An Archaeobotanical Onsite Approach to the Neolithic Settlements in Southern Regions of the Balkans: The Case of Vrbjanska Čuka, a Tell Site in Pelagonia, Republic of Macedonia

This paper is focused on the Neolithic tell-site of Vrbjanska Čuka in Pelagonia, Republic of Macedonia, where the authors have been performing archaeobotanical research since 2016. Results of the analyses of botanical macroremains and microremains (starch, phytoliths) and faunal microremains collected in season 2016 are presented in the broader context of the Neolithic in the Balkans in order to estimate the bioarchaeological potential of this site. The first and final parts of the paper outline the bioarchaeological studies connected with Neolithic settlements in the southern regions of the Balkans. A substantial proliferation of environmental studies has been recorded in the last decade concerning the archaeobotanical and archaeozoological evidence. Here, most attention is paid to archaeobotanical studies which consider Neolithic settlements and their bioarchaeological context. IANSA 2018 ● IX/2 ● 121–145 Jaromír Beneš, Goce Naumov, Tereza Majerovičová, Kristýna Budilová, Jiří Bumerl, Veronika Komárková, Jaromír Kovárník, Michaela Vychronová, Lucie Juřičková: An Archaeobotanical Onsite Approach to the Neolithic Settlements in Southern Regions of the Balkans: The Case of Vrbjanska Čuka, a Tell Site in Pelagonia, Republic of Macedonia 122 pp. 47–51). This concept substantially favoured those studies dealing with material culture rather than ones addressing environmental and biological issues. Furthermore, the lack of local specialists led to a predominance of artefactual and architectural studies. Bioarchaeological research was concentrated towards large systematic excavations made by international expeditions. This is clearly the case with the older research history of the site of Amzabegovo (Gimbutas, 1974; 1976), Sitagroi (Renfrew et al., 1986; Näslund, 2009), Argissa (Reingruber, 2005), Nea Nikomedeia (Pyke, Yiouni, 1996; van Zeist, Bottema, 1971), Karanovo (Hiller, Nikolov, 1988) and Dikili Tash (Treuil, 1992) being the best examples. The activities of bioarchaeologists have been oriented towards the thematic pioneer research of Neolithic palaeoeconomy. In this regard, R. Dennell studied the archaeobotanical assemblages of such Neolithic sites as Chavdar and Kazanlak in Bulgaria. Dennell established an alternative approach which suggested that the economic value of a Neolithic plant resource can be ascertained by considering its context within the crop-processing activities of a site or area (Dennell, 1972; 1974; 1976). The research of Dennell has opened up new avenues in onsite archaeological interpretations, certainly in comparison to the older common approach of recording the presence/absence of economic plant species in archaeobotanical assemblages. R. Dennell also worked with the archaeozoologist G. Kovačev and attempted to provide a complete onsite bioarchaeological picture of the plants and animals. Likewise, P. Halstead has contributed much to the research area of archaeozoology. He has published a series of papers focused on archaeozoological data of the Neolithic and Bronze Age (Halstead, 1981; 1989). In so doing he has attempted to ascertain the potential of archaeozoological material in helping to identify the part of large-scale pastoral specialization versus small-scale stock husbandry as a component of mixed farming. His concept has opened up such phenomena as the large-scale exchange of animals for meat and the identification of “producer sites” and “consumer sites”, as well as the issues of milking, dairying and similar phenomena (Halstead, 1996). In the southern regions of the Balkans in the 1980s and 1990s, local specialists were also active, such as E. Chakalova and Z. Popova in Bulgaria (see Kreuz et al., 2017). A substantial shift has been recorded in the last decade towards the adoption of a multi-proxy approach: a new trend in the bioarchaeological research of Neolithic sites. In contrast to the best monothematic studies of the 1970s and 1980s, the multi-proxy approach is based on the synergy of two or more analytical methods. The combination of particular methods has been steeply increasing in number up until today (Marinova, Thiebault, 2008; Karkanas et al., 2011; Pappa et al., 2013; Garnier, Valamoti, 2016; Marinova, Ntinou, 2017; Kreuz, Marinova, 2017; Ivanova et al., 2018; Whitford, 2018). In the last 10–15 years, the “critical mass” of specialists and awareness of the necessity to apply multiproxy approaches has increased. Such synthesis should indeed become “state of the art” in the future (Allen et al., 2017; Ethier et al., 2017; Marinova et al., 2016; Krauß et al., 2017; 2018). Transdisciplinary studies constitute presentday research and the near future for prehistoric onsite archaeology. Archaeobotanical research is still rare for archaeological excavation in this study region of the Balkans. It is due to the lack of specialists and the technical difficulty of sampling in archaeological field research – and the time-consuming work involved in the post-excavational phase. On the other hand, archaeobotany can contribute to resolving palaeoeconomical questions and trace the forms of human behaviour on a specific prehistoric site in great detail. 1.2 Natural setting of the southern Balkans and its Neolithic sites Geographically, the southern Balkans region is very variable: its surface is predominantly mountainous. The climate of the coastal regions differs from that inland, it being more continental. Most of the southern Balkans is dominated by a Mediterranean climate, particularly for the area of Thessaly and Greek Macedonia. Towards the north the climate passes to a sub-Mediterranean environment with lower average annual temperatures in the valleys of the rivers Vardar, Haliacmon, Lower Struma and Maritsa (Trifunovski, 1998; Ivanova et al., 2018). Altitude is an important influence on temperature and humidity. Due to the melting of the mountain snow cover and other sufficient sources of water, the Balkan region is rich in lakes, rivers and wetlands (Griffiths et al., 2004). The southern part of the region is today covered by evergreen sclerophyll vegetation, constrained by warm, dry summers and rainy winters (Prach et al., 2009). The southernmost areas of mainland Greece and Greek Macedonia are covered by Mediterranean vegetation characterized by evergreen hardwood forest (with a diverse species composition) combined with alluvial forest (Bohn et al., 2000/2003). In north-facing river valleys, including the area of Pelagonia, these Mediterranean habitats are alternated with sub-Mediterranean oak forests (dominated by Quercus ilex, Q. coccifera, Q. trojana, Q. macedonica) with hornbeam (Carpinus betulus) and ash (Fraxinus ornus). Higher altitudes include Sub-mediterranean Mountain forests dominated by beech and pine trees (Walter, 1985; Marinova, Ntinou, 2017). An important tree species in the study area is Cornus mas: used in the Neolithic period for the construction of fences and wattle-and-daub structures, while its fruits were also collected (Marinova et al., 2013). Palaeoecological research already offers much rich and well-structured data for the reconstruction of the Holocene vegetation – and the natural conditions of the Neolithic period in particular. The archaeobotanical data provides comprehensive knowledge about plant macroremains, pollen or charcoal, as well as many other aspects of palaeoecology (Marinova et al., 2012; Cvetkoska et al., 2014; Thienemann et al., 2016; Lespez et al., 2016; Marinova, Ntinou, 2017). Neolithic settlements were concentrated near water and natural raw material sources. In southeast Europe, there are two types of Neolithic settlement (Figure 1). The IANSA 2018 ● IX/2 ● 121–145 Jaromír Beneš, Goce Naumov, Tereza Majerovičová, Kristýna Budilová, Jiří Bumerl, Veronika Komárková, Jaromír Kovárník, Michaela Vychronová, Lucie Juřičková: An Archaeobotanical Onsite Approach to the Neolithic Settlements in Southern Regions of the Balkans: The Case of Vrbjanska Čuka, a Tell Site in Pelagonia, Republic of Macedonia 123 first type is a horizontal settlement (in other words – flat, extended) with a single layer of settlement (Tolevski, 2009; Nikolov et al., 2015; Pappa et al., 2004; Vuković et al., 2016). The second type is the tell settlement site, which constitutes several settled horizons, due to which the stratigraphy of the settlement is often high – sometimes up to several metres (Rosenstock, 2006; Nikolov, 2007; Darcque et al., 2007; Naumov, 2016). Settlements are usually open; however, fortified sites have been registered as well (Kotsakis, 1999; Raczky, 2015). The considerable stratigraphy of tells demonstrates how deep was the attachment between the inhabitants of a tell and its settled area. However, some tells constitute only two settled horizons and the height of the entire tell is not particularly significant; these tells could therefore be a kind of transitional form between the flat site and the tell-type settlement (Kreuz, Marinova, 2017). The Neolithic tell settlements are initially established in the region of Thessaly and further dispersed along the tributaries Figure 1. Location of Neolithic settlements in the southern Balkans. Settlements are divided by type. Explanatory notes: Legend explanations: S – unspecified type of settlement, C – cave, FS – flat settlement, FS-F – flat settlement with fortification, T – tell, T-F – tell with fortification, T-FS-F – Tell with surrounding flat settlement and fortification. Source: EnviroBalkan database (LAPE USB České Budějovice). Data and visualisation: T. Majerovičová, J. Bumerl. 1 – Pavlovac, 2 – Piperkov Chiflik, 3 – Bersin, 4 – Nevestino, 5 – Vaksevo, 6 – Priboy, 7 – Negovantsi, 8 – Pernik, 9 – Galabnik, 10 – Kremenik, 11 – Kraynitsi, 12 – Kamenik, 13 – Mursalevo, 14 – Drenkovo, 15 – Balgarchevo, 16 – Dobrinishte, 17 – Brezhani, 18 – Ilindentsi, 19 – Kovachevo, 20 – Kremikovtsi, 21 – Slatina, 22 – Slatina Gradini, 23 – Eleshnitsa, 24 – Chavdar, 25 – Ginova mogila, 26 – Rakitovo, 2