On the Late Stages of the Krivodol-Salcu

7/23/2019 On the Late Stages of the Krivodol-Salcu

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/on-the-late-stages-of-the-krivodol-salcu 1/16

In The Steps of James Harvey Gaul

Volume 2

Sofia · 2007

Edited byHenrieta Todorova, Mark Stefanovich, Georgi Ivanov

THE STRUMA/STRYMONRIVER VALLEY IN PREHISTORY

THE STRUMA/STRYMONRIVER VALLEY IN PREHISTORY

Proceedings of the International Symposium Strymon Praehistoricus

Kjustendil–Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria) and Serres–Amphipolis (Greece)

27.09–01.10.2004

SerresDrama

Amphipolis

S t r y m o n

Dikili Tash

Sitagroi

Pernik

Blagoevgrad

Kjustendil

Topolnica

Promachon

S t r u m a

Kamenska Čuka

GERDA HENKEL STIFTUNGGERDA HENKEL STIFTUNG



D I E G

E R D A H E N K E L S T I F T U N G F U R F Ö R D

E R U N G D E R H I S T O R I S C H E N

G E I S T E S W I S S E N S C H A F T E N I S T I M J U N I 1 9 7 6 V O N F R A U L I S A M A S K E L L

Z U M

G E D E N K E N A N I H

R E M U T T E R , F R A U

G E R D A H E N K E L , A L S

G E M E I N N Ü T Z I G E S T I F T

U N G D E S P R I V A T E

N R E C H T S E R R I C H

T E T W O R D E N .

D I E S

T I F T U N G H A T I H R

E N S I T Z I N D Ü S S E L D O R F . A U S S C H L I E S S L I C H E R

S T I F T

U N G S Z W E C K I S T D I E F Ö R D E R U N G D E R W I S S E N S C H A F T , V O R N E M L I C H

D U R C

H B E S T I M M T E F A

C H L I C H U N D Z E I T

L I C H B E G R E N Z T E

A R B E I T E N A U F

D E M

G E B I E T D E R G E I S T

E S W I S S E N S C H A F T A N U N I V E R S I T Ä T

E N U N D

F O R S

C H U N G S I N S T I T U T

E N . D I E W E I T E R B I L D U N G G R A G U I E R T E R

S T U D

E N T E N I S T E I N B E

S O N D E R E S A N L I E G E N D E R S T I F T U N

G .



In The Steps of James Harvey GaulVolume 2

The Struma/Strymon River Valley in PrehistoryProceedings of the International Symposium „Strymon Praehistoricus“,Kjustendil–Blagoevgrad–Serres–Amphipolis, 27.09–01.10.2004Editing: Henrieta Todorova, Mark Stefanovich and Georgi Ivanov1. Prehistoric–Europe; 2. Neolithic period–Europe; 3 Europe–Antiquities.544 pp., 29 maps, 9 topograchical plans, 779 color photos, 81 b/w photos,815 drawings, 58 tabl., 32 diagrams and simplified graphs,10 reconstructions drawing of houses.

Museum of History-Kyustendil

ISBN: 978-954-8191-11-1

Sofia (2007) First published

Gerda Henkel Stiftung

GERDA HENKEL STIFTUNGMALKASTENSTRASSE 15, D-40211 DÜSSELDORF, GERMANYTELEFON +49 (0)211 35 98 53, TELEFAX +49 (0)211 35 71 [email protected]

Copyright © 2007 by GERDA HENKEL STIFTUNG and THE AUTHORSISBN: 978-954-8191-11-1

No part of this publication may by reproduced by any means, including photocopy, recording or other informationstorage retrieval system, without permission in writing from GERDA HENKEL STIFTUNG and THE AUTHORS.The copyright to the illustrations are hold by the authors.

Printed in Bulgaria at BULGED.Digital print. The technology of Indigo.

English texts edited by:MARK STEFANOVICHDrawings and Maps by:IVAN VAJSOV, MICHAIL GEORGIEV AND AUTHORS ©Photographs:KRASIMIR GEORGIEV AND AUTORS ©Graphic desing, layout and artistic supervisions:GEORGI IVANOV (pages I–X; 1–41; 121–534) AND IVAN VAJSOV (pages 42–120) ©Cover graphic desing by:GEORGI IVANOV AND IVAN VAJSOV ©Cover photographs by:KRASIMIR GEORGIEV, GEOGRI IVANOV AND CHAIDO KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI ©



Sofia 2007

Proceedings of the Internat ional Symposium

Strymon Praehistoricus

Kjustendil–Blagoevgrad

(Bulgaria)

Serres–Amphipolis

(Greece)27.09–01.10.2004

Edited by

Henrieta Todorova, Mark Stefanovich, Georgi Ivanov

THE STRUMA/STRYMON

RIVER VALLEY IN PREHISTORY

Gerda Henkel Stiftung



Table of Contents

Vorwort ........................................................................................................................................................... vii

Die paleoklimatische Entwicklung in VII–I Jt. vor Chr.H. Todorova ..................................................................................................................................................... 1

Abrupt Climate Forcing Observed at Early Neolithic Sitesin South-East Europe and the Near EastB. Weninger, E. Alram-Stern, E. Bauer, L. Clare, U. Danzeglocke,O. Jöris, C. Kubatzki, G. Rollefson, H. Todorova, T. van Andel .................................................................... 7

Social Network Analysis of Neolithic SocietiesE. Claßen ........................................................................................................................................................ 28

Promachon-Topolnica. A greek-bulgarian archaeological projectCh. Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, H. Todorova, I. Aslanis, I. Vajsov, M. Valla ................................................. 43

Promachon-Topolnica. A typology of painted decorationsand its use as a chronological markerI. Vajsov .......................................................................................................................................................... 79

Tierdarstellungen und „Stierkult“ im Neolithikum Südosteuropas und AnatoliensF. Falkenstein ................................................................................................................................................121

Where Do Children Belong? Neolithic burials in western BulgariaK. Băčvarov ...................................................................................................................................................139

Нови сведения за ранния неолит в Северозападна БългарияГ. Ганецовски ...............................................................................................................................................147

Die Entstehung und Gliederung der neolithischen Kulturen auf dem Zentralbalkan:

Fallbeispiel Gălăbnik J. Pavúk ........................................................................................................................................................ 165

Tell Gălăbnik. Architecture and Site Planning A. Bakamska ..................................................................................................................................................177

Крайници – раннокерамично селище от басейна на река СтрумаС. Чохаджиев, А. Бакъмска Л. Нинов .....................................................................................................181

The Early Neolithic Site at Piperkov Čiflik, Near Kjustendil (Season 2004)V. Vandova ....................................................................................................................................................191

Proto-Starčevo Culture and Early Neolithic in the Struma ValleyM. Bogdanović ..............................................................................................................................................201

La périodisation des sites préhistoriques dans la vallée de la Strouma moyenneL. Perničeva.................................................................................................................................................. 209

Das Frühchalkolithikum des StrymonbereichsS. Čochadžiev ............................................................................................................................................... 223

Some Observations on Zoomorphic Images from Western BulgariaS. Terzijska–Ignatova ................................................................................................................................... 227

Prehistoric Settlements in the Province of KjustendilV. Genadieva ................................................................................................................................................ 239

Recent Researches at the Neolithic Settlement of Dikili Tash, Eastern Macedonia, Greece:an OverviewP. Darcque, H. Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, D. Malamidou, R. Treuil, Z. Tsirtsoni ......................................247

Neolithic Societies: Recent Evidence from Northern GreeceM. Pappa .......................................................................................................................................................257

In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2



Linguistische Angaben über die Namen der Flüsse Axios, Strymon, NestosI. Duridanov † ............................................................................................................................................. 273

Prehistorical Sites in the Middle Struma River Valley Between the End of the VIIth mill.BC and the Beginning of the Ist mill. BCM. Grębska-Kulowa, I. Kulow ..................................................................................................................... 279

Kryoneri: a Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Settlement in the Lower Strymon ValleyD. Malamidou .............................................................................................................................................. 297

Absolute Chronology of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Cultures in the Valley of Struma J. Bojadžiev................................................................................................................................................... 309

Decline of the Painted Pottery in Eastern Macedonia and North Aegeanat the End of the Final Neolithic/Chalcolithic PeriodS. Papadopoulos ............................................................................................................................................317

On the Late Stages of the Krivodol-Sălcuţa CultureP. Georgieva ................................................................................................................................................. 329

The Ethno-Cultural Affiliation of the North Anatolian Early Bronze Age J. Yakar ......................................................................................................................................................... 339

Dating the Donja Brnjica Culture Based on Metal FindsK. Luci .......................................................................................................................................................... 347

A Late Bronze Age Cemetery in Faia Petra, East of the Middle Strymon Valley

M. Valla ........................................................................................................................................................ 359

The Late Bronze Age Necropolis in the Тown of Sandanski, Southwest BulgariaS. Alexandrov, V. Petkov, G. Ivanov .............................................................................................................373

Krsto Pokrovnik Excavations at a Late Bronze Age Site in the Middle StrumaRiver Valley, Southwest Bulgaria. Preliminary results – 2004 seasonM. Stefanovich, I. Kulov .............................................................................................................................. 389

Tradition and Innovation in the Bronze Age Pottery of the Thessaloniki Toumba.Food and drink consumption and “tableware” ceramicsS. Andreou, K. Psaraki ................................................................................................................................ 397

Bronzezeitliche Goldornate aus Süddeutschlandund ihre donauländisch-balkanischen BeziehungenW. David ....................................................................................................................................................... 421

The Beginning of the Iron Age in MacedoniaD. Mitrevski .................................................................................................................................................. 443

Assiros Toumba. A brief history of the settlementK.A. Wardle, D. Wardle. ...............................................................................................................................451

Troy VIIB2 Revisited. The date of the transition from Bronzeto Iron Age in the Northern AegeanK.A. Wardle, M. Newton, P.I. Kuniholm .....................................................................................................481

Palaeobotanical Data in South-Western Region of BulgariaTz. Popova, E. Marinova .............................................................................................................................. 499

Промахон-Тополница. Компаративно изследванена дивите и домашни животни от сектор ТополницаН. Илиев, Н. Спасов .................................................................................................................................. 509

Agriculture and Use of Space at Promachon/Topolnica.Preliminary observations on the archaeobotanical materialS.M. Valamoti ............................................................................................................................................... 523

Palaeoecological Evidence of the Main Postglacial Vegetation and Climate Changesin Southwestern Bulgaria from the Neolithic to Modern TimesE. Božilova, S. Tonkov ..................................................................................................................................531

The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory



On the Late Stagesof the Krivodol-Sălcuţa Culture

Petya GeorgievaThe paper presents problems in the internal periodisation of the culture Krivodol–Sălcuţa and the possibilities

of the synchronization of their individual stages with neighbouring cultures. The early stages of the development ofthe culture were known especially from the territory of Western Bulgaria. Only here continuity with chronologicallyearlier culture Gradešnica-Dikili Tash-Slatino was identified. These early stages are simultaneous with I–III phasesof the cultures Kodžadermen-Gumelniţa-Karanovo VI and Varna. Settlements from the later stages were found in amuch larger territory – Western Bulgaria and the Rhodopi mountains, Muntenia Serbia and Macedonia. This is alsothe maximal territorial range of the Krivodol–Sălcuţa culture, which includes territories of Vinča culture. In the pe-riodisation scheme of H. Todorova later stages are separated generally as phase IV of the Late Eneolithic Period, whichdeveloped in stage, chronologically following the final stage of the neighboring cultures Kodžadermen-Gumelniţa-Karanovo VI and Varna.

In the later stages of the culture Krivodol–Sălcuţa two stages can be clearly differentiated – the earlier, presentedwell in Galatin and Sălcuţa IIc, and the later, presented well in Rebărkovo and Sălcuţa III. The pottery complex ofthe culture Krivodol–Sălcuţa is mainly stable related to the forms and ornamental compositions in its whole stages of

development. Only individual formal details were changed, as well as some of the ornamental techniques, but in thelatest stages the quality of the vessels got worse.

The comparative analysis between pottery complexes from the latest stages of culture Krivodol–Sălcuţa and thepottery from some settlements, presented latest stages of the cultures Kodžadermen-Gumelniţa-Karanovo VI: Rup-kite, Starozagorski Mineralni Bani, Bikovo; Varna: Kozareva mogila and Sozopol, proves their contemporaneousness. Also the comparison argues for the rejection of a widely spread theory, according to which the cultures Varna andKodžadermen-Gumelniţa-Karanovo VI finish their development earlier then culture Krivodol–Sălcuţa.

За късните етапи на култура Криводол-СълкуцаПетя Георгиева

В статията са разгледани проблемите на вътрешната периодизация на култура Криводол-Сълкуца и въз-можностите за синхронизация на отделните й етапи със съседните култури. Ранните етапи от развитието накултурата са познати само от територията на Западна България. Само тук e установена известна културна

приемственост с предходния културен комплекс Градешница-Дикилиташ-Слатино. Ранните етапи на кул-турата са синхронни на I–III фази на културите Коджадермен-Гумелница-Караново VI и Варна. Селища откъсните й етапи се откриват на обширна територия – в Западна България и Родопите, в Олтения, ИзточнаСърбия и Македония. Те очертават един максимален териториален обхват, който включва и част от терито-рията на културата Винча. В периодизационната схема на Х. Тодорова те са отнесени най-общо като фаза IVна късния енеолит, която се развива в период, хронологически следващ края на късноенеолитните културиКоджадермен-Гумелница-Караново VI и Варна.

В късните етапи на култура Криводол-Сълкуца отчетливо се разграничават два етапа – по-раннен, предс-тавен най-добре в Галатин и Сълкуца IIC, и по-късен, представен най-добре в Ребърково и Сълкуца III. Кера-мичният комплекс на култура Криводол-Сълкуца, като ця ло, показва устойчивост по отношение на формитеи орнаменталните композиции през всичките си етапи на развитие. Променят се отделни детайли, харак-терни форми, някои от техниките на орнаментиране, като през късните етапи се отчита общо влошаване накачеството на съдовете.

Сравнителният анализ между керамичните комплекси от късните етапи на културата Криводол-Сълкуцаи керамиката от някои селища, представящи късните етапи на културите Коджадермен-Гумелница-Карано-во VI като: Рупките, Старозагорски минерални бани, Биково, Козарева могила и Созопол, доказва тяхната

едновременност и дава основание да се отхвърли разпространеното в литературата мнение, според коетокултурите Варна и Коджадермен-Гумелница-Караново VI приключват развитието си по-рано от култураКриводол-Сълкуца.

The Krivodol-Sălcuţa-Bubanj-Hum culturecan be found in parts of three modern coun-tries, in each of which different periodisationshave been created on the basis of explored set-tlements. All authors accept that they are refer-ring to one and the same culture.

In Romania, periodisation is based on thestratigraphy of the Sălcuţa settlement (BERCIU 1961). The following phases have been identi-fied: Sălcuţa I, Sălcuţa II with three subphases,a, b, and c, and Sălcuţa III and IV. Little ce-ramics has been published from Sălcuţa I and




IIa–b and it does not represent significant dif-ferences with regards to forms. All three levelshave ceramics painted with graphite and with

white and red paint, with the technique knownas „fresco“. In level IIb, the quantity of graph-ite-painted ceramics decreases and that of red-and white-painted ceramics increases. Ceramicsfrom level IIc differs significantly from that ofpreceding levels, mostly by its greater quantityand diversity–the majority of the whole vesselsare here. However, there are no forms knownfrom I, IIa, and IIb, that do not occur in IIc.Here, as well as in preceding levels, there is both ceramics painted with graphite and ce-ramics painted with red and white paint. Fromthe small quantity of ceramic from levels I, IIa,and IIb, it is impossible to identify any type ofvessel whose evolution can be traced within thetwo phases of the development of the culture asdefined by Berciu. I make a special note of thisnot to dispute the periodisation of the Sălcuţasettlement proposed by D. Berciu, but to em-phasise the fact that the published fragmentsof Sălcuţa I–IIa are not sufficiently representa-tive to justify distinguishing a phase and two

subphases within the culture. Findings fromSălcuţa III and IV indeed show a significantdifference both from the preceding ones and between each other. From the point of view ofthe ending of the culture, it is of interest that

individual shards made from clay mixed withshells appear in Sălcuţa III for the first time,and in Sălcuţa IV their quantity become sig-nificant. According to D. Berciu, Sălcuţa IV isa period of transition to the Coţofeni culture.He writes about the artefacts from V. Mikov’sexcavations at the Devetashka cave saying thatthey are earlier than those from Sălcuţa, andhe identifies the materials from Krivodol as co-temporaneous.

In the prehistory of Serbia, the culture con-sidered here is called Bubanj-Hum. Two phases

are distinguished, called Bubanj Hum Ia andBubanj Hum Ib. The first is synchronous withKrivodol and phases I–III of Sălcuţa, and thesecond one with Sălcuţa IV and Herculan II–III (G ARAŠANIN 1978; T ASIć 1979).

In the periodisation adopted in the Bulgari-an literature on prehistory, the Krivodol cultureis defined as one from the Late Eneolithic syn-chronous with the Kodjadermen-Gumelniţa-Ka-ranovo VI culture complex and the Varna cul-ture, and continuing its development for a shortperiod after the latter (MIKOV 1948; MIKOV 1960;

PETKOV 1964; NIKOLOV 1975; NIKOLOV 1984; TO-DOROVA 1986, 127–132; GEORGIEVA 1990).

In this paper, I use the term „late stages ofthe culture“ to mean the stages after the appear-ance of ceramics painted with red, white, yel-low, orange, and black paint with the techniquecalled „fresco“ by Berciu. I adopt the appear-ance of this type of decoration as a distinguish-ing feature between the early and the late stagesof the culture for two reasons: first, because thisis the only feature of the ceramics from the endof the Late Eneolithic in eastern Bulgaria thathas been mentioned in the literature (GEORGIEV / A NGELOV 1952; GEORGIEV /A NGELOV 1957), and be-cause comparing the currently known ceramiccomplexes from various settlements (with strati-graphic data) where this type of decoration ispresent shows that they differ from those fromwhich it is absent by the specific features of ves-sel shapes as well. This kind of ceramics does notoccur during the earlier stages of the evolutionof the culture, known only from Bulgaria and

Fig. 1. Chronlogical table.

Petya Georgieva




Fig. 2. Ceramic from Devetashuata peshtera (1, 3), Peklyuk (4) and Zaminetz (2, 5–8).

explored in the Devetashka cave – house no. 2from Mikov’s excavations (MIKOV 1960, 79–87),Peklyuk – the potter’s furnace (PETKOV 1964),and Zaminetz – the published three levels of oc-

cupation (NIKOLOV 1975). It occurs in all levelsof Sălcuţa, in some of the levels of Galatin – thehouse (GEORGIEVA 1988), Negovantzi (GEORGIEVA 1993), Kolarovo (PERNICHEVA 1992), Rebărkovo

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1

On the late stages of the Krivodol-Salcuţa Culture




Fig. 3. Ceramic from Peklyuk (1), Devetashuata peshtera (2), Zaminetz C(3–6), Krivodol (7–11),

Galatin (12–13), Sălcuţa I, Sălcuţa II a (14–16), Sălcuţa II b (17), Sălcuţa II c (18) and Sălcuţa III (19).

21

3

45 6

78

9

1110

12 13

14

15

17 1918

16

Petya Georgieva




(GEORGIEVA 1994), etc. With regard to the ce-ramics from the settlement near Krivodol, theonly note in the text regarding the differences between the ceramic complexes from the fivelevels is, „...Graphite-painted geometric patterns

dominate in the earlier stages from the existence of the settlement. In the higher levels, graphite as a means

of decoration is replaced by multicoloured ochre

paint: white, yellow, red, light brown...“ (NIKOLOV 1984, 10). With regards to relative chronology(Fig. 1) „the late stages of the culture“ falls afterthe stage represented in Zaminetz and beforeSălcuţa IV or the so-called „scheibenhenkel“level. The ceramics of this stage is rather differ-ent from that of the preceding stages. Graph-

ite-painted ceramics continues to be found to-gether with ceramics painted with red, white,etc. paint, but the overall quantity of painted ce-ramics is smaller. The same types of vessels con-tinue to occur, but some of their details change.

Vessels in which the middle part of the verticalprofile is thickened and sharply shaped down-ward (Fig. 2: 1–6) or thickened and shaped as acylindrical belt (Fig. 2: 7–8) do not occur duringthis period. I shall demostrate here the differ-ences between the vessels from the period un-der consideration and the preceding ones onlyin vessels with two large vertical handles – cupsand deep vessels (bowls or amphora-like ones). All of them, with the exception of the vessels

Fig. 4 Ceramic from Peklyuk (1 –4), Devetashuata peshtera (5), Zaminetz C (6–10).

1

4

2

3

5

76

89

10





Fig. 5. Ceramic from Krivodol (1–8), Sălcuţa I (9), Sălcuţa II b (10), Sălcuţa III (11) and Sălcuţa IV (12).

from Krivodol, come from complexes with cer-tain stratigraphies. With regards to the cups, itcan be seen that those from Galatin and Sălcuţa(Fig. 3:12–19) are definitely different from the

rest (Fig. 3:1–11) – the body is broad and shal-low, the handles are large and spread out—themost convex part of the handle is in the middleof the arc of its profile, while for the earlier ones

1

23

654

7

9

10

11 128

Petya Georgieva




from Peklyuk and Zaminetz this is the lowestpart. With regard to deep vessels (Fig. 4–5), thehandles of the earlier ones are attached to therim or a little under it and to the most bulgingpart of the body (Fig. 4), while for the later onesthey are attached to the rim and at or a littleabove the most bulging part of the body (Fig.5). For cups, as well as for the two deep vesselsfrom Sălcuţa IIC and Sălcuţa III the abovemen-tioned differences the earlier stages are moreemphasised than, for example, for the numer-ous vessels of these types from Krivodol (Fig.3:7). This means that the material from thevarious strata at Krivodol represent differentstages of the evolution of the Krivodol-Sălcuţaculture and are only partially cotemporaneouswith Sălcuţa I–III.

Two subperiods can be distinguisghed withinthe period under consideration, which I tenta-tively call „the later stages of the Krivodol-Sălcuţaculture“, or the period of ceramics painted with

various paints and the fresco technique. Thefirst one is represented in Galatin, Krivodol,and Sălcuţa IIC, and the second one in SălcuţaIII, Rebărkovo, Krivodol, and probably StaliyskaMahala. The Sălcuţa III–Rebărkovo stage rep-resents the ending of the evolution of the cutureof the eneolithic population in this region. Thisis the last stage of the development of coppermetallurgy. The first traces can be seen duringthis stage of a penetration of a population ethni-cally foreigh to the locals, originating from thesteppe regions of Ukraine – in both Sălcuţa IIIand Rebărkovo, the first shards made from claymixed with ground clam and snail shells appearduring this period (GEORGIEVA 1992).

Fig. 1 shows the presumed chronologicalsequence of the complexes from various settle-ments belonging to the culture. As far as onecan judge from the typological characteristics ofthe ceramics, some of them are chronologicallyvery close to each other, for example Djakovo

Fig. 6. Ceramic from Kozareva mogila.

1

2

3





(COCHADZIEV 1984), Peklyuk (the potter’s fur-nace) and Devetashka peshtera (house No. 2),while others appear more distant: Devetashkapeshtera and Zaminetz as well as Zaminetz andGalatin I (the house). This, as well as the largetypological differences between the ceramiccomplexes of Krivodol-Sălcuţa and Kodjader-men-Gumelniţa-Karanovo VI, makes synchro-nization of their individual stages difficult. Thematerials from the Late Eneolithic settlementsexplored in recent years on the territiry of thecultures Kodjadermen-Gumelniţa-KaranovoVI and Varna: Sozopol, Kozareva mogila andRupkite, allow more precise synchronizations,as well as an opportunity to correct the notionthat the Krivodol-Sălcuţa culture continued toevolve longer than Kodjadermen-Gumelniţa-

Karanovo VI – the so-called phase IV of theKrivodol culture. Complexes cotemporaneouswith the later stages of the Krivodol-Sălcuţaculture have been explored in the settlementsat Kableshkovo-Kozareva mogila, Black Sea re-gion (GEORGIEVA 2004) and at Rupkite, Thraceregion (GEORGIEVA 1994, 12–13, Fig. 24–26).There are vessels painted with red, white, and brown paint among the ceramics from thesesettlements and, similarly to the Sălcuţa III–Rebărkovo stage, individual shards made fromclay mixed with ground shells (Fig. 6). The findsof ceramics with ground shells notwithstand-ing, these settlements appear chronologicallycloser to the stage represented at Galatin (thehouse) and Sălcuţa IIc, because the remainingceramics is of excellent quality and is nowhere

Fig. 7. Ceramic from Sozopol (1–3) and Rebarkovo (4–7).

1

2

3 7

6

5

4

Petya Georgieva




References

BERCIU 1961D. Berciu. Contribuţii la problemele neoliticului dinRomânia în lumina noilor cercetări (Bucureşti 1961).

COCHADZIEV 1984S. Cochadziev. Ausgrabungen an der Prahistorisk-ken Siedlung beim Dorf Djakovo, Kreis Kjusten-dil. – Studia Praehistorica 7, 1984, 64–80.

DRAGANOV 1998V. Draganov. James Harvey Gaul and the Pre-sent State of Eneolithic Research in Northea-stern Bulgaria and Trace. –In: M. Stefanovich etal. (eds.). In the s teps of James Harvey Gaul 1 (Sofia1998), 203–122.

G ARAŠANIN 1973

M. Garašanin. Praistorija na tlu SR Srbije (Beograd1973).GEORGIEVA 1988

P. Georgieva. Die prahistorisihe Siedlung in derGegend Cukata beim Dorf Galatin. – Studia Praehi-

storica 9, 1988.GEORGIEVA 1990

P. Georgieva. Periodization of the Krivodol-Saliuţa-Bubanj Culture. –In: D. Srejović, N. Tasić (eds.).Vinca and its World (Beograd 1990), 167–173.

T ASIć 1979N. Tasić. Bubanj-Sălcuţa-Krivodol kompleks. –In:

A. Benac (ed.). – Praistorija Jugoslovenskih Zemalja III (Beograd 1979).

ГЕОРГИЕВ /А НГЕЛОВ 1952Г. Георгиев, Н. Ангелов. Разкопки на селищ-ната могила до Русе през 1948–1949 г. – ИАИ ХVIII, 1952, 119–195.

ГЕОРГИЕВ /А НГЕЛОВ 1957Г. Георгиев, Н. Ангелов. Разкопки на селищна-та могила до Русе през 1950–1953 г. – ИАИ ХХI,1957, 41–129.

ГЕОРГИЕВА 1992П. Георгиева. Этнокультурные изменения впереходном периоде от энеолита к бронзо-вой епохе в Нижнедунайском районе. – Studia

Praehistorica 11–12, 1992, 339–346.

ГЕОРГИЕВА 1993П. Георгиева. Праисторическото селище прис. Негованци, Радомирско. – ГСУ “Св. Кл. Ох-

ридски”, ИФ 86, 1993, 5–25.ГЕОРГИЕВА 1994.1

П. Георгиева. Проучвания на селище от пре-ходния период от енеолита към бронзоватаепоха при с. Ребърково, Врачанско. – Археоло-

гия ХХХVI, 1994, 1, 9–26.ГЕОРГИЕВА 1994.2

П. Георгиева. Селищната погила Калето при с.Рупките, Чирпанско. – ГСУ “Св. Кл. Охридски”,

ИФ–Арх., 1, 1994, 7–50.ГЕОРГИЕВА 2004

П. Георгиева. За края на късния енеолит вЗападното Черноморие. – Сб. Добруджа 21,2004, 216–230.

МИКОВ 1948B. Миков. Предисторическото селище до Кри-водол, Врачанско. – Разкопки и проучвания I,1948, 26–62.

МИКОВ, ДЖАМБАЗОВ 1960B. Миков, Н. Джамбазов. Деветашката пещера(София 1960).

НИКОЛОВ 1975Б. Николов. Заминец (София 1975).

НИКОЛОВ 1984Б. Николов. Криводол – древни култури (Со-

фия 1984).ТОДОРОВА 1986

Х. Тодорова. Каменно-медната епоха в Бълга-рия (София 1986).

ПЕТКОВ 1964Н. Петков. Грънчарска пещ от енеолитното се-

лище при с. Гълъбовци, Софийски окръг. – Ар- хеология 1, 1964.

ПЕРНИЧЕВА 1992 Л. Перничева. Исследоэания халколита в сред-нем поречье реки Струма. – Studia Praehistorica 11–12, 1992, 221–235.


near the beginning of the deterioration of pro-duction that is characteristic of the Sălcuţa III–Rebărkovo stage. The ceramics from the sub-merged settlement at Sozopol (DRAGANOV 1998,Fig. 3–4) which can be typologically defined as

later than that from Kozareva mogila has manymore parallels in Rebărkovo, both with regardto the shapes and sizes of vessels – small ves-sels with an S-shaped vertical profile, and withregards to the decoration – for example, theimpressed decoration on the shards in Fig. 7.The synchronization of the late stages of thesetwo neighboring cultures allows an opportunity

to approach a clarification of the problems re-lated to the „disappearance of the brilliant LateEneolithic cultures“ in this part of the BalkanPenunsula and the process of the formationof the Cernavoda I and Galatin (Sălcuţa IV,

Herkulane II–III) cultures. It appears improb-able that findings such as those from Kozarevamogila, Rupkite, and Sozopol are an isolatedphenomenon; it is more likely that they had re-mained unnoticed in the course of long years,similarly to those from the Rebărkovo-SălcuţaIII stage and those chronologically following itin western Bulgaria.





Documents

On the Late Stages of the Krivodol-Salcu