Neolitska kvadratura kruga: squaring the circle - Neolithic way
Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Buch |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Beograd
Zavod za Udžbenike
2009
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Inhaltsverzeichnis Abstract |
| Beschreibung: | Zsfassung in engl. Sprache |
| Beschreibung: | 199 S. Ill., graph. Darst., Kt. |
| ISBN: | 9788617165350 |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 c 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV036685565 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 00000000000000.0 | ||
| 007 | t | ||
| 008 | 100923s2009 abd| |||| 00||| srp d | ||
| 020 | |a 9788617165350 |9 978-86-1716535-0 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)705864304 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)GBV62398217X | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a srp | |
| 049 | |a DE-12 | ||
| 084 | |a 7,41 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Tasić, Nenad N. |e Verfasser |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Neolitska kvadratura kruga |b squaring the circle - Neolithic way |c Nenad N. Tasić |
| 264 | 1 | |a Beograd |b Zavod za Udžbenike |c 2009 | |
| 300 | |a 199 S. |b Ill., graph. Darst., Kt. | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Zsfassung in engl. Sprache | ||
| 546 | |a In kyrill. Schr., serb. | ||
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Neolithikum |0 (DE-588)4075272-0 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 651 | 7 | |a Balkanhalbinsel |0 (DE-588)4004334-4 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 689 | 0 | 0 | |a Balkanhalbinsel |0 (DE-588)4004334-4 |D g |
| 689 | 0 | 1 | |a Neolithikum |0 (DE-588)4075272-0 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=020604320&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=020604320&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Abstract |
| 940 | 1 | |n oe | |
| 999 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-020604320 | ||
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 307.09 |e 22/bsb |f 09012 |g 496 |
Datensatz im Suchindex
| _version_ | 1804143316876394496 |
|---|---|
| adam_text | Садржај
Увод
9
Неолитизација
или
Укроћена горопад
15
Исхрана као
извор за
проучавање
процеса
неолитизације
25
Ex Oriente lux?
35
У потрази за пореклом неолита
Балкана
39
О климатским променама
49
Сит
grano sallis
53
Бело сликани украс на
неолитској грнчарији
71
Принципи неолитске
геометрије
105
Периодизације старчевачке културе
111
Предлог
периодизације
127
Закључна разматрања
135
Summary
145
Литература
167
Индекс
појмова
187
Summary
At different times Serbian prehistoric archaeology has focused on
different periods of the past. From time to time the problems of the Neolithic
period have come to the forefront. In the course of the last twenty years
the popularity of Neolithic research in Serbia has decreased significantly.
We have been witnessing fewer and fewer systematic archaeological
excavations, and only a small number of new Neolithic sites have been
discovered. This represents a sharp contrast to the period of the
1960s
and
1970s,
when dozens of sites were discovered, investigated and some of
them published. One of the reasons for this is, of course, the unfortunate
period or the
1990s
when Serbia was devastated by war, but the decline can
be also attributed to the generation shift which occurred simultaneously.
As interest declined interpretations became fewer and fewer. The one in
front of you comes as an invitation and a teaser for the revival of interest
in the complex enigmas of the Neolithic period of the Central Balkan
region. For that reason, this book tackles diverse subjects from different
perspectives and involves some of the most important and yet unsolved
questions. These are the initial settling down of Neolithic communities,
their taming of nature, the importance of salt, infant nutrition and its role
at the beginning of the Neolithic period, and the periodization of the Early
and Middle Neolithic of the Central Balkans. The choice to include these
topics in a book is also stems from this author s wish to summarize his
long term involvement with problems of the Early Neolithic period. At the
end of this book a new periodization of the
Starčevo
culture is proposed.
The opening chapter, dedicated to the processes of Neolithization,
represents an attempt to draw attention of the local archaeological
community to numerous new books and articles that investigate the
origins of the Neolithic and of the sedentary way of life. This selection
147
Ненад
H.
Тасић
is, of course, personal, but includes the most important models and
theories. Both indigenous- and immigrant-oriented theories are presented.
Neolithic subsistence has been widely debated and the author agrees with
those whose opinion is that it must have represented a decline compared
with Mesolithic subsistence. There is no consensus, however, among
archaeologists regarding the motives for the transition towards poorer
nutrition. The drop in nutrition was probably predictable to those who
were making it and yet they accepted it. It is assumed that the increase of
population must have demanded longer working hours in order to provide
sustenance. In the discussion of the reasons for the new subsistence
practices, it seems that one important detail has always been taken as a
consequence rather than the cause for sedentization
-
early agriculture
and consequently the invention of pottery and polished stone tools (or
rather: a well-wrapped Neolithic package). The author proposes that the
introduction of nutrition supplements in infant diet, and earlier weaning
might have been the key reasons for experimenting with wild cereals, which
took place in different locations in the wider Mediterranean region since
the end of the last
glaciation.
This experience was accumulated throughout
the following millennia and resulted eventually in the sedentary way of life
and agriculture as the dominant subsistence basis. Due to its benefits to
the young the Neolithic package has innate appeal that would have been
recognizable and understandable to all. At the same time, carrying out this
cultural transfer represents no harm to the communities that disseminate
the knowledge.
Two main groups of scholars debated the questions of the first
Neolithic in the Balkan area for decades. There were those who sought
the origins in the Near Eastern cultures and those who sought it in local
Mesolithic communities. New data acquired from the realm of applied
sciences, together with alternative viewpoints taken in the study of archive
archaeological material have recently ended this debate. Genetic research
on anthropological material of Mesolithic and Neolithic populations from
Central Europe has confirmed that the two groups have different ancestors
(Bramanti et al.
2009),
and therefore classical archaeological methods of
comparative sequencing between the European and Anatolian Neolithic
have gained a new value.
Unfortunately this new insight does not provide the reasons for the
migrations which have occurred
8000
years ago. For this reason the author
includes a chapter dedicated to climatic changes that occurred at the onset
of the Neolithic. It is suggested that the models in which migrations are
148
Неолитска квадратура
круга
seen as a consequence a swift and sharp climatic change can be regarded as
plausible. The optimal climatic cycle that characterized the end of the 7th
and the beginning of the 6th millennium in the Balkans was probably a
comfortable retreat for the populations gradually emigrating from the arid
fringes of the Levant and the colder and drier Anatolian plateau.
The author advances the hypothesis that Early Neolithic settlements
are almost always associated with some sort of salt source
-
surface salt,
a rock salt mine, or brine or saline. The argument is put forward that the
settlement pattern in the zone of primary Neolithisation and its diffusion
into the Southeast Europe is closely associated with salt-rich soils and
salines. Numerous sites in salt-rich regions may support the hypothesis
that salt was used in food preparation and conservation and also in animal
husbandry. The use of salt in animal husbandry is even more important
than its use in human nutrition, because wild species could only obtain
sufficient salt intake from large areas of pastures. Once they were taken
captive and habituated to the sedentary way of life, which happened during
the Early Neolithic, extra portions of salt must have been introduced
into their diet. This could be achieved either by grazing them on salt-
rich pastures, which was probably the case in the Near East, or in cases
of salt-starved soils, which are frequent in the central Balkans, by adding
imported blocks of salt.
Direct indications for salt use in the region of Central Balkans are the
sites of
Lunca
-
Poiana
Slatini
in the Siret valley, where a Middle-Neolithic
settlement has been discovered in context with a saline that was in use
until very recently (Dumitroaia
1987: 253-258);
Gornja Tuzla,
situated
near the largest rock salt mine east of Transylvania, with its cone-shaped
vessels that have been linked with briquetage
(Čović
1961);
Solnicata, a
recently discovered site in the vicinity of rich salt brine (Nikolov
2008).
The other evidence that speaks in favour of the use of salt comes from the
locations of the earliest Neolithic sites in the Fertile crescent area. They are
concentrated in the Zagros Mountains, the Levant and Anatolia
-
regions
extremely rich in easily obtainable salt. The example of
Çatal
Hüyük,
the
first Neolithic urban centre, goes towards this point. It is situated in the
Konya
Plain, not far from
Tuz
Gölö,
a salt lake which evaporates during
the summer droughts leaving crusts of salt on the ground. Another very
important site is
Haçilar,
situated not far from Hadji Bektas (near Kayseri),
the third largest inland salt source in the Ottoman Empire. Yet another
149
Ненад
H.
Тасић
example is the famous site of Jericho, which lies close to the Dead Sea on
the salt-rich Jordan river.
A necesse
est
commodity (yet one so perishable from archaeological
records), salt has been taken for granted and overlooked in discussions
about the problems of the genesis of the Neolithic. The importance of
trade and exchange in the Neolithic period has been discussed amply
in archaeological literature, often dealing with obsidian, flint, quartz,
sulphur, bitumen, spondylus, cinnabar etc. However, proper attention has
been paid neither to the use of salt nor to the trade and exchange of this
indispensable commodity. The most probable explanation for this is its
abovementioned perishable nature and the relative abundance of salt in the
regions of primary Neolithisation.
Salines and places of salt trade and exchange are usually marked by
salt-related toponyms such as Saltzburg,
Salona,
Salies-de-Béarn,
Salisbury,
Halle,
Hallein,
Hallstatt,
Tuzla
or
Tuz
Gölö.
For example, there are more
than twenty places throughout Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria and Macedonia
named
Slatina ,
and most of them are associated with Neolithic sites.
The importance of salt as a vital commodity has already been
recognised by Gordon Childe, who explained the golden finds from
Merseburg by the exchange and commercial importance of salt (Childe
1929: 244).
These findings, however, belong to a much later period of
prehistory. Paradoxically, the significance of salt has been neglected in
studying the cultures of the Neolithic
-
the time of the sedentization of
human populations and the domestication of animals and plants. Except
for the brief notes concerning salt trade (e.g. Sherrat
1976;
Anati
1962;
Gimbutas
1991)
there have been no attempts to explain the connection
between salines and the Early Neolithic settlement pattern.
If salt were recognized as a vital for Neolithic communities, then the
spatial distribution of the
Starčevo
culture would look rather different but
also be easier to understand. Generally evenly distributed in the ecosphere,
salt is scarce in the Central Balkan area. This fact is to be taken into
consideration regarding the settlement pattern of the
Starčevo
culture. Its
core region is located in a salt-starved region, but the bordering regions
contain salt-rich areas. The mixture of cultural phenomena is evident in
salt-rich regions of the
Starcevo-Körös-Cris
complex which speaks in favor
of their involvement in lively trade and exchange.
*
The vast region of the Balkans is speckled with sites of the Early
Neolithic that have similarly ornamented painted pottery. From
Podgorie,
Albania in the southwest to
Kovačevo,
Bulgaria in the east and from
150
Неолитска квадратура
круга
Gìannitsa,
Greece in the south up to
Donja Branjevina,
Serbia, in the north,
a tendency to represent geometrical motifs can be ascertained. The square,
which occurs on a number of pots in the Balkans and southern Anatolia,
is perhaps the most striking of all. But there are not just squares depicted
on pottery. Along with them, steps-shaped motifs, straight lines, nets,
triangles, wavy lines and leaf-shaped motifs are also common.
Only few pots with apparent painted square shapes have been
discovered in the Balkans so far. That is probably one of the reasons they
have not previously been recognized as vital for understanding Early
Neolithic ornamental system. The Giannitsa findings, discovered in
1991
have been mentioned above (Fig.
31/1-3).
Along with those there are
fragments discovered in
Nea
Nikomedeia (Pyke, Yiouni
1996,
Plate
1/9,12,15)
wherein we can see an identical disposition of vertical and diagonal lines
that resemble those from Giannitsa. From the site of
Kovačevo
there is
one fragment (Fig.
28/8)
decorated in the similar manner. However, there
are many more pottery fragments with diagonal lines (straight, wavy or
zigzag), which can be reconstructed to form squares. It is my belief that
simple diagonal lines stand in for the square in later phases of the Early and
Middle Neolithic. But, squares can be found on different types of objects
as well, such as house models, altars and censers, and they are always
associated with a circle and/or diagonals. The square as a concept can be
traced all the way to the sites of the Lake District in Western Anatolia,
like
Kuruçay
Höyük
or
Haçilar
(Duru
1994; 1999;
Mellaart
1970).
At these
sites we can see the identical treatment of metopes, which is related to the
circumference of the rim of the pot. Sometimes the calculations become
even more complicated and the metope is divided into
4
smaller ones.
There are also vertical lines between metopes, which provide for the even
distribution of squares around the pot (examples from:
Haçilar
-
Melaart
1965;
Duru
1999).
Along with quadratic and rectangular metopes a strict geometrical
disposition can be also observed in the proportions of an ascoid vessel
from
Höyücek,
but also in the disposition of a reclining female figurine
(Fig.
34/6).
The square appears also on a miniature table from the same
site. As we can see from the chronological table for the Lake District the
sites of this region are somewhat earlier than the EN sites in the Balkans
so it appears that this tradition must have originated in their primary
inhabitation zone. The background for geometry probably developed from
the accumulated building traditions of the early settled communities of
Anatolia. The masterpieces of architecture discovered at
Aşykli
Höyük,
Cafer
Höyük
and
Neváli
Cori
with perfect rectilinear floor-plans, or
151
Ненад
H.
Тасић
Çayonu
with intriguing grill-plan buildings, could explain the importance
of geometry and its high standards (Ozdogan,
Başlegen
1999).
The fact that the square is almost totally absent from the natural
world then makes Neolithic geometry puzzling. The quadratic form is
completely artificial and represents an opposition to the circle. Being a
two-dimensional shadow of the sphere, the circle in different cultures,
as reported by anthropologists (e.g. Lawlor
1989),
represents the natural
world, and is regarded throughout cultural history as a symbol of the
indescribable oneness . In contrast, the square represents the manifest
and comprehensible world. It would appear then that the clash between
circle and square represents society s battle with nature and the attempt to
break free from its ruthless temper.
As we can see from numerous examples a square is almost always
associated with steps or wavy lines. A steps-shaped motif is apparently
a very important one and can be encountered over a very long period of
time. It can be found throughout the course of the entire Early and Middle
Neolithic of the Balkans. Painted steps are almost always combined with
some other ornament and are placed diagonally in relation to the rim e.g.
Anzabegovo, or Gradinile in
Romania
(Nica
1992).
Steps are occasionally represented in negative as on a white painted
pot from
Kovačevo,
Bulgaria (Perniceva
1995).
Occasionally the steps are
hidden within some other ornament. When incised they have the form of a
zigzag ornament. The zigzag motif is almost exclusively placed diagonally
relative to the rim. There are also plastic zigzag ornaments (possibly
handles) on EN pottery
(Donja
Branjevina) and altars
(Kovačevo,
cube).
The importance of steps or zigzag motifs, regardless of the material or
technique used for their execution, can be also ascertained on the basis of a
representation of a zigzag shaped pendant on a female figurine discovered
at the site of
Donja
Branjevina. One of those pendants was eventually
discovered at the site of Blagotin, Serbia
(Nikolić, Zečević
2001).
As we can
see from the examples from
Kovačevo
(Fig.
28, 29)
and
Donja
Branjevina,
zigzag lines are closely associated with houses and women. The decoration
incised on the buttocks on these female figurines corresponds well with
the ornamental system regularly represented on altars or censers.
If we take a closer look at altars and house models from
Kovačevo
(Perniceva
1995),
Vrsnik (Garašanin
1979),
Lepenski
Vir, Donja
Branjevina
(Karmanski
2005)
and other sites of the early Neolithic of the Central
Balkans we can conclude that these representations are most probably
associated with the idea of
domus.
Female attributes often placed on the
legs of altars associate them with women as well. There are a variety of
152
Неолитска квадратура
круга
motifs that can be found on these objects. The most frequent are zigzag
lines, diagonally placed steps, molded breasts and sometimes female
busts. Regardless of the technique of decoration, steps find their place on
almost every altar and house model of the Early and Middle Neolithic
of
SE
Europe. Another striking feature exclusively found on altars is the
association of squares and circles in
3D.
Numerous examples show that
the basis of an altar always bears a circular recipient. Sometimes, as we
can see from altars from
Donja Branjevina,
diagonal lines are carved into
or moulded on the lower side of a base. The example from
Obřež,
Serbia
(Brukner
1960)
demonstrates the longevity of this phenomenon. This piece
is dated to the end of the
Starčevo
culture, and there are opinions that it
coincides with the beginning of the
Vinca
culture.
Spectacular findings from Lepenski
Vir
-
not the famous stone
sculptures, but altars discovered in Neolithic layers of the site
-
show how
deep into
3D
thinking about abstract forms such as square, cube, sphere and
other
3D
dimensional forms the pot makers of the Early Neolithic plunged
(Srejović
1971).
Mounted on a pedestal, represented by a cube-shaped home
(domus),
similar to those from other Early Neolithic sites in Macedonia,
there is a recipient in the form of a square wrapped over a sphere! The
question of the relationship between these finds and the Mesolithic strata
of Lepenski
Vir,
also an important issue, is not discussed.
In that case of the pot from Giannitsa the height of the motif is
almost identical to the radius of the pot. Since there are more examples of
the same strategy from the same period (Fig.
37/2)
we could agree that this
is definitely not a mere coincidence. In order to achieve such a decoration
on a pot one would have to be well aware of the basics of geometry.
In order to demonstrate the complexity of this way of thinking
the author presents one of the approaches to solving the legendary
mathematical problem of squaring the circle. If a circle with radius
lx
is
rotated along a surface for
180°
the line between points A and
В
will equal
Tí
(Fig.
36).
If we draw a semicircle with the radius AC=AB+1 and extend
the radius of the right circle until it bisects the semicircle at a point
D
then
we will obtain the equation
AB
χ
BC=BD which would solve the problem
of the squaring of a circle since
AB
=
К
and
ВС =
1.
The bizarre fact is
that the pot from Giannitsa shown at Fig.
31/1
has a diameter of the lip
identical to the circle 2r=AC; the dimensions of the metopes are identical
to the square produced above, and the base of the pot identical to the circle
with the radius
lx.
It is clear that Neolithic potters were not aware of this dilemma in
the form quoted above, and that they did not decide on the height of the
153
Ненад
H.
Тасић
decoration because of some abstract formula. But, on the other hand, it
is evident that the ancient potters must have had a serious problem when
attempting to paint the square with the side which equals the radius of the
pot without having an empty space between the squares or metopes. This
would probably not deserve such attention if the circle (in these examples
determined by the dimension of the rim of a vessel) was to be divided in
4, 8
or
16.
In the cases of Giannitsa, Rakitovo,
Kuruçay
some other cases,
we can see that there were
6
metopes, so more than a simple division of the
circle was needed. Vertical lines were placed between squares (sometimes
two and sometimes three of them), which helped to compensate for the
impossibility of applying the above mentioned equation using either
algebraic or geometrical methods.
More examples of elaborate geometrical calculations can be observed
on the pots from
Podgorie,
Albania and
Donja Branjevina,
Serbia. On both
pots the potter had to calculate the size of each triangle (or a square made
of two triangles) relative to the perimeter of the pot very precisely. In order
to apply this attractive decoration
-
where red and white triangles encircle
the pot in friezes and cover entire surface of the pot
-
the calculation had to
be relative to the diameter of the pot but also to the sphere and the diameter
of the base of the pot (Fig.
37/1).
It is amazing that a small cylindrical pot
from Giannitsa (Fig.
37/2)
that appears to have been used as a geometrical
exercise has been discovered. It seems that the decoration has been left
unfinished, as if the potter was caught half way through in laying out the
grid for friezes of triangles. The shape of the pot is also not standard for
this period but makes it easier for the potter to practice this complicated
calculation. Further examples of identical geometrical ideas can be found
at
Haçilar,
and other sites mentioned above.
But why did ancient potters decide to promote geometry as a
standard for the decoration of their display pottery? Was it simple
replication of the decoration applied in some other media such as basketry
or weaving (Cootner
1990),
where geometrical motifs are determined by
the material and structure of the product itself? A voice against the idea
that the elements of decorative system found on EN pottery was derived
from weaving is that of M. Mallet
(1994),
who argues that very few of
the elements from
Haçilar
V pottery could be successfully duplicated
in the slit-weave tapestry of Anatolia. She informs us further that color
intersections aligned vertically and numerous narrow parallel verticals or
diagonals are features that experienced tapestry weavers try their best to
avoid. Subsequently, it must have been something other than the aesthetics
of other media that stood behind this elaborate geometrical decoration.
154
Неолитска квадратура
круга
The author suggests that it is plausible to argue that the affinity towards
complicated geometrical calculations with squares painted on the pottery
of the Lake District and Central Balkans, represented on altars, censers
and house models, originates from the tradition of house building from
the beginnings of the Neolithic in the primary Neolithization zone, or
more precisely its northern part.
The devotion to a permanent home and its benefits could have been
celebrated in this way by newly settled humans. But, if we remember that
among other benefits of the transition to a sedentary way of life and food
production the most important and visible one was a population boom and
much better chances of raising healthy offspring, then we must agree that
the Neolithic new deal must have had much more impact on women than
on men. It is likely that in the course of Neolithization women acquired
key roles in the domestic realm. Their new duties were probably focused on
the household: food preparation, storage planning, the upkeep of children
and the elderly, the organization of social life in the village. All of a sudden
the woman became a decision maker. The process of sedentization has
been observed in the 1960ies in the Huottuja, a hunter-gatherer society
of Southern Venezuela. M. Melnyk
(1993)
informs us that women had
the decisive role in determining the transition to a sedentary way of life.
Numerous Neolithic female figurines associated with
domus
seem to
confirm the newly acquired self-respect.
Pottery making was, according to some authors (eg.
Vitelli
1999),
probably another one of women s new activities and interests. If so, the
ornamental system on Early Neolithic pottery must have been an expression
of the lady of the house. The entire symbolic system preserved on pottery
fragments with squares and circles, zigzag motifs and complex geometry,
most probably represents women s rational and yet also emotional statement
praising the idea of
domus
and the settled way of life. The power of this
idea, visualized through squares, circles and geometry, could be felt on the
fact that it had been dispersed across continents and sustained for a long
time. Recorded on pottery of the early Neolithic Near East and Europe we
have an ideological system which shows that the abstract thinking of the
inhabitants of these regions was well developed. It also shows an awareness
that this way of thinking made them prosperous.
It is probably unwise to expect that the proof for cultural links
among the populations of the Balkans and Anatolia would emanate merely
from identical color used to paint pots, or a preference towards a particular
type of inclusion on the clay or the shape of pots. On the other hand the
way of thinking that could have lain behind the geometry on the pottery,
155
Ненад
H.
Тасић
as the author tried to demonstrate, can be identified in contemporaneous
archaeological sites more than a thousand kilometers apart. This speaks in
favor of the existence of a common cultural and ideological sphere. Being
utterly abstract, this complex and elaborate ideological scheme probably
wouldn t be possible to transfer by any means but narrative, which indicates
that proficient verbal and symbolic communication, must have existed
among these communities.
X-
Following chapter of this book is dedicated to the chronology of the
Early and Middle Neolithic of the Central Balkan region. The essence of
every periodization is, of course, an attempt to categorize time and divide
it into distinctly named blocks. We are well aware that phases, sub-phases,
cultural horizons and relative-chronological sequences are constructs
of archaeologists who struggle to introduce order into their data so as to
make interpretation possible. This fact should oblige us to be ready at any
moment to abandon or at least alter our (preconceptions in the face of new
evidence. Unfortunately, there has not been much enthusiasm for such an
attitude in the past, so we more often witnessed persistent perseverance on
once-established constructions than readiness to reject them and to create
new ones. Sometimes we can even have sympathy for such an attitude. For
example, the capital work of V.
Milojčić
Chronologie
der jüngere Steinzeit
Mittel- und SüdostEuropas was
published in the year
1949,
at the same time
when W. Libby in Chicago published the results of his radioactive carbon
14C dating experiments (Arnold, Libby
1949),
which thoroughly and
irreversibly altered approaches to studying and understanding prehistory.
The relative chronological relations so meticulously determined by
Milojčić
on the basis of excellent knowledge of archaeological material, establishing
of analogies, determination of imported goods, and thorough investigation
were convincing enough for traditionally-educated archaeologists while
the new method of dating mostly influenced the younger generations of
the Serbian archaeologists. In any case, two groups of archaeologists were
constituted already at that time and they later diverged furthei when the
questions of origin of the Neolithic cultures in the Central Balkans was
raised. Maybe this division and disagreement could also explain the fact
that after many years of fieldwork, study, and classification, and after many
books and articles that have the
Starčevo
culture in their titles, the origin,
duration, distribution, and internal chronology of this culture have not
been definitively pinned down. An additional problem in resolving these
problems is the abundance of single-layered sites in the Early and Middle
Neolithic of the Central Balkans. The absence of thoroughly investigated
156
Неолитска квадратура
круга
and well published multilayered settlements that lived through many phases
in the central area of the
Starčevo
culture resulted in investigators working
either with just few sites where two phases were partially overlapping
or making their periodizations on the basis of stylistic and typological
analyses of the pottery.
Various authors were engaged in rethinking the
Starčevo
culture
periodization. The author mentions just few of them: V.
Milojčić, D.
Aranđelović-Garašanin,
M.
Garašanin,
S.
Dimitrijević,
D.
Srejović,
H.
Todorova and I. Vajsov, L. Thiessen, and the author. Each one of us has
contributed to the understanding of the earliest Neolithic culture of the
Central Balkans.
The chronological system proposed by V.
Milojčić
(1949)
that opened
up the question of the periodization of the
Starčevo
culture was conceived
taking into account the pottery collected in the investigations conducted
by M.
Grbić
in
1928
and V. Fewkes and R. Ehrich in
1932
at the type-site of
Starčevo.
His results indicate that there was an expectation that the complete
evolution of this culture had been present at this site. Thus the contents of
the lowest layers of prehistoric humus and the pits without painted pottery
were used to define the earliest phases of the
Starčevo
culture including all
shapes and all types of decoration of the coarse pottery. If this opinion of
V.
Milojčić
is proven correct then it can only be due to his archaeological
intuition, because the facts were not yet in.
The periodization of D.
Aranđelović-Garašanin,
like the periodization
of V.
Milojčić,
is based on the study of material from the type-site of the
Starčevo
culture. It is also obvious here that the class of coarse pottery
is regarded as chronologically insignificant as it is stated that all types of
ornaments on coarse pottery are present in all three phases identified at
Starčevo.
In the phase II white and dark paintings appear simultaneously
which is confirmed on other sites as well and it is suggested that rectilinear
and curvilinear painted motifs are synchronous. It seems that for the
chronological determination of pottery in this system of periodization the
external surface treatment of fine pottery is more important and the way of
painting and selection of motifs and colors is of lesser importance. In this
manner the phase lib is distinguished on the basis of predomination of
dark color without more detailed classification of the motifs.
Since
1960s
and particularly since the discovery of the pre-Neolithic
Lepenski
Vir
culture in
1969
there was a split between those seeking
the origin of the Neolithic way of life in the south of the Balkans and in
Anatolia and those, led by D.
Srejović,
the excavator of Lepenski
Vir,
who
are of the opinion that the origins of the
Starčevo
culture of Early and
157
Ненад
H.
Тасић
Middle Neolithic should be looked for within the Lepenski
Vir
culture
(Srejović
1979).
The keystone of the latter opinion is certainly the discovery
of numerous pottery fragments encountered not only at Lepenski
Vir
but
also at other sites of the Lepenski
Vir
culture. In the meantime a number
of studies have been published
(Radovanović
1996;
Borić
2002;
Borić
and
Miracle
2004),
suggesting the possibility of the overlapping of the Neolithic
and Mesolithic populations in this area. These suggestions have been made
on the basis of the radiocarbon dates from Mesolithic and Neolithic strata
and also the discovery of the pottery on the floors of a few trapezoidal
houses typical of the Mesolithic culture of Lepenski
Vir.
Unfortunately,
D.
Srejović
is no longer with us and those who persist in his views on the
origin and chronology of the Early Neolithic are unwilling to accept the
possibility of spatial and temporal contact between the Mesolithic cultures
in the Iron Gates and the Neolithic farmers. The dispute between these two
groups of archaeologists has slowed down to a great extent the development
of Serbian Neolithic archaeology, turning it back to the origins of the
Neolithic and keeping it there. The periodization suggested by D.
Srejović
(1971)
is based in its initial phases on the material discovered at Lepenski
Vir
in what he labels as an (indisputably) Neolithic layer. These are the
horizons Lepenski
Vir
Ilia lower segment and Ilia upper segment as well
as Lepenski
Vir
III. The rest of this system is completed on the basis of the
pottery from other
Starčevo
culture sites. The division of the Early Neolithic
in the central Balkans in two main stages
-
Proto-Starčevo
and
Starčevo
-
is in harmony with attempts to introduce the Middle Neolithic phase
in the evolution of the Neolithic of all southeast Europe. Thus the
Proto-
Starčevo
phases are attributed to the Early Neolithic i.e. the beginning of
the evolution of the Neolithic. According to D.
Srejović
this was caused by
the ideal micro climate of the Iron Gates.
This system of internal periodization is the first one to give a
chronologically relevant role to
barbotiné
ornamentation by dividing
the evolution of the
Starčevo
culture into periods before and after its
occurrence. However, just as V.
Milojčić
and D.
Aranđelović-Carašanin
were criticized for only working with the material from
Starčevo,
so this
periodization could be criticized as the
Proto-Starčevo
phases I and II are
distinguished only on the basis of the finds from Lepenski
Vir,
layers Ilia
lower, Ilia upper and Illb. Since the lack of
barbotiné
pottery and painted
ornaments on one hand and domination of red monochrome pottery on
the other is chronologically rather insensitive for the
Starčevo
culture
the phase
Proto-Starčevo ľ
cannot be confirmed. Only if the site had
been investigated to the greatest possible extent and if comprehensive
158
Неолитска квадратура
круга
quantitative statistical analysis had been performed would this be possible.
In the archaeology of the Neolithic of the southeast Europe S.
Dimitrijević
will be remembered as an expert in the archaeological material
and the author of several important investigations associated with the
Neolithic period. His periodization of the
Starčevo
culture dating from the
1960s
is based on the thorough analysis of the stylistic traits of the
Starčevo
pottery throughout the area of its distribution
(Dimitrijević
1969
and
1974).
Dimitrijević
is aware of the fact that the discovery of the multilayered sites
of this culture would solve his dilemmas about the phasing and determine
the chronological position of many single-layered settlements of the Early
and Middle Neolithic period in the region he was interested in. He does
not repeat the mistake made by his colleagues and does not insist on the
material from just one site. On the contrary, he managed to create the
division based on the overlapping of individual phases of the
Starčevo
culture at different sites across the board. His smart labeling of phases
(Monochrome, Linear, Girlandoid, Spiraloid) denotes his main focus: to
systematize decorative elements on the
Starčevo
pottery.
The setback for this periodization occurs in its practical application
since stylistic manifestations, such as drop-like white painting (generally
0.1%
of the total number of fragments), trailing the sheath of branches etc.,
appear extremely rarely but are still identified as decisive for chronological
determination.
Dimitrijević
distinguishes different types of painted motifs
in distinct phases as it seems the only possible way to find a difference
and was entirely justified in the time when his chronological system was
created. It has been realized more recently, especially since the finds from
Anzabegovo,
Čavdar, Kovačevo
or
Donja Branjevina
have been published,
that various motifs of decoration appear in numerous combinations
at the same time. Now it seems that it is more justified to classify this
heterogeneity into regional frames and to allow for greater variability in
this matter.
Dimitrijević
rightfully expresses hesitation regarding the mo¬
nochrome phase of the
Starčevo
culture and allows for further demarcation
of sub-phases within its duration. Some authors are already distinguishing
them (e.g. Minichreiter
1992).
On the other hand
Dimitrijević
regards it as
hypothetical
(1974).
It seems that he keeps this phase in his system more
under the pressure/expectation of generally accepted preconception that
the phase of early, simple in forms, undecorated, coarse, utilitarian pottery
must have existed, than due to hard evidence in archaeological material.
The unanswered questions of the origin of the Neolithic in the Balkans
are clearly perceptible here. The last phase of Dimitrijevic s periodization
159
Нєнад
H.
Тасић
labeled as Final is questioned by the author himself. He assumes that this
horizon should have existed due to the unobtrusive transformation from
the
Starčevo
to the
Vinca
culture. He presumes that painted ornaments are
missing in that phase due to the influence of the forthcoming
Vinca
culture,
which developed painted decoration mainly at the end of its evolution.
M.
Garašanin,
a great expert in Balkan prehistory and the author of
many investigations at the Neolithic culture sites in the Balkans, has also
given his contribution to the clarification of this problem by suggesting some
corrections of the periodization of D.
Arandelović-Garašanin (Garašanin,
M.
1971).
As the system of D.
Garašanin
is based on more reliable data
(compared to
Milojčić s
periodization, remark N.N.T.) and as phases Ha and
IIB of her periodization logically make one closely related genuine
Starčevo
entirety, we shall use in our work her chronological division
(Garašanin,
M.,
1971: 73-85; 1972: 37
and
132-136).
In this way, using the term genuine
Starčevo
entirety M.
Garašanin
confirms the existence of the phases, which
are not genuinely of
Starčevo
character. This fits into his way of reflecting
on the question of Early and Middle Neolithic and his distinguishing of the
regional groups Anzabegovo and
Gura Bacului
that stand at the beginning
of the Neolithic evolution of the southeast Europe. His conviction that
these cultural patterns differ considerably from the
Starčevo
culture is
basically correct since the settlement pattern, architecture and pottery
differ significantly from the elements that we encounter in the early phases
of the central Balkans. Analyzing the connections and synchronisms with
the
Anzabegovo-Vršnik
group, M.
Garašanin
dates
Starčevo
III to the same
time as Phase III of
Anzabegovo-Vršnik.
After analyzing the finds from
the sites Giulvez,
Baštine,
and
Vinkovci-Tržnica
he eventually attributes
the content to the previously intuitively distinguished phase. The features
of
Starčevo
III are polychromatic painting and running spirals that end as
claws or paws. According to M.
Garašanin
the emergence of
Vinca
culture
features is to be expected in
Starčevo
III.
The dilemma with the periodization of D.
Arandelović-Garašanin
and also with the adjusted periodization of M.
Garašanin
is the question
how to date a single-layered site in phases other than lib. The pottery with
white painted ornamentation is quite rare and monochromatic pottery is
not sensitive enough.
The periodization proposed by H. Todorova and I. Vajsov
(1993)
is an
exceptional attempt to link the cultures of the Early and Middle Neolithic
in the Balkans by a mutual periodization and in this way to emphasize
their relationship and shared roots.
160
Неолитска квадратура
круга
Since the number of existing periodizations of the Neolithic of
the Balkans almost matches the number of its investigators, as Todorova
and Vajsov remark, the system they proposed aimed to provide an
alternative. Their intention was to create single periodization which will
present common tendencies in the Neolithic evolution within the entire
Balkan Peninsula. In this way the use of different names for the same
cultural phenomena could be avoided. For the construction of this system
the authors used monochrome pottery and white painting as the most
distinguishing phenomena on one hand and true historical age, based
upon 14C analysis, on the other.
It seems, however, that this system in its attempt to establish uniform
and all-inclusive divisions resulted in sacrificing the sophisticated phasing
within each of these cultures.
Perhaps the most interesting and intriguing attempt to clarify the
early stages of the neolithisation of the Balkans has been made by L. Thiessen
(2000).
He has challenged chronological relations which were previously
regarded as unquestionable . His meticulous work and fresh approach has
cast the shadow of doubt on what has been regarded as the early Neolithic
sequence of Macedonia (both Greek and FRY). The occurrence of white
painted ornamentation, which was the decisive element for dating pottery
assemblages in the early Neolithic, Thiessen confronts with a series of 14C
dates. He concludes that it should be attributed to the middle Neolithic
phase. However some of the decisive 14C dates from Serbia, such as
those from
Magareći Mlin, Donja Branjevina, Padina,
and Divostin still
corroborate the early position of these sites within the Neolithic sequence
of the Central Balkans.
*
As we have seen above, the existing periodizations of the
Starčevo
culture correspond to a narrow and simplified image of dynamic process
that took place during the Early and Middle Neolithic. Lacking a better
solution, Balkan archaeologists are still forced to rely on conventional
comparative means and intuition. Treating just one category of
archaeological material (basically pottery), they observe the artistic
expression depicted on the pottery as a motionless event, paying too much
attention to the means and too little to the content of the ornamental
system. Attempts to compare and synchronize different phases established
by different authors frequently result in confusion because the contents of
the phases are not identical for all the authors. For some of them certain
manifestations of pottery decoration indicate the beginning and for
the others the end of the culture. For example, it should be said that the
161
НенадН.Тасић
appearance of wheat of grain in the system of V.
Milojčić
is characteristic
of the end of the
Starčevo
culture (phase
Starčevo
IV) and in the system of
D.
Srejović
this same phenomenon defines the phase
Proto-Starčevo
II. This
means that authors must decide on just one of them and that it is unsuitable
to date archaeological material after different systems, as still happens
throughout the literature (e.g.
Starčevo
Ila
after
D.
Aranđelović-Garašanin
or
Proto-Starčevo
II after
D.
Srejović).
Even the two closest systems, those
of V.
Milojčić
and D.
Aranđelović-Garašanin,
include different contents in
some phases, for example
Starčevo
IV after
Milojčić
and
Starčevo
III after
D.
Aranđelović-Garašanin.
It is the author s conviction that the choice of motifs and colors to be
painted on the pottery is probably of greater importance than the color of
firing of the pot. In the oxidation process of firing, which was exclusively
applied in pottery making during the entire
Starčevo
culture, the exact
shade of a color of the surface of the pot must have been very difficult to
achieve. It is highly unlikely that pottery of inappropriate color would
have been discarded beyond the archaeological record. Hence, the color
of the pottery should be looked upon with fewer expectations regarding
its chronological significance. On the other hand it is certain that special
attention would have been paid to painted decoration because, among
other things, it was easier to control.
The
Starčevo
culture in its core region is abundant in coarse pottery.
The treatment, deposition pattern and fragmentation of this class of pottery
indicate that it was probably for everyday use. Simple shapes and thick and
poorly fired walls made of less refined clay with a lot of chaff give a rustic
impression. In the periodizations proposed by V.
Milojčić
and
D. Garašanin
all types of coarse pottery appear from the beginning to the end of the
Starčevo
culture. However, there might be a possibility of establishing a
chronological relationship on the basis of the patterns of the ornamentation
on coarse pottery, but only until the moment when all types of decoration
appear simultaneously. According to S.
Dimitrijević
this is the beginning
of the Spiraloid A phase. It seems that decorative patterns on coarse pottery
are also chronologically indicative: the way
barbotina
is organized or the
motif of wheat of grain appears to be directly related to the organization
of painted motifs. Thus, when decoration with painted curvilinear motifs
dominates engraved, patterned
barbotiné,
relief or impressed motifs are
organized in a similar manner (e.g. N.N.
Tasić
2001: 43-47).
On theotherhandthedisplaypotterywhichisfarmore chronologically
sensitive represents only a small fraction of pottery assemblages within the
Starčevo
culture. It was made of much better refined clay with exceptionally
162
Неолитска квадратура
круга
thin walls, often with fine slip. The decoration of such vessels represents one
of the highest achievement of this epoch. Although there is no conclusive
evidence for the durability of either class of pottery it is generally assumed
that luxury ware was not used for cooking, which would have prolonged
its life span. According to some researchers, coarse pottery (cooking ware)
lasts up to three years, while the other class could have been handed down
for few generations (Arnold
1985)
causing what we might label as a luxury
ware effect . Unfortunately, without systematic
radiometrie
direct dating of
pottery we cannot explore this possibility.
The author believes that the elaborate geometric ornamental system
must have had substantial importance in the Neolithic system of thinking
on the basis of the very presence of this kind of display ware throughout
the large areas of the Balkans and Anatolia (N.N.
Tasić
2007).
The following periodization is the result of a thorough study the
author has made of the pottery material of the southeast Europe from
Cluj
to Thessalonica and from
Tuzla
to Bucharest. In the absence of
more radiocarbon dates, this is yet another attempt to systematize the
pottery, only this time with more attention to neighboring regions and
also the available 14C dates. One of the most important steps forward
in understanding the chronological sequence of the
Starčevo
culture
and the Neolithic of the central Balkans was the systematic excavation
at Anzabegovo. This site has remained the most significant multilayered
Neolithic settlement to the north of Thessalonica and to the west of the
Struma
valley. Two independent teams carried out the excavations
simultaneously: one was directed by
M. Garašanin
(1979)
and the other by
M. Gimbutas
(1976).
However, their interpretations of the chronological
sequence were in disagreement. It was
M. Garašanin s
conviction that there
must have been a mix-up in the recording system of the American team
so there leading to an inversion of phases II and III. Not only because M.
Garašanin
had a reputation as an excellent field director who worked for
decades in the region, but also on the grounds of pottery assemblages from
other Neolithic sites with
stratigraphie
sequences it is our opinion that his
chronological sequence should be accepted as the more plausible one. This
opinion is also substantiated by radiocarbon dates (N.N.
Tasić
2006).
The
importance of the site of Anzabegovo is also due to the fact that at least
the initial phases of the Early Neolithic in the central Balkans could be
perceived here in an unbroken order (phases Ia-c /II).
163
Ненад
H.
Тасић
ENCB
-
before
5900
cal.
ВС
Simple
pottery shapes and the domination of fine pottery are the
distinguishing elements of this phase. Fine pottery often has slip, which
is sometimes polished. A particularly significant phenomenon is the
occurrence of diverse geometric motifs, which obviously have a central
role in the symbolic system of this society
(Tasić
2007).
White painted
pottery with ornaments organized in square metopes also appears in the
fine pottery class. There are also ornaments with motifs of drops (forming
geometrical shapes such as squares and lozenges), tremolo lines, zigzag
motifs and triangles. The quality and durability of painted ornament in
this phase is often emphasized by different authors. The coarse pottery is
sometimes decorated with lines, nets or impressions. It corresponds to
Anzabegovo Ia-Ic.
M. Garašanin
refers to this period as the
Gura Bacului
phase
(1979).
It is probably possible to discern further sub-phases.
The following sites can be attributed to this phase:
Magareći Mlin-
Apatin,
Donja Branjevina-Odžaci, Divostin I, Rudnik
I, Stubica-Derdap,
Velesnica-Đerdap, Vlasac
(Neolithic stratum),
Padina-Đerdap,
Middle Neolithic of Central Balkans (MNCB) after
5900
cal
ВС.
This is the time of classical
Starčevo
culture. The quality of pottery
generally deteriorates. Coarse ware is dominant. As one can see from the
assemblage of this time at Anzabegovo (Thiessen
2000: 214)
and
Vrsnik
(M.
Garašanin
1985-1986: 25-35)
an influence from the central zone of the
Starčevo
culture can be ascertained.
MNCB I
-
until
5800
cal.
ВС
Coarse pottery dominates. Patterned
barbotiné
ornamentation and a
wheat of grain motif executed by impressions prevail. Rare white painted
motifs still occur together with the first examples of dark painting during
this phase. The coarse pottery is also decorated by incisions without a clear
strategy. It corresponds to Anzabegovo II.
Sites: Divostin I, Grivac,
Lug-ZvečkaíObrenovac), Velesnica,
Rudnik
II, Drenovac I, Stubica,
Vlasac
(Neolithic horizon),
Karagač-Žitkovac
(lower horizon),
Starčevo
(pits
ЗА
and 5A bottom layer).
164
Неолитска квадратура
круга
MNCB
II
-
until
5700
cal.
ВС
White motifs completely disappear and they are replaced by dark
painted motifs. They can be rectilinear and sometimes are combined with
garlands. The coarse pottery maintains the same character as during the
preceding phase. It corresponds to Anzabegovo lib.
Sites:
At-Vršac,
Gladnice-Gracanica,
Kučajna-Bor,
Drenovac
Па,
Šašinci
521,
Tečic-Rekovac, Vinča-Belo brdo
(Starčevo
finds),
Starčevo
(Pit
5A below the lower floor and Pits
4,6, 7).
MNCB Ilia
-
until
5400
cal.
ВС
Spirals painted in dark color are the most striking motif of this phase.
They are often executed with great care and geometrical precision. The skill
applied in positioning running spirals around the spherical or conical pot
demonstrates the importance of this motif. It also reveals that geometry
has retained its significance and vitality since the initial phases of the
development of this culture. Another important feature is the reappearance
of white painted decoration. This time the color applied is without luster
and rubs off. The motifs are identical to those painted in dark colors. The
spiral terminating in the form of a paw is a significant indicator of this
phase. The coarse pottery is decorated with all techniques and combination
of techniques as well as by emulating the motifs of painted ornamentation.
It corresponds to Anzabegovo III.
Sites:
Ciglana-Dobanovci, Čukar-Gumnište
(Pavlovac),
Čurga-
Ludoš,
Damnjanov Kladenac-Jagodina,
Dubočaj-Grocka, Crnokalačka
Bara, Dubrava I-Knjaževac, Gladnice Ib-Gračanica, Kruševac-Centar,
Ribnjak-Bečej, Rudnik
IV,
Sajan-Domboš, Drenovac
lib,
Supska-
Ćuprija,
Šalitrena Pećina-Valjevo, Valuge-Knjaževac, Velika Česma-Vrtište
(Niš),
Zmajevac-Smederevska Palanka.
MCNB Illb
-
after
5400
cal.
ВС
Frequent biconical shapes, goblets on a foot, and the appearance of
dark burnished pottery indicate close connections with the
Vinca
culture.
On the other hand spirals that cover the entire surface of the vessel are
a traditional trait of the
Starčevo
culture. The regional diversity of the
Starčevo
culture is even more pronounced. It is the period of cohabitation
of two major Neolithic cultures of the Central Balkans.
165
Ненад
H.
Тасић
Sites:
Đurića Vinogradi-Grabovac (Obrenovac), Golokut-Vizić
(Fruška gora), Karagač-Žitkovac, Krstićeva Humka-Zrenjanin, Luka u
Sastavcima, Drenovac III, Topole-Bač, Tranjina Bara-Crnče (Jagodina),
Vinogradi-Bečej, Gornja Tuzla, Anzabegovo
IV,
Rudinik
IV,
The author s suggestion of the abbreviation ENCB or MNCB,
resulting from an English term for the main stages of the Neolithic in the
central Balkans, was made not only due to similar adopted norms in Greek
and Bulgarian archaeology but also in order to facilitate communication
with foreign scholars who, as it seems, accept such terms in periodizations.
Distinguishing the Middle and Early Neolithic in the Yugoslav periodization
has been accepted already in Praistorija
jugoslavenskih zemalja
(1979)
based on the periodization of D. Teocharis
(1973).
The division proposed here at first glance resembles the divisions
of V.
Milojčić,
D.
Aranđelović-Garašanin,
D.
Srejović
and M. Garašanin.
However, it should be mentioned that the contents of certain phases
are changed. Perhaps the most important difference with the other
chronological systems is in the early Neolithic phase where special accent
is given to geometrical motifs. Another distinction is the reappearance of
white painted decoration by the end of the
Starčevo
culture. Although it has
been mentioned in the context of polychromatic painting in later phases,
this phenomenon has long been a puzzle for the excavators who discovered
this manner of decoration together with dark painted spirals in their
assemblages. The phases of Early and Middle Neolithic distinguished by
the author correspond well with the chronological sequence of Anzabegovo
and also with the east Balkans and the Aegean (ENCB
=
Anzabegovo Ia-Ic;
MNCB III
=
Anzabegovo Ila-b; MNCB Illa-IIIb
=
Anzabegovo III-IV).
The term
Proto-Starčevo
as used by D.
Srejović
denotes the association
of this phase with the
Starčevo
culture as is confirmed by the appearance
of the
barbotiné
technique in the
Proto-Starčevo
II phase. The new term
for the phase ENCB is formulated as such in order to avoid confusion in
the quoting and possible use of this periodization. Besides, it fits much
better into the general tripartite periodization of the Neolithic of southeast
Europe. Based on the study of the vessel shapes, the manner of their
production and ornamental techniques, the author is convinced that these
are actually two cultures from the same cultural circle that are organically
connected, being divided perhaps only by some new influences or the
inception of the autochthonous regional development. By introducing the
terms Early and Middle we try not to prejudice their cultural relationship.
In the chronological system suggested here, there is the possibility of
the parallel existence of settlements with and without painted decoration.
166
Неолитска квадратура
круга
This fact is also of significance when we analyze the character and
chronological position of single-layered settlements. Nevertheless, more
radiometrie
dating results are critical for answering the question of the
relation of single layered and permanent sites within the
Starčevo
culture
region.
Acknowledgements
First of all, I owe my gratitude to
Milutin Garašanin,
who had
managed to encourage my confidence when it came to relative chronological
position of the sites of the
Starčevo
culture in the central Balkan region.
To my family, wife
Danijela,
mother
Vera
and father Nikola, I owe deep
gratefulness and sincere appreciation for being so supportive and tolerant.
Without the colleagues from entire Balkans
-
D.
Garašanin,
К.
Kotsakis, P.
Chrisostomou,
G. Toufexis, K. Stavros,
V. Nikolov, T.
Stefanova,
I. Kulov,
G. Lazarovici, D. Ciobotaru, M.M.
Ciuta,
D.
Nikolić,
M. Bogdanovič, S.
Vetnie,
V.
Sanev and M. Bilbija,
who have made possible for me to see the
material and acquire further information regarding the archaeological
context of the finds
-
this book could have been considered a mere cabinet
product. To my dear colleague A. Palavestra I owe sincere gratitude for
the words of support when (and where) they were needed the most. Extra
gratefulness goes to my friends I.
Bogdanović,
В.
Govedarica,
D. Urem-
Kotsou, M.
Popović,
D. i D.
Markovié
et al.
who have been exposed to
the context of this book for far too long but have endured gracefully. To
B.
Dorđević
a big thank for a job well done and lucid comments, which
represend a contribution vastly exceeding the title above her name in the
impressum. And last, but not the least, there is D. Steel, to whom I owe
many thanks for doing far more than proofreading of my English in the
Summary.
167
|
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| author | Tasić, Nenad N. |
| author_facet | Tasić, Nenad N. |
| author_role | aut |
| author_sort | Tasić, Nenad N. |
| author_variant | n n t nn nnt |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV036685565 |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)705864304 (DE-599)GBV62398217X |
| format | Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01670nam a2200397 c 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV036685565</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">00000000000000.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">100923s2009 abd| |||| 00||| srp d</controlfield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9788617165350</subfield><subfield code="9">978-86-1716535-0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)705864304</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)GBV62398217X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">srp</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">7,41</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tasić, Nenad N.</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Neolitska kvadratura kruga</subfield><subfield code="b">squaring the circle - Neolithic way</subfield><subfield code="c">Nenad N. Tasić</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Beograd</subfield><subfield code="b">Zavod za Udžbenike</subfield><subfield code="c">2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">199 S.</subfield><subfield code="b">Ill., graph. Darst., Kt.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zsfassung in engl. Sprache</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="546" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">In kyrill. Schr., serb.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Neolithikum</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4075272-0</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Balkanhalbinsel</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4004334-4</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Balkanhalbinsel</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4004334-4</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Neolithikum</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4075272-0</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=020604320&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltsverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=020604320&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="940" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="n">oe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-020604320</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">307.09</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09012</subfield><subfield code="g">496</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| geographic | Balkanhalbinsel (DE-588)4004334-4 gnd |
| geographic_facet | Balkanhalbinsel |
| id | DE-604.BV036685565 |
| illustrated | Illustrated |
| indexdate | 2024-07-09T22:45:44Z |
| institution | BVB |
| isbn | 9788617165350 |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-020604320 |
| oclc_num | 705864304 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-12 |
| owner_facet | DE-12 |
| physical | 199 S. Ill., graph. Darst., Kt. |
| publishDate | 2009 |
| publishDateSearch | 2009 |
| publishDateSort | 2009 |
| publisher | Zavod za Udžbenike |
| record_format | marc |
| spelling | Tasić, Nenad N. Verfasser aut Neolitska kvadratura kruga squaring the circle - Neolithic way Nenad N. Tasić Beograd Zavod za Udžbenike 2009 199 S. Ill., graph. Darst., Kt. txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier Zsfassung in engl. Sprache In kyrill. Schr., serb. Neolithikum (DE-588)4075272-0 gnd rswk-swf Balkanhalbinsel (DE-588)4004334-4 gnd rswk-swf Balkanhalbinsel (DE-588)4004334-4 g Neolithikum (DE-588)4075272-0 s DE-604 Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=020604320&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=020604320&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Abstract |
| spellingShingle | Tasić, Nenad N. Neolitska kvadratura kruga squaring the circle - Neolithic way Neolithikum (DE-588)4075272-0 gnd |
| subject_GND | (DE-588)4075272-0 (DE-588)4004334-4 |
| title | Neolitska kvadratura kruga squaring the circle - Neolithic way |
| title_auth | Neolitska kvadratura kruga squaring the circle - Neolithic way |
| title_exact_search | Neolitska kvadratura kruga squaring the circle - Neolithic way |
| title_full | Neolitska kvadratura kruga squaring the circle - Neolithic way Nenad N. Tasić |
| title_fullStr | Neolitska kvadratura kruga squaring the circle - Neolithic way Nenad N. Tasić |
| title_full_unstemmed | Neolitska kvadratura kruga squaring the circle - Neolithic way Nenad N. Tasić |
| title_short | Neolitska kvadratura kruga |
| title_sort | neolitska kvadratura kruga squaring the circle neolithic way |
| title_sub | squaring the circle - Neolithic way |
| topic | Neolithikum (DE-588)4075272-0 gnd |
| topic_facet | Neolithikum Balkanhalbinsel |
| url | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=020604320&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=020604320&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT tasicnenadn neolitskakvadraturakrugasquaringthecircleneolithicway |