Mobile and Terrestrial but Firmly Rooted on the River Banks: Biological Anthropology of Lepenski Vir

Advances in Anthropology

2012. Vol.2, No.3, 117-124

Published Online August 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/aa) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/aa.2012.23014

Mobile and Terrestrial but Firmly Rooted on the River Banks:

Biological Anthropology of Lepenski Vir and the Iron Gates

Gorge Mesolithic

Mirjana Roksandic

Department of Anthropology, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Canada

Email: m.roksandic@uwinnipeg.ca

Received May 13th, 2012; revised June 12th, 2012; accepted June 22nd, 2012

Archaeological interpretation often links both the European Mesolithic and the complexity with reduced

mobility and permanent or semi-permanent settlements. The Iron Gates Gorge (IGG) Mesolithic, on the

banks of the Danube, with substantial formal disposal areas for the dead and canonized architecture, espe-

cially as manifested at the site of Lepenski Vir, fully conforms to this notion. Different aspects of bioar-

chaeological analysis—when evaluated concurrently—offer a counter-intuitive picture: at the time of its

most complex development, the site of Lepenski Vir represented a focal point for a larger, more mobile

hunter-gatherer group that identified with the site, its burials and its smaller resident population. The arti-

cle explores the evidence provided by human skeletal remains and possible reasons behind these contra-

dictory results.

Keywords: Biological Anthropology; Bioarchaeology; Europe; Mesolithic; Lepenski Vir; Mobility;

Hunter-Gatherers

Introduction

For a number of reasons—including excavation practices,

resolution of the available documentation and the state of pub-

lication—human skeletal remains represent the most direct

source of information on life and experience of the people who

inhabited the Iron Gates Gorge in the Mesolithic and left behind

impressive artistic achievements, habitation sites and burial

grounds that bear witness to the complex world they created.

Skeletal information—the ultimate material evidence of a life

lived—is rarely fully integrated into archaeological research

(Ogilvie, 2006; Sofaer, 2006), and while bioarchaeological data

are recognized sources of information on diet, health and life-

style (a good overview is provided by Larsen, 2002), the disci-

pline offers little to the current ambition of anthropological

archaeology to understand past societies as living, ever-chang-

ing entities. In the following pages, basing my discussion on

skeletal evidence, I summarize the findings of biological an-

thropology research in its archaeological context and give one

of more plausible pictures of regional developments that led to

the formation of the Mesolithic village of Lepenski Vir at the

time it reaches its fullest artistic and ritual significance. Careful

examination of bioarchaeological data suggests that the Meso-

lithic complex of Lepenski Vir should not be regarded as a

static entity, but rather as a cultural phenomenon that during its

existence experienced continuous change in terms of both its

mobility and its resource base. The pattern that bioarchaeologi-

cal data suggest is counterintuitive: the major artistic and archi-

tectural developments on the site, associated with a specific

locus—the Iron Gates Gorge—and a specific resource—fish—

happens only when the major part of the population no longer

inhabits the riverine sites and no longer subsists largely on fish.

Thus the shift in mobility and economic pattern is not reflected

in the material culture in a straightforward way. Rather, the

burials at Lepenski Vir and the associated material culture

could have represented the process of re-establishing the social

bonds through enacting the past: a repository of social memory

(sensu Van Dyke & Alcock, 2003) and a focal point for group

identity in the times of change.

Although the present study relies on biological data, it does

not proceed through formal hypothesis testing for a number of

reasons: our samples are not unbiased, they are relatively small,

and formal hypothesis testing often precludes more engaged

interpretation (Price, 1995). Most of all, the insights reported in

this paper are a product of years of research, reading and pon-

dering on the “thick” meaning (sensu Carr & Case, 2006;

Geertz, 1967) of the skeletal material in the Iron Gates Gorge;

they are an attempt to discern what the observed patterning can

tell us about the nature of these sites and their inhabitants.

While incomplete and limited, the information embedded in

human osteological material provides some interesting and

unexpected insights into the significance and meaning of the

Lepenski Vir site for its inhabitants and a larger group that

identified itself with the site.

The Iron Gates Gorge Mesolithic

The four Mesolithic sites on the right bank of the Danube—

Padina, Lepenski Vir, Vlasac, Hajdučka Vodenica—(Figure 1)

were characterized by a relatively large number of burials (30

to 140 each) and trapezoidal houses (Babović, 1997; Jovanović,

1966a, 1966b, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1974; Srejović, 1966,

1968, 1969, 1971, 1972), and—in the case of Lepenski Vir—

with elaborate large sculptures often representing fish and other

river beings (Babović & Srejovic, 1981). On a fertile plain

downstream from the gorge, excavations at Schela Cladovei

M. ROKSANDIC

Figure 1.

The map of iron gates gorge with mesolithic and early neolithic sites

(inset shows the Balkan peninsula with the position of the iron gates

gorge).

unearthed more than 40 Mesolithic burials (Boroneanţ, 1973;

Boroneanţ et al., 1999), while Ajmana and Velesnica, two Neo-

lithic sites contemporaneous with Neolithic components of

Lepenski Vir, were interpreted as showing similarities in archi-

tecture and burial practices with the IGG Mesolithic (Stalio,

1986; Vasić, 1986). Most of the early discussions centered on

the Mesolithic vs. Neolithic nature of the sites. Concurrent with

general developments in Mesolithic archaeology that no longer

viewed this period as a prelude to the Neolithic, a more en-

gaged interpretation of Iron Gates Gorge Mesolithic started to

take shape in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

The paradigm change in the 1980s that brought about in-

creased interest in the Mesolithic populations was not the only

reason to shift focus from farmers to indigenous hunter-gath-

erers in studying transition to the Neolithic in the Balkans. The

Mesolithic IGG sites are the only sites in the region where con-

tact between these groups could be traced archaeologically,

through occurrence of items and features traditionally related to

the “Neolithic package” in the Mesolithic context (see Bonsall,

2008; Bonsall et al., 2004, 2008; Borić & Dimitrijević, 2007;

Radovanović, 2006). While 14C dates indicate contemporaneity

of Mesolithic and Neolithic communities outside of the Iron

Gates Gorge (Bonsall et al., 2004, 2008; Garašanin & Rado-

vanović, 2001; Radovanović, 2006; Tasić, 1997), the existing

archaeological record does not offer any straightforward evi-

dence of contact between hunter-gatherers and early food pro-

ducers elsewhere in the region. As Radovanović (2006) pointed

out, the few sites in the Morava valley, all of them Middle Neo-

lithic, may only indicate a possibility of such a contact (the

availability phase of Zvelebil, 1996), since the time of their

occupation overlapped with the Late Mesolithic and Early Neo-

lithic in the nearby Danube Gorges. Skeletal remains spanning

this time period are not known from any other sites in the

vicinity. Apart from the Anzabegovo material further south in

the Skopska dolina, very few skeletal remains of Early Neo-

lithic inhabitants of the Central Balkans are available (Borić,

1999; Stefanović, 2000), leaving us to look for patterns of in-

teraction through comparison of pre- and post-contact archaeo-

logical and bioarchaeological data of the Mesolithic sites in the

IGG.

There is little doubt in the current literature that an economy

based on domesticated plants and animals was an import into

Gregg, 1988; Van Andel & Runnels, 1995). Even the pig,

which was considered as a locally domesticated species in the

IGG (Bolomey, 1973), was shown to be an import (Boroneanţ

& Dinu, 2006; Dinu, 2006), leaving little doubt that the Neo-

lithic moved into the Balkans as a developed phenomenon.

Whether this movement happened through adoption of agricul-

ture or actual movement of agricultural populations is still de-

bated and unlikely to be resolved in the near future. While none

of the authors excludes the possibility of “fluid boundaries”

(Borić, 2005), dichotomy between foragers and farmers is a

potentially useful and empirically valid analytical tool (Zvelebil

& Rowley-Conwy, 1986). According to Zvelebil and Rowley-

Conwy’s model, a small-scale society would depend on less

than 5% of agricultural products in their diet in the availability

phase due to some form of contact with a farming community;

the substitution phase would include 5% - 50% of domesticates;

and the consolidation phase more than 50%. A statistically

negligible percentage of societies tabulated by Hunn and Wil-

liams (1982) reflected 5% - 50% participation of agricultural

products (substitution phase), implying that this phase is unsta-

ble and probably of a very short duration. According to these

data, small-scale societies would be either hunter-gatherers or

farmers, not likely to exist for any longer period of time in the

intermediary, unstable substitution phase (Rowley-Conwy,

2004; as summarised by Radovanović, 2006). This, of course,

does not mean that societies can practice only one or the other

type of subsistence consistently, or exclusively, but that the

model will classify these societies based on the percentage of

produced food. While classifications are not objective entities,

they are commonly used in analytical procedures as they allow

comparisons between different phenomena. Limited as these

terms are, foragers, farmers, Mesolithic and Neolithic still con-

fer a particular sets of meanings, and are used on a regular basis

even by their most ardent opponents (see Roksandic, 2000a).

The importance of populations practicing agriculture to our

understanding of the dynamics of the Mesolithic groups does

not stem from the notion of the frontier model that emphasizes

resistance and subjugation, as suggested by Borić (2005), but

from the fact that—even when there was no contact or active

recognition—the existence of different subsistence practices in

the same general area would have influenced how these groups

perceived themselves and each other (Radovanović, 2006).

While individual members of either group will not necessarily

base their actions in opposition to the “others”, a number of

parameters in their everyday life would have changed and have

repercussions on their understanding and expression of self.

Thus the contact would have brought about changes and re-

quired a re-evaluation of the cultural norm for the groups in-

volved. Radovanović’s (1996) interpretation of greater ideo-

logical integration thus cannot be understood as “perpetuating

this type of model… for the sake of proving acceptable, force-

fully coherent and most of all recognizable accounts” (Borić,

2005). On the contrary, it provides a flexible framework for

re-evaluation of personal experiences at the time of change. In

this context “Contact” period should be understood as a time

when actual physical contact of foraging and farming commu-

nities in the Balkans was possible, regardless of whether it

happened or what particular form it took (see Roksandic, 2000a).

The Mesolithic period is reserved for the Holocene hunter-

gatherers in the region prior to the possible contact, and Neo-

lithic for the communities whose subsistence relied on more

than 50% of domesticated foods. Thus Mesolithic, Contact and

the Central Balkans (Barker, 1985; Evans & Rasson, 1984;

118

M. ROKSANDIC

Neolithic should be understood as potentially meaningful ana-

lytical units.

Biodistance Studies

Until relatively skeletal material

re of skeletal collections and archaeological

)) suggested

recently, studies of human

om the IGG sites were concerned with individual sites and

conducted primarily within the paradigm of “anthropotypo-

logy” (Mikić, 1981; Nemeskeri, 1969; Nemeskeri & Lengyel,

1978; Nemeskeri & Szathmary, 1978c; Schwidetzky & Mikic

1988; Živanović, 1976, 1979). As discussed elsewhere (Rok-

sandic, 2000a), both Nemeskeri and Mikić were strongly influ-

enced by Srejović’s understanding of the archaeology of the

region, and concerned with origins and in situ genesis of the

IGG population. Regardless of paradigmatic shift and associ-

ated discourse, their data merit re-evaluation and possibly a

reinterpretation.

Given the natu

ncerns with introduction of agriculture to the region, biodis-

tance studies, which allow us to estimate the level of related-

ness between different populations or individuals, seem to be a

reasonable first step in analyzing population biology of the

region. Two types of data—non-metric and metric—are used to

analyze biodistance in archaeological populations, and there is

a substantial body of literature arguing for their relative validity

(see Buikstra et al., 1990). The following brief overview of

their conceptual and methodological requirements for a non-

specialist stresses the utility of combining these different path-

ways of understanding in building archaeological interpreta-

tions. One could claim, at a very general level of archaeological

inquiry, that the main conceptual difference between these sets

of analyses is that non-metric (discrete, or epigenetic) traits

require archaeologically determined populations as units of

comparison, while metric data analyses use individuals within

the population as units of comparison. Non-metric traits are

threshold characters (De Stefano et al., 1984) expression of

which depends on underlying genetic background (inheritance)

and environmental conditions (nutrition, occupation, climate or

any other factor and combinations of factors). Appearance of

any set of traits in several individuals within a group cannot be

used to argue fort their biological relatedness (Sjøvold, 1977);

the units of analysis have to be pre-set archaeological sub-

populations. The results obtained indicate whether cumulative

traits for a sub-population A are similar or distinct to cumula-

tive traits for a sub-population B, or sub-population C, and so

on. It is critically important for this type of analysis that the

sub-populations compared make “archaeo”-logical sense. The

method works best when comparing large sub-samples or popu-

lations that can be easily distinguished temporally, geographi-

cally, or by their material culture. Graphic representation usu-

ally takes a form of a dendrogram or a multidimensional scaling

plot (Sjøvold, 1984; Wilkinson et al., 1996). While no two

populations will be exactly the same in terms of non-metric

traits expression, close proximity on a dendrogram indicates

relatedness, while a horseshoe pattern on the multidimensional

scaling plot will be indicative of temporal change.

Analysis of non-metric traits (Figures 2(a) and (b

at the IGG Mesolithic/Contact/Neolithic population is best

understood as an initially heterogeneous, single-breeding popula-

tion (Roksandic, 2000a) that changed over more than 2000

years of more or less continuous occupation of the area. This

temporal change is expressed by the Guttman effect (horseshoe

(a) (b)

Figure 2. mensional scaling plot and (b) Dendrogram of the MMD

attern) of the multidimensional scaling plot of site/chronology

necessary here. It is quite possible that

s shifts to an individual

(a) Multidi

values for the site/chronology sub-samples (Adapted from Roksandic,

2000): LVPM = Lepenski Vir Mesolithic; LVC = Lepenski Vir Contact;

LVN = Lepenski Vir Neolithic; HVPC = Hajdučka Vodenica Contact;

VM = Vlasac Mesolithic; VC = Vlasac Contact; FR = Franzhausen, a

Bronze Age site in Austria as an outlier (Wiltschke-Schrotta, 1992).

subgroups. The fact that at the time of the adoption of agricul-

ture in the IGG we cannot perceive any substantial change in

non-metric traits, strongly suggests that there is no abrupt

change in population. Those who already lived in the general

area most likely adopted agricultural practices without any

influx of newcomers. A more pronounced population change

happened at the time of the possible contact (“availability

phase”), rather than at the time of the adoption of domesticates.

This change could have resulted from two or more mutually

non-exclusive processes: an influx of a new population into the

area, and cultural integration over a larger area with an exten-

sion of marriage networks. When the same non-metric data

discussed are represented as a dendrogram (Figure 2(b)) it can

be more clearly observed that Lepenski Vir Contact and Le-

penski Vir Neolithic individuals cluster together, and that they

are removed from both the Mesolithic and the Contact popula-

tions at other sites in the region. The existing archaeological

record shows that the adoption of farming (or husbandry) was

accompanied by the adoption of the Middle Neolithic Starčevo

material culture and burial practices between 5900 BC (Borić &

Dimitrijević, 2007) and 5500 BC (Garašanin & Radovanović,

2001; Srejović, 1972). While it would be easy to interpret this

pattern as an influx of “farmers” into the site of Lepenski Vir at

the time of contact, the general lack of significant differences

between the plotted values among the subgroups, as well as

continuation of Lepenski Vir material culture, requires a less

simplistic explanation.

A cautionary note is

y assignment of individuals into one or the other period,

while based on a thorough review of published and unpublished

documentation, was incorrect. However, when compared to

published dates (Bonsall et al., 2000, 2004, 2008; Borić &

Dimitrijević, 2007; Borić & Miracle, 2004), only one out of 20

available dates was not in accordance with the period assigned

on the basis of its stratigraphic position. Thorough analysis of

unpublished documentation, moreover, brought into serious

question the premature dismissals of Srejović’s interpretation of

stratigraphy at Lepenski Vir (Perić & Nikolić, 2004). The result,

while not conclusive, is encouraging; however, it is still possi-

ble that the picture would be different if absolute dates were

available for each individual skeleton.

When examining metric data, the focu

M. ROKSANDIC

ues suggested that, both in

) con-

d on neuro-

the unit of analysis. Multivariate statistics allow us to ob-

serve grouping patterns based on relative position of individu-

als on a plot. A re-examination of the available metric data

from the sites, based on published measurements (Mikić, 1981;

Nemeskeri & Szathmary, 1978a, 1978b), is warranted as the

authors used univariate statistics. I re-examined their metric

data with Principal Components Analyses (PCA) and tests of

variance to increase their interpretative potential and compared

them with findings based on the measurements of the postcra-

nial skeleton (Roksandic, 2000a).

In 1978 Nemeskeri and colleag

ood types (Nemeskeri & Lengyel, 1978) and metrics (Ne-

meskeri & Szathmary, 1978a), women were more homoge-

nous than men at Vlasac. While blood type analysis results are

not deemed reliable, my own analysis of non-metric traits indi-

cated that Contact period women in the IGG were less removed

from Mesolithic men and women than Contact men (Roksandic,

2000a). Multivariate analysis of the postcranial data for the

whole series confirmed the pattern (Figure 3), with women

clustering together at one part of the diagram. All of this sug-

gested a possibility of greater homogeneity of women and

therefore a matrilocal residence pattern. However, the analyses

of cranial metrics presented here resulted in a much more com-

plicated picture that does not support this suggestion.

The PCA plot of neurocranial measurements (Figure 4

adicts the statement that the “heterogeneity in absolute mea-

sures and indices is more significant in the case of males than in

the case of females” (Nemeskeri & Szathmary, 1978b: p. 178).

On the first and second principal components, which explain

43% and 34% of the variation, we can observe a substantial

overlap between males and females. A similar pattern is ob-

served with second and third principal components. This ex-

plains why crania and postcrania produced different results in

sex assessment. While male crania are a bit larger (more to-

wards the right side of the diagram on the first component), the

overlap is substantial. Male and female variances for the first

three principal components were compared using a modified

Levene’s test based on the median rather than the mean. The

assumption of normality for the sex-specific distributions of

each principal component was assessed using a Wilks-Shapiro

test prior to formal comparison of male and female variances.

None of the sex-specific distributions deviated significantly

from normality at the α = 0.05 level. None of the comparisons

of male and female variances indicated a significant difference.

Further comparisons based on chronology show that males

clearly separate from females on the second component in the

Mesolithic, and show strong overlap in the Contact period; the

Neolithic sample is too small to allow any meaningful conclu-

sions. Of interest for the Neolithic sample is that it is dispersed

over the whole plot, countering the notion that the Neolithic

group is a very different population (Grupe et al., 2003). This is

important, as the trend we observe in both dietary analyses

where Neolithic skeletons group together, and in the postcranial

skeleton where Neolithic females group together in the lower

range of size variation, could be misleading if taken at face

value. Facial measurements and indices were available only for

Vlasac, and show no significant differences in variance be-

tween males and females, although males can be distinguished

on the basis of the size of mandible and maxilla more readily

than is the case with neurocranial measurements.

Such strong differences between PCA plots base

anial measurements3 and postcranial data require explanation.

Figure 3. sis of the postcranial measurements for the Iron Gates Gorge PCA analy

series. Squares: males; Circles: females; Black squares and circles:

Mesolithic; White with a dot/square in the middle: Contact; White:

Neolithic. Variables included in the analysis: Humerus maximal di-

ameter, Radius anteroposterior diameter, femur maximum diameter of

the head, femur anterior posterior subtrochanteric diameter, femur

medial lateral subtrochanteric diameter.

Figure 4.

of neurocranial measurements. Components 2 and 3 that

e can exclude sampling error, as the observed discrepancy

PCA plot

emphasize shape rather than size are presented. Squares: Males; Circles:

Females. Black squares and circles: Mesolithic; White with a dot/

square in the middle: Contact; White: Neolithic; L = Lepenski Vir; V =

Vlasac; Variables included in the analyses are Martin 1, 8, 9, 17, 20 and

26. Based on measurements by Nemeskeri and Szatmary (1978) and

Mikić (1991).

persists when we remove the individuals that do not have cra-

nial measurements from the postcranial PCA plot. It is, there-

fore, most likely that we are dealing with different pressures

affecting cranial and postcranial bones in which postcranial

elements are likely to show greater growth plasticity and sus-

120

M. ROKSANDIC

ceptibility to environmental influences than the cranium. While

there are no studies specifically examining the effect changes in

the environment during ontogeny have on cranial size dimor-

phism, increased differences in postcranial size (particularly

long bone lengths) do not necessarily mean that women and

men were fed different diets, more likely men were more ad-

versely affected by suboptimal environments, which results in

reduced size dimorphism (c.f. Nikitovic & Bogin, 2012).

Diet

Diet certainly played a sint role not only in skeletal

e questions are no doubt extremely important, if

gnifica

asticity, but also in our understanding of the Mesolithic/Neo-

lithic interface. Diet and its implications for the mode of change

from gathering to farming have been hotly debated for Western

and Northern Europe (Milner et al., 2004; Richards & Hedges,

1999; Richards & Schulting, 2006) as well as for the Balkans

(Bonsall et al., 1997, 2000; Borić et al., 2004; Grupe et al.,

2003; Radovanović & Voytek, 1997). These vivid discussions

centered on three questions: 1) Was there a shift towards more

terrestrial diet between early and later phases? 2) Were domes-

ticates or wild animal species more responsible for the per-

ceived shift? 3) What were the implications for the adoption of

agriculture?

While thes

e ignore them for the time being and concentrate simply on

the patterning of the δ15N and δ13C isotope values for individu-

als (Figure 5), we can perceive substantial differences in the

dietary spectrum between the three examined sites: Lepenski

Vir, Vlasac and Schela Cladovei. Schela Cladovei presents a

very tight cluster of isotope values that match the relatively

tight clustering of absolute dates of most burials, and strongly

canonized burial practices (Boroneanţ, 1973, 1980; Boroneanţ

et al., 1999). Vlasac, with larger number of individuals, greater

Figure 5. of δ15N and δ13C isotope values for Lepenski Vir, Schela

ing diversification of the resources at the site of

Based on discreestimates obtained

Scatterplot

Cladovei, and Vlasac; Circles: Lepenski Vir; Black: Mesolithic; White:

Neolithic; White with a black dot: Contact; White with one line: Unde-

termined; Squares: Vlasac; Black: Mesolithic; White with a black squ-

are: Contact; Triangles: Schela Cladovei (all Mesolithic period burials).

time depth, and more varied burial customs, still shows clus-

tering: Mesolithic and Contact diets at this site overlap substan-

tially with slightly more restricted range for the Mesolithic

individuals, where fewer individuals show lower δ13C values.

The Lepenski Vir pattern is the same as that of Vlasac for the

Mesolithic period. Contact and Neolithic individuals show a

significantly different distribution. As already observed by

Bonsall and collaborators (2004), the diet of post-contact indi-

viduals at Lepenski Vir is far more varied than would be ex-

pected for a local sedentary group. Their observation holds true

with inclusion of the additional data set from Borić and col-

leagues (2004). Bonsall and colleagues (2004) proposed a num-

ber of possible explanations: social, environmental and techno-

logical factors that could have induced Lepenski Vir inhabitants

to diversify their resources. Environmental changes accompa-

nied by a restriction of the available territory seem to be

strongly supported by remains of material culture (see Rado-

vanović, 2006 for discussion), with flooding as a major factor

in near abandonment of the area between 6300 and 5900 cal BC,

as suggested by Bonsall and collaborators (2000, 2002). The

exception would be the settlement of Lepenski Vir, where the

duration of the climatic oscillation that brought about wetter

conditions and floods corresponded to the time of construction

of the Lepenski Vir I structures. The floors made of a heavy-

duty mixture of limestone and sand (Ney, 1971), unique in the

whole Iron Gates area, represent Lepenski Vir at its most com-

plex cultural manifestation. Construction of these sturdy floors

at that particular time was interpreted as a protection of struc-

tures from being washed away by flooding (see also Chapman,

2000: p. 195) as was the displacement of the houses further up

slope for both Lepenski Vir and Padina (Radovanović, 1996).

While this scenario is plausible (for a critique see Borić &

Miracle, 2004), it is not critical for our argument here. It is just

one of a number of other intrinsic and extrinsic factors that

could have been responsible for a temporary change in the mo-

bility pattern.

When propos

epenski Vir as an explanatory mechanism for substantial die-

tary variation, Bonsall and colleagues did not consider another

likely explanation, namely that this site—both as a burial

ground and a focal point—attracted at this time a more dis-

persed group of individuals that identified themselves with

Lepenski Vir. Thus a fully mobile hunter-gatherer population

could have been using this “sedentary/semi-sedentary site” as

focal points for burial of their select dead. This would account

for the appearance at Lepenski Vir site at that time of individu-

als with “exotic” trace element signatures (Boric, 2006). As

both dietary and non-metric traits suggest that population of

Lepenski Vir during Contact times was more divergent from

the preceding Mesolithic population and more variable than at

other IGG sites, this explanation seems to me the most parsi-

monious.

Demographic Data

pancy between fertility

rough calculation of juvenile/adult ratio (J/A) and mean

childhood mortality (MCM) (Jackes, 2010), Jackes, Meiklejohn

and I demonstrated a strong bias in the post-contact Lepenski

Vir population, not observed in other periods at Lepenski Vir,

or at other sites in the region (Jackes et al., 2008). The burial

population of Lepenski Vir site does not represent an unbiased

M. ROKSANDIC

sample of the population that occupied the site. It represents a

select group of individuals, but the selection was not necessa-

rily based on age, sex or any other obvious attribute.

Discussion

Identification of Lepeite with a special ritual

rt and

Acknowledgements

The initial studypossible by Wen-

REFERENCES

Babović, L. (1997). Loc Sanctuaries at Lepen-

Brad:

B. Cambridge: Cam-

Btline of the Late Epipalaeolithic economy at

Bedges, R. E., Higham, T. F., Pickard, C., &

B 997). Mesolithic and Early Neolithic in

Bal continuities and ruptures: Tradition, social

Bssentialism: Unsettling frontiers of

B(1999). Places that created time in the danube gorges and

Bge”

nski Vir as a s

le in the landscape of the IGG hunter-gatherers has never

been contested. What I suggest here, on the basis of bioarchae-

ological data, is that Lepenski Vir exerted this special ritual role

at its pinnacle through a combination of limited resident popu-

lation and a much larger non-resident, highly mobile population

that identified with the site as an ancestral place of mythical

and ideological prominence. That this happened at the time

when possible environmental pressures forced them to change

the way of life from a sedentary community with emphasis on

fishing to a more mobile community with emphasis on terres-

trial hunting and gathering is counter-intuitive, but not impos-

sible. The change in itself could have been sufficient to prompt

a more elaborate artistic representation of “the mythical past”.

Coupled with the appearance of a different mode of subsistence

in the relative vicinity, it required a closer examination and

adherence to the “olden ways” and a stronger identity building,

as Srejović (1972) had already indicated. The observation that

people from a larger territory identified themselves sufficiently

with Lepenski Vir to bury their dead in the area with estab-

lished lineage and ancestral significance signals that the site

played an important role in the maintenance of group identity

when the gorges themselves played an insignificant (or reduced)

role in their subsistence. It could be claimed that the site(s)

acquired this special role precisely because the ancestral terri-

tory and associated subsistence strategy and lifestyle were

threatened. The IGG Mesolithic people who were forced at the

time to observe a more mobile hunter-gatherer way of life,

maintained group cohesion and identity by association with

sites and objects that no longer played a role in subsistence, but

increasingly in ideological integration based on ancestral terri-

tory and ancestral myth. This could explain the burst of artistic

activity, and the fact that these symbolic, artistic endeavors

were connected with fish which, while still no doubt included

in the diet, no longer played a critical role in subsistence.

On a final note, archaeology is a discipline between a

ience, and we can hardly hope to “prove” one scenario or

another. It is per force circumstantial and depends on “thick”

interpretation of available data. Biological anthropology, while

firmly based in biological science, suffers no less from the

same problems of interpretation. This paper presents one possi-

ble scenario, indicated by a number of analyses that taken indi-

vidually could not be considered conclusive. When we consider

the length of occupation of the Iron Gates gorge by the same

Mesolithic group, alternating mobility should not be surprising.

Given the nature of archaeological sites, it is relatively rare that

archaeological or bioarchaeological data offer a glimpse into

these changing conditions.

of the material was made

r-Gren grant No. 6250. My sincere gratitude goes to Rastko

Cvekić, Dejana Vlak and Dr. Michael Schillaci for numerous

fruitful discussions and substantial comments on the first draft

of this paper.

ation and function of the

ski Vir. In M. Lazić (Ed.), Uzdarje dragoslavu srejoviću/antidoron

dragoslavo srejović (pp. 97-108). Beograd: Filozofski Fakultet.

abović, L., & Srejović, D. (1981). Umetnost Lepenskog vira. Beog

Narodni Muzej.

arker, G. (1985). Prehistoric farming in Europe

bridge University Press.

olomey, A. (1973). An ou

the “Iron Gates”: The evidence of bones. Dacia N.S., 17, 41-52.

onsall, C. (2008). The Mesolithic of the iron gates. In G. Bailey, & P.

Spikins (Eds.), Mesolithic Europe (pp. 238-279). Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press.

onsall, C., Cook, G. T., H

Radovanović, I. (2004). Radiocarbon and stable isotope evidence of

dietary change from the Mesolithic to the Middle Ages in the Iron

Gates: New results from Lepenski Vir. Radiocarbon, 46, 293-300.

onsall, C., Macklin, M. G., Payton R. W., Boroneanţ, A. (2002). Cli-

mate, floods and river gods: Environmental change and the Meso-

Neolithic transition in Southeast Europe. Before Farming, 3-4, 15.

onsall, C., Cook, G. T. et al. (2000). Stable Isotopes, radiocarbon an

the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the Iron Gates. Documenta

Praehistorica, 27, 119-132.

onsall, C., Lennon, R. et al. (1

the Iron Gates: A palaeodietary perspective. Journal of European Ar-

chaeology, 5, 50-92.

orić, D. (2006). Cultur

memory and re-presentation in Balkan prehistory I. Lisbon: Union of

Pre- and Protohistoric Sciences.

orić, D. (2005). Deconstructing e

the Meso-Neolithic Balkans. In D. Bailey, A. Whitlle, & V. Cum-

mings (Ed.), (Un)settling the Neolithic (pp. 16-31). Oxford: Oxbow

Books.

orić, D.

beyond, c. 9000-5500 BC. Documenta Praehistorica, 26, 41-70.

orić, D., & Dimitrijević, V. (2007). When did the “Neolithic packa

reach Lepenski Vir? Radiometric and faunal evidence. Documenta

Praehistorica, 34, 53-72.

orić, D., & Miracle, P. (2004) Mesolithic and Neolithic (dis)continuities

in the Danube gorges: New AMS dates from padina and hajducka

Vodenica (Serbia). Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 23, 341-371.

doi:10.1111/j.1468-0092.2004.00215.x

orić, D., G. Grupe, Peters, J., & Mikić, Ž. (2004). Is the Mesolithic- B

Neolithic subsistence dichotomy real? New stable isotope evidence

from the Danube gorges. European Journal of Archaeology, 7, 221-

248. doi:10.1177/1461957104056500

oroneanţ, A., & Dinu A. (2006). The BRomanian Mesolithic and the

B). Recherches archéologiques sur la culture Schela

Bnski

transition to farming. A case study: The Iron Gates. Studii de Preis-

torie, 3, 41-76.

oroneant, V. (1973

Cladovei de la zone des “Portes de Fer”. Dacia, N.S. 107, 5-39.

oroneant, V. (1980). Probleme ale culturi Schela Cladovei-Lepe

Vir in lumina noilor cercetari. Drobeta, 4, 27-42.

Boroneant, V., Bonsall, C. et al. (1999). A Mesolithic burial area at

Schela Cladovei, Romania. In A. Thévien, P. Bintz, & A. Thévenin

(Eds.), L’Europe des derniers chasseurs: Épipaléolithique et Méso-

lithique. Actes du 5e colloque international de l’UISPP, commission

XII, Grenoble 18-23 Septembre 1995 (pp. 385-390). Paris: Éditions

du Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques.

uikstra, J. E., Frankenberg, S. R. et al. (1990). Skeletal biological

distance studies in American physical anthropology: Recent trends.

American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 82, 1-7.

doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330820102

arr, C., & Case, D. T. (2006). CGathering Hopewell. Society, ritual,

and ritual interaction. New York: Springer Science and Media Inc.

hapman, J. (2000). Fragmentation in archaeology, people, places and

broken objects in the prehistory of South-Eastern Europe. London:

122

M. ROKSANDIC

Routledge.

e Stefano, G. F., Hauser, G. et al. (1984). Reflections on interobserver

differences

in scoring non-metric traits (with practical examples).

Journal of Human Evolution, 13, 349-355.

doi:10.1016/S0047-2484(84)80041-X

inu, A. (2006). The question of pig domestication

Gates. Ph.D. Thesis, Madison: Universi

Dat Mesolithic Iron

ty of Wisconsin-Madison.

Evans, R. K., & Rasson J. A. (1984). Ex balcanis lux? Recent devel-

opments in Neolithic and chalcolithic research in Southeast Europe

American Antiquity, 49, 713-741. doi:10.2307/279738

arašanin, M., & Radovanović I. (2001). A pot in house 54 at Lepenski

Vir I. Antiquity, 75, 118-125.

ithic Europe. Chicago: University of

f meso- and neolithic populations of Central Europe.

unter-gatherers (pp. 1-16). Canberra: Australian In-

B. A. Glencross (Eds.), Social Bioar-

Ra-

Pregled, 8, 102-103.

goslavica, 7, 31-34.

10, 89-93.

iz XIV veka. Arheološki

. Journal Journal of Archaeological Research, 10, 119-166.

Gregg, S. A. (1988). Foragers and farmers: Population interaction and

agricultural expansion in Neol

Chicago Press.

rupe, G., Mikić, Z. et al. (2003). Vertebrate food webs and subsis-

tance strategies o

In G. Grupe, & J. Peters (Eds.), Documenta archaeobiologiae:

Dechypering ancient bones (pp. 196-213). Rahden: Verlag Marie

Leidrof Gmbh.

unn, E. S., & Williams N. M. (1982). Introduction. North American

and Australian h

stitute of Aboriginal Studies.

ckes, M. (2011). Representativeness and bias in archaeological skeletal

samples. In S. C. Agarwal, &

chaeology (pp. 107-146). Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.

ckes, M., Roksandic, M., & Meiklejohn, C. (2008). The demography

of the djerdap Mesolithic/Neolithic transition. In C. Bonsall, I.

dovanović, & V. Boroneanţ (Eds.), Iron Gates gorge in the Meso-

lithic: New perspectives. BAR 1893 (pp. 77-88). Oxford: Archaeo-

press.

vanović, B. (1966a). Hajdučka Vodenica, praistorijsko nalaziste. Ar-

heološki

Jovanović, B. (1966b). Sculptures de la necropole de l’age du fer a Ha-

jducka vodenica. Arcaeologia Iu

Jovanović, B. (1967). Hajdučka Vodenica, nalazište gvozdenog doba.

Arheološki Pregled, 9, 55-57.

Jovanović, B. (1968). Padina, naselje starijeg neolita i starijeg gvozde-

nog doba. Arheološki Pregled,

Jovanović, B. (1969). Padina, naselje starijeg neolita i starijeg gvozde-

nog doba. Arheološki Pregled, 11, 129-136.

Jovanović, B. (1970). Padina—Naselje mezolita, starijeg neolita i stari-

jeg gvozdenog doba, rimska straza i ostava

Pregled, 12, 78-84.

vanović, B. (1974). Praistorija gornjeg Djerdapa. Starinar n.s., 22,

1-22.

Larsen, C. S. (2002). Bioarchaeology: The lives and lifestyles of past

people

doi:10.1023/A:1015267705803

ikić, Ž. (1981). Djerdapska serija kao antropološki model neoliti-

zacije. Glasnik Etnografskog Ins

tituta SANU, 30, 103-130.

eograd:

jović, & Z. Letica (Eds.), Vlasac. Me-

& Z. Letica (Eds.), Vlasac. Me-

D. Srejović, & Z. Letica (Eds.),

Srejović, & Z. Letica (Eds.),

ie anfaenge des Neo-

y in Guatemalan children. 81 Annual Meet-

nstruction, In F. Sellet, R. Greaves, &

Proceedings of

s. Documenta Pre-

nce and social complexity in the Djerdap Meso-

ropology perspective. Documetna Prehistorica,

rgh 30 March-2 April 2000. The European Archaeolo-

er Anthropologie. Godisnjak Centra za Balska-

boratory.

. W. Howells

85-87.

ologa Jugoslavije, 6, 21.

elgrade Univer-

Thesis, Belgrade: Belgrade University.

:10.1002/9780470774304

Nemeskeri, J. (1969). Stanovništvo Lepenskog Vira (Prethodni iz-

veštaj). In D. Srejović (Ed.), Lepenski Vir (pp. 239-262). B

Srpska Književna Zadruga.

emeskeri, J., & Lengyel I. (1978). Laboratory examination on the

vlasac bone finds. In D. Sre

zolitsko naselje u djerdapu (pp. 261-284). Beograd: SANU. 2 Ge-

ologija, Biologija, Antropologija.

emeskeri, J., & Szathmary L. (1978a). Analysis of the variation of

quantitative traits. In D. Srejović,

zolitsko naselje u djerdapu (pp. 157-176). Beograd: SANU. 2 Ge-

ologija, Biologija, Antropologija.

emeskeri, J., & Szathmary L. (1978b). Individual data on the vlasac

anthropological series. Vlasac. In

Mezolitsko naselje u Djerdapu (pp. 285-426). Beograd: SANU. 2

Geologija, Biologija, Antropologija.

emeskeri, J., & Szathmary L. (1978c). Taxonomical structure of the

vlasac mesolithic population. In D.

Vlasac. Mezolitsko naselje u Djerdapu (pp. 177-229). Beograd:

SANU. 2 Geologija, Biologija, Antropologija.

ey, P. (1971). Mineralogische analyse einer fussbodenprobe von

Lepenski Vir I. In H. Schwabedissen (Ed.), D

lithikums vom orient bis Nordeuropa (pp. 33-34). Köln: Teil 2:

Œstliches Mitteleuropa.

ikitović, D., & Bogin, B. (2012). Ontogeny of sexual size dimorphism

and environmental qualit

ing of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, Port-

land, 11-14 April 2012, 224.

gilvie, M. D. (2006). Changing mobility roles at the advent of agri-

culture: A biobehavioral reco

P.-L. Yu (Eds.), Archaeology and ethnoarchaeology of mobility (pp.

155-183). Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

ice, D. T. (1995). Some perspectives on prehistoric coastal adapta-

tions and those who study them. In A. Fischer (Ed.),

the International Symposium, Kalundberg, Denmark 1993: Man and

sea in the Mesolithic: Coastal settlements above and below present

sea level (pp. 423-424). Oxford: Oxbow Books.

adovanović, I. (2006). Further notes on Mesolithic-Neolithic contacts

in the Iron Gates region and the Central Balkan

historica, 37, 1-8.

adovanović, I., & Voytek, B. (1997). Hunters, fishers or farmers:

Sedentism, subsiste

lithic. Analecta praehistorica Leidensia, 29, 19-31.

adovanovic, I. (1996). Iron Gates Mesolithic. Ann Arbor: University

of Michigen Press.

Roksandic, M. (2000a). Between foragers and farmers in the Iron Gates

gorge: Physical anth

27, 1-100.

oksandic, M. (2000b). Conference review: The Iron Gates in Prehis-

tory, Edinbu

gist, 15, 14-15.

chwidetzky, I., & Mikić, Ž. (1988). Lepenski Vir und das Grazilisa-

tionsproblem in d

noloska ispitivanja ANUBiH, 24, 113-123.

jøvold, T. (1977). Non-metrical divergence between skeletal popula-

tions. Stockholm: Osteological Research La

Sjøvold, T. (1984). A report on the heritability of some cranial meas-

urements and non-metric traits. In: G. N. van Vark, & W

(Eds.), Multivariate statistical methods in physical anthropology (pp.

223-246). Dorchester: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

ejović, D. (1966). Lepenski vir, Boljetin—Neolitsko naselje. Ar-

heološki Pregled, 8, 94-96.

Srejović, D. (1968). Lepenski vir (Boljetin)—Predneolitska i neolitska

naselja. Arheološki Pregled, 10,

Srejović, D. (1969). Lepenski vir. Nova praistorijska kultura u Po-

dunavlju. Beograd: SKZ.

Srejović, D. (1971). Predneolitske i neolitske kulture u Djerdapu. Ma-

terijali VIII kongresa arhe

Srejović, D. (1972). Europe’s first monumnetal sculpture: New discov-

eries at Lepenski Vir. Aylesbury: Themes and Hudso

Stalio, B. (1986). Le site prehistorique Ajmana a Mala Vrbica. Djer-

dapske sveske—Cahiers des Portes de Fer, 3, 27-35.

Stefanović, S. (2000). Arheološki Istražene i antropološki obrađene

nekropole na tlu srbije. Master’s Thesis, Belgrade: B

sity.

asić, N. (1997). Apsolutna hronologija neolita centralnog Balkana,

Ph.D.

Van Andel, T. H., & Runnels, C. N. (1995). The earliest farmers in

Europe. Antiquity, 69, 481-500.

Van Dyke, R. M., & Alcock, S. E. (2003). Archaeologies of memory.

Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. doi

de Fer,

River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

suchung der epigenetischen

Vasić, R. (1986). Compte-rendu des fouilles du site préhistorique à

Velesnica 1981-1982. Djerdapske Sveske, Cahièrs des Portes

3, 271-285.

ilkinson, L., Blank, G. et al. (1996). Desktop analysis with SYSTAT.

Upper Saddle

Wiltschke-Schrotta, K. (1992). Das fruhbronzezeitliche graberfeld von

franzhausen i, niederosterreich. 3. Unter

merkmale. Anthropologischer Anzeiger, 50, 27-49.

ivanović, S. (1976). Ostaci ljudskih skeleta iz praistorijskog nalazista

na Hajdučkoj Vodenici. Starinar, N.S., 26, 124-129.

Živanović, S. (1979). Further evidence on cromagnon in the Iron Gate

M. ROKSANDIC

124

gorge of the Danube. Current Anthropology, 20, 805.

doi:10.1086/202385

velebil, M. (1996). What’s in the name: the Mesolithic,

and social change at

Zthe Neolithic

the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition. In M. Ed-

Znd farmers of

monds, & C. Richards (Eds.), Understanding the Neolithic of North-

Western Europe (pp. 1-35). Glasgow: Cruithne Press.

velebil, M., & Rowley-Conwy, P. (1986). Foragers a

Atlantic Europe. In M. Zvelebil (Ed.), Hunters in transition (pp.

67-93). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

上一篇:Mapping Three-Dimensional Dens 下一篇:New Postcranial Hominin Fossil

我要分享到：

职称论文发表交流平台！

Mobile and Terrestrial but Firmly Rooted on the River Banks: Biological Anthropology of Lepenski Vir

最新文章NEWS

推荐期刊Tui Jian

热点文章HOT