Rasho Rashev Introduction Рашо Рашев Увод н и дум и Christina Angelova, Mark. Stefanovich Henrieta Todorova Христина Ангелова, Марк Стефанович Хенриета Тодорова Кратка биография

Proto-Krivodol Phase and the Late Vinca Culture

Borislav Jovanovic

Борислав Йованович

Фазата Прото-Криводол и културата Късна Винча

Статията разглежда проблема за дефинирането на фазите на културите в Централните Балканы. Комплексные демонстрират локалнн илы хронологически различия. 1'азгледани са данните от Източна Сьрбня и Западна Бълга­рия. Предварите'лните заключения показват съществувапето на локална фаза на културата Прото-Криводол, която има типологическо сходство с късните фази на Винча. От това наблюдение следва, че етапът Бубанъ-Хум 1а бимогъл да се изведе от предходния хоризонт Винча-Плочник ПЬ-Градац iii.

New excavations oí"the Eneolithic sites of'the Central Balkans bring often to light new phases of already known cultures, particularly on the limited territory. On that occasion an inevita­ble dilemma appears: did those phases repre-sent evolutional or regional differences? In a word, did any culture, settled a restricted terri­tory represent a simple sum of their local vari-ants - or, on the contrary, the culture evolved through certain phases simultaneously all over the territory. Therefore such culture is expect-ed to penétrate into a neighboring región with its own, well-developed material culture, differ-ent enough from the local base.

A relatively small geographical unit, con-sisting oí the Eastern Serbia and the Western Bulgaria, offers an instructive example of this kind. It is encircled by the rivers Struma and Vardar to the South and by the rivers Timok and Iskar to the North. The relative-chrono-logical sequence of the Early Eneolithic of the región was - thanking also to the works of H. Todorova - quite clear. Older horizon com-prised the Late Gradesnica, the Djakovo phase and the Vinca-Plocnik II, while the Krivodol and Bubanj-Hum belonged to the younger one (Todorova 1983,48; Todorova 1991, 158; Mikov 1948, 26).

It is worthwhile to notice that in such strait areas none of the known sites show both phases in the direct stratification, what sounds rather astonishing. Even they existed at the same time and in the immediate vicinity, both horizons did not meet on the same site. Poduene in the Sofia Basin is some exception with its cióse find of pottery, whose typology has an extraordinary importance (Todorova 1990, 160).

On the contrary, mutual influences, or the prévalent influence of the individual culture, were often declared; for example a pénétration of the Bubanj-Hum culture into the territory of the Late Vinca culture. That invasion, further, had to precede a later migration wave, connect­ed with the Salcuta IV éléments. But at the be-ginning, the Late Vinca of the Plocnic type (or Gradac III phase) was replaced - according to the common Standpoint - by the Bubanj-Hum la culture. Typological differences between them have been explained by the assertion that the Bubanj-Hum la phase did not originate from the Late Vinca culture, putting aside some sur­vivais in the pottery and figurines (Garasanin 1979, 162; Jovanovic 1991, 69).

Ceramic style is usually accepted as the basic typological category, but with the idea that any new style also désignâtes remarkable change in the existing social system. As a conséquence, a definite period of time plus (strong) economie innovation, would be unavoidable for création of a new style. Applied - in the relative-chrono-logical sense - to the small geographical région and a separate cultural phase, those conditions clearly show their decisive role.

Typological differences between Vinca-Plocnik II (Gradac III) and Bubanj-Hum are, for example, noticeable; the same is true for Po­duene, Djakovo and Krivodol. Plocnik II phase is not, however, determined as proto-Bubanj-Hum; on the contrary, Poduene/Djakovo are named as proto-Krivodol phase. According to

duene - has been dated to the Vinca D2 time (that is the Vinca-Plocnic IIb). Typological clas­sification of the vessels is rather complicated, because of the éléments from the Gradesnica C, Late Vinca, Karanovo V and Varna cultures (Todorova 1990, 164), were recognized in the style of Podeune ceramics. In comparison with the Plocnic - Gradac III phase, a considérable variegation of the Poduene ceramic style is clearly noticed. Poduene was determined as the proto-Krivodol phase.

Djakovo, a site in the surroundings of Kjust-endil, South of Poduene, has also been dated in the proto-Krivodol phase. An important state­ment followed this désignation - namely it is so far an unknown stage of the Eneolithic from North-West Bulgaria (Cohadziev 1984, 64). Anyway, the Djakovo pottery differ consider-ably from those which was found in the burned house of Poduene. For the Djakovo ceramics the analogies from the chele of Gradesnica culture were predominantly cited. For the contempo-raneous site Slatino (Cardako) also near Kjus-tendil, more extensive parallels are quoted (for example from the Maritsa, Southern Late Vinca and Gradesnica cultures). Typological affinity towards the Aegean Macedonia was expressed by the term "Dikili Tas ceramics". It was also stressed that the Slatino culture (assigned again as a "new" one), fills up the blank between the Early Eneolithic of the Lower Struma valley and the North Greece (Cohadziev 1986, 191).

The preliminary conclusion drawn from those summarized comparisons, would suggest the existence of already formed local variants of the "proto-Krivodol" phase. They show cer­tain typological affinities with the latest phase ofthe Vinca-Plocnik IIb (Gradac III). From this point of view, such phase would correspond to a "proto-Bubanj" stage, as the conséquence of the relative-chronological relations, mentioned above. If so, it would be logically to derive the Bubanj-Hum la stage from the previous Vinca-Plocnik Ilb-Gradac III Stratum. Even geo-graphically rather distant, some beginning of this process could be seen on the site of Divostin (Central Serbia), with the youngest building ho­rizon (IIb). The horizon belongs to the Gradac II phase - but not to the Vinca D3, as the epony­mous site of Belo Brdo did not already exist at that time (Tasic 1990, 29).

it, their doser typological resemblance to the evolved Krivodol (phases I-II) vvould be antici-pated (Todorova 1990, 165; Cohadziev 1984, 80; Georgieva 1990, 129).

But in those examples - as mentioned above

- a direct stratigraphie séquence on the exca-vated Settlements was not, so far, fixed. On the eponymous site of Plocnik, a seulement of the Bubanj-Hum la culture also existed, but — ac-cording to the présent data - without an imme­diate stratigraphie contact (Jovanovic 1991, 64). The sanie relation was repeated at another key

- site: Gradac in the Southern Serbia; this time because of the early stage ofthe Vinca culture (Gradac I) (Jovanovic 1991, 64). It is therefore a lack of recent investigations that makes the sup-posed typological development from the Late Vinca to the Bubanj-Hum la unclear.

The séparation of the Vinca and Bubanj-Hum I cultures on the same location, speaks also in favour of some chronological différences. What time divides the abandonment of the Vinca Settlements from the foundation of the Bubanj-Hum ones (phase la) stili remains open question. The hiatus is interesting in regard of the further évolution of the Late Vinca - Plocnik (Gradac III) phase; did therefore exist another possible typological phase, tili now unknown? The phase would fili up a blank between the Late Vinca and Bubanj-Hum la cultures in the sanie areas. Some éléments of the material culture would speak in behalf of it - namely the survivais from the Late Vinca in the Bubanj-Hum la, already empha-sized (Garasanin 1979, 155).

In this way, however, the well known dilem­ma appears again: autochthonous, better to say locai, or diffusive origin? So, does the Bubanj-Hum la culture - containing, besides a row of the Krivodol type éléments - occupy (by force?) the territory settled previously by the Vinca -Plocnik IIb (Gradac III) population? Was Bu­banj-Hum la culture influenced, during that pénétration, by the locai, Late Vinca base? In that case Bubanj-Hum la culture had to be completely formed, before of its (hypothetic) oc­cupation of the Late Vinca territory.

More data about older stage of the Early Eneolithic of the Early Eneolithic of Krivodol type were obtained (as stated above), from the site of Poduene (Sofia Basin). A close find - of pottery from the fioor of burned house at Po­

Having in mind the same territory and the coïncident chronology, the development of Krivodol and Bubanj-Hum cultures should have similar, if not the identical course. The région of their permanent distribution were tightly connected, settled previously by the akin population. It is clear that both propositions, already mentioned: a common territory and a contemporaneity were with this example corn-pletely satisfied.

Therefore the explanation that the connec­tions between the Late Vinca-Plocnik (Gra-dac III) and early phase of Bubanj (la) are not quite reliable, is contradictory to the évolution of Krivodol culture. Gradesnica C was deter-mined as the main base for the early Krivodol, the same ought to be valid for the chronological relation the Late Vinca-Bubanj-Hum la.

Présent évidence also shows that in the time of Gradesnica C and Vinca-Plocnik IIb (Gradac III) any considerable cultural or ethnie move-ments did not happen on the territory which they occupied. An entire evolutional accordance between the horizons of the Gradesnica C-Late Vinca, on the one hand, and Krivodol-Bubanj-Hum on the other hand, is quite obvious.

The direct typological connections between Late Vinca-Giadac III phase and the earliest "proto" Krivodol is confirmed at Poduene (To­dorova 1990, 165; Jovanovic 1991, 68). This site represents as a matter of fact a further évolu­tion of such type of the Late Vinca, which was distinctly exposed by the rieh ceramic inventory from the burned Divostin IIb houses. It may mean that in the Sofia Basin some typologi­cal and chronological connections were estab-lished, not only between the latest Vinca culture and the very early Bubanj-Hum culture, but also with the "proto-Krivodol" phase.

For the better understanding of the proc-ess, new, systematic excavated settlements in the South Morava valley certainly failed. All the évi­dence cornes exactly from the well known sites, as Gradac, Bubanj or Plocnik, comprising the site of Pavlovac as well, and to a certain degree, Vinca sites from the Kosovo région. Divostin Ilb represents a distinct example that the évolution of the Late Vinca of the Morava Basin had to lead to the formation of the Bubanj-Hum la phase. Therefore Krivodol, Bubanj-Hum and Salcuta are, before all, related cultures - much more than to consider them as a uniform cultural complex, which is now the common définition.

Every of those cultures belonged to the evolved Early Eneolithic (or to the Middle Ene­olithic according to the Bulgarian relative chro­nology) (Todorova 1991, 158; 1983, 45), strong enough to termínate the southward expansion of the Pannonian Late Eneolithic cultures (Bod-rogkeresztur, Baden) (Tasic 1990, 30; Jovanovic 1991, 69). Only the coming of the steppe tribes provoked substantial innovations in the materi­al culture of the Eneolithic period of the région, but also without the extensive migrations to the Southern Balkans.

Finally, the exclusive exténuation of the Bu­banj-Hum culture over the previous territory of the Late Vinca culture, could only have the same explanation as the overlap of the Krivodol and Gradesnica areas.

References

cohadziev 1984.

S. Cohadziev. Ausgrabungen an der prähistori­schen Siedlung bein Dorf Djakovo, kreis Kjusten­dil. Studia Praehistorica 7, 1984, 64-80.

S. Cohadziev. Frühäneolithische Keramik aus der prähistorischen Siedlung bei Slatine, Bezirk Kju­stendil. Studia Praehistorica 8, 1986, 185-211.

M. Garasanin. Zur chronologischen und kultu­rellen Wertung der Bubanj - Funde. Jarbuch des Römisch-Ger manischen Zentrahnuseums Mainz 26, 1979, 154-166.

P. Georgieva. Die prähistorische Siedlung in der Gegend Cukata bein Dorf Galatin bei Vraca (Bul­garien). Studia Praehistorica 9, 1990, 111-146.

B. Jovanovic. Vinca and Larisa cultures: migration or autochthone development. Anatolica 19 (Special issue on Anatolia and the Balkans Symposium, ed. byj. Roodenberg), 1993, 63-74.

Керамика от праисторическото селище Криводол-Тепето

Георги Ганецовски

Georgi Ganetsovski

Л Pottery from the prehistoric seulement Krivodol-Tepeto

The considérable importance of the Krivodol as an eponymous site for the period of the Late Eneolithic from W Bulgaria cali for re-examining published and unpublished ceramic data in the context of the cultural complex Krivodol-Sâlcuta-Bubanj (KSB). Because oflack of stratigraphie évidence for the ceramics from the site, ils chronological position is specified through comparison with the materials from other sites with secure chronological position in the frame of the cultural complex.

This paper offers a detailed graphical reconstruction and detailed classification on the main shapes and décorations of the Late Eneolithic ceramics from Krivodol. It is possible to conclude, that the first (earliest) stage "proto-Krividol" is not présent within the site. Another four classical stages are présent here. The last straluni from Krivodol belongs lo "the prolo-Bronze stage of the Transitional Period" from the Eneolithic to the Bronze Age, presented also in Galatin, Sâlcuta IV-Herculane II-III and Lasinja II Cultures. The established similarities in some shapes and décorations of the pottery from the site show strong influence to the formation of the Balton-Lasinja Culture from the NW pari of the Balkan peninsula, due to ethnocullural transformations in the beginning of the "Transitional Period". As a result, the essence of the archaeological cultures is unified, and this is clearly noticed in their pottery assemblages.

Многослойната височинна селищна мо­гила до град Криводол, Врачанско, става из­вестна през 1938 г., когато за нея съобщава В. Миков (Миков 1938, 384). Той говори за наличието на късноримска крепост, постро­ена върху голямо селище от каменно-медна­та епоха. През 1946 г. същият прави сондаж с площ около 220 м в северозападната част на обекта, без да се придържа към стратиг-рафския метод, в резултат на което остават неизяснени както стуктурата на близо 3-метровия културен пласт, така и мястото на открития твърде интересен археологически материал. Жилищата са били разположени терасовидно, а денивелацията на терена е предизвикала евличане на напластяванията (Миков 1938, обр. 13). Констатирано е било и укрепително съоръжение (Миков 1938, 58). Публикуваният керамичен материал е кла-сифициран според видовете дръжки, а кул­турата е отнесена към т.нар. "западна група с рисувана керамика".

По-късно д. Берчу (Вексш 1961, 93-327) синхронизира по следния начин проученото