frame of the Bubanj-Hum I group in the Timok Valley Similar to many regions of the central Balkans, the region of Timok Valley was also inhabited by the bearers of the Bubanj-Hum I group during the Early Eneolithic. Although this complex, with all the cultural groups that comprise it, Bubanj-Hum I, Salcuţa, and Krivodol, covered a vast territory, it had almost identical stylistic and typological characteristics of ceramics, as well as other finds (Tasić 1979; Garašanin, Đurić 1983, 12-13), with possible minor regional characteristics. Thus, there are short beakers 3 The abbreviation BH I will be used further in the text. 4 We would mention THE FLOW project financed by the Science Fund of the RS, and the Archaeological research of the Velika humska čuka site project, which is financed by the Ministry of Culture of the RS, the City of Niš and the Municipality of Crveni krst in Niš. 75 Етно-културолошки зборник XXVI Fig. 1 – Characteristic stylistic and typological elements of BSK complex. with two handles (kantaros), conical bowls with a semicircular thickened inner side of the rim, conical bowls with an inverted rim, conical bowls with an expanded thickened rim, globular amphorae with a longer cylindrical neck with two arched handles, etc. (fig. 1) registered on a vast territory covering the area from Oltenia and southern Transylvania in the north to the Aegean coast in the south, and from western Bulgaria in the east to the Drina and northwestern Albania in the west. The Timok Valley is located approximately in the central part of the territory encompassed by the BSK complex. Its northern border is the Danube River, in the south, it is bordered by the Svrljig Mountains, in the east by the northern slopes of the Stara Planina, and in the west by the slopes of the Carpathian Mountains. A decade ago, during the processing of finds from museums in Negotin, Bor, Knjaževac and Zaječar, numerous Early Eneolithic finds were also recorded, which the authors agreed to belong to the BSK complex, i.e. the Bubanj-Hum I group (Bulatović, Kapuran, Janjić 2013; Kapuran, Bulatović, Jovanović 2014; Stojić, Ilijić 2010; Kapuran, Bulatović 2012; Kapuran 2014). Many of the processed sites were known for decades, when likewise based on the stylistic and typological characteristics of numerous pottery finds were attributed to the Bubanj-Hum I group (Tasić 2004; Lazić, Sladić 1997; Tasić 1997). *** 76 Bulatović et al. The chronological frame of the Bubanj-Hum I group and the cultural and chronological... Pl. 1 – 1-11. Bor, Kmpije, the Hearth finds; 12-17. Staničenje, Begov most, pit 7. 77 Етно-културолошки зборник XXVI However, the particular site on the outskirts of Bor, was discovered at the beginning of the 90s, and the research began about ten years after (Jovanović 2013; Kapuran, Bulatović, Jovanović 2014). It is the site of Kmpije, which is situated on the Kmpu Boruluj hill on the southeastern outskirts of Bor. Excavations yielded remains of two settlements on the site, one from the Early and the other from the Late Eneolithic. The settlement from the Early Eneolithic covered an area of approximately 0.5 ha, and belonged to the bearers of the BSK complex, while the younger settlement was inhabited by the bearers of the Kocofeni-Kostolac group (Kapuran, Bulatović, Jovanović 2014, 78). Archaeological research at the site of Kmpije in Bor was carried out between 2004 and 2007. During this period, an area of 164 square meters was excavated by 12 archaeological trenches. During the excavation, the remains of three houses, built in wattle and daub technique were excavated, although the site was largely devastated by the construction of the railway line (Jovanović 2013). During the research at the site of Kmpije in 2006, an outdoor hearth with pottery scattered around was discovered (fig. 2). The sampled charcoal from the hearth was AMS dated to 4445-4270 (probability 95.4%), i.e., 43684332 (probability 75.4%) calBC, and therefore this horizon of the settlement, with the mentioned hearth and ceramics, can be fairly reliably dated to the 44th century calBC. 5 Fig. 2 – Site of Kmpije in Bor, Trench 7, the Hearth with scattered portable finds. The pottery around the hearth consists of short beakers with two arched handles in line with the rim, situated on the neck or belly (Pl. 1/1, 2, 4), a shallow conical plate with a thickened rim (Pl. 1/5), globular vessels with a short cylindrical neck (Pl. 1/6, 5 AMS analyses was performed in Izotoptech ZRT. Laboratory in Debrecin, Hungary (lab.No. DeA- 42906). 78 Bulatović et al. The chronological frame of the Bubanj-Hum I group and the cultural and chronological... 7), and the characteristic pottery ornaments comprised of bundles of incised parallel lines, sometimes in combination with rows of pricks (Pl. 1/8, 10, 11), rows of impresso imprints (Pl. 1/9), and narrow vertical grooves on the thickened belly of the vessels (Pl. 1/4). Fig. 3 – Compared EDXRF spectra. In order to determine the possible origin of pottery from the site, two ceramic samples and raw material from the local clay depo at Bor Brickyard located a kilometer from the site, were analysed using portable energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence (pEDXRF) spectrometry. The well-established analytical procedure was applied using an in-house developed pEDXRF spectrometer (more details about the instrument can be found in (Andrić et al. 2021, 167; Gajić-Kvaščev, 2023, 13). The analysis aims to detect the elemental composition of the materials to compare the results and draw conclusions about the possible similarities.6 The compared spectra are presented in figure 3. The chemical composition of all analysed samples is similar, meaning all detected chemical elements are present in all three spectra. For a better representation (fig. 4), the reduced counts figure was plotted to enlarge the visibility of the peaks with smaller intensities. 6 The experimental setup was as follows: the X-ray tube voltage of 40 kV, the filament current of 800 μA, and the measurement time of 120 s. The measurement geometry was as follows: collimated non-filtered incident X-ray beam spot size on the object’s surface of 2 mm, the angle between the incident X-ray beam and the detector of 45◦, the distance from the endpoint of the collimator and detector window and the analysed surface was 21 mm and 16 mm, respectively. The mentioned parameters were kept constant during all measurements. The ADMCA software (AMPTEK Inc.) was used for spectra acquisition. 79 Етно-културолошки зборник XXVI Fig. 4 – Reduced EDXRF spectra for two Kmpije ceramic samples and raw material. The elemental composition indicates that ceramics were most probably made of local raw material since identical chemical elements were detected in all spectra. Moreover, the detected trace elements such as Rb, Sr, Y, Zr, and M and their peaks’ intensity can support the conclusion of local raw material usage for the production of Kmpije ceramics. For more precise determinations, the analysis of more samples and provenance analysis would be useful, or some other studies (SEM-EDX analysis) could be performed to support conclusions made based on the EDXRF measurements. In terms of stylistic and typological characteristics of finds from the hearth, as well as other finds from the earlier settlement, especially ceramic vessels (Jovanović 2013), it seems that they are characteristic of the BSK complex and very reminiscent of ceramics from the surrounding sites from this period (Kučajna, Zlotska pećina, Krivelj, Kovilovo, Korbovo, Mokranjske stene, Smedovac and others - Bulatović, Kapuran, Janjić 2013; Kapuran, Bulatović, Jovanović 2014 and cited lit.). Further, the stylistic and typological characteristics of finds from the hearth are likewise similar to ceramics of this complex from the South Morava Valley, especially from the sites of Bubanj and Velika Humska Čuka (Garašanin, Đurić 1983), which have been intensively researched in recent years (Bulatović, Milanović 2015; Bulatović, Milanović 2020; Bulatović, Milanović 2021; Bulatović et al. 2023). Apart from the pottery finds, the site of Velika Humska Čuka and Kmpije coincide chronologically, since the date from Kmpije corresponds to one settlement horizon on Velika Humska Čuka (Bulatović, Milanović 2021) (tab. 1/7, 10). The oldest settlement from this period from Bubanj, at least according to the currently available dates, is somewhat younger, and exists only at the turn of the 44th to 43rd century calBC (Bulatović, Vander Linden 2017), although the ceramic finds from Bubanj 80 Bulatović et al. The chronological frame of the Bubanj-Hum I group and the cultural and chronological... are almost identical to those from Kmpije. A settlement chronologically very close to Kmpije was recorded south of the Timok Valley, in the Nišava Valley, close to presentday Pirot. It is the site of Begov Most in Staničenje, from which an absolute date almost identical to the date from Kmpije originates, from a pit with several animal bones and scattered pottery (tab. 1/9). Pottery from Begov Most is also very similar to finds from Kmpije. Bowls with a thickened rim (Pl. 1/13), a globular vessel with a cylindrical neck (Pl. 1/14), and a fragment decorated with bundles of incised lines in combination with pricks (Pl. 1/15), are also recorded at the site. Another absolute date comes from the Timok Valley, from the site of Mokranjska stene in Mokranje near present-day Negotin (Bulatović 2015; Bulatović et al. 2018). The date originates from the cultural layer with ceramics of stylistic and typological characteristics of the BH I group, but also the Salcuta IV and Galatin groups (Bulatović 2015, 29-30), and dates this layer to the 37th century calBC (tab. 1/25). The site, however, is located in the hilly part of the Timok Valley, therefore it is possible that the elements of the BH I group prevailed longer here than in other regions of the central Balkans, and that the date cannot be considered with certainty as the lower chronological frame for the BH I group in the central Balkans, especially since the group ceased to exist much earlier in neighbouring regions (tab. 1/21, 23) (Valentinova 2016; Ganetsovski 2016). Chronologically uniform dates from Bubanj and Velika Humska Čuka (tab. 1/23, 24) should rather be taken into account as the lower chronological frame of the group, which position the final stages of this group into the 39th century calBC. Certain elements characteristic of the Galatin, Salcuţa IV and Chernavoda I groups also appear at these sites, but elements characteristic of the Bubanj-Hum I group are still dominant (Bulatović, Milanović 2015; Bulatović, Milanović 2020; Bulatović, Milanović 2021). Conclusion A brief overview of the cultural and chronological characteristics of the BubanjHum I group, which is in fact a “representative” of the Early Eneolith BSK complex in the central Balkans, pointed out that the entire area of the central Balkans is dominated by the same stylistic and typological elements, as well as that the chronological frame of particular regions of this group in the central Balkans is quite uniform. The site of Kmpije coincides with the middle period of the existence of the BH I group, with the chronological range from which the greatest number of absolute dates originate (fig. 5), probably the period of the cultural peak of the Bubanj-Hum I group. Therefore, it can be concluded that the BH I group was formed during the final phase of the Vinča culture, which is for the most part parallel to the Early Eneolithic cultures in southern Pannonia and the Peri Pannonian area, such as the Tisapolgar and Bodrogkereshtur, and that it disappeared during the penetration of new cultural elements from the northeast, which the bearers of the Salcuţa IV, Galatin and Chernavoda I groups probably brought (fig. 5). 81 Етно-културолошки зборник XXVI Fig. 5 – Modelled Absolute dates of the Late Neolithic and the Early Eneolithic sites in the central Balkans. 82 Bulatović et al. The chronological frame of the Bubanj-Hum I group and the cultural and chronological... Both the stylistic and typological features of ceramics and the absolute dates indicate that the Timok Valley completely fits into the cultural and chronological frame of the BSK complex, that is, the BH I group in the central Balkans. That confirms that during the second half of the 5th millennium BC, this wide area was subject to intense interaction, that is, the cultural transmission of its bearers, rather than significant social movements (migrations), which could be confirmed by determined local origin of BH I pottery from the site of Kmpije. Still, the migration scenario cannot be completely excluded either, especially regarding the events that will follow. Namely, at the end of the 5th and the beginning of the 4th millennium BC, significant changes took place in the cultural domain of the central Balkans, especially in the north of the Danube region, which could indicate more intensive movements from the NE to the south and SW. Besides the Danube region (site of Rit), the Timok Valley (Mokranjske stene) was the first to be influenced by those movements, as the cultural picture changed significantly as soon as during the first quarter of the 4th millennium BC, while in the south the elements of the BH I group remained dominant (tab. 1/22, 24; fig. 5) (Bulatović, Kapuran 2017). Later, during the second half of the 4th, and the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC, and again during the 2nd millennium BC, the Timok Valley represented the main natural communication route for the interactions and cultural transmission between population of the central Balkans and populations from Oltenia and Transylvania, which subsequently makes it one of the most important geographic regions when it comes to the study of cultural contacts and links in the prehistory of the central Balkans. Acknowledgements This paper is the result of the project THE FLOW - Interactions-Transmission-Transformation: Long-distance connections in Copper and Bronze Age of the Central Balkans, funded by the Science Fund of the Republic of Serbia (Program IDEAS, Grant no. 7750074). Bibliography Andrić et al. 2021 - Andrić, V. Gajić-Kvaščev, M. Korolija Crkvenjakov, D. Marić-Stojanović, M. Gadžurić, S., Evaluation of pattern recognition techniques for the attribution of cultural heritage objects based on the qualitative XRF data. Microchemical Journal 2021, 167, 106267, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.microc.2021.106267, Berciu 1961 – Berciu, D., Contribuţii la problemele neoliticului in Romnia in lumina noilor cercetări, Bucuresti. 83 Етно-културолошки зборник XXVI Boyadziev 1995 – Boyadziev, Y., Chronology of prehistoric cultures in Bulgaria, in: Prehistoric Bulgaria, (eds.) D. Bailey and I. Panayotov, Monographs in World Archaeology, No 22, Madison 1995, 149–191. Bojadžiev 1998 - Bojadžiev, J., Radiocarbon Dating From Southeastern Europe, J. Harvey Gaul in Memoriam, eds. M. Stefanovich, H. Todorova, H. Hauptmann, Sofia, 349-370. Bulatović et al. 2020 –Bulatović, A., Bankoff, A., Powell, W., Filipović, V., Some remarks on the genesis of the early Eneolithic in the Central Balkans, Старинар н.с. 70 , 9-40. Bulatović 2015 - Булатовић, А., Eнеолитски период на локалитету Mокрањске стене, Мокрањске стене, културна баштина Неготинске Крајине, ур. А. Капуран, А. Булатовић, Музеј Неготинске Крајине, Неготин, 33-49. Bulatović, Gori, Vander Linden 2020 - Bulatović, A., Gori, M., Vander Linden, M., Radiocarbon Dating the 3rd Millennium BC in the Central Balkans: a re-examination of the Early Bronze Age sequence, Radiocarbon Vol. 62, Nr 5, 1163-1191. Bulatović et al. 2018 - Bulatović, A., Gori, M., Vander Linden, M., New АМЅ dates as a contribution to the absolute chronology of the Early Eneolithic in the central Balkans, Старинар н.с. LXVIII, 19-32. Bulatović et al. 2023 - Bulatović, A., Kapuran, A., Mladenović, O., Milojević, P., Set of bronze jewellery from the site of Velika Humska Čuka near Niš, SE Serbia, A contribution to the study of interactions between Bronze Age communities of Central Europe and the Central Balkans, Старинар н.с. 73, in print. Bulatović, Kapuran 2017 – Bulatović, A., Kapuran, A., Cultural contacts between communities of southwestern Romania and the central Balkans in the fourth millennium BC, у: Cristian I. P. (ed.), The Carpathian Basin and the Northern Balkans between 3500 and 2500 BC: Common Aspects and Regional Differences, Annales Universitatis Apulensis: Series Historica, 20/II (2016), 183-201. Bulatović, Kapuran, Janjić 2013 - Булатовић, А., Капуран, А., Јањић, Г., Неготин, културна стратиграфија праисторијских локалитета у Неготинској Крајини, Београд-Неготин. Bulatović, Milanović 2021 - Bulatović, A., Milanović, D., The cultural and chronological context of sites of Bubanj and Velika Humska Čuka near Niš (southeastern Serbia) and their significance for understanding the emergence and development of the Central Balkans eneolithic, Циркумпонтика/Circumpontics 2021/ Nо. 5, серия История и политические науки, Вестник Московского государственного областного университета, Москва, 36-64. Bulatović, Milanović 2020 - Bulatović, A., Milanović, D., Bubanj, the Eneolithic and the early Bronze Age tell in southeastern Serbia, Mitteilungen der Prahistorischen Kommission Band 90, Austrian Academy of Science Press, Vienna. Bulatović, Milanović 2015 - Булатовић, А., Милановић, Д., Велика хумска чука, истраживања 2009. године - прилог проучавању стратиграфије енеолита и бронзаног доба у југоисточној Србији, Гласник Српског археолошког друштва 30, Српско археолошко друштво, Београд, 163-188. Bulatović, Vander Linden 2017 – Bulatović, A., Vander Linden, M., Absolute Dating of Copper and Early Bronze Age Levels at the Eponymous Archaeological Site Bubanj (Southeastern Serbia). Radiocarbon 59(4), 1047–1065. Gajić-Kvaščev et al. 2023 - Gajić-Kvaščev, M. Klisurić, O. Andrić, V. Ridolfi, S. Galečić, U. Korolija Crkvenjakov, D., Multianalytical Study of the Blue Pigments Usage in Serbian Iconography at the Beginning of the 18th-Century. Coatings 2023, 13, 1200. https://doi.org/10.3390/ coatings13071200] 84 Bulatović et al. The chronological frame of the Bubanj-Hum I group and the cultural and chronological... Ganetsovski 2016 ‒ G. Ganetsovski, The Prehistoric settlement in the Ezeroto locality near the village of Borovan, Northwestern Bulgaria, in: The human face of Radiocarbon, (ed.) Z. Tsirtsoni, Lyon 2016, 115–123. Garašanin 1958 – Garašanin, M., Kontrollgrabung in Bubanj bei Niš, Praehistorische Zeitschrift XXXVI, 1958, 223–244. Garašanin, Đurić 1983 - Гарашанин M., Ђурић Н., Бубањ и Велика Хумска Чукa, каталог изложбе, Народни музеј, Ниш. Garašanin, Simoska 1976 - Гарашанин, M., Симоска, Д., Контролни ископувања на Шуплевец и некои проблеми на групата Шуплевец-Бакарно гумно, Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 2, Прилеп, 9-41. Georgieva 1987 - Георгиева, П., Материали от претходния период между каменномедната и бронзовата епоха от Северна България, Археология, кн. 1, София, 1-15. Georgieva 2005 – Георгиева, П., За зооморфните скиптри и последните етапи накъсноенеолитните култури Варна, Коджадермен– Гумелница–Караново VI и Криводол– Сълкуца, in: Studia archaeologica universitatis Serdicensis, Supplementum IV, Stephanos archaeologicos in honorem professoris Ludmili Getov, (eds.) Л.С. Гетов, Т. Н. Стоянов, С. Г. Ангелова, И. М. Лозанов, К. К. Рабаджиев, М. М. Милчева, Университетско издателство „Св. Климент Охридски“, София 2005, 144‒167. Jovanović 2011 - Јовановић, И. „Сондажно истраживање вишеслојног археолошког налазишта ‚Кмпије‘ у Бору“, Зборник радова Музеја рударства и металургије у Бору 13/15. Бор 2013, 17-49. Kapuran 2014 – Kapuran, A., Praistorijski lokaliteti u severoistočnoj Srbiji, Beograd. Kapuran, Bulatović 2012 - Капуран, А., Булатовић, А., Праисторијски локалитети у долинама Сврљишког Тимока, Трговишког Тимока и Белог Тимока, Гласник САД 28, 107132. Kapuran, Bulatović, Jovanović 2014 - Kaпуран, А., Булатовић, А., Јовановић, И., Бор и Мајданпек, културна стратиграфија праисторијских локалитета између Ђердапа и Црног Тимока, Београд-Бор. Lazarovici 2006 - Lazarovici, C. M., Absolute Chronology of the Late Vinča Culture in Romania and its role in the Development of the Early Copper Age, Homage to Milutin Garašanin, eds. N. Tasić, C. Grozdanov, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts and Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Belgrade, 277-293. Lazić, Sladić 1997 - Лазић, М., Сладић, М., Енеолитско насеље у Шкодрином пољу код Књажевца. Археологија Источне Србије, ур. М. Лазић, Центар за археолошка истраживања Филозофског факултета, Београд, 211-224. Roman 1971‒ Roman, P., Strukturanderungen des Endaneolithikums im Donau-Karpaten-Raum, Dacia XV, 1971, 31‒169. Stojić, Ilijić 2011 - Стојић, М., Илијић, Б., Књажевац, културна стратиграфија праисторијских локалитета књажевачког краја, Археолошки институт и Завичајни музеј у Књажевцу, Београд-Књажевац. Tasić 1979 - Tasić, N., Bubanj-Salkuţa-Krivodol kompleks, Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja III, ur. A. Benac, Sarajevo, 55-85. Tasić 1995 – Tasić, N., Eneolithic Cultures of Central and West Balkans, Belgrade 1995. Tasić 1997 - Тасић, Н., Енеолит и бронзано доба североисточне Србије, Археологија Источне Србије, ур. М. Лазић, Центар за археолошка истраживања Филозофског факултета, Београд, 79-90. 85 Етно-културолошки зборник XXVI Tasić 2004 - Tасић, Н., Налазишта и културе из енеолитског периода, Бор и околина у праисторији, антици и средњем веку, ур. М. Лазић, Бор-Београд, 57-100. Todorova 2003 - Todorova, H., Prehistory of Bulgaria, Recent Research in the Prehistory of the Balkans, ed. D. V. Grammenos, Thessaloniki, 257–328. Valentinova 2016 – Valentinova, M., An Early fourth millennium settlement near the village of Bezhanovo, Lovech region, in: The human face of Radiocarbon, (ed.) Z. Tsirtsoni, Lyon 2016, 99–114. Александар Булатовић, Археолошки институт, Београд Игор Јовановић, Музеј рударства и металургије, Бор Маја Гајић Квашчев, Институт за нуклеарне науке, Винча Огњен Младеновић, Археолошки институт, Београд ХРОНОЛОШКИ ОКВИР БУБАЊ-ХУМ I ГРУПЕ И КУЛТУРНОХРОНОЛОШКИ ПОЛОЖАЈ ЊЕНИХ НАСЕЉА У ТИМОЧКОЈ КРАЈИНИ У раду смо се кратко осврнули на терминологију којом се дефинишу рано енеолитске културе на централном Балкану и околним регијама. Експерти се махом слажу да је реч о јединственом културном комплексу названом Бубањ – Салкуца – Криводол, по епонимним локалитетима у данашњој Србији, Румунији и Бугарској. Епонимни локалитети овог комплекса у Србији су Бубањ и Велика хумска чука код Ниша (Бубањ – Хум I група), који су послужили за хронолошку детерминацију ове групе, односно овог комплекса на централном Балкану. Према датумима махом са ова два локалитета ова група је настала у другој половини 46. или првој половини 45. века пре н.е. а нестала после 39. века пре н.е. Иако је керамика са локалитета у Понишавља и Тимочкој Крајини била готово идентична керамици са других локалитета ове групе, у недостатку апсолутних датума није било могуће дефинисати њихов хронолошки оквир. Недавно добијеним датумима са локалитета Бегов мост код Пирота и Кмпије у Бору (44. век пре н.е.) установљено је да се и ови локалитети, односно регије Понишавља и Тимочке Крајине и хронолошки уклапају у БХ I групу. Анализа хемисјко-физичког састава керамике са локалитета Кмпије (pEDXRF) указује да је керамика израђена од локалне глине, те јединство БСК комплекса на овако пространој територији од Олтеније до северне Грчке и западне Бугарске до Дрине, са приближно истом хронологијом, пре се може објаснити интензивним везама и контактима популација које су настањивале овај простор, него миграцијама. 86