APPROACH TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF SOCIAL CHANGE

(A CASE STUDY FROM BALKAN LATER PREHISTORY)

by Lolita Nikolova

Summary
This communication approaches the social changes in the Final Copper Age and Early Bronze
I era in the Balkans focusing on the Eastern Balkans (east of the Olt – Osum – Stryama –
Drama north-south geographical axis) from the late fifth and fourth millennia BC. The
background presumes that the Balkans are not a unique region but a cultural, geographical and
historic entity, in which the cultural processes from different epochs are comparable (in
retrospective and prospective plan) between and with other regions. It is also proposed that
the similarities and dissimilarities are common characteristics of Balkan prehistoric material
culture; in most cases, the dissimilarity in diachronic plan is a result of innovations and
interactions, for which the migration theory is the least conceivable explainable strategy. The
migration processes were an integrated part of the common cultural processes and changes in
the prehistoric Balkans.
For the period under discussion, the settlement pattern and pottery production is the most
expressive characteristic of the social changes, which gives argument to a shift from sedentary
and semi-sedentary toward mobile and semi-mobile communities in the late fifth and earlier
fourth millennium BC in the Balkans (Final Copper I-II). In turn, in later fourth millennium
BC, there is a reverse tendency – towards intensive sedentarization. In the lower Danube, that
process is exemplified through the possible semi-sedentary Cernavoda III culture; the earliest
communities of which occupied microregions with excellent environment for mixed
(agriculture and stockbreeding) economy, i.e. Hotnitsa-Vodopada. Of special importance is
the success in the Early Bronze I investigation of upper Thrace. In light of new evidence from
Upper Thrace, (Dubene-Sarovka (Nikolova 1996; 1999a; 1999b; 2000d; Drama-
Merdzhumekya (Lichardus et al. 2000), etc.) the process of sedentarization appears to be a
long process that covered all or most of the second half of fourth millennium BC. The last
model generally contrasts to the 1980s – earlier 1990s view seeing Upper Thrace
contemporaneously re-occupied by sedentary population just at the very end of fourth
millennium BC, or the beginning of third millennium BC (Ezero A1 culture). Recent
archaeological evidence infers a regional variety of cultural development of the Balkan Later
Copper societies. A variety of factors that posed as the background of their crisis in later fifth
millennium BC, focused on this approach on the ceramic production. Further, the dynamic
controversial process in early Balkan fourth millennium BC included social-economic
changes (nomadization), social conflicts (Yunatsite), infiltration of population from the
northwest Black Sea, and intensification of the cultural integration processes with neighbors
and distant cultures.
Theoretical difficulties concerning the topic of cultural processes of the Balkans in the fourth
millennium BC arise by the fact that theory needs to be explained by not only a given body of
records but also the absence of evidence. There is no tradition for social archaeology
interpretations of Balkan Prehistory, which would usually be exemplified by selected topical
issues or an approach of utilizing only the frameworks of analysis, as in this case, attempting
the social change theory to be applied to the region and period under discussion.
- Introduction and theoretical framework
The goal of this communication is to demonstrate the advantage of the social change theory
by explaining the cultural changes in the Final Copper and Early Bronze I era in the eastern
Balkans. Using retrospective and prospective comparative analyses, it can be argued that the
social change theory does not contradict the migration theory, as the pastoral seasonal or one-
direction movements were an element of the complicated evolution process in the earlier
fourth millennium BC in the region under consideration. However, in my understanding, the
origin of the nomadic pastoralism is not a result of migration of steppe nomads, which caused
the end of Late Copper society, but a social transformation of the Balkan agricultural-
stockbreeding society (Nikolova 1999a; 2000a; 2000b). In addition, the initial and limited
steppe nomadic infiltration was integrated in the Balkan social and economic structures.
To begin with, the Balkan prehistoric development is a contrast of similarity and dissimilarity
in the material culture. This dichotomy concerns synchronous regions and diachronous
cultures. In context of material evidence, the discontinuity co-exists with continuity and if we
integrate the micro-regional characteristics (at the cultural level), the picture will become very
stressful. However, the shortcoming of the micro-regional record allows, theoretically,
reconstruction of the cultural process to use key sites and to eliminate the fragmentary
character of the former. In addition, newly recovered evidence can generally change not only
micro-regional but also the macro-regional model. As far as the later prehistoric Balkans is
concerned, we do not have any revolutionary new data within the last two decades. But the
increased record from the different micro-regions, for the most part, alternates the common
view on the Balkans (Nikolova 1999a; Manzura 1999). It has been supplemented by newly
published evidence (Nikolova (ed.) 2000a; 2000b).
It is worth mentioning that discussions are one of the most fruitful ways to develop critical
research problems such as migrations in the prehistoric Balkans (for the migrations see
generally Chapman & Hamerow 1997; Adams 1968). One of the least effective characteristics
of the M. Gimbutas’ theory (1961; 1970; 1973; 1978; 1991 and ref. cited there) was her
monologue, character and absence of any attempt for interactions within the increasing record
base and her critiques towards elaborating a collective research model of cultural changes.
Her followers either used the same record base or tried to widen the record base using the
same methodology of interpretation (see for instance Mallory 1989; cp. Robbins M. 1980;
Anthony 1990; 1997; Merpert 1997; Lichardus & Lichardus 1993). Such studies indicate that
without critical insights into historiography, constructing a theory based on one’s own record
base and deep knowledge of the archaeology of the region under consideration, it is
impossible to analyze the cultural process in-depth and thoroughly. In other words,
integration of wrongful inference, or creating inferences based on incomplete knowledge,
respectively on priori accepted thesis into theory, in fact, increases the deformation of the
reconstructed cultural processes and tracks the roads for new historiographical myth. With
regards to the Balkans, the inaccurate chronology of the Cotofeni culture and respectively of
Turnava I Tumulus in Northwest Bulgaria was a skeleton of the so-called second wave of
Gimbutas (1978). In fact, all the evidence there indicates an interaction between classical
Cotofeni and the Pit Grave Culture population in earlier third, but not in later fourth,
millennium BC (see Nikolova 1999a; ???????? 2000). When problems concerning the
reconstruction of the Final Copper society in the Balkans occur, it appears that along with the
archaeological data (see below), of primary importance is the theoretical framework for
explanation of this data.
The term Final Copper Age occurs to define that stage of development of the prehistoric
Balkans when, along with typical occurrences of Late Copper Age characteristics, new social
strategies of environmental adaptation were integrated, which increased the mobility of the
Balkan population (Nikolova 1999a). The result was a gradual decrease of the traditional
long-term settlement structures and the start of elaboration of ceramic styles that
corresponded to the new social-economic necessities and became a widespread norm in Final
Copper II.
Therefore, the Final Copper Balkans faces two main theoretical problems – social change and
mobile pastoralism (or pastoral nomadism) in prehistory. In this case, the social change can be
researched as a component of the general social process, as well as an aspect of the culture
change (see Tringham 1971; Fleming A. 1972; Hanbury–Tenison J.W. 1986; Earle T. 1980;
Swidler N. 1980; Shennan 1986; Manzura 1993; Hдusler A. 1994; Kadrow S. 1994; Naylor
1996; Sherratt 1997; Govedarica B. 1998; Kristiansen K. and Rowlands M. 1998;
Papadopoulos J.K. 1997, etc.)
As a component of the general social process, the social change is an integrated element for
the social evolutionary theory. However, some authors doubt the evolutionary framework for
the social change, referring to it as a structural transformation rather then a reproduction of
the social order. For instance, in understanding M. Shank and Ch. Tilley (1987: 175 sq.)
social strategies, social transformation, power, ideology, altereity, plurality, relationality,
displacement, substitution and difference, these are terms „that cannot be properly
compressed or integrated into an evolutionary framework“. Further, these authors define the
historical processes as „always different, singular, non-identical with each other;“ the
evolutionary view on the history residing in a given basic set of processes is wrong. I am
closer to models of L. Nayler and Ph. C. Salzman seeing the social change as an aspect of the
culture change that includes in its general characteristics as „an addition, subtraction,
alteration, or modification in belief, behavior, or sociocultural products“ (Naylor 1996: 43).
The changes can be associated with great social-cultural discontinuity, but also as „the
assertion of societal continuity in changing or new circumstances“ (Salzman 1980: 6).
According to Naylor, „the natural and sociocultural environments are the source of all
changes, for as environments change, the culture must change.” Further, as that author
stresses „sociocultural environmental pressures can come from the area of human relations,
changes in these and relations between cultural groups, material products and their
consequences, technological changes and their consequences, or changes in political,
economic, or religious ideas, beliefs, and products…. To understand the processes of change,
one begins by identifying whether the idea for change originates internally (involving only
one culture group) or externally „as a result of cultural contacts“. The same author suggests
that the majority of the people have to accept an alteration or modification of their learned
patterns that result in social change (1996: 47-48).
The social change includes a system of transformation of the society, one of the economic
components of which is the change from predominated agricultural economic basis to
predominated mobile pastoral economic basis. The nomadic pastoralism and agricultural
sedentarism are two extremes between which there are different transition forms of social-
economic structures (Figure 1), such as the transition from one to another pattern is often a
dynamic internal process but not caused only by external pressure. Ph.C. Salzman pointed out
that „the shift between nomadism and sedentism, and between pastoralism and agriculture, as
a current circumstance and set of activities, is in many respects not such an absolute break as
it might seem prima facie.“ (1980: 13) The social processes that bridge them are defined as „a
set of changes adopted in response to needs and opportunities“ (Salzman 1980: 15).
To distinguish between semi-nomadic and semi-sedentary pastoralism, A.M. Khazanov
considers the degree of participation of the agriculture in the subsistence economy. In the
former, the agriculture is secondary and supplementary, while in the latter, agriculture plays
„the predominant role in the general economic balance“. „Semi-sedentary pastoralism also
implies the presence of seasonal migrations and/or separate, primary pastoral groups and
families within the given society. However, these migrations often seem to be shorter in both
time and distance than the pastoral migrations of semi-nomads in the same kind of
environment.“ (1984: 21)
The key term for this study is pastoral nomadism. A.M. Khazanov uses that term to define „a
distinct form of food-producing economy in which extensive mobile pastoralism is the
predominant activity, and in which the majority of population is drawn into periodic pastoral
migration,“ the beginning of which is traced back to the Neolithic (1984: 17; cp. Ko?ko &
Klochko V.I. 1994). According to this definition, the extensive economy, mobility and
periodical migrations are among the most characteristic features of the pastoral nomadism.
But it can also be added the tendency of sedentarization when the social environment
preconditions or requires such shift (see in detail in Salzman 1980).
N. Swidler describes sedentarization as “a process occurring with varying frequencies in
virtually all contemporary pastoral nomadic groups. Furthermore, there is every indication to
suggest that sedentarization processes are of great historical depth, that nomads, singly and in
groups, have been repeatedly drawn into agrarian activities…. Nomads are said to be
characteristically resistant to programs designed to encourage settlement“ (Swidler 1980: 21).
In the typology of pastoral nomadism based on its regional peculiarities, A.M. Khazanov
defines „Eurasian steppe type“ to distinguish „the huge zone of steppes, semi-deserts and
deserts of the temperate zone which stretch from the Danube (the Hungarian puszta) to North
China.“ (1984: 44), then, it includes the whole Lower Danube basin. He subdivided this zone
into three sub-zones: (1) areas favorable for agriculture, (2) areas favorable for extensive
pastoralism, (3) and marginal areas in which there are preconditions for both activities and the
predominant economic activities has depended „on specific historic circumstances and is not
determined directly by ecology“ (1984: 44). In my opinion, in the Lower Danube
(traditionally including the region from Iron Gates to the Black Sea) the leading is in fact the
third group. There are natural preconditions for mixed economy in the region under
discussion – the combination of plains with hilly forms. The foothills of Stara Planina and the
Carpathians have influenced the historical development of the regions as well. Along with this
group, the areas such as Dobroudja were favorable in prehistory for extensive pastoralism
because of its steppe character.
For the herding of sheep in the Eurasian steppe, two values are of special importance: the
wide variety of plants that sheep eat, as well as the ability of the sheep to „get at fodder in
pasture covered with snow up to 15-17 centimeters deep“ (Khazanov 1984: 46). Along with
the fodder requirement of the herd, the Eurasian steppe also provides water. But the third
factor of the economic life of the nomads – protecting from the cold in winter – has created
problems for the subsistence life and has been decided in different ways (Khazanov 1984: 50
and ref. cited there).
This theoretical background approach to the cultural processes in the Balkans in the fourth
millenium BC proposes the social change as an aspect of the cultural change and as a
characteristic of the evolution process. Further, it stresses on the multi-aspect and dynamic
characteristics of social-cultural environment pressure and of the social mobility and
sedentarism in particular.
From this point, we can turn to the Balkans in the fourth millennium BC. The detailed
cultural-chronological and regional characteristics are given in Nikolova 1999a including Igor
Manzura’s (1999)contribution therein. In the focus of this approach, there will be some
evidence published after the cited publication as well.

Toward the social development in the Final Copper Balkans: the Eastern Balkans
The Balkan Later Copper Society
The core of the Balkan Late Copper society includes the communities of Karanovo VI –
Gumelnita – Varna complex and Krivodol–Salcuta–Bubanj complex. Both complexes were in
close interaction, which resulted in a unification of basic traits of the material culture despite
Olt – Osum – Western Sredna Gora being a visible border between them. New evidence from
the Upper Stryama valley (Dubene-Sarovka I (Nikolova 2000c) confirms the importance of
the Western Sredna Gora as a geographical and cultural border. But the Yunatsite tell (close
to Western Sredna Gora foothills) is a clear instance of strong diffusion of the Krivodol
cultural ceramic style from the west (possibly from the Struma-Iskur valleys). At the same
time, re-excavations of Devetaska Peshtera (not far from left Osum River side) and
Draganesti-Olt (close to the Olt River bed) represent models of synthetic material culture or
even expansion of the S?lcu?a culture to the west (Nikolova 1999a and ref. cited there).
Comparing Karanovo-Gumelni?a-Varna and Krivodol-Salcuta-Bubanj complexes, Upper
Thrace (an area of the former) and western lower Danube (an area of the latter) had favorable
preconditions for intensive and extensive agricultural activity. In the area of the Krivodol-
Salcuta-Bubanj complex, the agriculture depended on more limited land resources. They are
archaeologically represented by the predominance of thin level or low tell villages, in contrast
to the large tells in the Upper Thrace and more numerous low tells in the eastern lower
Danube. However, even in Upper Thrace, in micro-regions such as the Upper Stryama valley,
the tradition of big multilevel tell villages was not introduced in Late Copper Age (Dubene-
Sarovka I, Chernichevo), possibly because of the popularity of stockbreeding. In other words,
stockbreeding and agricultural economies were in dynamic interactions in the Balkans in Late
Copper Age and the Balkan Late Copper society cannot be straightforward described as
society with homogenous economic base. This conclusion is very important for the
reconstruction of the social processes. Once there is no homogeneity in the basic economic
structure, exchange could be expected of the main subsistence products (regular, periodical or
accidental).
The second important component of the economic system was metallurgy. As the last is
dependent extremely upon the ore resources, the development of the early Balkan metallurgy
was based on extensive contacts between the Eastern and Western Balkans, the inner
characteristics of which requires an additional detailed research. For later Copper Age, of
importance is the fact that such important metal ore resources, as Ai Bunar, in fact were
explored after the pick of development of the Karanovo VI culture (at least partially)
(Nikolova 1999a). Also, the prospering of the copper production in the northwestern Balkans
contrasted to the tendency of the decreasing of the representative Krivodol-Salcuta-Bubanj
pottery, then, there were asymmetric interrelations – cp. for instance Telish 2 and 3; in the last
village a Jбszladбny axe has been discovered.
There are many reasons to believe that the pottery production was one of the important
components of the economic-and-social organization of the Balkan Late Copper Society. But,
unfortunately, the organization of the pottery production of that society is a non-investigated
problem.
There are four hierarchical systems recognized in the organization of the ceramic production:
household production, household industry, workshop industry, and large-scale industry (after
Van der Leeuw). Household production is typically handmade, periodic, and based on little
investment of raw materials, tools, facilities, and time, made to satisfy the household’s yearly
needs, but possibly including a part for gifts, dowry, and exchange for other goods. The
household industry produces similar pottery but in larger quantity, as part of it has been
exchanged for agricultural or other sources of incomes, while the workshop presumes
emergence of pottery specialists (usually family members), and of changes in ceramic
technology (wheel- or mold-made ceramics). The large–scale production is based on
workshops or factory and produce vessels on a tremendous scale, increasingly standardized,
„as potters attempt to minimize time and energy invested per vessel“. Additionally, itinerant
potters have their own productive system (Sinopoli 1991: 99-100).
In the evolution of the ceramic pottery production, there are two factors that increase the
standardization – increased frequency and scale of pottery production, and / or introducing
new technology (mold or wheel). In both cases, the result influences the efficiency of
production. Then, if the society needs more efficient production, it may result in the increased
standardization and development of the organization of the pottery production.
Facing the Late Copper Age, Karanovo-Gumelnita-Varna and Krivodol-S?lcu?a-Bubanj
pottery is possibly the culmination of the prehistoric standardized production in the Balkans.
We do not have direct evidence, but according to the result, the pottery was made as
household seasonal production, household industry, and I assume, workshop industry, as well
as by itinerant potters. All these aspects of the pottery production require interactions at a
different scale (Sinopoli 1991: 99-100) with close and distant communities, developing an
exchange system.
From formulating in such a way, a research problem follows because if for some reason the
system of exchange transgresses, it will affect all components of the cultural systems. M.
Gimbutas believed that those were the steppe scepter invaders that destroyed the Balkan Late
Copper system (1978; 1991 and ref. cited there). But in the 1990s, neither the data on scepters
increase nor the narrow chronology was confirmed. On the other hand, the increased evidence
base inferred a gradual, but not one-step and not linear, process of transformations and
innovations in the Balkans.
Then, the exclusive possibility is to look for inner reasons to explain the changes in the
Balkans.
We can start with one of the most popular household activities – the pottery production. The
enormous amount of earthenware from Karanovo-Gumelnita-Varna and Krivodol-Salcuta-
Bubanj complexes infers it was the main storage; cooking and serving ware in the different
household, despite some wooden vessels, might have existed. The tendency towards
standardization of the pottery limited the potters in clay use as not every paste was suited to
assumed mold or primitive wheel-like technique. As the graphite pottery might have involved
two or more level burning process, it can be assumed that at least part of it was a result of
local or itinerant workshops (Figure 2). But the exhausting of the quality clay (and graphite)
resources might have followed by a decrease in the profession of the producers of luxury
ceramics and re-specialization. Closed in the border of the household production, the pottery
become more utilitarian, while the luxury pottery was spread over vast areas (for instance the
Maritsa – Drama – Struma – Iskur areas in Final Copper I) from possible large-scale artisan
centers in the occupied marginal agricultural lands. But along with its spreading, the quantity
of the luxury ceramics decreased. Using prospective instances, it can be assumed that such
pottery could document access of elite to fine wares, or it may signify contacts between the
certain social groups throughout vast territories.
As far as the technomic pottery is concerned, I believe it was mainly household production,
being long-term, often low-burned in open air and produced seasonally by members of the
community households. Of importance for the analysis of the ceramic and social change is the
problem of the transmission of the ceramic knowledge production. The simplistic model of
production techniques and decorative styles is passed on from mother to daughter, according
to which the similar pottery results from co-resident women who had replicated matrilocal
residence pattern. In fact, potters „must be seen as active transmitters and transformers of
their craft rather than as passive recipients of traditional knowledge“ (Sinopoli 1991: 120-121
and ref. cited there)
The assumed decreasing of the pottery workshop specialized production can be related to
another economic trait – the exhausting of the land and decreasing of the agricultural surplus
that would support the so-called non-agricultural segment of the population. That economic
variable again affected the organized system of production and exchange, as well as the inner
structure of the Balkan Late Copper society.
In contrast to data of the metallurgy and the pottery, the importance of social analysis burial
record originates mostly from the Northeast Balkans – from the areas of the Gumelni?a and
Varna cultures. This data has been the subject of numerous archaeological analyses; of special
interest is the investigation of J. Chapman who combines the burial and settlement data from
Northeast Bulgaria (2000 and cited references to his earlier works and to the publications of
Golyamo Delchevo and Vinitsa cemeteries). What I have recognized among the data from
Golyamo Delchevo and Vinitsa cemeteries is that both belonged to communities with
different local cultural and social standard.
According to anthropological data, a considerable number (7 or 64%) of females from Vinitsa
cemetery died between the ages of 40 and 60 years, while at Golyamo Delchevo, only two
females died between the ages of 40 and 50 years. Male cemeteries prevail at both cemeteries,
but the burial goods at Vinitsa are much richer than at Golyamo Delchevo. In addition,
another difference concerns the clustering of children. There is no single grave of newborns
documented at Golyamo Delchevo. It looks more probable that they were not recognized on
the terrain. Then, I ignore that difference as a cultural comparative criterion. A. Raduncheva
on her side (Raduncheva 1976) reported two Infant 1 graves with decayed bones from Vinitsa.
The second children’s age group is between 6 and 10 years, which seem to be another critical
barrier for the local population there.
Despite the possibility that the excavated area at Golyamo Delchevo incompletely represents
the population buried there, available data possibly indicates the different standard of life in
two distinct micro-regions in northeastern Bulgaria in Late Copper Age. It looks the Vinitsa
adult population did not have biological stresses until 40 years. The death of the young
population looks more accidental than a regular norm – they would be 21% of the dead
population while the adults over 40 represent about 34%. At Golyamo Delchevo, 50% of the
population given died between 15 and 40 years. Such a ratio can be interpreted as a possible
existence of biological decease like chronic malnutrition. Despite the possible pattern of
separate graveyards of old population or possibly only part of the cemetery to have been
excavated, the hypothesis of different village societies represented at Vinitsa and Golyamo
Delchevo can be included in the common social model of the Balkans according to the recent
data. Unfortunately, to testify the proposed reason for the age at time of death differences, we
have to wait for re-examination of the anthropological data from both cemeteries if they are
preserved. But it can also be stressed that the difference given can reflect only the different
method of dating of the skeletons. The last creates many problems in modern anthropology.
Then, the hypothesis proposed also requires additional data for verification. Likewise, the
regionalisms of the Late Copper Age society can be demonstrated by the evidence from Russe
tell where numerous graves were discovered on the territory of the village. Unfortunately, the
incomplete publication of the burials makes any interpretations difficult of this very important
burial data for Balkan prehistory and my effort to interpret this important record is to be
published elsewhere.

The pitfalls of the migration and climatic catastrophe theories

Social changes are a complex cultural process that usually influences all or most of the
elements of the social system (see the cited literature above). As the archaeological record
consists of material evidence, to reconstruct the social changes we need to explain the changes
in the material culture. The migration theory seemed accurate for Late Copper – Final Copper
– Early Bronze changes as it was assumed the Balkan cultures changed from being more
complex towards more ordinary. That assumption was based on the pottery evidence
inasmuch as in the Cernavoda I culture and the cultures from Scheibenhenkel horizon have
dominated the plain pottery with a more low-burned and exception ornamented (mostly
incised, pricked, stamped or encrusted) earthenware. As the interruption was assumed to have
been caused by outer factors (imaginable steppe invaders), for the migration theory there were
no other research problems than migrated factors for material culture changes. After
increasing the non-popularity of M. Gimbutas’ theory, some authors replaced the migration
theory with the climatic catastrophe, that it is again based in the assumption that the material
culture dramatically decreased and changed in the Balkans.
Strictly speaking, the palaeoclimatic characteristics of the Balkans are from limited regions
and in my opinion, the recent record does not infer any climatic catastrophe at the end of the
Copper Age (Bozhilova & Tonkov 1995; Цzdogan 1999: 209; Atanassova 1995; see also
Furlan D. 1977; Nandris 1977; Gribben 1978; Harding 1982; Kuniholm 1990; cp. Peiser B.J.
1998). For instance, neither pollen data from key regions, such as Drama valley next to the
North Aegean coast area, nor that from the Black Sea, indicates drastic changes (Nikolova
1999a and ref. cited there). Similar conclusions follow from the pollen diagrams from Pirin
Mountains (Bozhilova & Tonkov 1995) where the authors found some evidence of possible
human impact (seasonal high-mountain pasture) traced back in prehistoric times. As far as the
Black Sea is concerned, difficulties in the interpretation of the marinepalynological data for
the Late Holocene have been reported because of the involved climatic, anthropogenetic and
hydrodynamic processes, as well as the limited samples. Furthermore, enlargement of the herb
communities dominated by Artemisia and Chenopodiaceae is explained with possible
variability in precipitation and the drier condition of the European Subboreal documented also
in the South Dobroudja Black Sea coast ((Atanassova 1995: 80-81). The 5000 BP as a
commonly accepted lower chronological border of Subboreal characterized as “warm and
dry” gives in calibrated dates circa 3800-3700 BC while the end of the Copper Age
correspond to a Late Atlantic climatic period generally characterized as “warm and wet.”
Beyond these general characteristics, local fluctuations and deterioration have been reported
as being documented from different parts of Europe. However, there is no single evidence that
at the end of the fifth and the beginning of the fourth millennium, the proposed transgression
of the Black Sea catastrophically impacted Upper Thrace and the Lower Danube as it has
been written by H. Todorova (see the cited literature in Lichardus & Lichardus-Itten 1993: 72-
73).
As my social change theory proposes, in the late fifth and earlier fourth millennium BC the
crisis was of the Balkan society but not of the region.

Towards the archaeological base of the social change theory

In the last decades, the material evidence base for the social change theory employed to later
Balkan prehistory generally increased. In its core is the long-term transformation of the
Krivodol-Salcuta-Bubanj complex in the western lower Danube recently argued based on the
detailed cultural-chronological sequence (Nikolova 1999a), the data on relocations of cultural
patterns, as well as the evidence of graduate sedentarization in the Balkans in later fourth
millennium BC. The skeleton remains from earlier Final Copper on the Yunatsite tell
(Matsanova 2000) make the historical picture dynamic and controversial.
The applications for the eastern parts of the Balkans are based on the retrospective-
prospective analysis of the evidence, but the evidence is not so expressive as from Central and
Northwestern Balkans.
The first region from the Eastern Balkans is the eastern lower Danube basin, between the Olt
– Osum Rivers and the Danube Delta. This is the one usually thought to have been invaded by
steppe tribes that caused the end of Gumelni?a cultures. But it has been shown that there are
common ceramic elements between Gumelni?a and Cernavoda I cultures. The migrationists
have not ignored the last, but explained them as survival in the new culture (Thomas 1992; cp.
Manzura 1999). The same elements occur in the social change theory as a record of
continuation in the transformation process (Nikolova 1999a). The migrationists do not stress
on the fact that there is a topographic continuity in the settlement pattern (e.g. Harsova), nor
does the pattern of the Cernavoda I culture correspond to nomadic and semi-nomadic
pastoralists that have had short-lived villages supplemented by a central place (e.g.
Cernavoda). This pattern contrasts to Early Bronze when the indisputable pastoral nomads
(Pit Grave Culture) occupied vast territories in the eastern Lower Danube without leaving any
significant traces of sedentarization that could argue at least seasonal occupations.
The retrospective-prospective cultural analysis infers that on the one hand, in the eastern
Lower Danube were preconditions for pastoral nomadism archaeologically documented for
the Early Bronze. As in the migration theory, in both cases the population comes from the
territories of typical pastoral nomadism, it should be an expected similar way of exploitation
of the environment. In fact, the archaeological map shows big differences that in turn
questions the validity of that postulation. At the same time, agricultural-stockbreeding
communities traditionally occupied the eastern lower Danube that had different degrees of a
mobile social pattern. In fact, the tradition of tell villages occurs very late there and only in
some micro-regions. In other words, the Cernavoda I culture following the northeastern
Balkan settlement pattern represents a model of transformation of the material culture in
context of social changes such as increasing mobility, segmentation and decreasing of the
population including the dominance of the household pottery production.
As the Brailita cemetery is unpublished, there is no an opportunity for diachronous
comparative analysis of the burial data. The critical region remains Northeastern Bulgaria as
the settlements of the Cernavoda I culture are still not well documented. Some sites were
included in the so-called Pevets culture, but unfortunately the material from Pevets remains
unpublished. The detailed comparative analysis of Bulgarian and Romanian material provided
by Manzura (2002) infers Northeastern Bulgarian material generally differs from that of the
Romanian Cernavoda I culture. Nevertheless, the material from Ovcharovo-Platoto (to which
can be added Koprivets published in Nikolova 1996), which could be late Cernavoda I, is very
scanty. Also, as it has been argued elsewhere (Nikolova 1999a) that Hotnitsa-Vodopada
belongs to another cultural-chronological horizon that connects the Lower Danube with the
earliest Boleraz (Baden I) in Central Europe, respectively marking the beginning of the
Bronze Age in the Balkans.
My assumption is that the typical settlements of the Cernavoda I culture are to be discovered
to the south of the Danube River. Indirectly, it can be confirmed by the fact that just in the
1980s, for the first time in inner Northeastern Bulgaria, a classical Cernavoda III settlement
(Mirovtsi) was found; recently, nobody would postulate that classical Cernavoda III was not
distributed in this region. The absence of cordedware settlements can be only a problem of
record base but not of the cultural process.

In prospective, J. Lichardus, with team, published from Drama (Southeast Bulgaria) some
fragmented pottery that has been attributed to the beginning of Cernavoda III culture (2000:
42-45) from Early Bronze I according to my periodization system. The problem with that
publication is that the parallels of the fluted ceramic material have been extended only in the
north-northeast direction, to Moldavia and Ukraine. In this case, the latter provided a base of
the conclusion that “the distribution of the Cernavoda III culture also south of the Lower
Danube can be seen in connection with the penetration of the Pit Grave Culture” (Lichardus et
al. 2000: 45). This is a typical methodical tool of the migrationist archaeologists, when
selected data has been combined to demonstrate archeologically the direction of a migration.
But does Drama data really provide such a certain correlation between the Pit Grave Culture
and the beginning of the Cernavoda III?
The illustrated sherds include bowls, pots, amphora-like vessels including plain, stamped and
incised pottery. Except for the sinuous bowl (Lichardus 2000: Fig. 15: 8), there are no
expressive parallels in Cernavoda III of any other vessels. Contrary, the emblematic channel
and plain sinuous profiled pottery parallels to the west in Upper Thrace – in Dubene-Sarovka
IIA ceramics (Yunatsite culture) (Nikolova 1999b; 2000d). This channel pottery has been
interconnected and possibly synchronized in the region under discussion through Karanovo
VIIA- pit H (Hiller & Nikolov 1997: Fig. 148: 16, 21), but on the whole, the Early Bronze I
stage of the channel pottery in Upper Thrace is still at the initial stage of investigation. Then, I
believe this is the reason the site of Drama to have been directly connected with the eastern
lower Danube, but not with other sites with channel pottery in Upper Thrace.
However, if the authors really propose a north – south direction of distribution of the EB I
channel pottery, it should be stressed that there are no Pit Grave Culture records in western
Upper Thrace (Nikolova 2000e). Also, despite the numerous pottery at Golyama Detelina II
tumulus in eastern Upper Thrace (with mixed Pit Grave and Ezero burials according to the
archaeological attributes), no channel pottery has been discovered there (Nikolova 1999a).
Although the Drama pottery confirmed the dating of Golyama Detelina IV (Leshtakov &
Borisov 1995) from EB I (Nikolova 1999a; cp. Lichardus et al. 2000: 45), even in this
tumulus there is no channel pottery. The similarity with Drama includes the vertical corded
handles that have parallels in Baden culture. But it is not clear if Golyama Detelina and
Drama-Merdzhumekya were contemporaneous. The argument of closeness between both sites
was used, as a chronological criterion to argue possible contemporaneous sites (Lichardus et
al. 2000: 45) but in my opinion, in this case, about 30 km is a considerable distance because
of the local micro-regional peculiarities. Drama is close to the mountain region while
Golyama Detelina’s micro-region is steppe like. The latter explains the concentration of Pit
Grave Culture tumuli in the Radnevo micro-area. So, Golyama Detelina tumulus cemetery
and Drama-Merdzhumekya represent two different environmental types. It is another question
that even in the Radnevo area it looks like the Pit Grave Culture penetrated in Ezero social
environment, which resulted in intensive interactions according to the evidence from
Golyama Detelina II (Nikolova 2000e).
In my explanation model, Drama-Merdzhumekya settlement pottery documents a local
pastoral community that was in intensive interactions with other pastoral or semi-pastoral
communities in Upper Thrace and in direct contact with the North. It can be proposed that the
site belongs to early Ezero culture and marks the process of sedenterization of the local
mobile pastoralists in latter fourth millennium BC. This early stage of Ezero culture is not
documented at Ezero tell as it has been stressed also in J. Lichardus et al. (2000: 45), but
important common ornaments have already occurred, e.g. pricked and dot ornamentation. For
the time being, it is not clear if Karanovo VIIA and earliest EB Dyadovo represent regional
peculiarities or if they also include pre-Ezero pottery related diachronically to Drama-
Merdzhumekya.
The case study from Drama region is important because this is exactly the region from which
originates a scepter from Final Copper (Govedaritsa and Kaizer 1996), as well as typical late
Tei pottery from the later Bronze Age. Both instances are isolated for that micro-region; for
the time being, they can be best explained by infiltration of the northern population. However,
in my opinion, they cannot be a model for explanation of all new evidence, in particular of the
Early Bronze I pottery from Merdzhumekya that is interrelated mostly with the west.
The amphora-like vessel from Merdzhumekya (Lichardus et al. 2000: Fig. 15: 1) brings up the
question of how this site relates to the Cernavoda I culture, where its best parallels can be
sought. As a possible pastoral central place, it can include scanty material from different
periods, then, theoretically, the earliest possible chronological border of that site is Final
Copper I (later Cernavoda I culture). I. Manzura stressed first on that similarity (2002). But it
could also be a continuation element that only indicates preservation of Final Copper ceramic
traditions, and in turn confirms very early dating of the site in the Early Bronze I chronology.
For the topic of this study, the newly discovered Early Bronze I evidence from Upper Thrace
has completely changed our view on the cultural processes in this region. In light of the new
evidence from Upper Thrace (Dubene-Sarovka (Nikolova 1996; 1999a; 1999b; 2000d;
Drama- Merdzhumekya (Lichardus et al. 2000), etc.) the process of sedentarization appears to
be a long process that covered all or most of the second half of the fourth millennium BC. The
last model generally contrasts to the 1980s – earlier 1990s view seeing Upper Thrace re-
occupied by sedentary population just at the very end of the fourth millennium BC or the
beginning of the third millennium BC (Ezero A1 culture). The channel pottery only indicates
the multi-aspect interaction processes that existed in the Balkans in the fourth millennium BC.
The traditional methodology of archaeological comparative analysis that mechanically relates
to the innovation in the material culture with the new population demonstrates limitation and
the absence of a possible satisfactory explanation in all cases of the culture changes. As this
communication demonstrates, similar archaeological situations can be a result of different
social processes that always require a vast and deep synchronous, retrospective and
prospective analysis.
Drama-Merdzhumekya is one of these tells which the Early Bronze I populations occupied
over the ruins of the Late Copper settlements or over Final Copper traces. Archaeologically,
the Early Bronze I settlements have been recorded over Late / Final Copper (Dubene-Sarovka,
Yunatsite, Karanovo, Ezero, Dyadovo, etc.), Neolithic tells (for instance Veselinovo), or there
were also newly founded settlements (for instance Ognyanovo). For a long period, Ezero was
a key site for the cultural-chronological column of Early Bronze I sites in Upper Thrace, it
represented a model, according to which the Upper Thrace was occupied at one and the same
time. But the newly interpreted and newly obtained radiocarbon dates from Dubene-Sarovka,
Plovdiv-Nebet Tepe, etc. have indicated a gradual process of occupation of the tells and other
prehistoric sites (Nikolova 1999a; 1999b). It appears that in the later fourth millennium BC,
there were preconditions in Upper Thrace not only for sedentarization, but also for an increase
of the population.
Such demographic patterns characterize the agricultural societies. It is noteworthy to compare
the pattern of babies’ burials that in Early Bronze Upper Thrace is comparable by the number
of buried children in settlements only with Early Neolithic. In the last period, we had a similar
process of gradual cultivation of the land that required considerable labor. In other words,
along with other aspects, the numerous settlement burials of babies indicate a high rate of
births, which in turn preconditioned a high rate of death.

Conclusions and further considerations

The migration theory and the theory of social changes applied to the cultural processes during
Final Copper and Early Bronze I in the Balkans are not two extremes, as the theory of the
social change implies migrations. But the latter are only some of the reasons for the changes
in the material culture. In respect to the Final Copper Age, the theory of social change
includes explained strategies that employ all the various records but not deliberate data that
usually underpin the migration theory. This communication continues to approach the
theoretical and archaeological background for explanation of the cultural changes in the
Balkans in the latest fifth and during the fourth millennia BC (see Nikolova 1999a; 2000a;
2000b) explained by the development of the theoretical foundation and including new
archaeological data and interpretations. The model is social-economic changes from sedentary
and semi-sedentary towards mobile semi-mobile communities and followed an intensive
process of sedentarization in the latter fourth millennium BC.
These changes include not only the most visible archeological sings such as settlement pattern
and pottery production (see above). Other cultural components are also important such as a
relocation of the population towards exploring higher elevations in the mountains (for
instance, the Rhodopes) and adopting new types of weapons/implements (the daggers) that
characterize Final Copper in the Balkans. In some regions, such as the Struma valley and
Northwest Bulgaria, documentation of a dynamic, but relatively continuing, transformation of
the material culture (in light of Kolarovo evidence (Pernicheva 2000) and the newly
excavated cemetery near the village of Telish that may fill the hiatus between Telish 3 and
Telish 4 from the Final Copper Age).
The innovation of arsenic bronze in the later first half of the fourth millennium BC (Vajsov
1993, Hotnitsa-Vodopada) and re-sedentarization in the later fourth millennium BC are
among the most significant characteristics of Early Bronze I. Further, the intensification of
contact with neighbors and distant cultures and the integration with immigrants from the
north-east resulted in the formation of a big cultural system that intensively integrated the
Balkans with Northeast Anatolia (Troada), eastern central Europe, and the northwest Black
Sea. The vast areas that cover the channel pottery style in Early Bronze I is one of the
instances of the intensive interactions. The possible future analysis of the nature of
distribution may provide archaeological arguments for the function of the innovation in the
later Balkan prehistoric society. The acceptance of the last resulted in formation of the big
Balkan Early Bronze I cultural system, in which possibly involved continental Greece, but
Final Copper and Early Bronze I are still not well investigated in this region (see Rogers &
Shoemaker 1971 for the theory of innovation).
M. Rowlands (1993) posed the question of the role of memory in the transmission of the
culture. One model that the Balkan prehistory represents is a circa 500 year cycle of
considerable change in the ceramic style – from painted Early Neolithic to channel and
encrusted Late Neolithic followed by encrusted-and-graphite Early Copper changed by
graphite Late Copper, then, by monochrome Final Copper, then, by channel Early Bronze I,
and encrusted Early Bronze II. Possibly 6 to 12 generations have been involved in these
cycles. On its side, in each cycle, previous elements may continue with different intensity. For
instance, the encrusted pottery of Early Copper type still continues as an exception in
KaranovoVI – Gumelnita – Varna and Krivodol – Salcuta – Bubanj graphite ceramic styles.
Another variant represents the encrusted pottery that occurs among the plain and channel
pottery of Early Bronze I in the Southern Balkans. So, we have two aspects – a continuation
of some traditional elements transmitted my certain shapes and/or household traditions, as
well as invention and acceptance of the innovation and its popularization and widening up to
full or considerable replacement of the tradition style. Along with this, the area factor is very
strong, as the processes spread over big territories relatively fast.
From this perspective, the Final Copper follows the common Balkan prehistoric pattern, the
explanation of which includes consideration of stylistic, social, psychological, economic and
many other factors responsible for the change of the ceramic style. On the other hand, in
historic plan, every one of these cycles has its own historic background and one explanation
model cannot be found, which is valid for all periods. Then the future direction of the
investigation of the social changes in the Final Copper Balkans is a deep diachronic analysis
of the previous cultural processes that would reveal pattern and direction of development to
explain at least some of the innovations during this period. In other words, the social
processes of shift from predominated sedentary to predominated mobile pastoral communities
was a reason for change in the settlement pattern and in the ceramic styles. But the
mechanism of these changes was underpinned by the cultural pattern and cultural memory not
only of traditions but also of the mechanism of acceptance and distribution of the innovations.
The change in the material culture in southeastern Europe in the fourth millennium BC has
been a background for many speculations including a development of Indo-European
archaeology. As the recent investigations show, changes in the Balkans have not been a result
of a new population, on one hand. On the other hand, the dialectic understanding of language
formation and development do not require such a population change as a precondition for
language change. There is no reason the formation, distribution and development of the Indo-
European languages is connected with any material culture changes because these are two
different cultural phenomena. As the Thracians, the core of Balkan ancient population from
the later second and first millennium BC, were Indo-Europeans, then, the bearers of the earlier
archaeological cultures can be seen as Proto-Indo-Europeans with a long, dynamic and
controversial history in Europe (Zvelebil 1995), particularly in the Balkans.

REFERENCES
References
Adams W. 1968 Invasion, diffusion, evolution? Antiquity 42, 194-215.
Anthony D.W. 1990 Migrations in Archaeology: The Baby and the Bathwater. American
Anthropologist 92, 895-914.
Anthony D. 1997 Prehistoric Migrations as Social Process. In: Chapman J. & H. Hamerow
(ed.), Migrations and Invasions in Archaeological Explanations. BAR. Oxford. BAR
International Series 664, 21-32.
Atanasova J. 1995 Palynological data of three deep water cores from the western part of the
Black Sea. In: Bozhilova E. & Tonkov S. (ed.), Advance to Holocene Paleoecology, 68-83.
Bozhilova E. & Tonkov S. (ed.) 1995 Advance to Holocene Paleoecology in Bulgaria.
Pensoft. Sofia.
Chapman 2000 Fragmentation of Archaeology. People, places and broken objects in the
prehistory of south-eastern Europe. Routledge. London & New York.
Chapman J. & Hamerow H. 1997 On the Move Again: Migrations and Invasions in
Archaeological Explanations. In: Chapman J. & Hamerow H. (ed.), Migrations and Invasions,
1-10.
Chokhadzhiev S. 2000 Development of the graphite ornamentation in the Copper Age (in the
light of evidence from the Struma Cultures). In: Nikolova L.(ed.), Technology, Style and
Society, 97-111.
Earle T. 1980 A Model of Subsistence Change. In: Earle T. & Christenson A.L. (ed.),
Modeling Change, 1-29.
Earle T. & Christenson A.L. (ed.) 1980 Modeling Change in Prehistoric Subsistence
Economies. Academic Press. New York.
Fleming A. 1972 The genesis of pastoralism in European prehistory. World Archaeology Vol.
4 No. 2, 179-91.
Furlan D. 1977 The climate of southeast Europe. In: Wallon C. C. (ed.), Climates of Central
and Southern Europe. Amsterdam: Elsevier. World Survey of Climatology Vol. 6, 185-235.
Georgiev G. & N. Angelov 1952 Razkopki na selishtnata mogila do Ruse prez 1948-1949.
Izvestiya na Arkheologicheskiya Institut 18, 119-190.
Georgiev G. & N. Angelov 1952 Razkopki na selishtnata mogila do Ruse prez 1950-1953.
Izvestiya na Arkheologicheskiya Institut 21, 41-124..
Gimbutas M. 1961 Notes on the Chronology and Expansion of the Pit-grave Culture. In:
Bцhm J. and De Laet S.J. (ed.). L’Europe а la fin de lвge de la pierre. Actes du Symposium
consacrй aux probиmes du Nйolithique europйen, Praha-Liblice-Brno 5-12 octobre 1959.
Praha, 193-200.
Gimbutas M. 1970 Proto-Indo-European culture: The Kurgan culture during the fifth, fourth
and third millennia B.C. In: Gordana G. et al. (ed.), Indo-European and Indo-Europeans, 155-
97.
Gimbutas M. 1973 The beginning of the Bronze Age in Europe and the Indo-Europeans:
3500-2500 B.C. JIES, Vol. 1 No. 2, 163-214.
Gimbutas M. 1977 The First Wave of Eurasian Steppe Pastoralists into Copper Age Europe.
JIES 5, 277-338.
Gimbutas M. 1978 The three waves of the Kurgan people into Old Europe, 4500-2500 B.C.
Archives suisses d’anthropologie gйnйrale Vol. 43 No. 2, 113-37.
Gimbutas M. 1991 The Civilisation of the Goddesses: The World of Old Europe. Harper. San
Francisco.
Govedarica B. 1998 Das Problem der Suvorovo-Gruppe in den Ost-West-Beziehungen. In:
Hдnsel B. & Machnik J. (ed.), Das Karpatenbecken und die osteuropдische Steppe.
Nomadenbewegungen und Kulturaustausch in den vorchristlichen Metallzeiten (4000-500
v.Chr.). Sьdosteuropa-Gesellschaft and Marie Leidorf GmbH. Mьnchen and Rahden/Westf.,
179-90.
Govedarica B. and Kaiser E. 1996 Die дneolithischen abstrakten und zoomorphen Steinzepter
Sьdost- und Osteuropas. Eurasia Antiqua 2, 59-103.
Gribben J. (ed.) 1978 Climatic Change. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hanbury-Tenison J.W. 1986 The Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze I Transition in Palestine
and Transjordan. BAR International Series 311. B.A.R. Oxford.
Harding A. F. (ed.) 1982 Climatic Change in Later Prehistory. Edingurg University Press.
Edinburg.
Hдusler A. 1994 The North-Pontic Region and the Beginning of the Eneolithic in South-East
and Central Europe. In: Genito B. (ed.), The Archaeology of Steppe. Methods and Strategies.
Papers from the International Symposium, Naples 9-12 November 1992. Instituto
Universitario Orientale. Napoli, 123-47.
Hдusler A. 1996 Invasionen aus nordpontischen Steppen nach Mitteleurope im Neolithikum
und in der Bronzezeit. Archдologische Informationen 19 (1-2), 75-88.
Hiller S. & V. Nikolov (eds.) 1997 Karanovo. Die Ausgrabungen im Sьdsektor 1984-1992.
Bd. 1. Ferdinand Berger & Sцhne. Salzburg – Sofia.
Kadrow S. 1994 From Nomadism to the Sedentary Way of Life. A case of the Evolution of
the Late Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age Communities in South-Eastern Poland: 2900 –
1650 BC. In: Kosko A. (ed.), Nomadism and Pastoralism, 71-85.
Khazanov A. 1990 Pastoral Nomads in the Past. Present and Future: A Comparative View. In:
Olson P.A. (ed.), The Struggle for the Land. University of Nebraska. Lincoln, 81-99.
Khazanov A.M. 1984 Nomads and the outside world. Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge.
Kosko A. & Klochko V.I. 1994 Nomadism and Pastoralism – An Outline Programme for a
Discussion. In: Kosko A. (ed.), Nomadism and Pastoralism, 1-4.
Kosko A. (ed.) 1994 Nomadism and Pastoralism in the Circle of Baltic-Pontic Early Agrarian
Cultures: 5000-1650 BC. Adam Mickiewicz University. Poznan. Baltic-Pontic Studies 2.
Kristiansen K. & Rowlands M. 1998 Social Transformations in Archaeology. Global and
Local Perspectives. Routledge. London & New York.
Kuniholm P.I. 1990 Archaeological evidence and non- evidence for climatic change. In:
Runcorn S. J. & J.-C. Pecker (ed.), The Earth’s Climate and Variability of the Sun Over
Recent Millennia. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A, 645-655
(=http://www.arts.cornell.edu/dendro/royalsoc.html).
Leshtakov K. & B. Borisov 1995 Nadgrobna mogila IV or rannata bronzova epokha v
zemlishteto na selo Golyama Detelina, obshtina Radnevo. In: Panayotov I. et al. (ed.),
Maritsa-Iztok 3, 9-34.
Lichardus J. & M. Lichardus-Itten 1993 Das Grab von Reka Devnja (Nordostbulgarien). Ein
Beitrag zu den Beziehungen zwischen Nord- und Westpontikum in der frьhen Kupferzeit.
SASTUMA 2, 9-98.
Lichardus J., A. Fol, L. Getov, F. Bertemes, R. Echt, R. Katincarov & I. Iliev 2000
Forschungen in der Mikroregion von Drama (Sьdostbulgarien). Zusammenfassung der
Hauptergebnisse der bulgarisch-deutschen Grabungen in den Jahren 1983-1999. Dr. Rudolf
Habelt GmbH. Bonn.
Mallory J.P. 1989 In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology, and Myth.
Thames and Hudson. London.
Manzura I. 1993 The East-West Interaction in the Mirror of the Eneolithic and Early Bronze
Age Cultures in the North-west Pontic. Revista Archeologica 1, 23-53.
Manzura 1999 Cernavoda I culture. In: Nikolova L., The Balkans in Later Prehistory, 95-174.
Manzura I. 2000 Vladeyushtie skipetrami. Stratum 2, 237-295.
Maran J. 1998 Kulturwandel auf dem griechischen Festland und den Kykladen im spдten 3.
Jahrtausend v. Chr. 1-2. Dr. Rudolf Habelt GMBH. Bonn. Universitдtforschungen zur
prдhistorischen Archдologie Vol. 53.
Matsanova V. 2000 Instramuralni “pogrebeniya” ot kusniya khalkolit v selishtnata mogila pri
Yunatsite, Pazardzhisko. In: Nikolov V. (ed.), Traliya i susednite rayoni prez neolita i
khalkolita. AIM-BAN. Sofia, 121-131.
Merpert N.Ya. 1997 The earliest Indo-Europeanization of the North Balkan Area in Light of a
New Investigation in the Upper Thracian Valley. In: Marler J. (ed.), From the Realm of the
Ancestors. An Anthology in Honor of Marija Gimbutas. Knowledge, Ideas & Trends, Inc.
Manchester, 70-77.
Milrow J. and Milrow L. 1997 Social Network and Pattern of Language Change. In: Chapman
J. & Hamerow H. (ed.), Migrations and Invasions, 73-81.
Nandris J. 1977 The Perspective of Long-term Change in South-east Europe. In: Carter F. W.
(ed.), A Historical Geography of the Balkans. Academic Press. New York, 25-57.
Naylor L. 1996 Culture and Change. Bergin & Garvey. Westport, Connecticut & London.
Nikolova L. 1996 Settlements and ceramics: the experience of Early Bronze Age Bulgaria. In:
Nikolova L. (ed.), Early Bronze Age Settlement Patterns, 145-186.
Nikolova L. 1999a The Balkans in Later Prehistory. BAR, International Series 791. Oxford
Nikolova L. 1999b The Yunatsite Culture: Periodization, Chronology and Synchronizations.
Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects), vol. 2-3, 33-97.
Nikolova L. 2000a Social transformations and evolution in the Balkans in the fourth and third
millennia BC. In: Nikolova L. (ed.), Analyzing the Bronze Age, 1-8. RPRP vol. 4. Sofia.
Nikolova L. 2000b The Balkan Proto-Indo-Europeans in the Fourth and Third Millennia BC.
Journal of Indo-European Studies, 28, 1-2, 197-220.
Nikolova L. 2000c Towards the Neolithic and Copper Age development in the Balkans (Data
from the Stryama Valley). In: Nikolova L. (ed.), Technology, Style and Society, 65-92.
Nikolova L. 2000d Dubene-Sarovka, Yunatsite culture and the integrations in the Early
Bronze Balkans. In: Nikolova L. (ed.), Technology, Style and Society, 201-239.
Nikolova L. 2000e Yamnaya kul’tura na Balkanakh (Dinamika struktury pogrebal’nogo
obryada I sootnoshenie s drugimi kul’turami rannej bronzy). Stratum 2, 423-459.
Nikolova L. (ed.) 1996 Early Bronze Age Settlement Patterns in the Balkans (ca. 3500-2000
BC, Calibrated Dates). Part 2. RPRP, vol. 1.
Nikolova L.(ed.) 2000a Technology, Style and Society. BAR, International Series 854.
Oxford.
Nikolova L. (ed.) 2000b Analyzing the Bronze Age. RPRP vol. 4. Sofia.
Цzdogan M. 1999 Northwestern Turkey: Neolithic cultures in between the Balkans and
Anatolia. In: Цzdogan M. & N. Basgelen (ed.), Neolithic in Turkey. The Cradle of
Civilization. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayinlari. Istanbul, 203-224.
Papadopoulos J.K. 1997 Innovations, imitations and ceramic styles: Modes of Production and
Modes of Dissemination. In: Laffineur R. and Betancourt Ph. P. (ed.), TEXNH. Craftsmen,
Craftswomen, and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age. Aegaeum 16, 449-61, Pl. 175.
Parzinger H. 1993 Studien zur Chronologie und Kulturgeschichte der Jungstein-, Kupfer- und
Frьhbronzezeit zwischen Karpaten und Mittleren Taurus. Vols. 1-2. Rцmisch-germanischen
Forschungen 52. Phillip von Zabern. Mainz am Rhein.
Parzinger H. 1998 Der nordpontische Raum und das untere Donaugebiet in der spдten
Kupferyeit: das Ende des Kod(adermen-Gumelni(a-Karanovo VI-Verbandes und die
Cernavoda-Kultur. In: Hдnsel, B. & Machnik J. (ed.). Das Karpatenbecken und die
osteuropдische Steppe. Marie Leidorf. Mьnchen – Rahden/Westf., 123-34.
Peiser B.J. 1998 Comparative Analysis of Late Holocene Environmental and Social
Upheaval: Evidence for a Global Disaster around 4000 BP. In: Peiser B.J., Palmer T.& Bailey
M.E. (ed.), Natural Catastophes During Bronze Age Civilazations. Archaeological,
Geological, Astronomical and Cultural Perspectives. BAR. Oxford. BAR International Series
728.
Pernicheva L. 2000 The Final Copper Settlement of Kolarovo in Southwestern Bulgaria. In:
Nikolova L. (ed.), Technology, Style and Society, 133-171.
Polomй E.C. & W. Winter (ed.) 1992 Reconstructing Languages and Cultures. Mouton de
Gruyter. Berlin & New York.
Raduncheva A. 1976 Vinitsa: enelitno selishte i nekropol. BAN. Sofia.
Renfrew C. 1986 Introduction: Peer Polity Interaction and Social-Political Change. In:
Renfrew C. & Cherry J. F. (ed.), Peer Polity Interaction, 1-18.
Renfrew C. & Cherry J. F. (ed.) 1986 Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-political Change.
Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Robbins M. 1980 The Assimilation of Pre-Indo-European Goddesses into Indo-European
Society. JIES 8, 19-29.
Rogers E.M. & Shoemaker F.F. 1971 Communication of Innovations. The Free Press. New
York.
Rowlands M. 1993 The Role of Memory in the Transmission of Culture. World Archaeology
25, 2, 141-51.
Salzman Ph. C. 1980 Introduction: Processes of Sedentarization as Adaptation and Response.
In: Salzman Ph. C. (ed.), When nomads settle, 1-20.
Salzman Ph. C. (ed.) 1980 When nomads settle. Processes of Sedentarization as Adaptation
and Response. Praeger. New York.
Shank M. & Ch. Tilley 1987 Social Theory and Archaeology. Polity Press. Cambridge.
Shennan S. 1986 Interaction and Change in Third Millennium BC Western and Central
Europe. In: Renfrew C. & Cherry J. F. (ed.), Peer Polity Interaction, 137-48.
Sherratt A.G. 1997 Economy and Society in Prehistoric Europe. Changing Perspective.
Princeton University Press. Princeton.
Sinopoli C.M. 1991 Approach to Archaeological Ceramics. Plenum Press. New York &
London.
Swidler N. 1980 Sedentarization and Modes of Economic Integration in the Middle East. In:
Salzman Ph. C. (ed.), When nomads settle, 21-34.
Thomas 1992 Archaeology and Indo-European comparative linguistics. In: Polomй E.C. &
W. Winter (ed.), Reconstructing Languages and Cultures. Mouton de Gruyter. Berlin & New
York, 285-315.
Tringham R. 1971 Hunters, Fishers and Farmers of Eastern Europe 6000 – 3000 BC.
Hutchinson University Library. London.
Vajsov I. 1993 Die frьhesten Metalldolche Sьdost- und Mitteleuropas. Praehistorische
Zeitschrift 68, 103-45.
Zvelebil M. 1995 Indo-European Origins and the Agricultural Transition in Europe. In: Kuna
M. & Venklova N. (ed.), Whither Archaeology? Papers in Honour of Evzen Neustupny.
Institute of Archaeology. Praha, 173-203
Източник: 2002-2003© International Institute of Anthropology and Prehistory Foundation
2002-2003©Lolita Nikolova, Ph.D.
All rights reserved.
Published on: 06/26/02.
Last updated: 01/18/03