Таблица 1. Метричен анализ на параметрите при челните стъргалки

ЧС. При тази метрична информация добре се очертават различните тенденции в раз-витието на ЧС. По различии причини няма да се спираме на тези данни от анализите.

ЧС лесно се разпознават сред кремъчния инвентар по специфичното оформяне на ра­ботния край. Както вече отбелязахме, въп-росът за функционалността на ЧС е бил от-давна дискутиран. Тази дискусия продължи до преди няколко години. Дали този спор е затихнал ще покаже времето. Ето накратко някои от по-важните моменти от тази дис­кусия. Въпросът за функционалното пред­назначение на ЧС се поставя за пръв път от Г. де Мортиле в началото на нашия век (МОРТИЛЕ 1903, 143). По-късно, пак в нача­лото на същото столетие, Л. Пфайфер счита ЧС за универсално режещо оръдие, което рядко бил употребявано без дръжка. Ф. Хе-ринг счита, че с тези оръдия са били издъл-бавани жлебове по дървени и костно-рого-ви изделия. По-сетнешните проучвания в това направление подкрепиха това мнение. Основателят на експериментално-трасоло-гическия метод - С.А. Семенов, след като е проучил следите от унотреба по ЧС от пале­олита, констатира, че те са били предимно кожообработващи оръдия с работен ъгъл от 75-80°. Тази кожообработваща функция беше възприета без възражения, тъй като беше доказана твърде убедително. В нача­лото на 70-те години В. Сидров, след като се базира на морфологическата близост на ЧС с теслообразните сечива и експериментални-те наблюдения, доказва дърводелската им

употреба, като не отрича кожообработва-щотоим приложение. Нашите проучвания през 80-те години хвърлиха светлина по този въпрос. Дотогава ние проучвахме тра-сологически предимно неолитни оръдия на труда, в частност и ЧС, при което се конста-тираше предимно кожообработващата им употреба. При проучването на флинтовия материал от халколита и бронзовата епоха (Русе, Коджадермен, Багачина, Езеро и Ев­молпия) попаднахме на ЧС слинейни следи и износване, придобити при дървообработ-ваща употреба. Такива екземпляри, след износване, са били модифицирани предим­но в резци и по-рядко в зъбци за сърпове. Досегашните ни проучвания дават основа­ние да се счита, че през неолита ЧС са били предимно кожообработващи оръдия. През времето на раннометалните епохи ЧС са участвали все по-широко в производство-то на дървени и костно-рогови изделия, в качеството на скобел или нож за стъргане. Поради значителната твърдост на обработ-ваната материя и силния натиск те бързо се износвали, след което били модифицирани, както вече отбелязахме, по-често в резци и по-рядко в зъбци за сърпове.

Според нас спорът за дръжките на ЧС няма съществено значение. Ние считаме, че всички екземпляри с дължина над 4 см биха могли да се употребяват без дръжки. Присъствието или отсъствието на дръжка не променя характера на употребата им. Това може да повлияе на ефективността им при работа. И така, в заключение следва да отбележим, че ЧС са били универсално стържещо оръдие с най-широко приложе­ние, в това число и кожообработването.

Литература

Боглевски 1937

Б.Л. Богаевскн. Орудия производства и домшин-ыеживотные Триполья. Ленинград 1937.

Гацов п дн- 1983 И. Гацов и др. Типология на каменнпте оръ­дия от ранния и средния палеолит. Археология 1-2, 1983, 16-21.

Глцов 1992

И. Гацов. Характер и специфика на кремъчно-то производство през неолита в днешната За­падна България. Археология 2, 1992, 1-13.

Кънчев 1983

К. Кънчев. Неолитни оръдия и суровинните им източници в България. Докторска дисертация. София 1983.

Кънчев 1990

К. Кънчев. Орудия труда неолита Болгарии: Сырьевая база, типология, функциология и место в хозяйствеиом развитии. Автореферат дисерта-ции. Ленинград 1990.

Кънчев 1991 К. Кънчев. Възможности за приложение на дисперсионния анализ в археологическите и историческите изследвания. Трудове по исто­рия и теория на науката и техниката 7, 1991, 71-86.

Кънчев/Н и колов 1983

К. Кънчев, Б. Николов. Оръдия на труда и сто-панският живот на селища от халколитната епоха във Врачанско. Известия на музеите в Се-верозапапа България 8, 1983.

Кънчев 1987

К. Кънчев и др. Разкопки на Русенската селищ­на могила. Годишник на музеите в северна Бъл­гария 13, 1987.

Мортиле 1903

ГА. де Мортиле. Доисторическая жизнь. Санкт Петербург 1903.

Тодорова и др. 1975

X. Тодорова и др. Селищната могила при Голя­мо Делчево (Разкопки и проучвания 5). София 1975.

Тодорова п др. 1983

X. Тодорова и др. Овчарово (Разкопки и проуч­вания 9). София 1983.

РИЛЕ

Mehmet Özdogan

Scholars with an interest in the archaeology of the Balkans have always been impresseti by the dynamic enthusiasm of Prof. Dr. Henrieta Todorova; during the last decades she has been the most simulating component of Balkan pre­history with her vigorous, but amicable stand in the chronological debates. Besides her major accomplishments, we are particularly indebted to her foi^- persistent and meticulous work in divulging the significance of Late Chalcolithic cultures of Bulgaria. li there hacl not been her productive efforts, we would not be able to eval­úate neither the Varna culture in the context, nor the transitional period to the Early Bronze Age.

During the last decade, substantial amount of new data has been available, both from the littoral áreas of Bulgaria and from Northwest­ern Turkey concerning the Bronze Age cul­tures. However, at présent there are substantial difficulties in interpreting this évidence. The présent paper will try to display the discrep-ancies between these two régions, suggesting a rather controversial solution. In the course of last few years, we had the opportunity to discuss thèse issues with Dr. Todorova, without Coming to a consensus. Nevertheless these discussions have been an incitement to consider these prob-lems; accordingly, I humbly présent this paper to her.

Thrace and Northwestern Anatolia during the Bronze Age: A Prelude to the Problem

Corrélation of Anatolian-Aegean Bronze Age cultures with those of the Balkans has al­ways been a matter of dispute. In spite of the ap­parent différences in the cultural assemblages, in the prevailing types of Settlements, as well as in architectural remains, the présence of some, seemingly similar éléments between these two régions, have always tempted scholars to seek for common patterns. However, there is still no consensus, neither on corrélation ofthe chrono­logical séquences, nor on the présence of inten­sive interaction taking place between the Anato-lian-Aegean and the Balkan cultural régions.

It seems evident that during the Bronze Age, in spite of the regional différences in the arti-factural assemblages, Anatolia and the Aegeans have developed almost on similar lines; in both of these régions there is a rather sudden ap-pearance of small, but fortified towns, and there are also indications of an emerging elite ruling class. Increasing implementation of wheel made

Fig. 1. Marmara région during last glacial maximum, showing lake conditions of the Sea of Marmara and Black Sea. Triangles indicate Laie Paleolithic sites

pottery, the présence of status objects including sophisticated metallurgy are all indicative of a pre-sate stage of urbanization in the Anatolian-Aegean région. Howe ver, it should also be not-ed that in the course of the Early Bronze Age, the western Anatolian and the Aegea n model of "urban" centers, when compared to the con-temporary ciliés of Syro-Mesopotamia, are extremely small and provincial. On the other hand, during the Bronze Age, Thrace, like most of the Balkans, must have remained outside of the process of urbanization. Thus the Sea of Marmara, which was a cultural bridge between Anatolia atid the Balkans throughout the Neo­lithic and Chalcolithic Period, now, for the en-tire span of the Bronze Age, became a barrier delimiling thèse two régions.

What appears as a strict cultural discontinu-ity between the Balkan and Northwestern Ana­tolian Bronze Age cultures is hard to conçoive, as the geographica] features of neilher the Bosporus, noi the Sea of Marmara can hamper interaction between Thrace and Anatolia. Con­siderine that during the Bronze Age the roots of an extensive maritime trade network was be-ing established, it is rather stränge that no such action took place through the Bosporus. Thus, the main problem would be to justify how sudi a barrier could have sustained between two neighboring régions for almost two thousand years. However, before going into the contro-versies of interprétation, it would be worth hav-ing a brief survey of the archaeological évidence from either side of the Sea of Marmata for the sake of clearance.

The Archaeological Evidence

The Early Bronze Age cultures of North­western Anatolia are relatively well document-cd, besides excavated major Bronze Age sites like Troy, Demirci Höyük, Besjktepe, Kumtepe and Yortan cemeteries, récent excavations at Orhangazi Hacilartepe (for short notes on the recent work at Hacilartepe, see Rodenberg 1993; 1994), Seyitömer Höyügü (Topba§ 1993) and Early Bronze Age cemetery sites at Sariket

The Black Sea, the Sea of Marmara and Bronze Age Archaeology: an Archaeological Predicament

205

■ Open-Sta

■ Lake with oxygen and acid content

a) Northwestern Anatolia seems to be exten-sively inhabitée! during the Bronze Age; how-ever, sites dateable to the first half of the Early Bronze Age are much more numerous. Even though the number of Early Bronze Age sites on the alluvial plains are more common, sites can be found on all géographie settings from intermountain Valleys, to high plateaus (Fig. 5) (for a distribution of sites see Korfmann et al. 1994).

b) Most of Anatolian sites are multi-layered mounds, indicating continuons occupation through the Early Bronze Age

c) Sites yielding EBA III pottery of the 2nd Millennium are much less then Early Bronze Age I and II, but wherever they occur, the sites are considerably bigger, possibly indicating a further step in centralized urbanism. It seems also possible that we could only recognize the fine wares of this period and that smaller set­tlement were using undiagnostic local pottery, which went unnoticed during the survey.

However, on the Thracian side of the Sea of Marmara, our évidence is still rather scanty and difficult to interpret (ÖzdoGan 1991). In the eastern Thrace, the only excavated and fully published Bronze Age site is still Karaagaçtepe-Protesilaos (Demangel 1926). Our survey in Eastern Thrace has revealed a number of Early Bronze Age sites, but can be inferred through this survey is rather controversial: the Gelobolu Península by the Dardanelles (Özdogan 1986a) and the littoral areas along the Aegean have re­vealed mound sites yielding Anatolian type of pottery; at least there, on the surface we could not identify any "un-Anatolian" sherd. The

» Fikirtepe Finds

Fig. 3. Marmara région during the Neolithic Period. Triangles indicale sites of Fikirtepe culture

Northern coastline ofthe Sea of Marmara also seems to be densely occupied during the early part of the Early Bronze Age, between Istan­bul and Kizilcaterzi we have identified 12 Early Bronze Age sites, four of them being sizable mounds. After evaluating the surface collection of Bronze Age sherds, some facts seemed evi­dent:

a) The surface yield of thèse sites was very uniform, suggesting that they are ail contem-porary, and that they represented only a single cultural épisode.

b) The material of these coastal sites clear af­fin ities to the pottery assemblage of Troy I.

c) We have not recovered any similar assem­blage from the Bronze Age sites that are further away from the coastal areas.

d) There were very few, if any, sherds that would definitely be related to the Ezero assem­blage.

e) Ail along the coastal strip of Thrace, we could recover only one site, Karaevlialti, that could possibly be dated to the 2nd Mil­lennium BC

F) The next clear évidence of Settlements along the coastal area is from the Middle lion Age, that is with the Greek colonization. Need-less to say, it seems rather stränge that all ofthe coastal zone became deserted, or being very thiny throughout the 2nd Millennium.

However, our récent work at Menek§e Çatagi bave indicateci that the situation was not as sim­ple as we could interpret from the surface évi­dence. At least it is now evident that the archi­tectural remains of the Bronze Age layers are typically "un-Analolian", revealing apsidal post-hole buildings, and that there are also sign il i-cant amount of local wares in the assemblage.

In the inner parts of Thrace, the number of Early Bronze Age sites that we could recover are minimal, ail of them being fiat without any indication of multi-layered mound formation. The surface évidence of these sites is also strik-ingly différent from those along the Marmara coast, Ezero type of sherds being overwhelm-ingly prédominant. Moreover, our évidence for

the Middle and Late Bronze Age from the inner régions, is even more obscure; there are only a very limited number of cases where we could claim to have recovered clear 2nd Millennium material.

However stili, our recent work at Kanligeçit is strongly suggestive of an Anatolian coloniza-tion penetrating into Eastern Thrace by the end of the 3rd Millennium BC, but whether or not this is an exceptional case, or indicative of a pat­tern which has not yet became apparent, is not clear. Accordingly, until there is more évidence available, our présent level of archaeological record is not enough to make, even preliminary assessments concerning the Bronze Age of East­ern Thrace.

Evidently, the status of Bronze Age investiga­tions in Bulgaria is on more firm bases; intensive work at stratified large sites such as Ezero, Ka­ranovo, Yunatsite, Dyadovo and Galabovo have clearly established the bases for working out the artifactual séquence. A large number of minor excavations as well as surface surveys have also contributed to our understanding of the Thra-cian Bronze Age. As apparent from some re-cently published important papers (Lf.shtakov 1993a; Panajotov 1989; 1995; Nemejcova 1992), presenting an overview of the Bulgarian évi­dence for the Bronze Age, the following general Statements can be made:

a) Unlike Eastern Thrace, there seems to be some, major Bronze Age centers, such as Ezero, Dyadovo, Yunatsite etc., indicating a continuous series of occupation in Southern Bulgaria.

b) however, besides these few mound sites, all other Bronze Age sites are small fíat sites, more like temporary camp sites thcn continu­ous villages.

c) All of the Bulgarian Bronze Age sites, including mounds, have no indication of the présence of a complex society. They all lack the monumental architectural remains as well as the sophisticated artifactual assemblages, stone architecture, the use of massive defencewalls etc. are all absent from Thracian Bronze Age sites. The potters wheel, an indicator of urbani-

Fig. 5. Distribution of Bronze Age sites in Northwestern Turkey

zation, that began to bc in use on the Anatolian sitie ofthe sea of Mannara by the middle ofthe Early Bronze Age practically appears in Thrace only during the Iron Age.

d) Ali the Bulgarian Bronze Age, including Thrace, what can be safely considered as Im­ports from Anatolia or from the Aegean, are restricted to a few depas and to 5 vessels from Galabovo (Panajotov/Leshtakov 1991, figs. 18-20). Thus, it seems evident that not only the set-tlcmcnt pattern in Thrace was différent from Anatolia, but the interaction between these two régions were at minimal level.

e) There is a considerable degree of différ­ence between the Northern and Southern Bul­garian Bronze Age cultures. By the end of the Early Bronze Age, Southeast and Southwest Bulgaria also seems to be parts of distinct cul­tural groups. In the course ofthe Early Bronze Age Southeastern Bulgaria seems to be an area marginai lo the happenings in the Aegean and in Northeastern Turkey.

f) The traditional tripartite division of Bronze Age into Early, Middle and Late phas­es, perfectly applicable to Anatolia and to the Aegean, seems meaningless in Thrace.

g) Like in Eastern Thrace, in Southeast Bul­garia the évidence for most ofthe 2nd Millenni­um B.C. is also extremely inadequate; possibly indicating a total collapse ofthe social system.

h) Like in Eastern Thrace, intensive repopu­lation ofthe area will take place only by the end ofthe 2nd Millennium, by what seems as an in­trusive group.

i) Like in Eastern Thrace and Northwestern Anatolia, the coastal áreas of the Black Sea are voici of intensive Bronze Age habitation. How-ever, the recently discovered submerged Bronze Age sites in Bulgaria (Draganov 1995; Paxajo-tov 1991; Boek 1994) arc strongly suggestive that the Bronze Age coastline ofthe Black Sea was considerably différent from that of the présent, and that all coastal settlements were submerged.