Page 23 - Studia Universitatis Hereditati, vol 9(1) (2021)
P. 23
ia universitatisgovo-Vršnik belong to the Starčevo and Protos- phase gaps are registered. In the end, Balkan pre-
tarčevo zones, and the cultures Kovačevo (Bul- historic archaeology, on the basis of a large da-
ear ly neolithic in north macedonia and bulgar ia: geogr aphical and cultur al r elations 23 garia), Velušina-Porodin (North Macedonia), tabase, quite inadvertently, enters the trap of
Giannitza (Greece) and Podgori (Albania) in the predetermined (artificial) models created by the
southern trans-Balkan zone or in the zone of Ses- need for defining material culture.
klo (Greece) – which reaches Protostarčevo in its
northern boundary. Nikolov (1990, 11) defines, Neolithic legacy: pottery, architecture
in the wider Central Balkans region, four eth- and animal husbandry
nocultural complexes: Kremenik-Amzabegovo, From the archaeological investigations of Mac-
Kremikovci, Gradešnica-Kărča and Starčevo. In edonian and Bulgarian sites a rich fund of mov-
the literature of former Yugoslavia, and mainly able and immovable cultural heritage has been
for that territory, the following four zones were collected. Previously, on several occasions, the
suggested: Central Balkan, Adriatic, Transition- significance of the material culture was under-
al and Northern (Benac, Garašanin and Srejović lined in the attempt to reconstruct the Neolith-
1979а, 24). In the course of defining the sites and ic populations’ life on this territory. Therefore,
cultures’ characteristics, in the former Yugoslavi- in the analysis below, I will look at three key ele-
an science and wider, the Balkan-Anatolian EN ments of this really rich prehistoric period: pot-
complex and the Northern Balkans-Panonian tery, architecture and animal husbandry.
complex (Benac, Garašanin and Srejović 1979b,
642) are also known. Todorova and Vaysov Pottery
(1993, 74), for the Balkan-Anatolian EN complex One of the key Neolithic innovations was pot-
refer as Balkan-Anatolian cultural block. Within tery. Aside its significance in social, econom-
the Adriatic zone, the cardium-impresso culture ical and cultural means, especially in the men-
was determined (Batović 1979, 484), that Todor- tal shifts of the first communities that created it,
ova and Vaysov (1993, 74) insert into a wider ge- its mass appearance at Neolithic sites is obvious.
ographical and cultural area, the so-called Med- The Balkans’ Neolithic pottery is known by its
iterranean EN block. Finally, the same authors, high quality and quantity and thanks to it, the
Todorova and Vaysov (1993, 77), the second or image of the Neolithic continuity was created.
later phase of the EN (according to the Bulgari-
an archaeological literature) or the MN (accord- About the Balkans’ Neolithic pottery, a lot
ing to the Macedonian literature) in the Cen- of studies have been published so far, more or less,
tral Balkans region and Thessaly, established the based on the basic elements for pottery research
complex of EN cultures with painted pottery. and analysis (Shepard 1956; Rice 1987; Sinopo-
li 1991; Nikolov 1998). The properties, meaning
Bearing in mind the already discussed mod- and significance of EN, MN and LN pottery
els for cultural determination and interpreta- from the Macedonian and Bulgarian sites were
tion, it is noticeable that many sites were in- elaborated in numerous works (Gardner 1976;
cluded in different cultures, zones, blocks and Gimbutas 1976b; Mock 1976; Mount-Williams
complexes, often artificially determined. This, in 1976; Garašanin 1979; Nikolov 1982; Sanev 1995;
my opinion, is due to the complexity of the rich Nikolov 1998; Nikolov 2002b; Čohadžhiev
material culture from a large territory in the Bal- 2007; Vaysov 2007; Fidanoski 2009b; Lichar-
kans, which contains both similarities and dif- dus-Itten 2009; Salanova 2009; Vieugué, Go-
ferences. The problem is even more pronounced mart and Salanova 2010, Angeleski 2012). The
with the almost regularly encountered cultur- main focus here will not be manufacturing tech-
al occurence at the sites – the thick deposits of nology, forms’ analysis or classification, but the
several layers, whose phases rarely coincide with comparative aspect of pottery collected on dif-
each other, and also at some sites the phase-to- ferent sites and regions in both countries.
tarčevo zones, and the cultures Kovačevo (Bul- historic archaeology, on the basis of a large da-
ear ly neolithic in north macedonia and bulgar ia: geogr aphical and cultur al r elations 23 garia), Velušina-Porodin (North Macedonia), tabase, quite inadvertently, enters the trap of
Giannitza (Greece) and Podgori (Albania) in the predetermined (artificial) models created by the
southern trans-Balkan zone or in the zone of Ses- need for defining material culture.
klo (Greece) – which reaches Protostarčevo in its
northern boundary. Nikolov (1990, 11) defines, Neolithic legacy: pottery, architecture
in the wider Central Balkans region, four eth- and animal husbandry
nocultural complexes: Kremenik-Amzabegovo, From the archaeological investigations of Mac-
Kremikovci, Gradešnica-Kărča and Starčevo. In edonian and Bulgarian sites a rich fund of mov-
the literature of former Yugoslavia, and mainly able and immovable cultural heritage has been
for that territory, the following four zones were collected. Previously, on several occasions, the
suggested: Central Balkan, Adriatic, Transition- significance of the material culture was under-
al and Northern (Benac, Garašanin and Srejović lined in the attempt to reconstruct the Neolith-
1979а, 24). In the course of defining the sites and ic populations’ life on this territory. Therefore,
cultures’ characteristics, in the former Yugoslavi- in the analysis below, I will look at three key ele-
an science and wider, the Balkan-Anatolian EN ments of this really rich prehistoric period: pot-
complex and the Northern Balkans-Panonian tery, architecture and animal husbandry.
complex (Benac, Garašanin and Srejović 1979b,
642) are also known. Todorova and Vaysov Pottery
(1993, 74), for the Balkan-Anatolian EN complex One of the key Neolithic innovations was pot-
refer as Balkan-Anatolian cultural block. Within tery. Aside its significance in social, econom-
the Adriatic zone, the cardium-impresso culture ical and cultural means, especially in the men-
was determined (Batović 1979, 484), that Todor- tal shifts of the first communities that created it,
ova and Vaysov (1993, 74) insert into a wider ge- its mass appearance at Neolithic sites is obvious.
ographical and cultural area, the so-called Med- The Balkans’ Neolithic pottery is known by its
iterranean EN block. Finally, the same authors, high quality and quantity and thanks to it, the
Todorova and Vaysov (1993, 77), the second or image of the Neolithic continuity was created.
later phase of the EN (according to the Bulgari-
an archaeological literature) or the MN (accord- About the Balkans’ Neolithic pottery, a lot
ing to the Macedonian literature) in the Cen- of studies have been published so far, more or less,
tral Balkans region and Thessaly, established the based on the basic elements for pottery research
complex of EN cultures with painted pottery. and analysis (Shepard 1956; Rice 1987; Sinopo-
li 1991; Nikolov 1998). The properties, meaning
Bearing in mind the already discussed mod- and significance of EN, MN and LN pottery
els for cultural determination and interpreta- from the Macedonian and Bulgarian sites were
tion, it is noticeable that many sites were in- elaborated in numerous works (Gardner 1976;
cluded in different cultures, zones, blocks and Gimbutas 1976b; Mock 1976; Mount-Williams
complexes, often artificially determined. This, in 1976; Garašanin 1979; Nikolov 1982; Sanev 1995;
my opinion, is due to the complexity of the rich Nikolov 1998; Nikolov 2002b; Čohadžhiev
material culture from a large territory in the Bal- 2007; Vaysov 2007; Fidanoski 2009b; Lichar-
kans, which contains both similarities and dif- dus-Itten 2009; Salanova 2009; Vieugué, Go-
ferences. The problem is even more pronounced mart and Salanova 2010, Angeleski 2012). The
with the almost regularly encountered cultur- main focus here will not be manufacturing tech-
al occurence at the sites – the thick deposits of nology, forms’ analysis or classification, but the
several layers, whose phases rarely coincide with comparative aspect of pottery collected on dif-
each other, and also at some sites the phase-to- ferent sites and regions in both countries.
