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
ABSTRACT - The site of Beketinci, Bentež, stands out among Lasinja settlements as the site of the largest uncovered surface - the excavation at 30900m2 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.
IZVLEČEK - Najdišče Beketinci, Bentež izstopa glede na druga najdišča kulture Lasinja kot tisto z največjo odkrito površino - izkopavanje 30900m2 velike površine je odkrilo le del najdišča z lasinjsko kulturo. Na zahodnem delu (izkopna površina je znašala 24 700m2) so bile odkrite sledi dejavnosti, povezanih z delom (kot so jame za izkopavanje gline, delovne jame, samostoječe pregrade, lončarske peči in vodnjaki), medtem ko je bil v vzhodnem, bivalnem delu (izkopna površina je znašala 6200 m2) odkrit skupek petih pravokotnih nadzemnih hiš, dveh bivalnih jam in petih bivalnih ali delovnih jam. Absolutni datumi naselje datirajo med 3900 in 3300pr.n.št., kar najdišče postavlja v zadnjo fazo lasinjske kulture.
KEY WORDS - above-ground houses; Lasinja culture; Beketinci; northern Croatia
Introduction
The Lasinja culture was named after the village of Lasinja on the Kupa River, south of Zagreb, in northern Croatia (Dimitrijevic 1961). Settlements of this culture were discovered in the entire territory between the Sava, Drava and Danube rivers, from Vukovar in the east to Velebit Mountain in the southwest. Its distribution area covered northern and central Croatia, northern Bosnia, western Hungary, Slovenia, and Austria, and in recent times its elements were discovered also in western Serbia. It was formed in a peaceful way as a result of autochthonous development, which is manifested in many of its features, which preserve traditions from the Late Neolithic in spite of the fact that it chronologically belongs 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-rosec (Korošec 1958) in texts about individual sites. In Hungary, it was distinguished by Nandor 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-kic and the Varaždin archaeologist Stjepan Vukovic. Stojan Dimitrijevic was the first to identify, systematise, and name this culture as an independent Eneoli-thic phenomenon (Dimitrijevic 1961; 1979a; 1979b) for northern Croatia, Slovenia, and Bosnia. In Trans-danubia in Hungary, this culture is known as Bala-ton-Lasinja.
Dimitrijevic (1979a.146) divided this culture into three developmental phases, including the site of Vis I Modran near Derventa and some other sites in the
first phase. His II-A phase comprised the sites of Ždralovi 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 Križevci, while the third phase consists mostly of sites in the Požega Basin and the finds from Koška, as well as from the sites in Hungary etc. (Dimitrijevič 1979a.151-158). However, it was later established that the bulk of the Slovenian sites in fact belong to the so-called Sava group of Lengyel culture (Güstin 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 Balkans (Kalicz 1995.40). Dimitrijevic at first believed that the Sopot and Baden cultures formed the substrate for Lasinja culture (Dimitrijevič 1979a.166), while he later suggested that the substrate consisted of the Sopot, Vin-ca and Lengyel cultures (Dimitrijevič 1979a. 168169). Zorko Markovic proposed that the substrate for the Lasinja culture consisted of three basic elements: 1) Sopot and Lengyel cultures, 2) Vinca and Butmir cultures, 3) Hvar-Lisicici culture (Markovic 1994.95). In this, one has to bear in mind that it is today generally held that all these cultures continued their existence into the Early Eneolithic, i.e. phases Lengyel 3, Sopot 4, Vinca 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-Salcuta-Bubanj Hum complex, which certainly influenced the emergence and formation of the Lasinja culture (Kalicz 1995.40, Abb. 2).
Fig. 1. Distribution map of Lasinja culture.
2000; Straub 2006 etc.). It should be pointed out that it is presently accepted that Lasinja culture belongs to the Middle Eneolithic, i.e. after phases Leng-yel 3 and Sopot 4, which date to the Early Eneolithic (Markovič 1994.28- 29). In absolute dates, this is the period from around 4300 to 3900 BC.
The recently obtained dates for Lasinja sites in Croatia allowed a fine-tuning of the position of this culture in absolute and relative chronological schemes.
The dates for Lasinja culture in Croatia range from 4350 to 3950 BC (Balen 2010.25):
•	Tomasanci, Palaca 4340-3950 calBC;
•	Jurjevac, Stara Vodenica 4320-3940 calBC;
•	Dakovacki Selci, Pajtenica 4350-3710 calBC;
•	Jaksic, grave 4320-4050 calBC;
•	Potocani 4250-4040 calBC.
Dimitrijevic mapped Lasinja sites in Croatia, northern Bosnia, Slovenia, western Hungary and Austria (Dimitrijevič 1979a.139-142). It should be emphasised that the finds from Slovenia are currently divided into those from the Lengyel culture and those attributed to Lasinja culture proper (Güstin 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 continually supplemented (Kalicz 1974; 1991; Somogyi
All these dates can be attributed to the earlier phases of Lasinja culture, phases I and II:
•	a Lasinja site at Cepinski Martinci, Dubrava is dated to the second quarter of the 4th millennium BC (Kalafatič 2009.22);
•	a Lasinja site at Bentež 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;
■	NE foundation of house 4 (SJ 9119), 38103640 calBC;
■	SE foundation of house 4/N foundation of house 5 (SJ 9835), 3770-3360 calBC.
Lasinja sites in central Croatia near Varaždin yielded the following dates:
•	Blizna 4208 calBC (Bekic 2006.95);
•	Gromače 4293 calBC (Bekic 2006.22);
•	Gornji Pustakovec 3569 and 3461 calBC (BekiC 2006.184).
Balen (2010.26) finds the dates for Gornji Pustako-vec too low, considering that they already match those for the Boleraz and Retz-Gajary cultures.
The recent dating of these Lasinja sites has contributed to a more precise fixing of this culture in the Eneolithic periodisation and ascertained the chronological priority of Lasinja culture in relation to Baden 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
Fig. 2. Chronological tables of Lasinja culture.
picture of Lasinja culture settlements was incomplete. In the 1950s a portion of a long house (or semi-pit-house in the opinion of S. Dimitrijevic) was discovered at the site of Cerje Novo - Dragusevec (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 (Dimitrijevic 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 (Belic 1964).
The most recent excavations on the route of the international highway Budapest-Ploče, Osijek-Dako-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 settlements in Tomasanci, Palača and in Cepinski Martinci, Du-brava date to the middle-developed phase of Lasinja culture, while the settlement at Beketinci, Bentež dates to the late phase. These new data definitely establish that Lasinja culture employed not only pit-dwellings and working pits, but also above-ground houses for dwelling, which is a tradition that can be traced back to the Neolithic Starčevo culture (Slavonski Brod, Galovo and Vinkov-ci), through the Sopot and Vinča cultures to the Eneoli-thic. A number of investigations of prehistoric sites in eastern Slavonia have shown that the tradition of pit-house dwelling was maintained until the arrival of the Romans (Kupina, east of Slavonski Brod, a Late Iron Age - La Te-ne settlement).
	BEKETINCI	- BENTEŽ	
Z-Lab. No.	Sample description	14C age (BP)	Calibrated age
	Prehistoric settlement		
	of Lasinja culture		
Z-4373	Pit 7183/7184, kv. a44, U-687, #1	5o57±81	3960-3770 calBC (68,2%)
Z-4375	NE fondation of House 4, 9119, kv. f5i, U-785, #3	4954±1O8	3940-3870 calBC (14,8%) 3810-3640 calBC (53,4%)
Z-4376	SE fondation of House 4, 9835, kv. e51, U-794, #4	4787±168	3770-3360 calBC (68,2%)
Tomasanci, Palača
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 Tomasanci, Palača, located 12km south of the site of Beketinci, Ben-tež. 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-bearing 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, Bentež (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).
Cepinski Martinci, Dubrava
The Lasinja settlement at Cepinski 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 opinion of the director of the excavation, H. Kalafatic) 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-
Fig. 4. Cepinski Martinci, Dubrava. Lasinja settlement.

m	■
Fig. 3. Tomasanci, Palača. Lasinja settlement (after J. Balen 2008/
vided into two types. The first type (similar to Toma-sanci and Beketinci) had a rectangular ground plan, a NW-SE alignment, was up to 15m long, and generally 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 residential structures (larger) and smaller farm buildings (Kalafatic 2009).
Beketinci, Bentež
The site of Beketinci, Bentež, stands out among Lasinja settlements as the excavation site with the
Fig. 5. Beketinci, Bentež. Plan of the Lasinja settlement (drawing: Arheo plan d.d.).
largest uncovered surface - 30 900m2 - which revealed a portion of a settlement. In its western part (24 700m2), the site contained a working area (structures of working character - pits for clay extraction, working pits, self-standing fences, pottery kilns, and wells), while the eastern part (6200m2) was residential, with 5 houses of rectangular base, 2 residential pit-dwellings and 5 residential or working pit-dwellings. 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 Croatia. Radiocarbon dates ranging from 3900 to 3300 BC place this settlement in the late phase of the culture (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 rectangular plan with bedding-trenches with sill-beams into which vertical timber posts were recessed at regular intervals. The northern, eastern and southern walls had timber foundations, whereas the western side of the house contained only four earth-fast timber posts at uniform intervals. The house was 8.5m
long west-east, and 5.80m wide north-south. The layout of posts within the house suggests that it was divided 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 similar size were set at regular intervals along the north and south walls, so that together with the corner posts on the outside of the timber foundations there were four posts in a row. In addition to several 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. Movable 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.
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 houses, house 2 was the longest. Its rectangular 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 timber sill beams (up to 40cm in diameter) 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 measured 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 southern side of the house. There were indications 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 peripheral segment of an uninvestigated pit in the zone south of the house.
Fig. 6. Beketinci, Bentez. House 1 of the Lasinja settlement (photo: J. Sudic).
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, measuring 2 x 4m. House 3 was entered from the south through the smaller eastern room. The roof was supported 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 interior of the large room. A large pit of irregular cir-
Above-ground house 3
Above-ground house 3 was built 50m east of house 1. It had the same orientation and shape as the other two,
Fig. 7. Beketinci, Bentez. House 2 of the Lasinja settlement (photo: J. Sudic).
Fig. 8. Beketinci, Bentez. House 3 of the Lasinja settlement (photo, J. Sudic).
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 resembles 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 consisted 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 dimensions with two rooms was found in the neighbouring settlement of the Lasinja culture at Palača near Toma-sanci (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 centre of this settlement. The purpose and function of such a large structure 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, consisted of timber beams recessed deeper 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 partitioned with timber sill beams into three rooms with a layout identical to those of houses 1, 2 and 3. The largest room, measuring 14 x 12m, was located in the west, where one entered 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 fireplace, in a pit 1.80m in diameter situated 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, because 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 preservation of warmth and prevent further burning. In certain structures, such a central recess is interpreted 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. 9. Beketinci, Bentez. Houses 4 and 5 of the Lasinja settlement (photo: J. Sudic).
opposite, southern side, the rectangular 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 abutted 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 complex contained numerous fragments of coarse and fine pottery: round and biconical bowls with a tongue-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 entrance to large house 4 on its west and north sides. A large fenced working area in the form of a shallow 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 double row of alternating timber stakes. This fence continued 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 pottery kilns
Two large pit-houses with wells were located in the eastern part of the settlement. Their function is not entirely clear, i.e. whether they served a residential or working purpose. There was a bread oven in the interior of pit-house 2, while there were another two bread ovens in the open
Fig. 10. Beketinci, Bentež. Houses and pit-houses of the Lasinja settlement (photo: J. Sudic).
air outside pit-house 1. There were four smaller working pits, a number of smaller pits with various functions, and 12 self-standing partitions in the zone between 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 (Dimitrijevič 1979b.270; Dimitrijevic, Težak Gregl and Majnarič Pandžič 1998.88, sl. 16; Krzna-rič-Škrivanko 2006.11-15, sl. 1 and 2) and in Kruse-vica near Slavonski Šamac (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 settlements: Bentež in Beketinci; the site of Dubrava in
Fig. 11. Beketinci, Bentež. Pit-house 1 of the Lasinja settlement (pht)-to: J. Sudic).
Cepinski Martinci, located 3km to the north (Kalafatic 2009.21-22, sl. 5 and 6), and Palača near Tomasan-ci, situated 12 km to the south (Ba-len 2008.29-31); rows of posts, presumably belonging to above-ground structures, were discovered at the sites of Stara Vodenica near Jurjevac Punitovački (4km to the south) and Pajtenica near Dakovački Selci (23km south of Beketinci). Furthermore, identical rectangular above-ground houses were found at Eneolithic settlements in Hungary: Gyor-Szabadret-domb from the Balaton-Lasinja/Lu-danice phase (Viräg, Figler 2007. 352, Fig. 2, 5-11), Veszprem from phase IIb-III of the Lengyel culture (Regenye 2007.Fig. 2, 3, 4), Zalavar-Basasziget, a Balaton-Lasinja settlement (Viräg 2005. sl. 1), Szomba-thely, a late Lengyel settlement (Ilon, Farkas 2001.55-60, Fig. 3a, b, 4), and Zalaegerszeg-Andrashida, Gebar-ti to (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 Bisamberg-Oberpullendorf group, which is analogous to the Lasinja culture, at Unterradlberg and Pottenbrunn (Rut-tkay 1995.125, Abb. 7), and in Slovenia at the Lasinja settlement at So-dolek (Kavur, Tomaž and Mileus-nic 2006.122-123, sl. 3). The only known find of an above-ground house with a fenced courtyard from the site of Wetzleinsdorf in Austria (Neugebauer-Maresch 1995.Abb
Fig. 12. Beketinci, Bentez. Pit-houses 4 and 5 of the Lasinja settlement (photo: J. Sudic).
Fig. 13. Beketinci, Bentez. Pit-houses 6, 7 and 8 of the Lasinja settlement (photo: J. Sudic).
42) can be mentioned as a remote analogy for house 3 with a fenced courtyard from Beketinci.
REFERENCES
BALEN J. 2008. Rezultati zaštitnih istraživanja na trasi autoceste Beli Manastir-Osijek-Svilaj. Arheološki muzej u Zagrebu. Zagreb.
2010. Eneolitičke kulture na prostoru istočne Hrvatske. Unpublished doctoral disertation, Filozofski Fakultet u Zagrebu. Zagreb.
BARNA P. J., KREITER E. 2006. Middle Copper Age settlements at Zalaegerszeg-Andrashida, Gebarti to (II): preliminary results. Zalai Müzeum 15: 47-77.
BEKIC L. 2006. Zaštitna arheologija u okolici Varaždi-na, Arheološka istraživanja na autocesti Zagreb-Gori-čan i njezinim prilaznim cestama. Ministarstvo kulture Republike Hrvatske. Zagreb.
BELIC B. 1964. Vis, Modran, Derventa - višeslojno prais-torijsko naselje. Arheološki pregled 6:22-23.
BENAC A. 1964. Prilozi za proučavanje neolita u sjevernoj Bosni. Glasnik zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine u Sarajevu 19:129-134.
DIMITRIJEVIC 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. Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, Sarajevo: 137-181.
1979b. O nekim kontroverznim pitanjima u kronologiji eneolita južnih područja Karpatske kotline (U povodu lasinjsko-salkucanskog horizonta u Vinkovcima). Osječki zbornik 17:35-78.
DIMITRIJEVIC S., TEŽAK-GREGL T. and MAJNARIC-PAN-DŽIC N. 1998. Prapovijest. Naprijed. Zagreb: 82-88.
GÜSTIN M. 2005. Savska skupina lengyelske kulture. In M. Gustin (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 Hungary and Beyond; a review of the current research. Proceedings of the conference held on Oct. 11-13, 1999 in Weszprem. Directorate of the Weszprem County Museums, Weszprem: 55-60.
KALAFATIC H. 2009. Zaštitna istraživanja lokaliteta Čepin-ski Martinci-Dubrava na trasi autoceste Beli Manastir-Osi-jek-Svilaj 2007. i 2008. g. Annales Instituti Archaeolo-gici 5: 20-26.
KALICZ N.1974. A balatoni csoport emlekei a Del-Dunan-tuülon (Funde der Balaton-Gruppe in Südtransdanubien). A Jänus Pannonius Müzeum Evkönyve 14-15: 75-96.
1991. Beitraege zur Kenntnis der Kupferzeit im ungarischen Transdanubien. In J. Lichardus and R. Echt (eds.), Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche. Symposium 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 Sudost- und Mitteleuropas, Neuere Daten zur Siedlungsgeschichte und Chronologie der Kupferzeit des Karpatenbeckens. Inventaria Praehistorica Hvngariae VII: 3749.
KAVUR B., TOMAŽ A. and MILEUSNIC Z. 2006. Sodolek -naselje bakrene dobe. In A. Tomaž (ed.), Od Sopota do Lengjela. Prispevki o kamenodobnih in bakrenodobnih kulturah med Savo in Donavo. Annales, Koper: 121128.
KOROSEC J. 1958. Eine neue Kulturgruppe des späten Neolithikums. Acta archaeologica Academiae Scientia-rum Hungaricae 9: 85-93.
KRZNARIC-SKRIVANKO M. 2006. Istraživanja na Sopotu. In A. Tomaž (ed.), Od Sopota do Lengjela. Prispevki o kamenodobnih in bakrenodobnih kulturah med Savo in Donavo. Annales, Koper: 11 - 19.
MARKOVIC Z. 1994. Sjeverna Hrvatska od neolita do brončanog doba. Muzej grada Koprivnice. Koprivnica.
MIKLIK-LOZUK L. 2005. Krusevica, Njivice, Slavonski Sa-mac, zastitno iskopavanje. Hrvatski arheološki godišnjak 1:37-38.
2006. Krusevica, Njivice, Slavonski Samac, zastitno iskopavanje. Hrvatski arheološki godišnjak 2:51-53.
MINICHREITER K. 1990. Prvi rezultati arheoloških istraživanja u Pepelanama godine 1985. Arheološka istraži-vanja u Podravini i kalničko-bilogorskoj regiji, Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društva 14:19-38.
2009. Arhitektura eneolitičkog naselja lasinjske kulture na lokalitetu Bentež u Beketincima. Histria Antiqua 18(1): 141 - 148.
NEUGEBAUER-MARESCH C. 1995. Mittelneolithikum: Die Bemaltekeramik. Jungsteinzeit im Osten Österreichs. Verlag Niederösterreichisches Pressehaus, St. Pölten-Wien: 57-109.
PITTIONI R. 1954. Urgeschichte des österreichischen Raumes. Deuticke. Wien.
REGENYE J. 2007. The late Lengyel Culture in Hungary as reflected by the excavation at Veszprem. In J. Kozlowski and P. Raczky (eds.), The Lengyel, Polgär and related cultures in the Middle/Late neolithic in Central Europe. The Polish Academy of Arts and Science Krakow and Eöt-vös Lorand University, Institute of Archaeological Sciences, Budapest. Krakow: 381-396.
RUTTKAY E. 1995. Bisamberg-Oberpullendorf-Gruppe, Jungsteinzeit im Osten Österreichs. Verlag Niederösterreichisches Pressehaus, St. Pölten-Wien: 118-128.
SOMOGYI K. 2000. A Balaton-Lasinja kultura leletanyaga Somogy megyeben (Die Funde der Balaton-Lasinja Kultur im Komitat Somogy). Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae 2000:5-48.
STRAUB P. 2006. Közepso rezkori települes Sormas ha-taraban (Middle Copper Age Settlement at Sormas). Re-geszeti kutatasok Magyarorszagon 2005. Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 2005:33-40.
VIRAG Z. M. 2005. Middle Copper Age Ceramic Finds from Zalavar-Basasziget (Some Considerations about the typology and chronology of the Balaton-Lasinja Culture), Zalai Müzeum 14:37-52.
VIRAG Z. M., FIGLER A. 2007. Data on the settlement history of the Late Lengyel Period of the Transdanubia on the basis of two sites from the Kisalföld (Small Hungarian Plain). In J. Kozlowski and P. Raczky (eds.), The Lengyel, Polgär and related cultures in the Middle/Late neolithic in Central Europe. The Polish Academy of Arts and Science Krakow and Eötvös Lorand University, Institute of Archaeological Sciences, Budapest. Krakow: 345-364.