Page 34 - Studia Universitatis Hereditati, vol 9(1) (2021)
P. 34
ia and Bulgaria. In the period from 5,800 tostudia universitatis her editati, letnik 9 (2021), številk a 1 / volume 9 (2021), number 1 34and Gălăbnik (later phases) show many similar-
5,500 cal BC there is an absolute dominance of ities. The same can be concluded for the pottery
a large community/ies, regardless of whether wehereditati from Veluška Tumba-Porodin, Čuka-Topolčani,
refer to it as the second phase of EN, MN, devel- Vrbjanska Čuka-Slavej, Rakitovo, Slatina-So-
oped Neolithic, Starčevo, Amzabegovo-Vršnik, fia (earlier phases) and Gălăbnik (earlier phas-
Kremikovci, Kremenik, etc. es). Accordingly, it can be concluded that in the
EN, the material culture of Pelagonia has more
In order to improve our knowledge about similarities with the sites of the Struma Valley
the Neolithic in North Macedonia and Bulgaria and Sofia Plain, and the sites of Skopje and Ovče
based on the analogies or closeness of the materi- Pole Plains have stronger communication with
al culture, many cultures, cultural zones, blocks the same sites from the later phases of the same
and complexes have been established. However, regions in Bulgaria. This thesis according to ab-
at this point they are not of great benefit because solute chronology is problematic, which rais-
of the specificity that every site carries, especial- es a number of questions that have yet to be an-
ly in the EN. Without undermining the signifi- swered.
cance of the hierarchy in systematic and method-
ological approaches – long time ago introduced Do we have a sufficient14C dataset?
into archeology – material culture does not al- Are the phases well and precisely defined or they
low an absolute generalization of the commu-
nities that lived on this territory (and basical- need revision?
ly everywhere in the world) during a particular In which directions and in what way do remote
period. On the other hand, cultures and com-
plexes are already firmly grounded in the ar- groups of sites communicate?
chaeologists’ minds; so, on this territory there On which factors is this communication depen-
are several cultures formulated: Amzabego-
vo-Vršnik, Velušina-Porodin, Western Bulgari- dent?
an Painted Pottery Neolithic, Gălăbnik, Slatina, What is the number of unpublished material from
Kovačevo and Karanovo culture – all of these
considered as members of the Balkan-Anatolian the explored sites?
EN Complex. In this analysis, eleven sites have Has the time been right for new surveys and explo-
been individually considered: Barutnica-Amz-
abegovo, Cerje-Govrlevo, Veluška Tumba-Po- rations of the known unexplored Neolithic si-
rodin, Čuka-Topolčani, Vrbjanska Čuka-Slavej tes?
(from North Macedonia), Slatina-Sofia, Krajni-
ci, Gălăbnik, Vaksevo, Rakitovo and Kovačevo Regarding the selected locations to form
(from western Bulgaria). settlements there, on one hand there is tenden-
cy that some sites, as Cerje-Govrlevo and Ba-
Pottery, architecture and animal husband- rutnica-Amzabegovo and the Struma and So-
ry as a new phenomenon in the Neolithic are fia Plain sites, to be positioned on river terraces,
the essential economical, social and cultural as- while on the other hand, the ones in Pelagonia
pects according to which we define the sites, cul- and exclusively Gălăbnik (from Radomir Plain)
tures, etc. Based on the considered material cul- artificialy elevated the settlement space, thus cre-
ture in this study, differences were noted in all ating mounds. It is logical to conclude that this
sites, but in the same time and more important- is closely related to the natural environment and
ly, many analogies were found. In brief, in rela- geomorphological features – the sites in plains
tion to the EN and MN painted pottery, Cer- and valleys are vulnerable to serious hydrologi-
je-Govrlevo, Barutnica-Amzabegovo, Krajnici, cal impacts and those on the river terraces or flat
Kovačevo, Vaksevo, Slatina-Sofia (later phases) settlements rely on more stable water-level. The
architecture itself is almost identical in all ana-
lyzed sites - aboveground houses built of wood-
en construction daubed in mud, rectangular,
5,500 cal BC there is an absolute dominance of ities. The same can be concluded for the pottery
a large community/ies, regardless of whether wehereditati from Veluška Tumba-Porodin, Čuka-Topolčani,
refer to it as the second phase of EN, MN, devel- Vrbjanska Čuka-Slavej, Rakitovo, Slatina-So-
oped Neolithic, Starčevo, Amzabegovo-Vršnik, fia (earlier phases) and Gălăbnik (earlier phas-
Kremikovci, Kremenik, etc. es). Accordingly, it can be concluded that in the
EN, the material culture of Pelagonia has more
In order to improve our knowledge about similarities with the sites of the Struma Valley
the Neolithic in North Macedonia and Bulgaria and Sofia Plain, and the sites of Skopje and Ovče
based on the analogies or closeness of the materi- Pole Plains have stronger communication with
al culture, many cultures, cultural zones, blocks the same sites from the later phases of the same
and complexes have been established. However, regions in Bulgaria. This thesis according to ab-
at this point they are not of great benefit because solute chronology is problematic, which rais-
of the specificity that every site carries, especial- es a number of questions that have yet to be an-
ly in the EN. Without undermining the signifi- swered.
cance of the hierarchy in systematic and method-
ological approaches – long time ago introduced Do we have a sufficient14C dataset?
into archeology – material culture does not al- Are the phases well and precisely defined or they
low an absolute generalization of the commu-
nities that lived on this territory (and basical- need revision?
ly everywhere in the world) during a particular In which directions and in what way do remote
period. On the other hand, cultures and com-
plexes are already firmly grounded in the ar- groups of sites communicate?
chaeologists’ minds; so, on this territory there On which factors is this communication depen-
are several cultures formulated: Amzabego-
vo-Vršnik, Velušina-Porodin, Western Bulgari- dent?
an Painted Pottery Neolithic, Gălăbnik, Slatina, What is the number of unpublished material from
Kovačevo and Karanovo culture – all of these
considered as members of the Balkan-Anatolian the explored sites?
EN Complex. In this analysis, eleven sites have Has the time been right for new surveys and explo-
been individually considered: Barutnica-Amz-
abegovo, Cerje-Govrlevo, Veluška Tumba-Po- rations of the known unexplored Neolithic si-
rodin, Čuka-Topolčani, Vrbjanska Čuka-Slavej tes?
(from North Macedonia), Slatina-Sofia, Krajni-
ci, Gălăbnik, Vaksevo, Rakitovo and Kovačevo Regarding the selected locations to form
(from western Bulgaria). settlements there, on one hand there is tenden-
cy that some sites, as Cerje-Govrlevo and Ba-
Pottery, architecture and animal husband- rutnica-Amzabegovo and the Struma and So-
ry as a new phenomenon in the Neolithic are fia Plain sites, to be positioned on river terraces,
the essential economical, social and cultural as- while on the other hand, the ones in Pelagonia
pects according to which we define the sites, cul- and exclusively Gălăbnik (from Radomir Plain)
tures, etc. Based on the considered material cul- artificialy elevated the settlement space, thus cre-
ture in this study, differences were noted in all ating mounds. It is logical to conclude that this
sites, but in the same time and more important- is closely related to the natural environment and
ly, many analogies were found. In brief, in rela- geomorphological features – the sites in plains
tion to the EN and MN painted pottery, Cer- and valleys are vulnerable to serious hydrologi-
je-Govrlevo, Barutnica-Amzabegovo, Krajnici, cal impacts and those on the river terraces or flat
Kovačevo, Vaksevo, Slatina-Sofia (later phases) settlements rely on more stable water-level. The
architecture itself is almost identical in all ana-
lyzed sites - aboveground houses built of wood-
en construction daubed in mud, rectangular,
