Page 12 - Studia Universitatis Hereditati, vol 9(1) (2021)
P. 12
tern Bulgaria. I underline that in the frame-studia universitatis her editati, letnik 9 (2021), številk a 1 / volume 9 (2021), number 1 12are associated with the research of a series of for-
work of this analysis I will try to get out of the eign and domestic archeologists in the 20th cen-
practiced approaches so far, first in relation tohereditati tury (Naumov 2009a, 3–5; Fidanoski 2017a, 31).
the cultural-historical context. Taking into ac-
count the different state of research at the sites In the 1930s, the pioneering studies of
in North Macedonia and Bulgaria, in a narrow- Fewkes, concentrated in Pelagonia should be
er and broader context, the different methodo- highlighted. From the same period Heurtley
logical approaches, as well as the different level (1939) is also an important explorer of Mace-
and quality of the published material this study donian prehistory, one of the first authors who
should be accepted conditionally and hypothet- pointed out several prehistoric sites, and his ex-
ically. Also, in advance, I refer to the limitations tensive work was completed within the mono-
regarding the relatively small number of selected graph Prehistoric Macedonia. The second half
reference sites (cultures), in order to direct spe- of the 20th century is a turning point in the re-
cific cultural associations on this territory in the search of Macedonian Neolithic. Reaching Ne-
Central Balkans region, not taking into account olithic issues not only in North Macedonia but
the large number of EN sites, cultures and com- also in the wider space of the Balkans, an inev-
plexes from Greece, Albania, Kosovo, Serbia, itable name in the literature is Milojčić, as one
Romania, etc. of the pioneers of the Balkan Neolithic periodi-
zation. Since the end of the 1950s, a number of
Special emphasis will be put on the EN archaeologists have emerged that are intensive-
painted pottery as a dominant feature that (in ly beginning to deal with this interesting pre-
the literature) most often defines and separates historic period, in particular, the research of
the sites and cultures among themselves. With Grbić, Galović, P. and J. Korošec, and especial-
this analysis, I will unquestionably touch upon ly the work of M. and D. Garašanin. In this pe-
those characteristics and properties that set this riod, perhaps the most significant archeological
significant prehistoric cultural heritage under a investigations on the Neolithic sites in North
common denominator. Therefore, the unbreak- Macedonia were performed, and from their re-
able common culture and history of all today’s sults, several papers and two monographs were
entities in the Balkans will again be confirmed, published. Here, in particular, the works of Gr-
hoping that with such studies it will be possible bić and his associates (Grbić et al. 1960), Poro-
to find new insights into the Neolithic welfare of din, and Barutnica by P. and J. Korošec (Korošec
this very important part of Europe. and Korošec 1973). In the period after the 1960s,
M. and D. Garašanin have a great contribution
The research so far to Macedonian prehistoric archaeology which
The Neolithic is the most interesting and proba- explored most of the prehistoric sites in North
bly most enigmatic prehistoric period in the en- Macedonia (at that time known), regularly pub-
tire Balkans and it is especially diverse in North lishing the obtained results.
Macedonia and Bulgaria. With scholars from
Europe and beyond, even today, this issue on As one of the rare foreign scientists, a special
this territory daily provokes new challenges and place in the archaeology of the Macedonian Neo-
ideas for new research activities. The specific Ne- lithic has Gimbutas (USA), which explored the site
olithic artefacts on the surface of the Macedo- Barutnica-Amzabegovo in the late 1960s and early
nian soil – in the past still unknown and unex- 1970s, and for the first time (together with collab-
plored – have attracted the attention of many orators), published a comprehensive monography
archaeologists, historians and various enthusi- of the site – Anza (Gimbutas 1976a). It contains
asts (Naumov 2009a, 3). The earliest historically a series of interdisciplinary analyzes, first made on
documented interests of Macedonian Neolithic a Macedonian archaeological site. The analyses re-
fer to the geological site characteristics, the mov-
work of this analysis I will try to get out of the eign and domestic archeologists in the 20th cen-
practiced approaches so far, first in relation tohereditati tury (Naumov 2009a, 3–5; Fidanoski 2017a, 31).
the cultural-historical context. Taking into ac-
count the different state of research at the sites In the 1930s, the pioneering studies of
in North Macedonia and Bulgaria, in a narrow- Fewkes, concentrated in Pelagonia should be
er and broader context, the different methodo- highlighted. From the same period Heurtley
logical approaches, as well as the different level (1939) is also an important explorer of Mace-
and quality of the published material this study donian prehistory, one of the first authors who
should be accepted conditionally and hypothet- pointed out several prehistoric sites, and his ex-
ically. Also, in advance, I refer to the limitations tensive work was completed within the mono-
regarding the relatively small number of selected graph Prehistoric Macedonia. The second half
reference sites (cultures), in order to direct spe- of the 20th century is a turning point in the re-
cific cultural associations on this territory in the search of Macedonian Neolithic. Reaching Ne-
Central Balkans region, not taking into account olithic issues not only in North Macedonia but
the large number of EN sites, cultures and com- also in the wider space of the Balkans, an inev-
plexes from Greece, Albania, Kosovo, Serbia, itable name in the literature is Milojčić, as one
Romania, etc. of the pioneers of the Balkan Neolithic periodi-
zation. Since the end of the 1950s, a number of
Special emphasis will be put on the EN archaeologists have emerged that are intensive-
painted pottery as a dominant feature that (in ly beginning to deal with this interesting pre-
the literature) most often defines and separates historic period, in particular, the research of
the sites and cultures among themselves. With Grbić, Galović, P. and J. Korošec, and especial-
this analysis, I will unquestionably touch upon ly the work of M. and D. Garašanin. In this pe-
those characteristics and properties that set this riod, perhaps the most significant archeological
significant prehistoric cultural heritage under a investigations on the Neolithic sites in North
common denominator. Therefore, the unbreak- Macedonia were performed, and from their re-
able common culture and history of all today’s sults, several papers and two monographs were
entities in the Balkans will again be confirmed, published. Here, in particular, the works of Gr-
hoping that with such studies it will be possible bić and his associates (Grbić et al. 1960), Poro-
to find new insights into the Neolithic welfare of din, and Barutnica by P. and J. Korošec (Korošec
this very important part of Europe. and Korošec 1973). In the period after the 1960s,
M. and D. Garašanin have a great contribution
The research so far to Macedonian prehistoric archaeology which
The Neolithic is the most interesting and proba- explored most of the prehistoric sites in North
bly most enigmatic prehistoric period in the en- Macedonia (at that time known), regularly pub-
tire Balkans and it is especially diverse in North lishing the obtained results.
Macedonia and Bulgaria. With scholars from
Europe and beyond, even today, this issue on As one of the rare foreign scientists, a special
this territory daily provokes new challenges and place in the archaeology of the Macedonian Neo-
ideas for new research activities. The specific Ne- lithic has Gimbutas (USA), which explored the site
olithic artefacts on the surface of the Macedo- Barutnica-Amzabegovo in the late 1960s and early
nian soil – in the past still unknown and unex- 1970s, and for the first time (together with collab-
plored – have attracted the attention of many orators), published a comprehensive monography
archaeologists, historians and various enthusi- of the site – Anza (Gimbutas 1976a). It contains
asts (Naumov 2009a, 3). The earliest historically a series of interdisciplinary analyzes, first made on
documented interests of Macedonian Neolithic a Macedonian archaeological site. The analyses re-
fer to the geological site characteristics, the mov-
