DOCSLIB.ORG

Durham Research Online

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Durham Research Online Durham Research Online Deposited in DRO: 09 December 2008 Version of attached le: Published Version Peer-review status of attached le: Peer-reviewed Citation for published item: Gaydarska, B. (2007) 'Landscape, material culture and society in South East Bulgaria.', Oxford: Archaeopress. Further information on publisher's website: http://www.archaeopress.com/searchBar.asp?sql=%5BSeries+ID%5D+%3D+2+AND+%5BPublished+Date%5D+%3E+%2331+Mar+2007%23 Publisher's copyright statement: Additional information: In addition to the full-text of the report, DRO contains a zipped archive of ArcView 3.2 les. Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham DH1 3LY, United Kingdom Tel : +44 (0)191 334 3042 | Fax : +44 (0)191 334 2971 https://dro.dur.ac.uk Landscape, Material Culture and Society in South East Bulgaria Bisserka Ivanova Gaydarska Contents List Volume I Contents List i List of Tables xv List of Figures xvii Abstract xviii Acknowledgements xix Chapter One: Setting the scene 1.1 The study area 1 1.2 Aims and objectives 3 1.3 Methodological framework 4 1.4 Summary of thesis by chapters 5 Chapter Two: History of recent investigations 2.1 General stages in Bulgarian prehistoric research 7 2.2 General interpretative trends in Bulgarian prehistory 9 2.3 History of GIS research 15 Chapter Three: Theoretical and Methodological Background 3.1 Landscape archaeology 17 3.2 Society and Material culture 23 3.3 Microregional studies 32 3.4. GIS Methodology 42 Chapter Four: Palaeo-environmental reconstructions Introduction 43 4.1. Geological data 43 4.2. Geomorphological data and soils 48 4.3. Climate and Vegetation according to modern and palaeo-botanical data 69 i Chapter Five: The Sokolitsa Microregion 5.1 Tell Galabovo 71 5.2. Obrutchishte flat site 90 5.3 Atanasivanova mogila (barrow) site 92 5.4 Mednikarovo tell 94 5.5 Karaivanovi mogili barrow cemetery (KMBC) 98 5.6 Iskritsa flat site 100 5.7 Klisselika tell 104 5.8. Gudgova tell 107 5.9 Polski Gradets tell 113 5.10 Polski Gradets pit site 116 Chapter Six: The Ovcharitsa Microregion 6.1 Gonova mogila (barrow) 119 6.2 Ovcharitsa I flat site 120 6.3 The Ovcharitsa II site 122 6.4 Aldinova mogila 127 6.5 Ovchartsi barrow 129 6.6 Barrow four 131 6.7 Goliamata mogila (the big barrow) 133 6.8 Malkata mogila (the small barrow) 138 6.9 Goliama Detelina flat site 139 6.10 Tcherniova mogila 142 6.11 Manchova mogila 144 6.12 Taniokoleva mogila 147 6.13 Kurdova mogila 148 6.14. Mednikarovo-Iskritsa barrow cemetery (MIBC) 150 Chapter Seven: The Drama microregion 7.1 Gerena flat site 155 7.2 Merdzumekja tell 157 7.3. Kajrjaka flat site 163 ii Chapter Eight: Landscape, Material Culture and Society in the Sokolitsa, Ovcharitsa and Drama micro-regions – a comparison and synthesis 8.1 Material Culture and Society 167 8.2 Landscapes and settlement patterns 172 8.3 Long-term trends of prehistoric life in South East Bulgaria 177 Conclusion 181 Bibliography 183 Appendix A: Description of routes 197 Appendix B: Illustrations 211 AFig. 5.1.1 General plan of Galabovo tell and profiles in E4, D4 213 AFig. 5.1.2 Profiles in B4/C4 and profiles in O5/O6, O7, N5/N6 214 AFig. 5.1.3 Houses from LCA horizon I and II and a pit from LCA horizon III 215 AFig. 5.1.4 Pottery from LCA horizons I - III 216 AFig. 5.1.5 Houses from BA horizon X and key for Galabovo illustrations 217 AFig. 5.1.6 House in J3-5/K3-5/L3-5 from BA horizon XI and the pottery depot 218 AFig. 5.1.7 House in M4/5-L4/5 from BA horizon XII and pottery from the house 219 AFig. 5.1.8 Artefacts from house in M4/5-L4/5 from BA horizon XII 220 AFig. 5.1.9 House in J5/6-L5/6 from BA horizon XII and artefacts from the house 221 AFig. 5.1.10 Feature plans from BA horizon XIII; pottery from BA horizon XIII 222 AFig. 5.4.1 General plans and profiles from Mednikarovo tell 223 AFig. 5.4.2 Pottery from Mednikarovo tell 224 AFig. 5.4.3 Pottery from Mednikarovo tell 225 AFig. 5.6.1 General plan of Iskritsa flat site; pottery from Iskritsa dwelling site 226 AFig. 5.6.2 Profiles from Iskritsa dwelling site; plan of Iskritsa pit site 227 AFig. 5.6.3 Pottery and flints tools from Iskritsa pit site 228 AFig. 5.6.4 ECA pottery from Iskritsa dwelling site 229 AFig. 5.6.5 Pottery from Iskritsa dwelling site 230 AFig. 5.7.1 General plan of tell Klisselika; pottery from the tell 231 AFig. 5.7.2 Pottery from tell Klisselika 232 AFig. 5.7.3 Pottery from tell Klisselika 233 AFig. 5.8.1 General profile and house plans, Gudgova tell 234 AFig. 5.8.2 Plans and profile from Gudgova tell 235 AFig. 5.8.3 LCA and EBA vessels from Gudgova tell 236 AFig. 5.8.4 BA vessels and sherds from Gudgova tell 237 AFig. 5.8.5 Figurines and cult objects from Gudgova tell 238 AFig. 5.10.3 Pottery from Polski Gradets pit site and Polski Gradets tell 239 AFig. 6.1.1 Plan of Gonova mogila; grave 2, the obsidian blade from grave 1 240 AFig. 6.2.1 Pottery and artefacts from Ovcharitsa I flat site 241 AFig. 6.3.1 General location of Ovcharitsa II enclosure; pottery from the site 242 AFig. 6.3.2 Plan of the EBA enclosure and the LBA cemetery in Ovcharitsa II site 243 AFig. 6.3.3 Profiles of the ditch and the stone wall from Ovcharitsa II 244 AFig. 6.3.4 Profile and plan of the “chain dwellings” at Ovcharitsa II 245 iii AFig. 6.3.5 Pottery and artefacts from Ovcharitsa II enclosure 246 AFig. 6.3.6 Flint artefacts from Ovcharitsa II enclosure 247 AFig. 6.3.7 Various artefacts from Ovcharitsa II enclosure 248 AFig. 6.3.8 Pottery from Ovcharitsa II enclosure 249 AFig. 6.4.1 Plans of barrows 250 AFig. 6.6.1 Plan of Barrow Four, pottery from the features 251 AFig. 6.7.1 General plans and profiles of Goliamata Mogila 252 AFig. 6.7.2 Grave goods from Goliamata Mogila 253 AFig. 6.8.1 Plan, grave goods and grave 5 of Malkata mogila 254 AFig. 6.9.1 General plan of Goliama Detelina flat site, pottery from the site 255 AFig. 6.9.2 Various artefacts from Goliama Detelina flat site 256 AFig. 6.11.1 Plan and grave goods, Manchova mogila 257 AFig. 6.14.1 General plan of MIBC; MIBC1 grave 1 258 AFig. 6.14.2 Plans of MIBC 259 AFig. 6.14.3 Grave 2 from MIBC3, Grave 2 from MIBC1, silver beads from grave 1 from MIBC4 260 AFig. 6.14.4 MIBC2 graves 1-2; MIBC4 graves 1-2 261 AFig. 6.14.5 MIBC3 graves 1-2 and content of pit N2 262 Appendix C: Principal Component Analysis 263 ATable 4.3.1 Calibrated C14 dates, location and depth for pollen coring sites 265 ATable 4.3.2 Raw pollen data by (coded) coring site and assemblage 266 ATable 4.3.3 Mean and standard deviation of principal botanical species 267 ATable 4.3.4 Correlation Matrix 268 ATable 4.3.5 PCA extraction by main botanical species 269 ATable 4.3.6 Cumulative and total variance by components 269 ATable 4.3.7 Matrix of component scores 270 ATable 4.3.8 Rotated (Varimax) component matrix 270 ATable 4.3.9 Component transformation matrix 271 ATable 4.3.10 Evaluation of Willis’ main claims for Bulgarian vegetational history 271 AFig. 4.3.1 Eigenvalues by component 267 AFig. 4.3.2 Component Plot in Rotated 3-dimensional Space 273 AFig. 4.3.3 Component Plot in Rotated Space – Components 1 and 2 273 AFig. 4.3.4 Component Plot in Rotated Space – Components 3 and 4 274 AFig. 4.3.5 Component Plot in Rotated Space – Components 5 and 6 274 AFig. 4.3.6 Pollen assemblages by principal components 1 and 2 275 AFig. 4.3.7 Pollen assemblages by principal components 1 and 3 275 AFig. 4.3.8 Pollen assemblages by principal components 2 and 3 276 AFig. 4.3.9 Pollen assemblages by principal components 1 and 4 276 AFig. 4.3.10 Pollen assemblages by principal components 5 and 6 277 Appendix D: GIS Analysis279 Instructions for the use of the CD-ROM 279 iv List of Figures on CD-ROM Figure Name Figure Content File Name CDFig.1 Galabovo tell slope g4 CDFig.2 Galabovo tell aspect g2 CDFig.3 Galabovo tell visibility g3 CDFig.4 Galabovo tell elevation g1 CDFig.5 Galabovo tell visibility +8m g5 CDFig.6 Galabovo tell cost surface g6 CDFig.7 Galabovo tell logistical network g7 CDFig.8 Path Galabovo tell – Gudgova tell g8 CDFig.9 Path Galabovo tell – Atanasivanova mogila g9 CDFig.10 Path Galabovo tell – Iskritsa pit site g10 CDFig.11 Path Galabovo tell – Iskritsa dwelling site g11 CDFig.12 Path Galabovo tell – Klisselika tell g12 CDFig.13 Visibility from path Galabovo tell – Gudgova tell g13 CDFig.14 Path Galabovo tell – Mednikarovo tell g14 CDFig.15 Path Galabovo tell – Gonova mogila g15 CDFig.16 Visibility from path Galabovo tell – Gonova mogila g16 CDFig.17 Path Galabovo tell – MIBC1 g17 CDFig.18 Visibility from path Galabovo tell – Atanasivanova mogila g18 CDFig.19 Visibility from Path Galabovo tell – Iskritsa pit site g19 CDFig.20 Visibility from Path Galabovo tell – Iskritsa dwelling site g20 CDFig.21 Visibility from Path Galabovo tell – Klisselika tell g21 CDFig.22 Path Galabovo tell – Tcherniova mogila g22 CDFig.23 Visibility from Path Galabovo tell – Tcherniova mogila g23 CDFig.24 Path Galabovo tell – Kurdova mogila g24 CDFig.25 Visibility from Path Galabovo tell – Kurdova mogila g25 CDFig.26 Path Galabovo tell – Manchova mogila g26 CDFig.27 Visibility from Path Galabovo
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Durham E-Theses
    Durham E-Theses Neolithic and chalcolithic cultures in Turkish Thrace Erdogu, Burcin How to cite: Erdogu, Burcin (2001) Neolithic and chalcolithic cultures in Turkish Thrace, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3994/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC CULTURES IN TURKISH THRACE Burcin Erdogu Thesis Submitted for Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without his prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. University of Durham Department of Archaeology 2001 Burcin Erdogu PhD Thesis NeoHthic and ChalcoHthic Cultures in Turkish Thrace ABSTRACT The subject of this thesis are the NeoHthic and ChalcoHthic cultures in Turkish Thrace. Turkish Thrace acts as a land bridge between the Balkans and Anatolia.
    [Show full text]
  • Climatic Influences on Appearance and Development of Neolithic Cultures in Southern Outskirts of Carpathian Basin
    Studia Quaternaria, vol. 33, no. 1 (2016): 11–26. DOI: 10.1515/squa-2016-0002 CLIMATIC INFLUENCES ON APPEARANCE AND DEVELOPMENT OF NEOLITHIC CULTURES IN SOUTHERN OUTSKIRTS OF CARPATHIAN BASIN Katarina Botiæ Institute of Archaeology, Ljudevita Gaja 32, HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia, e-mail: [email protected] Abstract Southern outskirts of Carpathian basin, namely the region between Sava, Drava and Danube rivers, have specific cli- mate conditions today partially influenced by geological structure and geographical position. In this region Neolithic Starèevo and Sopot cultures are observed. Radiocarbon dates for Neolithic cultures are used to build a time frame which is compared with climate proxies, especially with Holocene rapid climate events (8.2, 5.9 and 4.2 ka), to draw a conclusion on when and how these cultures developed in southern regions of Carpathian basin. Lacking firm geoar- chaeological data the results are not conclusive but can provide some insight on how the climate may have directly and indirectly influenced development of Neolithic and beginning of Eneolithic period in the region. Key words: northern Croatia, Slavonia, Neolithic, Starèevo and Sopot cultures, rapid climate events (8.2, 5.9 and 4.2 ka). Manuscript received 17 July 2015, accepted 12 February 2016 INTRODUCTION Southern outskirts of Carpathian basin, the region ob- served in this paper, in geographical sense covers the region Attempts of absolute dating of Neolithic cultures in between Sava, Drava and Danube rivers (Fig. 1). In geopoli- southern regions of Carpathian basin, i.e. the Slavonia region tical sense, it is the north-east part of Croatia, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Iron, Steel and Swords Script - Page 1
    Danube Culture What It's All About Most people / archaeologists / historians / religious believers / cultures / governments tend to see history a bit warped. Many Chinese, for example, are certain that everything of interest has been invented or discovered in China. Plenty others would debate if anything existed more than roughly 6000 years ago (when some God created the earth etc.). The consensus among Western people is that civilization in the form of big cities, writing, beer making etc. started in Mesopotamia (including a bit of Turkey and Egypt); a view that was influenced to some extent by Christian feelings - Jesus was born, raised an killed there, after all. Fortunately, modern Western scientists were able to look at the matter objectively and without any cultural bias. They determined unambiguously that everything of interest has been invented or discovered in Suebia or at least nearby - somewhat down the river Danube that originates in Suebia. Seriously now: There is no doubt anymore that some "high cultures" existed from about 6000 BC to 4000 BC (and partially longer) in the general region west of the Black Sea (nowadays parts of Bulgaria, Rumania, Moldova and Advanced Ukraine). There is some doubt, however, if we should see these people as one culture and how "high" it actually was. Did these "Old Europeans", as they are sometimes called, actually discover or invent advanced pottery, writing, city forming, metal smelting, wine making (I'm not sure about beer brewing) long before the usual suspects? The linguist Harald Haarmann thinks so. He presented his reasoning in a book, nicely written in the true language, that is all but ignored by true archaeologists but gathering an increasing number of disciples among normal people.
    [Show full text]
  • Manufacturing Technique and Social Identity: Three Cases of ‘Manufacture-By-Wear’ Technique
    Archaeofauna 27 (2018): 253-274 Manufacturing technique and social identity: three cases of ‘manufacture-by-wear’ technique MONICA MĂRGĂRIT1, PAVEL MIREA2, ADRIAN BĂLĂȘESCU3 1Valahia University of Târgoviște, Humanities Faculty, str. Lt. Stancu Ion, nr. 35, Târgoviște, Romania 2Teleorman County Museum, str. 1848, nr. 1, Alexandria, Romania 3“Vasile Pârvan” Institute of Archaeology, Romanian Academy, str. Henri Coandă, nr. 11, București, Romania (Received 8 June 2017; Revised 13 April 2018; Accepted 4 May 2018) ABSTRACT: This paper focuses on the identification of changes in the processing of osse- ous materials in the southeast European Neolithic, beginning with three types of production by manufacture wear technique typical for the region: bipartition by abrasion, segmentation with fibre and perforation by wear technique. The processing of osseous materials is strongly conditioned by their natural anatomic shapes which is why only a restricted range of possible transformation variables, with minimum changes through time, would be expected. However, numerous specialists invoke the cultural value conferred by the community as the preeminent element in the selection of raw material more than the limitations of the raw material form. Therefore, there are some examples in which there was little change in raw materials selec- tion across long periods of time, although there was variation in animal species availability. Consequently, the study of the three types of ‘manufacture-by-wear’ technique becomes more interesting. These techniques are not present in all prehistoric times in this region. Some of these techniques appear on worked osseous materials in Romania and neighbouring areas at the beginning of the Neolithic and disappear just as suddenly (bipartition by abrasion) or appear only sporadically (perforation and segmentation with fibre) by the Early Chalcolithic.
    [Show full text]
  • A World History of Art Free
    FREE A WORLD HISTORY OF ART PDF Hugh Honour,John Fleming | 996 pages | 08 Oct 2009 | Laurence King Publishing | 9781856695848 | English | London, United Kingdom History of Art: History of Photography The history of art focuses on objects made by humans in visual form for aesthetic purposes. Visual art can be classified in diverse wayssuch as separating fine arts from applied arts ; inclusively focusing on human creativity; or focusing on different media such as architecturesculpturepaintingfilmphotographyand graphic arts. In recent years, technological advances have led to video art, computer artperformance A World History of Artanimationtelevisionand videogames. The history of art is often told as a chronology of masterpieces created during each civilization. It can thus be framed as a story of high cultureepitomized by the Wonders of the World. On A World History of Art other hand, vernacular art expressions can also be integrated into art historical narratives, referred to as folk arts or craft. The more closely that an art historian engages with these latter forms of low culturethe more likely it is that they will identify their work as examining visual culture or material cultureor as contributing to fields related A World History of Art art history, such as anthropology or archaeology. In the latter cases, art objects may be referred to as archeological artifacts. The oldest secure human art that has been found dates to the Late Stone Age during the Upper Paleolithicpossibly from around 70, BC [8] but with certainty from around 40, BC, when the first creative works were made from shell, stone, and paint by Homo sapiensusing symbolic thought.
    [Show full text]
  • Burial and Identity in the Late Neolithic And
    Burial and identity in the Late Neolithic and Copper Age of south-east Europe Susan Stratton Thesis submitted in candidature for the degree of PhD Cardiff University March 2016 CONTENTS List of figures…………………………………………………………………………7 List of tables………………………………………………………………………….14 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................ 16 Abstract ............................................................................................................................................... 17 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 18 2 Archaeological study of mortuary practice ........................................................................... 22 2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 22 2.2 Culture history ................................................................................................................... 22 2.3 Status and hierarchy – the processualist preoccupations ............................................ 26 2.4 Post-processualists and messy human relationships .................................................... 36 2.5 Feminism and the emergence of gender archaeology .................................................. 43 2.6 Personhood, identity and memory ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Download PDF (Free)
    UNIVERSITATEA “AL. I. CUZA” I A Ş I FACULTATEA DE ISTORIE SEMINARUL DE ISTORIE VECHE ŞI ARHEOLOGIE CATEDRA DE ISTORIE VECHE ŞI ARHEOLOGIE STUDIA ANTIQUA ET ARCHAEOLOGICA VII I N H O N O R E M MIRCEA PETRESCU-DÎMBOVIŢA et MARIN DINU EDITURA UNIVERSITĂŢII “AL. I. CUZA” IAŞI * 2000 UNIVERSITÉ “AL. I. CUZA” I A Ş I FACULTÉ D’HISTOIRE SÉMINAIRE D’HISTOIRE ANCIENNE ET D’ARCHÉOLOGIE CHAIRE D’HISTOIRE ANCIENNE ET D’ARCHÉOLOGIE STUDIA ANTIQUA ET ARCHAEOLOGICA VII CARISSIMIS ET ILLUSTRISSIMIS MAGISTRIS MIRCEA PETRESCU-DÎMBOVIŢA et MARIN DINU I N H O N O R E M ÉDITIONS DE L’UNIVERSITÉ “AL. I. CUZA” IAŞI 2000 COLLÈGE DE RÉDACTION: Nicolae Ursulescu (rédacteur en chef) Marius Alexianu, Neculai Bolohan, Octavian Bounegru, Attila László, Victor Spinei, Dan Gh. Teodor, Mihail Vasilescu. Secrétariat de rédaction: Lucreţiu Mihailescu-Bîrliba Vasile Cotiugă MEMBRES D’HONNEUR: Prof. Mircea Petrescu-Dîmboviţa (membre de l’Academie Roumaine) Prof.dr. Marin Dinu Prof.dr. Rodolfo Striccoli (Université de Bari) Rédaction informatisée: Mariana Petcu, Adina Caminschi, Vasile Cotiugă Illustration: Aneta Corciovă Les manuscrits, les livres et les revues proposés en échange et pour comptes-rendus, ainsi que toute la correspondance seront adressés à la Redaction: Universitatea “Al.I. Cuza”, Facultatea de Istorie, Seminarul de Istorie Veche şi Arheologie, Bulevardul Carol I, no.11, Ro – 6600 – Iaşi, Roumanie. Tel. 032/201556; Fax. 0040-32/201201; E-mail: [email protected] ISSN 1224-2284 TABULA GRATULATORIA Ion AGRIGOROAIEI (Iaşi) Ruxandra ALAIBA (Iaşi) Marius ALEXIANU
    [Show full text]
  • Toward an Evolutionary Model of Gradual Development of Social Complexity Among the Neolithic Pottery Communities in the Balkans
    MICHELA SPATARO and PAOLO BIAGI (edited by) A Short Walk through the Balkans: the First Farmers of the Carpathian Basin and Adjacent Regions Società Preistoria Protostoria Friuli-V.G., Trieste, Quaderno 12, 2007: 89-102 LOLITA NIKOLOVA* TOWARD AN EVOLUTIONARY MODEL OF GRADUAL DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL COMPLEXITY AMONG THE NEOLITHIC POTTERY COMMUNITIES IN THE BALKANS (CULTURAL-CHRONOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL-ANTHROPOLOGICAL PROBLems) SUMMARY - Toward an evolutionary model of gradual development of social complexity among the Neolithic pottery communities in the Balkans (cultural-chronological and cultural-anthropological problems). Based on the recent data on the earlier Neolithic material culture, we distinguish five general stages of development in social complexity during the Neolithic in the Balkans, from the emergence of sedentary pottery-making communities to the culmination of the Neolithic cultures’ development in the latest Neolithic, including the introduction of metallurgy. In this approach we will discuss cultural-chronological and cultural-anthropological problems mainly of the first stage of Neolithic development in the Balkans, using in some cases a prospective analysis, from the later chronological periods. Of primary importance for the chronological conclusions are the radiocarbon dates, while the social models are based on the general theories in cultural and social anthropology, sociology and especially the anthropology of everydayness. This approach has also proposed that our understanding of the problems of the earliest pottery-making complex societies in the Balkans would benefit from further intensification of micro-regional interdisciplinary investigations from the point of view of the anthropology of everydayness, by constructing micro- and medium-social models of social reproduction. RIASSUNTO - Per un modello di sviluppo graduale della complessità sociale delle comunità neolitiche ceramiche dei Balcani (problemi cronologico-culturali e antropologico-culturali).
    [Show full text]
  • On the Origins of the Romanian People
    『地域政策研究』（高崎経済大学地域政策学会） 第７巻 第２号 2004年 10 月 17 頁～ 38 頁 On the Origins of the Romanian People Elena Taralunga TAMURA Abstract I have been often asked where I come from and I have realized that not much is known about Romania, its location, language and history. This paper is an examination of the roots of Romanian history. It is supported by official historical evidence and some of the data is approved by the Romanian Academy of History and Archeology, whereas other information is taken from different sources such as: history of religions, different reports from the Institute of Dacology, encyclopedias, and folklore resources. Statements on history can be eventually confirmed as well as denied when some new discovery happens. Also, in the case of writing a research paper on the ancient history of a country the lack of sufficient and explicit written evidence left to this day, can obstruct the discovering of facts that are correct, free from ambiguity and vacillation.This paper covers the early historical beginnings of the people that inhabited the territory of modern Romania to the time when the Roman Empire changed the country north of Danube into a Roman colony. This paper comprises: A geographical description of Romania History: the beginnings, An explanation of the meaning of the Pelasgians Definition of who the Thracians were. The Dacians and the Getae and who they were. The Dacian kings and among them the most important, Buerebista and Decebal The change of Dacia into a Roman colony Conclusion － 17 － Elena Taralunga TAMURA Introduction The historic magnitude of different peoples on the earth does not always radiate with the same intensity.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 9 the Anti-Rhetorical Power of Representational Absence
    Incomplete Figurines from the Balkan Neolithic Chapter 9 The Anti-rhetorical Power of Representational Absence: Incomplete Figurines from the Balkan Neolithic Douglass W. Bailey During the excavations of the Hamangia Culture a particular set of communities who shared similar cemetery at Durankulak on the Bulgarian Black Sea ways of living, of making objects or burying their coast, Henrie�a Todorova’s team recovered a number dead, it would have been just as feasible to use other of figurines; Grave no. 626, for example, contained figurines from other cultures in the region: from north- four (Fig. 9.1). The figurines were buried with a 20- to eastern Romania, Moldova and the Ukraine (i.e. the 25-year-old woman whose body was accompanied by Cucuteni/Tripolye cultures); from western Bulgaria, a large Spondylus bracelet, three strings of copper and Serbia, southeastern Hungary, and Macedonia (i.e. malachite beads and three fragments of finger rings the Starčevo and Vinča cultures); or from Thessalian (Vajsov 1987; 1992; 2002; Todorova et al. 2002, 62, 109). Greece. In all of these places, it is not unusual to find As with other Hamangia figurines from se�lement and figurines that have very li�le, if any, representation funerary contexts, the Grave 626 figurines are strik- of faces or even heads (Fig. 9.2). Furthermore, I could ing for the simplicity of their form and their lack of have focused on the absence of body parts other than surface treatment. Necks are long, thin, triangular and the head and face: on the absence of hands or feet, without faces or heads.
    [Show full text]
  • EARLY BRONZE AGE DAGGERS in CENTRAL ANATOLIA a Master's
    EARLY BRONZE AGE DAGGERS IN CENTRAL ANATOLIA A Master’s Thesis by BURAK ARCAN Department of Archaeology İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University Ankara June 2012 EARLY BRONZE AGE DAGGERS IN CENTRAL ANATOLIA Graduate School of Economics and Social Sciences of İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University by BURAK ARCAN In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS in THE DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY İHSAN DOĞRAMACI BİLKENT UNIVERSITY ANKARA June 2012 ABSTRACT EARLY BRONZE AGE DAGGERS IN CENTRAL ANATOLIA Arcan, Burak Master of Arts, Department of Archaeology Supervisor: Asst. Prof. Dr.Thomas Zimmermann May 2012 The rapid development of metal technologies in the Early Bronze Age had played an important part in the “urbanization” of Anatolia. Daggers were the first and the most common metallurgical products in this new chapter of human history. The morphology (typology), chronology and the distribution of the Early Bronze Age daggers will offer evidence for the regional and the interregional interactions of Central Anatolia. The cultural context of daggers and the associated material presented support the conclusion that Central Anatolia formed a cohesive cultural sphere which is reflected in dagger typologies. Keywords: Daggers, Early Bronze Age, Central Anatolia. iii ÖZET ERKEN BRONZ ÇAĞI ORTA ANADOLU KAMALARI Arcan, Burak Yüksek Lisans, Arkeoloji Bölümü Tez Yöneticisi: Yrd. Doç. Dr. Thomas Zimmermann May 2012 Erken Bronz Çağında hızlı bir gelişme gösteren metal teknolojisi Anadolu’nun şehirleşme sürecinde önemli bir rol oynamıştır. İnsanlık tarihinin bu yeni döneminde, metal biliminin ilk ve en yaygın kullanılan ürünleri kamalar olmuştur. Erken Bronz Çağı kamalarının tipolojileri, kronolojileri ve Orta Anadolu’daki dağılımları, bölge içi ve de bölgeler arası etkileşimlerin tespitine yardımcı olacak niteliktedir.
    [Show full text]
  • NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENTS on BALKAN a Comparative Study Between Durankulak and Sitagroi
    NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENTS ON BALKAN a comparative study between Durankulak and Sitagroi Uppsala University Department of Classical Archaeology and Ancient History Christina Näslund Master thesis 45 p, 2008-2009 Advisor: Gullög Nordquist TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT 1. INTRODUCTION......................................................... 1 1.1 Aim.................................................................... 1 1.2 Previous Research .............................................. 2 1.3 Method and materials ......................................... 2 2. CHRONOLOGY........................................................... 5 3. NEOLITHIZATION PROCESS.................................... 8 3.1 Neolithization in summary.................................. 12 4. ENVIRONMENT.......................................................... 13 4.1 The Dobruzha Plain............................................ 14 4.1.1 Durankulak............................................... 14 4.2 Plain of Drama ................................................... 16 4.2.1 Sitagroi..................................................... 18 5. CLIMATE..................................................................... 19 5.1 Cold winters ....................................................... 21 5.2 Mediterranean climate ........................................ 23 5.3 Comparing the environment and the climate....... 24 6. FOOD ........................................................................ 24 6.1 Donkey for dinner .............................................. 26 6.2
    [Show full text]