Context is everything indeed: a response to Sljivar and Boric.

Radivojevic, Miljana ; Rehren, Thilo ; Kuzmanovic-Cvetkovic, Julka 等

Introduction

Sljivar and Boric (above) challenge the validity of the archaeological context of the tin bronze foil found at the Vinca culture site of Plocnik and, therefore, its broader interpretation. The archaeological context, as described in Radivojevic et al. (2013), is recorded in the original field journals, annual field reports and academic publications for Plocnik (all of which were co-authored by Dusan Sljivar); these records support our earlier description of the context. Their criticisms of the broader interpretation of the tin bronze foil appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the nature of ores and metallurgy. Here we respond in detail to the challenges levelled at our interpretation.

The archaeological context of the Plocnik tin bronze foil

Since 1996, excavations at Plocnik have been undertaken under the joint direction of Dusko Sljivar and Julka Kuzmanovic-Cvetkovic. It was Kuzmanovic-Cvetkovic who, during the 2008 campaign, personally excavated the tin bronze foil in question (inv. C-397). The entry in the field journal from 23 September 2008 (Sljivar & Kuzmanovic-Cvetkovic 2009a: 6-7) does not mention a spoil heap, but records that a copper metal foil was found in spit 5. It states that the foil was an amorphous piece and that its form resembled the rim of a vessel (the vessel-like description is also noted in Sljivar et al. 2012: 33).

The field journal states that the archaeological context for the tin bronze foil was a burnt (dwelling) structure, in Trench 21, with a square fireplace in its south-east corner. The excavators note that this fireplace resembles the feature discovered in Trench 20 in 2007 (published in Sljivar & Kuzmanovic-Cvetkovic 2009b). Figure 2 in Radivojevic et al. (2013), showing the excavated features, is an adaptation of the sketch in the field journal, which attributes the features to spit 5 (Sljivar & Kuzmanovic-Cvetkovic 2009a: 32). The burnt structure also occupied spits 6 and 7; it was the only structure of its kind discovered in this trench. There is no suggestion in the journal that the foil "could belong to a possible horizon of 0.75m of cultural deposits" (Sljivar & Boric, this issue p. 1311). No later cultural intrusions were observed in Trench 21 or in the excavated material. We examined the excavated assemblage ourselves, and no later or intrusive elements were detected among the pottery--which was the most numerous category of all finds--either at a macro or micro level of analysis (Amicone in prep.). There is therefore no cause for believing that the context was contaminated.

The concluding remarks in the field journal (Sljivar & Kuzmanovic-Cvetkovic 2009a: 27-28) state that "a fragment of a foil [...] according to the relevant information, is securely dated within the Gradac phase of the Vinca culture"; it is also noted that its distinctive shape could suggest that it was a decorative item, "possibly a fragment of a sheath that was wrapped around some (decorative) object". The field journal's conclusion was written after the preliminary XRF analyses conducted in the National Museum in Belgrade by the UCL team in March 2009. It was only then that this find was correctly identified as a 'tin bronze foil'. At this point, however, the Vinca culture provenance of this find was not in doubt, despite its very distinctive chemical composition being known.

Sljivar and Kuzmanovic-Cvetkovic have stated consistently that the Vinca culture settlement in the village of Plocnik ends with the Gradac phase of this culture, that there are no later cultural intrusions within the estimated bounds of the prehistoric village, and that no Bubanj-Hum cultural horizon has ever been recorded at the site (e.g. Sljivar & Kuzmanovic-Cvetkovic 1997: 107, 1998a: 6, 1998b: 79; Sljivar et al. 2006: 256-57). The only later cultural intrusion noted at the site is on the settlements periphery, and is represented by a shallow human burial with pottery dated to the Roman period (recorded in the Plocnik field journal from 1998). These were recovered in the vicinity of Roman thermae, which are situated outside the prehistoric village of Plocnik (Kuzmanovic-Cvetkovic 1998: 40-41).

Thus, we maintain that Radivojevic et al. (2013: 1032-33, fig. 2) accurately presented the find's context based on the information recorded by Dusko Sljivar and Julka Kuzmanovic-Cvetkovic, and the doubts that have been subsequently raised about this (Sljivar & Boric, above) are unfounded. No doubt was ever placed on the firm provenance of the tin bronze foil; not on the day of discovery, not in the concluding remarks in the field journal and not in its first publication (Sljivar et al. 2012).

Dating

We turn now to questions raised concerning the AMS date of c. 4650 BC for the tin bronze. Radivojevic et al. (2013) do not claim to have directly dated the tin bronze foil; rather we state that it "comes from a single undisturbed occupation horizon [...] dated to c. 4650 BC [...] [which] is a terminus ante quem for the Plocnik foil" (Radivojevic et al. 2013: 1032). The AMS dates for the site of Plocnik come from three trenches (T14, T15 & T16), all located on a single (flat) river terrace, together with Trench 21, which was situated between T15 and T16. These trenches all exhibited three distinctive building horizons with identical characteristics of formation and depth. The uppermost building horizon belonged to the Gradac phase of the Vinca culture, represented by a diagnostic layer of dark soil, c. 0.4m to 1.1m below the present ground surface, corresponding to a single undisturbed building horizon (Sljivar et al. 2012: 32). The date attributed to the tin bronze foil is the end date for the Vinca culture occupation at Plocnik and is dated by material from Trench 16, spit 7 (Boric 2009: 197, 214, tab. 3). This is a terminus ante quem for the foil. Since the majority of the Vinca culture sites were abandoned between c. 4650 and 4600 BC (Boric 2009: 235), and we are confident about the context of the find, there is no reason to dispute the proposed dating.

Broader contextualisation of the Plocnik tin bronze foil

In our paper the similarities between 15 tin bronzes were determined by the distinctive geochemical pattern of these pieces. Our interpretation relied on the pioneering work of Evgenij Chernykh, who was the first to notice the distinctive compositional and typological features of a group of early tin bronzes (Chernykh 1978: 81). His chronological assumptions were confirmed by the securely contextualised Plocnik foil. Thorough analytical research has shown that no such distinctive geochemical pattern occurs again in this region for at least a millennium and a half (Radivojevic et al. 2013: 1037-38). It is next evident in Bosnian and Croatian tin bronzes (Govedarica et al. 1995), which emerged in a different cultural and technological milieu to those of the Vinca culture. A short episode of tin bronzes, set broadly from the mid to the late fifth millennium BC, is not strange in the world of technological inventions and innovations of early global metallurgy (e.g. Roberts & Thornton 2014).

Sljivar and Boric dispute the evidence for sources of tin. However, it seems they confuse cassiterite (Sn[O.sub.2]) and stannite ([Cu.sub.2] FeSn[S.sub.4]). We placed heavy emphasis on the use of tainted stannite, and the possible geological sources were considered in extensive detail in the online supplementary material to Radivojevic et al. (2013).

Sljivar and Boric question our hypothesis that the colour of tin bronzes was an important driving force for their production by pointing at the mismatch of absolute dates for the Plocnik tin bronze and Varna gold. Indeed, we illustrate our hypothesis using the example of gold from the Varna I cemetery, dated between 4560 and 4450 BC (Higham et al. 2007). Specialists in Balkan prehistory are, however, aware that there is earlier use of gold ornaments in the Varna II cemetery (Todorova & Vajsov 2001: 54) as well as in the cemetery of Durankulak (Avramova 2002: 193, 202, tab. 24; Dimitrov 2002: 147). The Durankulak finds are dated to the Hamangia IV phase, between c. 4650/4600 and 4550/4500 BC

(Bojadziev 2002: 67) and are therefore contemporary with the tin bronze from Plocnik. Thus, our assumption that a golden colour might have been an incentive for tin bronze production is not improbable.

More generally, the predominant use of copper did not prevent the emergence of gold in the fifth millennium BC Balkans, nor did it stop the use of lead (Glumac & Todd 1987). Sljivar et al. (2012: 35) also recognise the use of lead, bronze and gold within the Vinca culture, besides the dominant copper. Thus, the period in question quite rightly deserves the attribute 'polymetallic'.

Conclusion

The comments presented by Sljivar and Boric (above) remain at odds with both the archaeological and analytical evidence. The first of the two authors has for two decades been arguing that the metals discovered at the site of Plocnik belong to the Vinca culture; that the Vinca culture occupation at this site is undisturbed; and that Vinca culture populations used metals other than copper. Due to the significant contribution of Sljivar in developing archaeometallurgical research at the site of Plocnik, we had hoped that he would be a co-author of our 2013 paper.

We conclude by restating our confidence in the context of the tin bronze foil object, which was discovered--as shown in Radivojevic et al. (2013: fig. 2)--within a securely dated, undisturbed building horizon at the site of Plocnik. We are currently undertaking provenance studies on the early tin bronzes as well as pursuing investigation of the colour properties of experimentally produced tin bronzes of known composition; the results will be presented in a sequel to our 2013 paper. We are hopeful that they will inspire our colleagues to continue to challenge the conventional narrative of the development of metallurgy, and thereby increase our knowledge of a complex past.

References

AMICONE, S. In preparation. Pottery technology in the Vinca culture at the dawn of the metal age. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Institute of Archaeology, University College London.

AVRAMOVA, M. 2002. Der Schmuck aus den Grabern von Durankulak, in H. Todorova (ed.) Durankulak, Band II--Die prahistorischen Graberfelder von Durankulak, Teil 1: 191-206. Berlin & Sofia: Anubis.

BOJADZIEV, J. 2002. Die absolute Datierung der neo-und aneolithischen Graberfelder von Durankulak, in H. Todorova (ed.) Durankulak, Band II--Die prahistorischen Graberfelder von Durankulak, Teil 1: 67-70. Berlin & Sofia: Anubis.

BORIC, D. 2009. Absolute dating of metallurgical innovations in the Vinca culture of the Balkans, in T.L. Kienlin & B.W. Roberts (ed.) Metals and societies. Studies in honour of Barbara S. Ottaway. 191-245. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt.

CHERNYKH, E.N. 1978. Gorme Delo i Metallurgiya v Dreivneishei Bolgarii. Sofia: Bolgarskoi Akademii Nauk.

DIMITROV, K. 2002. Die Metallfunde aus den Graberfeldern von Durankulak, in H. Todorova (ed.) Durankulak, Band II--Die prahistorischen Graberfelder von Durankulak, Teil T. 127-58. Berlin & Sofia: Anubis.

GLUMAC, P. & J. Todd. 1987. New evidence for the use of lead in prehistoric south-east Europe. Archeomaterials 2: 123-45.

GOVEDARICA, B., E. PERNICKA & K.-F. RJTTERSHOFER. 1995. Neue Metallanalysen aus dem Westbalkangebiet, in B. Jovanovic (ed.) Ancient mining and metallurgy in southeast Europe'. 265-79. Belgrade: Archaeological Institute.

HIGHAM, T, J. CHAPMAN, B. GAYDARSKA, V. SLAVCHEV, N. HONCH, Y. YORDANOV & B. DIMITROVA. 2007. New perspectives on the Varna cemetery (Bulgaria)--AMS dates and social implications. Antiquity 81: 640-54.

KUZMANOVIC-CVETKOVIC, J. 1998. Prokuplje, gradsv. Prokopija. Prokuplje: Narodni muzej Toplice.

RADIVOJEVIC, M., TH. REHREN, J. KUZMANOVIC-CVETKOVIC, M. JOVANOVIC & J.P. NORTHOVER. 2013. Tainted ores and the rise of tin bronze metallurgy, c. 6500 years ago. Antiquity 87: 1030-45.

ROBERTS, B. & C.P. THORNTON (ed.). 2014. Archaeometallurgy in global perspective. Methods and syntheses. New York: Springer.

SLJIVAR, D. & J. KUZMANOVIC-CVETKOVIC. 1997. Plocnik near Prokuplje, the Vinca culture settlement. Journal of the Serbian Archaeological Society 13: 103-13.

--1998a. Najstarija metalurgija bakra na Plocniku kod Prokuplja, naselju vincanske kulture. Arheometalurgija (Belgrade) 6: 1-18.

--1998b. Plocnik near Prokuplje, excavation in 1997. Journal of the Serbian Archaeological Society 14: 79-85.

--2009a. Plocnik 2008. Field journal of Trench 21. September/October. Report prepared for the National Museum in Belgrade.

--2009b. Plocnik, archaeology and conservation. Diana (Belgrade) 13: 56-61.

SLJIVAR, D., D. JACANOVIC & J. KUZMANOVIC-CVETKOVIC. 2006. New contributions regarding the copper metallurgy in the Vinca culture, in N. Tasic & C. Grozdanov (ed.) Homage to Milutin Garasanin: 251-66. Belgrade: Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts & Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts.

SLJIVAR, D., J. KUZMANOVIC-CVETKOVIC & J. ZIVKOVIC. 2012. Belovode, Plocnik: on copper metallurgy in the Vinca culture. Zbornik Narodnog Muzeja (Belgrade) 20: 27-46.

TODOROVA, H. & I. VAJSOV. 2001. Der kupferzeitliche Schmuck Bulgariens (Prahistorische Bronzefunde 20.6). Stuttgart: Steiner.

Miljana Radivojevic (1), Thilo Rehren (2), Julka Kuzmanovic-Cvetkovic (3) & Marija Jovanovic (4)

(1) Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 31-34 Gordon Square, London WC1H 0PY, UK

(2) UCL Qatar, a partner of Hamad bin Khalifa University, PO Box 25256, Doha, Qatar

(3) Museum of Toplica, Ratka Pavlovica 11, 18 400 Prokuplje, Serbia

(4) Museum of Vojvodina, Dunavska 35, 21 000 Novi Sad, Serbia