Page 22 - Studia Universitatis Hereditati, vol 9(1) (2021)
P. 22
dia universitatis her editati, letnik 9 (2021), številk a 1 / volume 9 (2021), number 1 22out cultural affiliation), while the other two ho-province” and others /.../. Of particular im-
rizons belong to the Gălăbnik EN (Čohadžhiev portance is the view that within the cultur-
hereditatiet al. 2007, 182). According to Nikolov (1996a, 1), al blocks, the historical processes flow in
Rakitovo and Kovačevo belong to a southwestern parallel: cultures cross through synchro-
variant of Karanovo I culture. As far as Kovače- nous stages of development, appear and
vo is concerned, its researchers carefully place leave at the same time. In this context it can
the site closer to the contact zone of Greece (Nea be said that global historical processes are
Nikomedeia and Giannitza) and North Mac- reflected in the development of the blocks.
edonia (Barutnica-Amzabegovo and Veluška From a historical point of view, in fact, there
Tumba-Porodin), but not in Karanovo culture would be no historical tendencies that con-
(Lichardus-Itten et al. 2002, 130). On the other cern only one archaeological culture with-
hand, for Pavúk (2007, 165) Kovačevo should be out affecting the neighboring ones. Cultur-
considered a separate culture. Similar to Kovače- al blocks, even territorially constrained, do
vo, the researcher of Vaksevo (Studena Voda), S. not represent constant formations in the di-
Čohadžhiev (2001, 58–59), according to the ma- achronic plane. They react flexibly to the var-
terial from the earliest phases, argues that there ious changes in the natural environment and
are many similarities with Kovačevo Ia and Ib, to the various influences – they reorganize
and in the later phases with Karanovo I. The end internally, transformed, disappear, and reap-
of the site’s EN (comparable to the Macedonian pear, so in each particular case the model of
MN) the author places within Starčevo culture. their changes should be analyzed individual-
ly. (Todorova and Vaysov 1993, 69–71)
In archaeology, as in other related disci-
plines, certain terms are defined in order to ob- The quotation above vividly explains the
tain more detailed picture of the cultural, social need to form new terms that would enable eas-
and economical heritage and the reconstruction ier insight into the everyday life of the prehis-
of human life in the past, while at the same time toric man, the characteristics of the communi-
facilitating the analysis and assisting in method- ty, the elements of culture and the structure of
ological approaches. However, the specialized economy. Having in mind the above mentioned
terminology and definition of (cultural, social, cultures in North Macedonia and Bulgaria (es-
economical, etc.) prehistoric communities’ cate- pecially the different cultural determinations
gories hide many pitfalls at the very start of any for the western Bulgarian sites), the question
analysis. arises whether a more developed system is real-
ly needed – a new scientific toolkit which enables
The framework of our basic notion of “ar- systematic-structural analysis, by means of which
chaeological culture” has proved to be very – certain structural units, their hierarchy and the
narrow for the interpretation of the ob- dynamics of their development can be established?
served broad-band synchronous and dia- Before adressing this question, a little bit more
chronic phenomena. This imposed the use about the cultural zones, blocks and complexes
of a new scientific toolkit which enables sys- should be said.
tematic-structural analysis. With this cer-
tain structural units, their hierarchy and the As it was already stated, Kovačevo (I) ac-
dynamics of their development can be es- cording to its researchers (Lichardus-Itten et al.
tablished, which for prehistory is equal to 2002, 130), is the core site of a wide zone of close
the reconstruction of the basic, available to influence between it, Giannitza and Nea Niko-
us, tendencies of the historical process. Late- medeia in Greece, as well as Veluška Tumba-Po-
ly, a number of new transregional terms have rodin and Barutnica-Amzabegovo in North
emerged, such as “cultural-historical zone”, Macedonia. According to Pavúk (2007, 165), the
“ethno-cultural complex”, “metallurgical cultures of Gălăbnik, Slatina-Sofia and Amzabe-
rizons belong to the Gălăbnik EN (Čohadžhiev portance is the view that within the cultur-
hereditatiet al. 2007, 182). According to Nikolov (1996a, 1), al blocks, the historical processes flow in
Rakitovo and Kovačevo belong to a southwestern parallel: cultures cross through synchro-
variant of Karanovo I culture. As far as Kovače- nous stages of development, appear and
vo is concerned, its researchers carefully place leave at the same time. In this context it can
the site closer to the contact zone of Greece (Nea be said that global historical processes are
Nikomedeia and Giannitza) and North Mac- reflected in the development of the blocks.
edonia (Barutnica-Amzabegovo and Veluška From a historical point of view, in fact, there
Tumba-Porodin), but not in Karanovo culture would be no historical tendencies that con-
(Lichardus-Itten et al. 2002, 130). On the other cern only one archaeological culture with-
hand, for Pavúk (2007, 165) Kovačevo should be out affecting the neighboring ones. Cultur-
considered a separate culture. Similar to Kovače- al blocks, even territorially constrained, do
vo, the researcher of Vaksevo (Studena Voda), S. not represent constant formations in the di-
Čohadžhiev (2001, 58–59), according to the ma- achronic plane. They react flexibly to the var-
terial from the earliest phases, argues that there ious changes in the natural environment and
are many similarities with Kovačevo Ia and Ib, to the various influences – they reorganize
and in the later phases with Karanovo I. The end internally, transformed, disappear, and reap-
of the site’s EN (comparable to the Macedonian pear, so in each particular case the model of
MN) the author places within Starčevo culture. their changes should be analyzed individual-
ly. (Todorova and Vaysov 1993, 69–71)
In archaeology, as in other related disci-
plines, certain terms are defined in order to ob- The quotation above vividly explains the
tain more detailed picture of the cultural, social need to form new terms that would enable eas-
and economical heritage and the reconstruction ier insight into the everyday life of the prehis-
of human life in the past, while at the same time toric man, the characteristics of the communi-
facilitating the analysis and assisting in method- ty, the elements of culture and the structure of
ological approaches. However, the specialized economy. Having in mind the above mentioned
terminology and definition of (cultural, social, cultures in North Macedonia and Bulgaria (es-
economical, etc.) prehistoric communities’ cate- pecially the different cultural determinations
gories hide many pitfalls at the very start of any for the western Bulgarian sites), the question
analysis. arises whether a more developed system is real-
ly needed – a new scientific toolkit which enables
The framework of our basic notion of “ar- systematic-structural analysis, by means of which
chaeological culture” has proved to be very – certain structural units, their hierarchy and the
narrow for the interpretation of the ob- dynamics of their development can be established?
served broad-band synchronous and dia- Before adressing this question, a little bit more
chronic phenomena. This imposed the use about the cultural zones, blocks and complexes
of a new scientific toolkit which enables sys- should be said.
tematic-structural analysis. With this cer-
tain structural units, their hierarchy and the As it was already stated, Kovačevo (I) ac-
dynamics of their development can be es- cording to its researchers (Lichardus-Itten et al.
tablished, which for prehistory is equal to 2002, 130), is the core site of a wide zone of close
the reconstruction of the basic, available to influence between it, Giannitza and Nea Niko-
us, tendencies of the historical process. Late- medeia in Greece, as well as Veluška Tumba-Po-
ly, a number of new transregional terms have rodin and Barutnica-Amzabegovo in North
emerged, such as “cultural-historical zone”, Macedonia. According to Pavúk (2007, 165), the
“ethno-cultural complex”, “metallurgical cultures of Gălăbnik, Slatina-Sofia and Amzabe-
