ArticlePDF Available

Architecture of Lasinja culture settlements in the light of new investigations in northern Croatia

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

The site of Beketinci, Bentež, stands out among Lasinja settlements as the site of the largest uncovered surface - the excavation at 30 900m 2 revealed a portion of a Lasinja culture settlement. Its western part (covering 24 700m2) was dedicated to working activities (working features: clay-extraction pits, working pits, self-standing partitions, pottery kilns, and wells), while in the eastern, residential, part (extending over 6200m2 of excavated surface) we uncovered a cluster of 5 rectangular above-ground houses, two residential pit-houses, and five residential or working pit-houses. Absolute dates for this settlement span the period between 3900 and 3300 BC, dating it to the late phase of Lasinja culture.
Content may be subject to copyright.
333
Documenta Praehistorica XXXVIII (2011)
Architecture of Lasinja culture settlements
in the light of new investigations in northern Croatia
Kornelija Minichreiter and Zorko Markovic´
Institute of Archaeology, Zagreb, HR
kornedunav@inet.hr< zorko.markovic@iarh.hr
Introduction
The Lasinja culture was named after the village of
Lasinja on the Kupa River, south of Zagreb, in north-
ern Croatia (Dimitrijevi≤ 1961). Settlements of this
culture were discovered in the entire territory be-
tween the Sava, Drava and Danube rivers, from Vu-
kovar in the east to Velebit Mountain in the south-
west. Its distribution area covered northern and cen-
tral Croatia, northern Bosnia, western Hungary, Slo-
venia, and Austria, and in recent times its elements
were discovered also in western Serbia. It was for-
med in a peaceful way as a result of autochthonous
development, which is manifested in many of its fea-
tures, which preserve traditions from the Late Neo-
lithic in spite of the fact that it chronologically be-
longs to the Middle Eneolithic.
In Austria, Lasinja culture was discovered in the
1950s by Richard Pittioni (Pittioni 1954.208), and
in Slovenia and northwestern Croatia by Josip Ko-
ro∏ec (Koro∏ec 1958) in texts about individual sites.
In Hungary, it was distinguished by Nándor Kalicz
(Kalicz 1974), and in Bosnia by Alojz Benac (Benac
1964). In northern Croatia, the first investigations
of Lasinja culture were carried out in the mid-20th
century by the amateur archaeologist Vjekoslav Du-
ki≤ and the Vara∫din archaeologist Stjepan Vukovi≤.
Stojan Dimitrijevi≤ was the first to identify, systema-
tise, and name this culture as an independent Eneoli-
thic phenomenon (Dimitrijevi≤ 1961; 1979a; 1979b)
for northern Croatia, Slovenia, and Bosnia. In Trans-
danubia in Hungary, this culture is known as Bala-
ton-Lasinja.
Dimitrijevi≤ (1979a.146) divided this culture into
three developmental phases, including the site of Vis
I Modran near Derventa and some other sites in the
ABSTRACT – The site of Beketinci, Bente∫, stands out among Lasinja settlements as the site of the
largest uncovered surface – the excavation at 30 900m2revealed a portion of a Lasinja culture set-
tlement. Its western part (covering 24 700m2) was dedicated to working activities (working features:
clay-extraction pits, working pits, self-standing partitions, pottery kilns, and wells), while in the east-
ern, residential, part (extending over 6200m2of excavated surface) we uncovered a cluster of 5 rec-
tangular above-ground houses, two residential pit-houses, and five residential or working pit-houses.
Absolute dates for this settlement span the period between 3900 and 3300 BC, dating it to the late
phase of Lasinja culture.
IZVLE∞EK – Najdi∏≠e Beketinci, Bente∫ izstopa glede na druga najdi∏≠a kulture Lasinja kot tisto z naj-
ve≠jo odkrito povr∏ino – izkopavanje 30 900m2velike povr∏ine je odkrilo le del najdi∏≠a z lasinjsko
kulturo. Na zahodnem delu (izkopna povr∏ina je zna∏ala 24 700m2) so bile odkrite sledi dejavnosti,
povezanih z delom (kot so jame za izkopavanje gline, delovne jame, samostoje≠e pregrade, lon≠ar-
ske pe≠i in vodnjaki), medtem ko je bil v vzhodnem, bivalnem delu (izkopna povr∏ina je zna∏ala
6200 m2) odkrit skupek petih pravokotnih nadzemnih hi∏, dveh bivalnih jam in petih bivalnih ali de-
lovnih jam. Absolutni datumi naselje datirajo med 3900 in 3300 pr.n.∏t., kar najdi∏≠e postavlja v zad-
njo fazo lasinjske kulture.
KEY WORDS – above-ground houses; Lasinja culture; Beketinci; northern Croatia
DOI> 10.4312\dp.38.26
Kornelija Minichreiter and Zorko Markovic´
334
first phase. His II–A phase compri-
sed the sites of Ωdralovi and Velika
Mlinska, as well as most other sites
in Slovenia. The developed phase
(phase II–B) is represented mainly
by the finds from Beketinci and Pav-
lovac near Kri∫evci, while the third
phase consists mostly of sites in the
Po∫ega Basin and the finds from Ko-
∏ka, as well as from the sites in Hun-
gary etc. (Dimitrijevi≤ 1979a.151–
158). However, it was later establi-
shed that the bulk of the Slovenian
sites in fact belong to the so-called
Sava group of Lengyel culture (Gu-
∏tin 2005.7–22). Regardless of what
one thinks about a classification of
the Hungarian sites within a single
phase, this division is still accepted
today.
Kalicz looks for the origins of the
Balaton-Lasinja culture in the Bal-
kans (Kalicz 1995.40). Dimitrijevi≤
at first believed that the Sopot and
Baden cultures formed the substrate for Lasinja cul-
ture (Dimitrijevi≤ 1979a.166), while he later sugge-
sted that the substrate consisted of the Sopot, Vin-
≠a and Lengyel cultures (Dimitrijevi≤ 1979a. 168–
169). Zorko Markovi≤ proposed that the substrate
for the Lasinja culture consisted of three basic ele-
ments: 1) Sopot and Lengyel cultures, 2) Vin≠a and
Butmir cultures, 3) Hvar-Lisi≠i≤i culture (Markovi≤
1994.95). In this, one has to bear in mind that it is
today generally held that all these cultures contin-
ued their existence into the Early Eneolithic, i.e. pha-
ses Lengyel 3, Sopot 4, Vin≠a D–3, Early Eneolithic
phases of the Butmir and Hvar cultures (e.g. Kalicz
1995.Abb.2). It is also now thought that to these one
should perhaps add the Krivodol-Sa˘lcuta-Bubanj
Hum complex, which certainly influenced the emer-
gence and formation of the Lasinja culture (Kalicz
1995.40, Abb. 2).
Dimitrijevi≤ mapped Lasinja sites in Croatia, north-
ern Bosnia, Slovenia, western Hungary and Austria
(Dimitrijevi≤ 1979a.139–142). It should be empha-
sised that the finds from Slovenia are currently divi-
ded into those from the Lengyel culture and those
attributed to Lasinja culture proper (Gu∏tin 2005).
In Hungary, the data on the Lasinja and Retz-Gajary
cultures – initially considered as a single entity with
three developmental stages – are likewise being con-
tinually supplemented (Kalicz 1974; 1991; Somogyi
2000; Straub 2006 etc.). It should be pointed out
that it is presently accepted that Lasinja culture be-
longs to the Middle Eneolithic, i.e. after phases Leng-
yel 3 and Sopot 4, which date to the Early Eneolithic
(Markovi≤ 1994.28– 29). In absolute dates, this is
the period from around 4300 to 3900 BC.
The recently obtained dates for Lasinja sites in Cro-
atia allowed a fine-tuning of the position of this cul-
ture in absolute and relative chronological schemes.
The dates for Lasinja culture in Croatia range from
4350 to 3950 BC (Balen 2010.25):
Toma∏anci, Pala≠a 4340–3950 calBC;
Jurjevac, Stara Vodenica 4320–3940 calBC;
∑akova≠ki Selci, Pajtenica 4350–3710 calBC;
Jak∏i≤, grave 4320–4050 calBC;
Poto≠ani 4250–4040 calBC.
All these dates can be attributed to the earlier pha-
ses of Lasinja culture, phases I and II:
a Lasinja site at ∞epinski Martinci, Dubrava is da-
ted to the second quarter of the 4th millennium BC
(Kalafati≤ 2009.22);
a Lasinja site at Bente∫ near Beketinci yielded the
following dates for the late phase of the Lasinja
culture:
storage next to above-ground house 1 (pit
7183/7184), 3960–3770 calBC;
Fig. 1. Distribution map of Lasinja culture.
Architecture of Lasinja culture settlements in the light of new investigations in northern Croatia
335
NE foundation of house 4 (SJ 9119), 3810–
3640 calBC;
SE foundation of house 4/N foundation of house
5 (SJ 9835), 3770–3360 calBC.
Lasinja sites in central Croatia near Vara∫din yielded
the following dates:
Blizna 4208 calBC (Beki≤ 2006.95);
Groma≠e 4293 calBC (Beki≤ 2006.22);
Gornji Pustakovec 3569 and 3461 calBC (Beki≤
2006.184).
Balen (2010.26) finds the dates for Gornji Pustako-
vec too low, considering that they already match
those for the Boleráz and Retz-Gajary cultures.
The recent dating of these Lasinja sites has contribu-
ted to a more precise fixing of this culture in the
Eneolithic periodisation and ascertained the chro-
nological priority of Lasinja culture in relation to Ba-
den culture, proving the dating of the latter into the
Early Eneolithic untenable, placing it instead in the
Late Eneolithic.
Considering that the surfaces uncovered in previous
archaeological investigations were very small, our
picture of Lasinja culture settlements was incom-
plete. In the 1950s a portion of a long house (or
semi-pit-house in the opinion of S. Dimitrijevi≤) was
discovered at the site of Cerje Novo – Dragu∏evec
(NW Croatia). The house was 30–40m long, 2.28m
wide, and 0.30m deep. The post-holes along the
edge of the house indicated that it had a gable roof
(Dimitrijevi≤ 1979a.148). In addition to these data
on the distribution of Lasinja culture, we correct
here the attribution of the horizons from the Pepe-
lana tell near Virovitica (Minichreiter 1990.29–37):
three residential horizons attributed at first to the
Retz-Gajary culture are, in fact, late Lasinja, which
also features elements resembling those of Retz-
Gajary culture, which was the reason for the initial
inaccurate attribution. Portions of house bases were
also discovered in northern Bosnia at the Vis-Modran
site (Beli≤ 1964).
The most recent excavations on the route of the in-
ternational highway Budapest–Plo≠e, Osijek–∑ako-
vo– Sredanci section have revealed – in addition to
other cultures – the remains of Lasinja settlements
at 10 sites. Three of these sites on which a large area
of Lasinja settlements was excavated yielded pit-
structures as well as above-ground houses. Absolute
dates showed that the settle-
ments in Toma∏anci, Pala≠a
and in ∞epinski Martinci, Du-
brava date to the middle-de-
veloped phase of Lasinja cul-
ture, while the settlement at
Beketinci, Bente∫ dates to the
late phase. These new data
definitely establish that Lasi-
nja culture employed not
only pit-dwellings and work-
ing pits, but also above-
ground houses for dwelling,
which is a tradition that can
be traced back to the Neoli-
thic Star≠evo culture (Slavon-
ski Brod, Galovo and Vinkov-
ci), through the Sopot and
Vin≠a cultures to the Eneoli-
thic. A number of investiga-
tions of prehistoric sites in
eastern Slavonia have shown
that the tradition of pit-house
dwelling was maintained un-
til the arrival of the Romans
(Kupina, east of Slavonski
Brod, a Late Iron Age – La Tè-
ne settlement).
BEKETINCI – BENTE?
Z–Lab. No. Sample description 14C age (BP) Calibrated age
Prehistoric settlement
of Lasinja culture
Z–4373 Pit 7183\7184, 5057±81 3960–3770 calBC (68,2%)
kv. a44, U–687, #1
Z–4375 NE fondation of House 4, 4954±108 3940–3870 calBC (14,8%)
9119, kv. f51, U–785, #3 3810–3640 calBC (53,4%)
Z–4376 SE fondation of House 4, 4787±168 3770–3360 calBC (68,2%)
9835, kv. e51, U–794, #4
Fig. 2. Chronological tables of Lasinja culture.
Kornelija Minichreiter and Zorko Markovic´
336
Toma∏anci, Pala≠a
An above-ground residential structure measuring 15
x 9m, oriented NW-SE, was discovered in a part of
a Lasinja settlement at the site of Toma∏anci, Pala-
≠a, located 12km south of the site of Beketinci, Ben-
te∫. The house had a rectangular ground plan with
two rooms of different sizes. The foundation rows
for the wall were reinforced by a series of uprights
(perhaps a narrow porch), while a large load-bear-
ing post stood in the centre of the larger room. Two
semi-circular trenches for a fence (presumably a
stock pen) abut the house on the northwest. Another
room measuring 5 x 5m abuts on the house on the
south. A similar arrangement was discovered at Be-
ketinci, Bente∫ (house 4 and house 5). A large pit-
house filled with Lasinja pottery was discovered
southeast of the house. All the dates obtained from
this pit-house are Late Bronze Age, suggesting that
this space had served for the disposal of refuse over
an extended period (Balen 2010).
∞epinski Martinci, Dubrava
The Lasinja settlement at ∞epinski Martinci, Dubra-
va consisted of above-ground structures on a small
elevation, while working pits and wells were located
in the lower ground. This working zone (in the opi-
nion of the director of the excavation, H. Kalafati≤)
points to seasonal use, considering the high ground-
water level during winter. This settlement yielded a
number of above-ground structures, which can be di-
vided into two types. The first type (similar to Toma-
∏anci and Beketinci) had a rectangular ground plan,
a NW-SE alignment, was up to 15m long, and gene-
rally consisted of several rooms, sometimes with a
porch. The second type had a square ground plan
and was around 11m long. Smaller square structures
were built adjacent to larger rectangular structures.
It is possible that this was a combination of residen-
tial structures (larger) and smaller farm buildings
(Kalafati≤ 2009).
Beketinci, Bente∫
The site of Beketinci, Bente∫, stands out among La-
sinja settlements as the excavation site with the
Fig. 3. Toma∏anci, Pala≠a. Lasinja settlement (af-
ter J. Balen 2008).
Fig. 4. ∞epinski Martinci, Dubrava. Lasinja settle-
ment.
Architecture of Lasinja culture settlements in the light of new investigations in northern Croatia
337
largest uncovered surface – 30 900m2– which re-
vealed a portion of a settlement. In its western part
(24 700m2), the site contained a working area (stru-
ctures of working character – pits for clay extraction,
working pits, self-standing fences, pottery kilns, and
wells), while the eastern part (6200m2) was residen-
tial, with 5 houses of rectangular base, 2 residential
pit-dwellings and 5 residential or working pit-dwel-
lings. Among the houses, mostly 5x10m large, house
4 (12 x 30m) stands out as the biggest above-ground
structure of Lasinja culture so far discovered in Cro-
atia. Radiocarbon dates ranging from 3900 to 3300
BC place this settlement in the late phase of the cul-
ture (Minichreiter 2009.141–148).
Above-ground house 1
Above-ground house 1 was erected in the west part
of the residential area of the settlement. It had a re-
ctangular plan with bedding-trenches with sill-beams
into which vertical timber posts were recessed at re-
gular intervals. The northern, eastern and southern
walls had timber foundations, whereas the western
side of the house contained only four earth-fast tim-
ber posts at uniform intervals. The house was 8.5m
long west-east, and 5.80m wide north-south. The lay-
out of posts within the house suggests that it was di-
vided into two rooms: the western – larger – one
measuring 6 x 5.5m and the eastern – smaller – one
measuring 2 x 5.5m. An entrance one metre wide
opened in the centre of the south wall, protected by
a small porch supported by posts recessed into a
short timber beam projecting at a right-angle outward
to the house foundations. Thick wooden posts, 30–
40cm in diameter, were deeply sunk into the ground
at all four corners of the house. Pairs of posts of si-
milar size were set at regular intervals along the
north and south walls, so that together with the cor-
ner posts on the outside of the timber foundations
there were four posts in a row. In addition to seve-
ral stakes within the larger room, a hole from one
of the main load-bearing uprights was found in the
centre of the room. Not a single pottery vessel was
found within this or other above-ground houses. Mo-
vable household inventory – shards of coarse round
and biconical vessels and pots, as well as fragments
of fine small bowls and jugs – was found in the large
circular pit (measuring 3.5 x 3m, 80cm deep) south
of the house, which presumably served for storage.
Fig. 5. Beketinci, Bente∫. Plan of the Lasinja settlement (drawing: Arheo plan d.d.).
Kornelija Minichreiter and Zorko Markovic´
338
Above-ground house 2
Above-ground house 2 was built
around 35m south of house 1. Its
alignment and ground plan were the
same as those of houses 1 and 3.
Compared with the other two hous-
es, house 2 was the longest. Its re-
ctangular plan consisted of the north
and south walls, which were 11.5m
long; the east wall was 5.4m long;
while the west wall was 5m long. The
foundations consisted of large tim-
ber sill beams (up to 40cm in diame-
ter) on all four sides. Posts 50cm in
diameter were set at all four corners
of the house, with another pair of
posts along each wall on the outside,
set at uniform 4m intervals. These
posts supported the roof, which was
probably gabled. The foundation
beams in the eastern side of the house were larger
and sunk more deeply, suggesting that the house
may have had an upper floor on that side. Unlike
house 1, which had two rooms, house 2 was divided
into three rooms. The largest (western) room mea-
sured 6.7 x 4.8m, the central one was very narrow
with 1.20 x 4.8m (this may have been a staircase
leading to the upper floor), while the eastern room
was somewhat wider with 2 x 5m (possibly a storage
room). There were other rows of posts within the
house, and the entrance to the house – i.e. to the
large room – opened in the west side of the house
at the point where the timber foundations break off
and where a massive door post was sunk into the
ground. A shallow pit of irregular
shape measuring 2 x 1.5m was dug
in the centre of the western room.
The house was discovered next to
the southern boundary of the trench,
so it was not possible to investigate
the auxiliary features on the south-
ern side of the house. There were in-
dications of a pit – a storage space
similar to those adjacent to house 1
and house 3 – south of the house in
the form of ceramic shards in dark
soil, presumably marking a periphe-
ral segment of an uninvestigated pit
in the zone south of the house.
Above-ground house 3
Above-ground house 3 was built 50m
east of house 1. It had the same ori-
entation and shape as the other two,
but was slightly smaller: 8 x 4.5m. Each of its four
walls had timber foundations. The interior of this
house was not partitioned with posts like the other
two houses, but with a solid foundation – a timber
beam like those of the exterior walls. There were
two rooms in the house: the larger was in the west,
measuring 5 x 4m, and the smaller in the east, mea-
suring 2 x 4m. House 3 was entered from the south
through the smaller eastern room. The roof was sup-
ported with timber uprights on the outside set at all
four corners, with an additional post in the centre of
the north and south walls. The interior of the house
was reinforced with several rows of posts in the in-
terior of the large room. A large pit of irregular cir-
Fig. 6. Beketinci, Bente∫. House 1 of the Lasinja settlement (photo:
J. Sudi≤).
Fig. 7. Beketinci, Bente∫. House 2 of the Lasinja settlement (photo:
J. Sudi≤).
Architecture of Lasinja culture settlements in the light of new investigations in northern Croatia
339
cular plan, 2m in diameter, was recessed 50cm into
the virgin soil adjacent to the house on the east. It
was probably used as a storage pit because it resem-
bles the pit next to house 1 in terms of position,
form and inventory. The pit yielded a number of
fragments of coarse and fine pottery of different
types: bowls, buckets, jugs, small pots and pots with
beak-shaped handles, as well as grips and handles
with small horns. The fine pottery assemblage consi-
sted of fragments of jugs, bowls, footed cups and
jugs with handles decorated with linear motifs with
stabs. The pottery assemblage also included four
pans and several spoons. An above-ground house
with an identical ground plan and similar dimen-
sions with two rooms was found in
the neighbouring settlement of the
Lasinja culture at Pala≠a near Toma-
∏anci (Balen 2008.29–30).
Above-ground houses 4 and 5
A compound consisting of a large
house (4) with a smaller house (5)
and their common courtyard – large
pit-house 3 was built northeast of
houses 1 and 2, and north of house
3. Taking into consideration the size
and nature of these structures, it can
be presumed that this was the cen-
tre of this settlement. The purpose
and function of such a large struc-
ture remains unclear. Above-ground
house 4, oriented west-east, with its
size – 30 x 12m – is so far the largest
known Eneolithic house in these
areas. The foundations, dug up to
1m deep into the virgin soil, consi-
sted of timber beams recessed de-
eper on the eastern than on the
western side (like the foundations in
house 2). The walls were reinforced
on the outside at irregular intervals
with densely packed vertical posts.
The interior of house 4 was partitio-
ned with timber sill beams into three
rooms with a layout identical to
those of houses 1, 2 and 3. The lar-
gest room, measuring 14 x 12m, was
located in the west, where one en-
tered the house. The middle room
was smaller – 10.5 x 12m – and the
eastern room was the smallest of the
three at 4.40 x 12m. A distinctive
feature of this house was the fire-
place, in a pit 1.80m in diameter si-
tuated in the centre of the middle room. It seems
that fire did not burn freely in the fireplace, but
that cinders were introduced and maintained, be-
cause the quantity of charcoal and ashes is relatively
small, while the earth nevertheless shows signs of
burning. The layer of clay and gravel below this
burnt layer may have served to facilitate the preser-
vation of warmth and prevent further burning. In
certain structures, such a central recess is interpre-
ted as the base of the upright supporting the roof.
Here, however, the recess is very large, and there
are no traces of a burnt or decayed post. A shallow
pit of indeterminate function, measuring 5 x 3.5m,
abutted on the north on the central room. On the
Fig. 8. Beketinci, Bente∫. House 3 of the Lasinja settlement (photo:
J. Sudi≤).
Fig. 9. Beketinci, Bente∫. Houses 4 and 5 of the Lasinja settlement
(photo: J. Sudi≤).
Kornelija Minichreiter and Zorko Markovic´
340
opposite, southern side, the rectan-
gular above-ground house 5 was built
adjacent to it, aligned north-south
perpendicular to house 4, with which
it formed a single complex. House 5,
measuring 9 x 5m, was built in the
same way as the remaining houses in
the settlement – on timber sill beams.
It was divided into two rooms: the
larger, northern one, measuring 6 x
5m, and the smaller, southern one,
measuring 3 x 5m. It did not have an
entrance on the outside, so it could
presumably be entered only from
large house 4. A large – storage – pit
measuring 4 x 5m was recessed 1.5m
into the ground where house 5 abut-
ted at the right angle on house 4.
The interiors of houses 4 and 5, like
the other houses, did not yield any
pottery finds. Two smaller pits south and west of
house 5 in the courtyard (pit-house 3) of this com-
plex contained numerous fragments of coarse and
fine pottery: round and biconical bowls with a ton-
gue-shaped handle, footed bowls, pots with handles,
miniature footed bowls, decorated bowls, amphorae
with two handles, and spoons. A few pottery shards
were found also in the shallow pits near the en-
trance to large house 4 on its west and north sides.
A large fenced working area in the form of a shal-
low pit-house – which had a well on its south-eastern
side – extended along the south of the large house 4
and house 5 with the storage pit. This working area
– pit-house 3, sunk up to 40cm deep, 25m long and
20m wide, was fenced along its length with a dou-
ble row of alternating timber stakes. This fence con-
tinued on the outside of the well, breaking off at one
point to allow access to the well not only from the
working area, but also from this,
western (exterior) side. The well, 2.5
in diameter, was investigated to a
depth of 2m, at which point ground-
water appeared.
Pit-houses, bread ovens and pot-
tery kilns
Two large pit-houses with wells were
located in the eastern part of the
settlement. Their function is not en-
tirely clear, i.e. whether they served
a residential or working purpose.
There was a bread oven in the inte-
rior of pit-house 2, while there were
another two bread ovens in the open
air outside pit-house 1. There were four smaller wor-
king pits, a number of smaller pits with various fun-
ctions, and 12 self-standing partitions in the zone be-
tween the two large pit-houses.
Above-ground houses of rectangular plan were first
built in northern Croatia in the Sopot culture, where
such houses were discovered at settlements in Otok
and Sopot near Vinkovci, at Hermann Vineyard in
Osijek (Dimitrijevi≤ 1979b.270; Dimitrijevi≤, Te∫ak
Gregl and Majnari≤ Pand∫i≤ 1998.88, sl. 16; Krzna-
ri≤-πkrivanko 2006.11–15, sl. 1 and 2) and in Kru∏e-
vica near Slavonski πamac (Miklik-Lozuk 2005.37–38,
2006.51–53). The tradition of building timber above-
ground houses of rectangular plan continued through
the Neolithic and the Eneolithic, as corroborated by
the most recent discoveries of five Lasinja settle-
ments: Bente∫ in Beketinci; the site of Dubrava in
Fig. 10. Beketinci, Bente∫. Houses and pit-houses of the Lasinja set-
tlement (photo: J. Sudi≤).
Fig. 11. Beketinci, Bente∫. Pit-house 1 of the Lasinja settlement (pho-
to: J. Sudi≤).
Architecture of Lasinja culture settlements in the light of new investigations in northern Croatia
341
∞epinski Martinci, located 3km to
the north (Kalafati≤ 2009.21–22, sl.
5 and 6), and Pala≠a near Toma∏an-
ci, situated 12km to the south (Ba-
len 2008.29–31); rows of posts, pre-
sumably belonging to above-ground
structures, were discovered at the si-
tes of Stara Vodenica near Jurjevac
Punitova≠ki (4km to the south) and
Pajtenica near ∑akova≠ki Selci (23km
south of Beketinci). Furthermore,
identical rectangular above-ground
houses were found at Eneolithic set-
tlements in Hungary: Győr-Szabadrét-
domb from the Balaton-Lasinja/Lu-
danice phase (Virág, Figler 2007.
352, Fig. 2, 5–11), Veszprém from
phase IIb–III of the Lengyel culture
(Regenye 2007.Fig. 2, 3, 4), Zalavár-
Basasziget, a Balaton-Lasinja settle-
ment (Virág 2005.sl. 1), Szomba-
thely, a late Lengyel settlement (Ilon,
Farkas 2001.55–60, Fig. 3a, b, 4),
and Zalaegerszeg-Andráshida, Gébár-
ti tó (II) from the Balaton-Lasinja
phase (Barna, Kreiter 2006.48–50,
61: Fig. 1, 14, 15.1, 16.1, 17.1). In
Austria, above-ground houses were
found at settlements of the Bisam-
berg-Oberpullendorf group, which is
analogous to the Lasinja culture, at
Unterradlberg and Pottenbrunn (Rut-
tkay 1995.125, Abb. 7), and in Slo-
venia at the Lasinja settlement at So-
dolek (Kavur, Toma∫ and Mileus-
ni≤ 2006.122–123, sl. 3). The only
known find of an above-ground
house with a fenced courtyard from the site of Wetz-
leinsdorf in Austria (Neugebauer-Maresch 1995.Abb
42) can be mentioned as a remote analogy for house
3 with a fenced courtyard from Beketinci.
Fig. 12. Beketinci, Bente∫. Pit-houses 4 and 5 of the Lasinja set-
tlement (photo: J. Sudi≤).
Fig. 13. Beketinci, Bente∫. Pit-houses 6, 7 and 8 of the Lasinja set-
tlement (photo: J. Sudi≤).
Kornelija Minichreiter and Zorko Markovic´
342
BALEN J. 2008. Rezultati za∏titnih istra∫ivanja na trasi
autoceste Beli Manastir-Osijek-Svilaj. Arheolo∏ki muzej
u Zagrebu. Zagreb.
2010. Eneoliti≠ke kulture na prostoru isto≠ne Hrvat-
ske. Unpublished doctoral disertation, Filozofski Fakul-
tet u Zagrebu. Zagreb.
BARNA P. J., KREITER E. 2006. Middle Copper Age settle-
ments at Zalaegerszeg-Andráshida, Gébárti tó (II): preli-
minary results. Zalai Múzeum 15: 47–77.
BEKI≥ L. 2006. Za∏titna arheologija u okolici Vara∫di-
na, Arheolo∏ka istra∫ivanja na autocesti Zagreb-Gori-
≠an i njezinim prilaznim cestama. Ministarstvo kulture
Republike Hrvatske. Zagreb.
BELI≥ B. 1964. Vis, Modran, Derventa – vi∏eslojno prais-
torijsko naselje. Arheolo∏ki pregled 6: 22–23.
BENAC A. 1964. Prilozi za prou≠avanje neolita u sjevernoj
Bosni. Glasnik zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine
u Sarajevu 19: 129–134.
DIMITRIJEVI≥ S. 1961. Problem eneolita u sjeverozapad-
noj Jugoslaviji. Opvscvla Archaeologica 5: 5–78.
1979a. Lasinjska kultura. In A. Benac (ed.), Praistori-
ja jugoslavenskih zemalja III. Eneolitsko doba. Akade-
mija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Centar
za balkanolo∏ka ispitivanja, Sarajevo: 137–181.
1979b. O nekim kontroverznim pitanjima u kronologi-
ji eneolita ju∫nih podru≠ja Karpatske kotline (U povo-
du lasinjsko-salkucanskog horizonta u Vinkovcima).
Osje≠ki zbornik 17: 35–78.
DIMITRIJEVI≥ S., TEΩAK-GREGL T. and MAJNARI≥-PAN-
DΩI≥ N. 1998. Prapovijest. Naprijed. Zagreb: 82–88.
GUπTIN M. 2005. Savska skupina lengyelske kulture. In M.
Gu∏tin (ed.), Prvi poljedelci – savska skupina lengyel-
ske kulture. Annales, Koper: 7–22.
ILON G., FARKAS C. 2001. Houses of the Late-Lengyely
Settlement at the Boundary of Szombathely. In J. Regenye
(ed.), Sites and Stones; Lengyel Culture in Western Hun-
gary and Beyond; a review of the current research. Pro-
ceedings of the conference held on Oct. 11–13, 1999 in
Weszprém. Directorate of the Weszprém County Muse-
ums, Weszprém: 55–60.
KALAFATI≥ H. 2009. Za∏titna istra∫ivanja lokaliteta ∞epin-
ski Martinci-Dubrava na trasi autoceste Beli Manastir-Osi-
jek-Svilaj 2007. i 2008. g. Annales Instituti Archaeolo-
gici 5: 20–26.
REFERENCES
KALICZ N.1974. A balatoni csoport emlékei a Del-Dunán-
tuúlon (Funde der Balaton-Gruppe in Südtransdanubien).
A Jánus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve 14–15: 75–96.
1991. Beitraege zur Kenntnis der Kupferzeit im unga-
rischen Transdanubien. In J. Lichardus and R. Echt
(eds.), Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche. Sympo-
sium Saarbrücken und Otzenhausen 6.11.–13.11.1988.
Volume 1. Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde
Band 55. R. Habelt, Bonn: 347–387.
1995. Die Balaton-Lasinja-Kultur in der Kupferzeit Sud-
ost- und Mitteleuropas, Neuere Daten zur Siedlungsge-
schichte und Chronologie der Kupferzeit des Karpaten-
beckens. Inventaria Praehistorica Hvngariae VII: 37–
49.
KAVUR B., TOMAΩ A. and MILEUSNI≥ Z. 2006. Sodolek –
naselje bakrene dobe. In A. Toma∫ (ed.), Od Sopota do
Lengjela. Prispevki o kamenodobnih in bakrenodobnih
kulturah med Savo in Donavo. Annales, Koper: 121–
128.
KOROπEC J. 1958. Eine neue Kulturgruppe des späten
Neolithikums. Acta archaeologica Academiae Scientia-
rum Hungaricae 9: 85–93.
KRZNARI≥-πKRIVANKO M. 2006. Istra∫ivanja na Sopotu.
In A. Toma∫ (ed.), Od Sopota do Lengjela. Prispevki o ka-
menodobnih in bakrenodobnih kulturah med Savo in
Donavo. Annales, Koper: 11 – 19.
MARKOVI≥ Z. 1994. Sjeverna Hrvatska od neolita do
bron≠anog doba. Muzej grada Koprivnice. Koprivnica.
MIKLIK-LOZUK L. 2005. Kru∏evica, Njivice, Slavonski πa-
mac, za∏titno iskopavanje. Hrvatski arheolo∏ki godi∏njak
1: 37–38.
2006. Kru∏evica, Njivice, Slavonski πamac, za∏titno is-
kopavanje. Hrvatski arheolo∏ki godi∏njak 2: 51–53.
MINICHREITER K. 1990. Prvi rezultati arheolo∏kih istra-
∫ivanja u Pepelanama godine 1985. Arheolo∏ka istra∫i-
vanja u Podravini i kalni≠ko-bilogorskoj regiji, Izdanja
Hrvatskog arheolo∏kog dru∏tva 14: 19–38.
2009. Arhitektura eneoliti≠kog naselja lasinjske kulture
na lokalitetu Bente∫ u Beketincima. Histria Antiqua
18(1): 141 – 148.
NEUGEBAUER-MARESCH C. 1995. Mittelneolithikum: Die
Bemaltekeramik. Jungsteinzeit im Osten Österreichs. Ver-
lag Niederösterreichisches Pressehaus, St. Pölten-Wien:
57–109.
Architecture of Lasinja culture settlements in the light of new investigations in northern Croatia
343
PITTIONI R. 1954. Urgeschichte des österreichischen
Raumes. Deuticke. Wien.
REGENYE J. 2007. The late Lengyel Culture in Hungary as
reflected by the excavation at Veszprém. In J. Kozłowski
and P. Raczky (eds.), The Lengyel, Polgàr and related cul-
tures in the Middle/Late neolithic in Central Europe.
The Polish Academy of Arts and Science Krakow and Eöt-
vös Loránd University, Institute of Archaeological Scien-
ces, Budapest. Kraków: 381–396.
RUTTKAY E. 1995. Bisamberg-Oberpullendorf-Gruppe,
Jungsteinzeit im Osten Österreichs. Verlag Niederöster-
reichisches Pressehaus, St. Pölten-Wien: 118–128.
SOMOGYI K. 2000. A Balaton-Lasinja kultúra leletanyaga
Somogy megyében (Die Funde der Balaton-Lasinja Kultur
im Komitat Somogy). Communicationes Archaeologicae
Hungariae 2000: 5–48.
STRAUB P. 2006. Középsőrézkori település Sormás ha-
tárában (Middle Copper Age Settlement at Sormás). Ré-
gészeti kutatások Magyarországon 2005. Archaeological
Investigations in Hungary 2005: 33–40.
VIRAG Z. M. 2005. Middle Copper Age Ceramic Finds
from Zalavár-Basasziget (Some Considerations about the
typology and chronology of the Balaton-Lasinja Culture),
Zalai Múzeum 14: 37–52.
VIRAG Z. M., FIGLER A. 2007. Data on the settlement his-
tory of the Late Lengyel Period of the Transdanubia on
the basis of two sites from the Kisalföld (Small Hungarian
Plain). In J. Kozłowski and P. Raczky (eds.), The Lengyel,
Polgàr and related cultures in the Middle/Late neolithic
in Central Europe. The Polish Academy of Arts and Sci-
ence Krakow and Eötvös Loránd University, Institute of
Archaeological Sciences, Budapest. Kraków: 345–364.
... The overall layout indicates a distinction between different functional areas within the hamlet [65]. The layout and the building structures show similarities with the contemporary settlement structures of Transdanubia, Lower Austria, Slovakia, Moravia and Croatia [52,[58][59][60]62,[66][67][68][69]. ...
Article
Full-text available
In 2016, a Stollhof-type copper hoard was found during an excavation in Magyaregres, Hungary. It was placed in a cooking pot, and deposited upside down within the boundaries of an Early Copper Age settlement. Similar hoards dating to the end of the 5th millennium BCE are well-known from Central Europe, however, this hoard represents the only one so far with thoroughly documented finding circumstances. The hoard contained 681 pieces of copper, 264 pieces of stone and a single Spondylus bead, along with 19 pieces of small tubular spiral copper coils, three spiral copper bracelets, and two large, spectacle spiral copper pendants. Until now, information on the provenance of raw materials and how such copper artefacts were manufactured has not been available. The artefacts were studied under optical microscopes to reveal the manufacturing process. Trace elemental composition (HR-ICP-MS) and lead isotope ratios (MC-ICP-MS) were measured to explore the provenance of raw materials. The ornaments were rolled or folded and coiled from thin sheets of copper using fahlore copper probably originating from the Northwestern Carpathians. A complex archaeological approach was employed to reveal the provenance, distribution and the social roles the ornaments could have played in the life of a Copper Age community. Evidence for local metallurgy was lacking in contemporaneous Transdanubian sites, therefore it is likely that the items of the hoard were manufactured closer to the raw material source, prior to being transported to Transdanubia as finished products. The method of deposition implies that such items were associated with special social contexts, represented exceptional values, and the context of deposition was also highly prescribed. The Magyaregres hoard serves as the first firm piece of evidence for the existence of a typologically independent Central European metallurgical circle which exploited the raw material sources located within its distribution.
... Osijek region (Marković 2009;Minichreiter and Marković 2011a;Minichreiter and Marković 2013). The number of sites increased in other regions at this period and it is possible that the population increase was the reason for that. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
In the Našice region, situated on one of the main routes connecting central Carpathian basin with the northern Balkan region, over 200 archaeological sites from prehistoric and historic times were identified by field survey and archaeological excavations. Supported by the Croatian Science Foundation project “Strategic use of landscape” (IP-11-2013-3700) analysis of site locations for different periods was made. Information thus obtained was combined with information about natural resources (such as water springs, woods, arable land, pedological and geological base etc.) in the observed region and, when possible, with wider regional cultural impact. This provided insight into the role of landscape in the settlement strategies, use of natural resources and communication routs and their change over time. The results show change of position of strategic points over time but they also show that the pattern of their distribution in certain periods was a constant. The information collected by this project can be used in modern time strategies of settlement, agriculture, industry, water management etc.
... One of these complexes -referred to as the Lasinja Culture (ca. 4300/4100-3900/3700 BC) (Minichreiter and Marković 2011;Samonig 2003) -encompassed the region between the Danube and the Save Rivers and the Eastern Alps, between north-western Croatia, Slovenia, western Hungary, Styria and parts of Carinthia, and of the southern Burgenland area. There were contacts to the north; however the northern expansion of the Lasinja Culture is uncertain. ...
... From the Slavonian region, we also have 14 C dates from several Lasinja culture sites excavated before the construction of a highway between ∑akovo and Osijek (Balen 2008.Tab. 1;Minichreiter, Markovi≤ 2011. Fig. 2), which are situated about 30km from Vinkovci-Sopot. ...
Article
Full-text available
In the paper, Bayesian analysis of 14C dates implemented in the OxCal program is used to develop calendric time-scale chronologies of individual sites and archaeological cultures of the 5th millennium calBC in Slovenia and Croatia. Case studies are presented in which 14C dates are analy- sed and reinterpreted with the aid of contextual archaeological data. At the site level, stratigraphic sequences are used in models to constrain and then precisely date activities within them. At the re- gional level, the results of the chronological modelling of archaeological cultures are used to present them on a calendric time-scale and within a broader spatial framework of Central and Southeastern Europe. Special emphasis is placed upon critical comparison of modelled calendar and cultural se- quences. On the basis of this comparison, some inconsistencies and contradictions in the relative chronological schemes of periods and archaeological cultures are presented.
Middle Copper Age settlements at Zalaegerszeg-Andráshida, Gébárti tó (II): preliminary results
  • J Barna P
  • Kreiter E
BARNA P. J., KREITER E. 2006. Middle Copper Age settlements at Zalaegerszeg-Andráshida, Gébárti tó (II): preliminary results. Zalai Múzeum 15: 47-77.
Vis, Modran, Derventa – vi∏eslojno praistorijsko naselje
BELI≥ B. 1964. Vis, Modran, Derventa – vi∏eslojno praistorijsko naselje. Arheolo∏ki pregled 6: 22–23.
Prilozi za prou≠avanje neolita u sjevernoj Bosni
  • Benac A
BENAC A. 1964. Prilozi za prou≠avanje neolita u sjevernoj Bosni. Glasnik zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine u Sarajevu 19: 129-134.
Problem eneolita u sjeverozapadnoj Jugoslaviji Lasinjska kultura Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja III. Eneolitsko doba. Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Centar za balkanolo∏ka ispitivanja
DIMITRIJEVI≥ S. 1961. Problem eneolita u sjeverozapadnoj Jugoslaviji. Opvscvla Archaeologica 5: 5–78. 1979a. Lasinjska kultura. In A. Benac (ed.), Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja III. Eneolitsko doba. Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Centar za balkanolo∏ka ispitivanja, Sarajevo: 137–181. 1979b. O nekim kontroverznim pitanjima u kronologiji eneolita ju∫nih podru≠ja Karpatske kotline (U povodu lasinjsko-salkucanskog horizonta u Vinkovcima).
Savska skupina lengyelske kulture
  • M Guπtin
GUπTIN M. 2005. Savska skupina lengyelske kulture. In M.
Za∏titna istra∫ivanja lokaliteta ∞epinski Martinci-Dubrava na trasi autoceste Beli Manastir-Osijek-Svilaj
KALAFATI≥ H. 2009. Za∏titna istra∫ivanja lokaliteta ∞epinski Martinci-Dubrava na trasi autoceste Beli Manastir-Osijek-Svilaj 2007. i 2008. g. Annales Instituti Archaeologici 5: 20–26.