Page 32 - Studia Universitatis Hereditati, vol 9(1) (2021)
P. 32
y (Čohadžhiev 2007, 63, Tolevski 2009, 61–studia universitatis her editati, letnik 9 (2021), številk a 1 / volume 9 (2021), number 1 32Of particular interest for the topic is anoth-
62). However, within three settlements: Barut- er element (except the inventory in which almost
nica-Amzabegovo, Gălăbnik and Kovačevo, thehereditati always an oven was constructed, and sometimes
mud-brick technique has also been used (Gimb- even a parapet walls) – the floor construction. In
utas 1976b, 32, 34; Čohadžhiev 2007, 63). Talk- general, the most common are two techniques:
ing about houses’ groundplans, there are exam- 1. a thick layer of tamped clay and over it an-
ples with a rectangular, square and trapeze plans. other final layer of clay/mud and 2. a construc-
Houses with rectangular and square founda- tion of parallel wooden piles covered by clayish
tions were discovered in Cerje-Govrlevo, Veluš- layer. Unfortunately, in this respect, we do not
ka Tumba-Porodin, Vrbjanska Čuka-Slavej and have much data except for Slatina-Sofia, where a
Gălăbnik (Grbić et al. 1960, 12; Mitkoski 2005, well-preserved house whose floor is derived from
33, 35; Čohadžhiev 2007, 63, Fidanoski 2012, 35). the second technique was documented (Nikolov
The houses with a trapezoidal groundplans are 1992). In North Macedonia, both in Cerje-Gov-
much more frequent and are registered in Cer- rlevo and Veluška Tumba-Porodin, both tech-
je-Govrlevo, Barutnica-Amzabegovo, Veluška niques are used, with one difference. In the first
Tumba-Porodin, Slatina-Sofia and in large num- settlement within the earliest phase of living, the
ber in Rakitovo (Grbić et al. 1960, 20; Nikolov floor was made with the second technique, and
1999d, 101; Radunčeva 2002, 14–33, 50; Sanev in the following (MN phases) the floors were
2009b, 40; Fidanoski 2012, 35). Concerning ob- made by the first technique – which is vice versa
jects’ size (Grbić et al. 1960, 12; Zdravkovski 1990, in Veluška Tumba-Porodin (Simoska and Sanev
75–6; Nikolov 1999c, 101; Radunčeva 2002, 14– 1975, 44; Fidanoski 2012, 47).
33; Mitkoski 2005, 33, 35; Čohadžhiev 2007, 63;
Sanev 2009b, 40; Fidanoski 2012, 35, 41), there Animal husbandry
are houses with different dimensions, as in Analyzing the faunal remains of the Balkans’
EN and MN sites, several regional tendencies
Cerje-Govrlevo (4 х 4,5 х 4,5 х 4,7 m, 5,5 x 5,5 m, can be noticed. Unfortunately, in North Mac-
7,6 х 6 m); edonia archaeozoological analyzes are rare (Ivk-
ovska 2009, 53) and hence, the data on this im-
Barutnica-Amzabegovo (8,3 х 8,7 m); portant economical, social and cultural aspect
Veluška Tumba-Porodin (6 х 4 m, 12 х 11 m); is very limited. However, the faunal analyzes of
Vrbjanska Čuka-Slavej (9 х 12,5 m – first house the material from all phases of Barutnica-Amz-
abegovo are thorough, from which the ones be-
phase of house 1, 11,3 х13 m –second phase longing to the EN (phase I) and the ones of the
of house 1, 8,7 х 10,3 х 4,9 m); MN (phases II and III) are the most interest-
Gălăbnik (4,5 x 5,7 m, 5,2 x 6,7 m, 6,6 x 7,2 m, 7,4 ing for this study. In contrast to North Macedo-
x 6,8 m, 7 x 8,8 m); nia (Bökönyi 1976, Tab. XXXIII), in Bulgaria
Slatina-Sofia (9,7 х 9,3 х 12,4 х 12,3 m); (Bökönyi 1992, Tab. 1; Ninov 2001, Tab. 8; Be-
Kovačevo (4 х 4 m, 4 х 6 m, 5 х 6 m, 10 х 10 m) necke and Ninov 2002, 558; Kovačev and Geor-
and giev 2002, Tab. 1; Čohadžhiev 2007, Tab. 6) the
Rakitovo (second EN phase – 7,4 x 7,4 x 3 x 3,1 level of archaeozoological data is much better:
m, 7,4 x 7,4 x 4,3 x 6 m, 7,5 x 4 x 3,8 m, 7 x Barutnica-Amzabegovo (domestic animals from
7 x 4 x 3,5 m, 7,4 x 6,5 x 3 x 4 m, 7,6 x 7,8 x
7,6 x 5 m, first EN phase – 4 x 5,5 x 2 x 1 m, phase I – 96,58%, from phase II – 97,07%
first phase of house 13 – 5,5 x 5,5 x 3,5 x 4,7 m, and from phase III – 94,23%; wild animals
second phase of house 13 – 4 x 7,5 x 4 x 8 m, from phase I – 3,42%, from phase II – 2,93%
10 x 7 x 3 m). and from phase III – 5,76%);
62). However, within three settlements: Barut- er element (except the inventory in which almost
nica-Amzabegovo, Gălăbnik and Kovačevo, thehereditati always an oven was constructed, and sometimes
mud-brick technique has also been used (Gimb- even a parapet walls) – the floor construction. In
utas 1976b, 32, 34; Čohadžhiev 2007, 63). Talk- general, the most common are two techniques:
ing about houses’ groundplans, there are exam- 1. a thick layer of tamped clay and over it an-
ples with a rectangular, square and trapeze plans. other final layer of clay/mud and 2. a construc-
Houses with rectangular and square founda- tion of parallel wooden piles covered by clayish
tions were discovered in Cerje-Govrlevo, Veluš- layer. Unfortunately, in this respect, we do not
ka Tumba-Porodin, Vrbjanska Čuka-Slavej and have much data except for Slatina-Sofia, where a
Gălăbnik (Grbić et al. 1960, 12; Mitkoski 2005, well-preserved house whose floor is derived from
33, 35; Čohadžhiev 2007, 63, Fidanoski 2012, 35). the second technique was documented (Nikolov
The houses with a trapezoidal groundplans are 1992). In North Macedonia, both in Cerje-Gov-
much more frequent and are registered in Cer- rlevo and Veluška Tumba-Porodin, both tech-
je-Govrlevo, Barutnica-Amzabegovo, Veluška niques are used, with one difference. In the first
Tumba-Porodin, Slatina-Sofia and in large num- settlement within the earliest phase of living, the
ber in Rakitovo (Grbić et al. 1960, 20; Nikolov floor was made with the second technique, and
1999d, 101; Radunčeva 2002, 14–33, 50; Sanev in the following (MN phases) the floors were
2009b, 40; Fidanoski 2012, 35). Concerning ob- made by the first technique – which is vice versa
jects’ size (Grbić et al. 1960, 12; Zdravkovski 1990, in Veluška Tumba-Porodin (Simoska and Sanev
75–6; Nikolov 1999c, 101; Radunčeva 2002, 14– 1975, 44; Fidanoski 2012, 47).
33; Mitkoski 2005, 33, 35; Čohadžhiev 2007, 63;
Sanev 2009b, 40; Fidanoski 2012, 35, 41), there Animal husbandry
are houses with different dimensions, as in Analyzing the faunal remains of the Balkans’
EN and MN sites, several regional tendencies
Cerje-Govrlevo (4 х 4,5 х 4,5 х 4,7 m, 5,5 x 5,5 m, can be noticed. Unfortunately, in North Mac-
7,6 х 6 m); edonia archaeozoological analyzes are rare (Ivk-
ovska 2009, 53) and hence, the data on this im-
Barutnica-Amzabegovo (8,3 х 8,7 m); portant economical, social and cultural aspect
Veluška Tumba-Porodin (6 х 4 m, 12 х 11 m); is very limited. However, the faunal analyzes of
Vrbjanska Čuka-Slavej (9 х 12,5 m – first house the material from all phases of Barutnica-Amz-
abegovo are thorough, from which the ones be-
phase of house 1, 11,3 х13 m –second phase longing to the EN (phase I) and the ones of the
of house 1, 8,7 х 10,3 х 4,9 m); MN (phases II and III) are the most interest-
Gălăbnik (4,5 x 5,7 m, 5,2 x 6,7 m, 6,6 x 7,2 m, 7,4 ing for this study. In contrast to North Macedo-
x 6,8 m, 7 x 8,8 m); nia (Bökönyi 1976, Tab. XXXIII), in Bulgaria
Slatina-Sofia (9,7 х 9,3 х 12,4 х 12,3 m); (Bökönyi 1992, Tab. 1; Ninov 2001, Tab. 8; Be-
Kovačevo (4 х 4 m, 4 х 6 m, 5 х 6 m, 10 х 10 m) necke and Ninov 2002, 558; Kovačev and Geor-
and giev 2002, Tab. 1; Čohadžhiev 2007, Tab. 6) the
Rakitovo (second EN phase – 7,4 x 7,4 x 3 x 3,1 level of archaeozoological data is much better:
m, 7,4 x 7,4 x 4,3 x 6 m, 7,5 x 4 x 3,8 m, 7 x Barutnica-Amzabegovo (domestic animals from
7 x 4 x 3,5 m, 7,4 x 6,5 x 3 x 4 m, 7,6 x 7,8 x
7,6 x 5 m, first EN phase – 4 x 5,5 x 2 x 1 m, phase I – 96,58%, from phase II – 97,07%
first phase of house 13 – 5,5 x 5,5 x 3,5 x 4,7 m, and from phase III – 94,23%; wild animals
second phase of house 13 – 4 x 7,5 x 4 x 8 m, from phase I – 3,42%, from phase II – 2,93%
10 x 7 x 3 m). and from phase III – 5,76%);
