Visiting the Gaydarska and Chapman’s answers to Why were prehistoric
persons interested in rocks, minerals, clays and pigments?
persons interested in rocks, minerals, clays and pigments?
Published in .pdf format. (last updated September 28, 2009). Please cite
only the .pdf file version (L.N.).
Yesterday (8-29-09) I was with my anthropology students to have attended
a jewelry workshop. It was absolutely exiting, not because the art students
made the workshop an event with their creativity, but because I tried by
memory to have made an Ur-like necklace including especially a red
colored bone/horn to make it look like with a carnelian bead. And as a
surprise, today reviewing the new publications on Balkan
archaeometallurgy online I saw the question of Gaydarska and Chapman.
Although I still have been waiting the answer of Gaydarska about my
book, just seeing such big thing as the problem about the aesthetics of
prehistoric Balkans made me turn to the publication and forget about
everything else. Soon after starting reading it came the confusion since
on p. 64 was written “I suggest”, so in fact it remained unclear who I will
discuss with – with Gaydarska or with Chapman. Anyway, we may need
to accept with both since it is today possible that the invisible participation
in writing also matters. The psychologists have figured out that the people
connect through energy and they don’t need always to express verbally or
visually their thoughts in order to interact. Since Gaydarska and Chapman
are a family, to extend of my knowledge, we may expect that such
connection make them co-authors even if the work is written by one of
them. It looks to be reasonable. But it will be not ethic and reasonable if
this article appears as a proposal for a grant of Gaydarska as the first
author (the young scholars always have more chances that older and
every publication matters), but it was technically written by Chapman.
Aesthetic versus aesthetical
First we will make a difference between aesthetic and aesthetical. The
former will relate to the pleasing appearance or effect of things, while
the latter - as related to aesthetic (or aesthetics in singular), respectively
"the science which treats the conditions of sensuous perception"
(Maddox, online). On its side, the cultural relation to rocks, minerals, clays
and pigments was in fact relation of artists (understood as creative
people) to nature in order to interact and create cultural products that in
turn connected the people and nature (Nikolova, 2009). The art was
invented in particular, to connect the gradually self-developing social
world with the nature and in such way to make the world look united and
complex. But prehistoric art was always functional. Although the
archaeological or archaeological-anthropological view on Balkan
prehistory (e.g. Nikolova, 1999; Bailey, 2000) in many cases do not
describe the materially as an art, the artistic, respectively aesthetic
function, is embodied in any cultural activity because the culture of people
was created upon the model of nature and the nature was a mirror of
harmony, beauty, symmetry and balance. So, the question is not about the
aesthetic view in Prehistory but how to understand this aesthetic view, but
when it comes to the system aesthetical view on the world as a steady
and complex system of philosophy and theory of the conditions of
sensuous perception, it needs first to be proved before analyzed.
Social anthropology’s parameters
Gaydarska and Chapman (2009: 63) understand social anthropology as
a formal expression of power and status. However, social anthropology is
a gigantic research field of positioning of the individuals and social
groups in a variety of cultural contexts and analyzing their responses and
interactions. Social anthropology always models personalities and
identities that can be tested against different context but never limits to
only one model since the context creates always more opportunities of
explanation. The problem of power-status model is based on the
presumption oft absence of for instance, leading pure aesthetic,
entertainment, memory or exotic functions of the prehistoric objects. Even
if they exist, they would have secondary and dependent function (see the
brilliant analysis of D.W. Bailey (2005) on prehistoric figurines). Then,
Gaydarska and Chapman (2008) have limited their aesthetical approach
within the power-status social model of understanding of the prehistoric
object, but at the same time in the following text even this determination is
not explored because of the method of eclectically selected arguments.
Art, aesthetic view and materiality
It is impossible to follow the authors’ structure of arguments since they
preferred a diachronic view on Balkan community but actually in the
different selected periods are discussed different themes. Then, I will try
to understand at least the main points as theoretical and not cultural-
historical constructs.
1. People and their environment
According to Gaydarska and Chapman (2009: 65), " object-colours were
as important as environmental colours in the creation of significance and
meaning:" My understanding is that this statement read in the
conclusions is key for understanding the prehistoric culture as a process
that included creating art to connect the people’s social life and nature
(Nikolova 2009; for the connectivity between art and archaeology see
Bailey 2008). I shared with my students that when I was undergraduate
student I spent an enormous time to try to understand the origin of art. As
more as I read, more troubles I had in my understanding. Finally, even
Ivan Marazov in his lectures concluded that there are just many theories.
The problem was that I read at that point about the origin of art in the
library of the Art Academy and not in a library of Social Anthropology. In the
former the authors of the existed books searched for origin of aesthetics,
while I I easily prepared my presentation a week ago, because I thought
as an anthropologist. The most helpful was the research project of my
student, Jennifer Manitoken, who came to the Art Institute with a group of
Native Americans and their dances were in fact imitation of nature –
colors, costumes and sound.
So, in my most recent definition of art, from the perspective of origin “Art is
a creative human expression that connects people’s culture and nature”
(Nikolova, 2009). Unfortunately, I could not find any arguments in the body
text of Gaydarska and Chapman that would be applied to the cited thought
in the conclusions.
2. Black pottery and art
In first distributed pottery in Balkan Prehistory was under Anatolian
influence and it relates mostly to red and brown. When we think about
black pottery as archaeologists, we need probably to refer to black- firnis-
ware from classical Antiquity. However, there are really periods in Balkan
prehistory in which it is possible the dark brown and grayish-black,
brownish-black pottery to be more popular that brown reddish, beige or
other lighter colors. My on-site experience is from Early Bronze Age when
in Early Bronze dominates grayish-black or brownish-black, while in Early
Bronze II together with development of the encrusted style the reddish and
lighter brownish began to dominate.
My understanding is that the color of the pottery primary depended on the
technology. If the pottery was mainly household activity, then, the
household followed the technological traditions or changed the
technological traditions upon influence. Secondary artistic, mythological
and even religious meaning could have been applied but the aesthetic
function was subordinary. The obsidian on the whole was an exotic
material in the Balkans and I don’t believe that it has big or even any
influence in the development of the aesthetic values of Balkan prehistoric
population (cp. Gaydarska & Chapman, 2008: 64) .
4. Graphite and art in Balkan prehistory
Graphite distribution in the artistic activities of Balkan population relates to
the emergence of copper industry. The recent discussion about the origin
of graphite pottery (see Vajsov 2008, Boyadziev 2008) is as a matter of
fact most probably a discussion about origin of metallurgy in Southern
Balkans. The graphite was the one that divided Eastern and Western
Balkans, so graphite ornamentation was by nature highly attractive and
aesthetic but it could not create any effect of silver motifs (contra
Gaydarska & Chapman 2008: 64) in the context of Balkan Copper Age
since the Copper Age population of the Balkans did not know still silver at
that point. The graphite ornamentation may have somehow related to
gold, since the sources of graphite were not everywhere and its
distribution probably was a complex networking with many cultural,
economic and artistic consequences.
5. Carnelian beads and Balkan Prehistory
Again coming back to the jewelry workshop, I recalled how strongly
wanted to include red beads in my necklace. Just because they look like
carnelian – those exotic small objects that were not native Balkan and that
for sure created a huge circles of emotions regarding how to obtain them
and from whom to get them. So, the last what can be think in my opinion
about the carnelian beads discovered in the Varna cemetery is that “The
close association of the body of the person with the flashing beads that
they wore, presumably on special ceremonial occasions, created a
lasting aesthetic bond between person and thing” (Gaydarska &
Chapman, 2008: 64). For the Balkan population carnelian was a rare and
exotic mineral that may connected some with people from distance, may
recalled a journey, successful exchange, expensive gift, but by all
circumstances something much more than pure aesthetic pleasure. In
other words, evaluation of art is always hierarchical classification of
values and context.
6. Gold and Balkan Prehistory
I always was wondering how gold was discovered in the Balkans. The
recent deeper research showed that I needed to stop to be so proud that
it was first invented in the Balkans. A good candidate is also Egypt. Then, I
decided that probably gold was accidentally discovered when the rivers
changed their beds and small grains wondered some eyes of our
prehistoric ancestors. Later they may have also found gold ores. But as
the Balkan records show, the gold was valued as wealth. The color of
gold increased the wealth and not the aesthetic value, because if
aesthetics/beauty was primary, we may have much more gold objects.
When there is wealth, there is a competition, visible and invisible self-
social regulation and even development of institutions to make the
access to the wealth resources limited and as a question of power. The
gold invented or invertibly increased in art the role of wealth. The people
compared the color with sun and made the gold mythological, religious
and aesthetic but first of all a wealth sign of the developed prehistoric
society. Accordingly, the relation of gold to art and aesthetics is again
secondary and not primary. Gold became a sign of wealth because it was
rare.
Conclusions
Recently the theoretical prehistoric science has been developed as a
complex and multidisciplinary which goals include authors to avoid
building mythology, sharing archaeological narratives and developing
sacred knowledge about our distant ancestors. This prehistoric science
is anthropological, but also it should be knowledgeable. Today everybody
can share thoughts and ideas, but for such activities we have Internet. For
some reasons, however, there is still a belief that having access to
sponsored publishing is just enough to become published author. Yes. It
is possible, but unfortunately, at the expenses of time, that the
professional authors can spend for much more exciting bigger or smaller
things from our everydayness.
References
Bailey, Douglass W. (2000). Balkan Prehistory. Exclusion, Incorporation
and Identity. Routledge. London & New York.
Bailey, Douglass W. (2005). Prehistoric Figurines: Representation and
corporeality in the Neolithic. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, London
and New York.
Bailey, D.W. (2008). Art to archaeology to archaeology to art. Transcript of
a lecture. Durham broadcast. Retrieved from http://www.ucd.
ie/scholarcast/transcripts/Art_to_Archaeology.pdf
Bojadziev, J. (2007). Absolute chronology of the Neolithic and Eneolithic
cultures in the valley of Struma. In , H. Todorova, M. Stefanovich, &
G. Ivanov (Eds.), The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory.
Proceedings of the International Symposium Strymon Praehistoricus
Kjustendil-Blagoevgrad-Serres-Amphilpolis, 27.09-01.10.2004 (pp. 309-
316). Sofia: Gerda Henkel Stiftung & Museum of History,
Kyustendil.
Gaydarska, B.,& Chapman, J. (2008). The aesthetics of colour and
brilliance -or why were prehistoric persons interested in rocks, minerals,
clays and pigments? In R.I. Kostov, B. Gaydarska, M. Gurova (Eds.),
Geoarchaeology and Archaeomineralogy. Proceedings of the
International Conference, 29-30 October 2008 (pp. 63-66). Sofia:
Publishing House “St. Ivan Rilski”. Blog on the proceedings at http:
//ancientworldonline.blogspot.com/2009/01/international-conference-on.
html
Maddox, M. (online). Aesthetic or Aesthetical. Retrieved from
http://www.dailywritingtips.com/aesthetic-or-aesthetical/
Nikolova, L. (1999). The Balkans in Later Prehistory. BAR, International
Series 791. Oxford.
Nikolova, L. (2009). Towards the origin of art. Power point presentation.
Retrieved from http://www.iianthropology.org/files/origin_of_art.pdf
Vajsov, Ivan. (2007). Promachon-Topolnica. A typology of painted
decorations and its use as chronological marker. H. Todorova, M.
Stefanovich, & G. Ivanov (Eds.), The Struma/Strymon River Valley in
Prehistory. Proceedings of the International Symposium Strymon
Praehistoricus Kjustendil-Blagoevgrad-Serres-Amphilpolis, 27.09-
01.10.2004 (pp. 79-120). Sofia: Gerda Henkel Stiftung & Museum of
History, Kyustendil.
Additional literature:
De Waele, A. & Haerinck, E. (2006). Etched (carnelian) beads from
northeast and southeast Arabia. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, 17,
1, 31-40. (Abstract)
Iseminger, G. (2004). The Aesthetic Function Of Art. Cornell: Cornell
University Press.
Hudson, B. (online). Thoughts on some chronological markers of
Myanmar archaeology in the pre-urban period.
Retrieved from http://acl.arts.usyd.edu.au/~hudson/BHpaperFeb05.pdf
Kostov, R., & Pelevina, O. (2008). Complex faceted and other carnelian
beads from the Varna Chalkolithic necropolis: Archaeogemmological
analysis. In R.I. Kostov, B. Gaydarska, M. Gurova (Eds.),
Geoarchaeology and Archaeomineralogy. Proceedings of the
International Conference, 29-30 October 2008 (pp. 67-72). Sofia:
Publishing House “St. Ivan Rilski”. Retrieved from http://mgu.
bg/geoarchmin/naterials/12Kostov&Pelevina.pdf
Blog on the proceedings at http: //ancientworldonline.blogspot.
com/2009/01/international-conference-on. html
Parker, David. (2005). The Principles Of Aesthetics. IndyPublish.com.
http://www.authorama.com/principles-of-aesthetics-1.html
only the .pdf file version (L.N.).
Yesterday (8-29-09) I was with my anthropology students to have attended
a jewelry workshop. It was absolutely exiting, not because the art students
made the workshop an event with their creativity, but because I tried by
memory to have made an Ur-like necklace including especially a red
colored bone/horn to make it look like with a carnelian bead. And as a
surprise, today reviewing the new publications on Balkan
archaeometallurgy online I saw the question of Gaydarska and Chapman.
Although I still have been waiting the answer of Gaydarska about my
book, just seeing such big thing as the problem about the aesthetics of
prehistoric Balkans made me turn to the publication and forget about
everything else. Soon after starting reading it came the confusion since
on p. 64 was written “I suggest”, so in fact it remained unclear who I will
discuss with – with Gaydarska or with Chapman. Anyway, we may need
to accept with both since it is today possible that the invisible participation
in writing also matters. The psychologists have figured out that the people
connect through energy and they don’t need always to express verbally or
visually their thoughts in order to interact. Since Gaydarska and Chapman
are a family, to extend of my knowledge, we may expect that such
connection make them co-authors even if the work is written by one of
them. It looks to be reasonable. But it will be not ethic and reasonable if
this article appears as a proposal for a grant of Gaydarska as the first
author (the young scholars always have more chances that older and
every publication matters), but it was technically written by Chapman.
Aesthetic versus aesthetical
First we will make a difference between aesthetic and aesthetical. The
former will relate to the pleasing appearance or effect of things, while
the latter - as related to aesthetic (or aesthetics in singular), respectively
"the science which treats the conditions of sensuous perception"
(Maddox, online). On its side, the cultural relation to rocks, minerals, clays
and pigments was in fact relation of artists (understood as creative
people) to nature in order to interact and create cultural products that in
turn connected the people and nature (Nikolova, 2009). The art was
invented in particular, to connect the gradually self-developing social
world with the nature and in such way to make the world look united and
complex. But prehistoric art was always functional. Although the
archaeological or archaeological-anthropological view on Balkan
prehistory (e.g. Nikolova, 1999; Bailey, 2000) in many cases do not
describe the materially as an art, the artistic, respectively aesthetic
function, is embodied in any cultural activity because the culture of people
was created upon the model of nature and the nature was a mirror of
harmony, beauty, symmetry and balance. So, the question is not about the
aesthetic view in Prehistory but how to understand this aesthetic view, but
when it comes to the system aesthetical view on the world as a steady
and complex system of philosophy and theory of the conditions of
sensuous perception, it needs first to be proved before analyzed.
Social anthropology’s parameters
Gaydarska and Chapman (2009: 63) understand social anthropology as
a formal expression of power and status. However, social anthropology is
a gigantic research field of positioning of the individuals and social
groups in a variety of cultural contexts and analyzing their responses and
interactions. Social anthropology always models personalities and
identities that can be tested against different context but never limits to
only one model since the context creates always more opportunities of
explanation. The problem of power-status model is based on the
presumption oft absence of for instance, leading pure aesthetic,
entertainment, memory or exotic functions of the prehistoric objects. Even
if they exist, they would have secondary and dependent function (see the
brilliant analysis of D.W. Bailey (2005) on prehistoric figurines). Then,
Gaydarska and Chapman (2008) have limited their aesthetical approach
within the power-status social model of understanding of the prehistoric
object, but at the same time in the following text even this determination is
not explored because of the method of eclectically selected arguments.
Art, aesthetic view and materiality
It is impossible to follow the authors’ structure of arguments since they
preferred a diachronic view on Balkan community but actually in the
different selected periods are discussed different themes. Then, I will try
to understand at least the main points as theoretical and not cultural-
historical constructs.
1. People and their environment
According to Gaydarska and Chapman (2009: 65), " object-colours were
as important as environmental colours in the creation of significance and
meaning:" My understanding is that this statement read in the
conclusions is key for understanding the prehistoric culture as a process
that included creating art to connect the people’s social life and nature
(Nikolova 2009; for the connectivity between art and archaeology see
Bailey 2008). I shared with my students that when I was undergraduate
student I spent an enormous time to try to understand the origin of art. As
more as I read, more troubles I had in my understanding. Finally, even
Ivan Marazov in his lectures concluded that there are just many theories.
The problem was that I read at that point about the origin of art in the
library of the Art Academy and not in a library of Social Anthropology. In the
former the authors of the existed books searched for origin of aesthetics,
while I I easily prepared my presentation a week ago, because I thought
as an anthropologist. The most helpful was the research project of my
student, Jennifer Manitoken, who came to the Art Institute with a group of
Native Americans and their dances were in fact imitation of nature –
colors, costumes and sound.
So, in my most recent definition of art, from the perspective of origin “Art is
a creative human expression that connects people’s culture and nature”
(Nikolova, 2009). Unfortunately, I could not find any arguments in the body
text of Gaydarska and Chapman that would be applied to the cited thought
in the conclusions.
2. Black pottery and art
In first distributed pottery in Balkan Prehistory was under Anatolian
influence and it relates mostly to red and brown. When we think about
black pottery as archaeologists, we need probably to refer to black- firnis-
ware from classical Antiquity. However, there are really periods in Balkan
prehistory in which it is possible the dark brown and grayish-black,
brownish-black pottery to be more popular that brown reddish, beige or
other lighter colors. My on-site experience is from Early Bronze Age when
in Early Bronze dominates grayish-black or brownish-black, while in Early
Bronze II together with development of the encrusted style the reddish and
lighter brownish began to dominate.
My understanding is that the color of the pottery primary depended on the
technology. If the pottery was mainly household activity, then, the
household followed the technological traditions or changed the
technological traditions upon influence. Secondary artistic, mythological
and even religious meaning could have been applied but the aesthetic
function was subordinary. The obsidian on the whole was an exotic
material in the Balkans and I don’t believe that it has big or even any
influence in the development of the aesthetic values of Balkan prehistoric
population (cp. Gaydarska & Chapman, 2008: 64) .
4. Graphite and art in Balkan prehistory
Graphite distribution in the artistic activities of Balkan population relates to
the emergence of copper industry. The recent discussion about the origin
of graphite pottery (see Vajsov 2008, Boyadziev 2008) is as a matter of
fact most probably a discussion about origin of metallurgy in Southern
Balkans. The graphite was the one that divided Eastern and Western
Balkans, so graphite ornamentation was by nature highly attractive and
aesthetic but it could not create any effect of silver motifs (contra
Gaydarska & Chapman 2008: 64) in the context of Balkan Copper Age
since the Copper Age population of the Balkans did not know still silver at
that point. The graphite ornamentation may have somehow related to
gold, since the sources of graphite were not everywhere and its
distribution probably was a complex networking with many cultural,
economic and artistic consequences.
5. Carnelian beads and Balkan Prehistory
Again coming back to the jewelry workshop, I recalled how strongly
wanted to include red beads in my necklace. Just because they look like
carnelian – those exotic small objects that were not native Balkan and that
for sure created a huge circles of emotions regarding how to obtain them
and from whom to get them. So, the last what can be think in my opinion
about the carnelian beads discovered in the Varna cemetery is that “The
close association of the body of the person with the flashing beads that
they wore, presumably on special ceremonial occasions, created a
lasting aesthetic bond between person and thing” (Gaydarska &
Chapman, 2008: 64). For the Balkan population carnelian was a rare and
exotic mineral that may connected some with people from distance, may
recalled a journey, successful exchange, expensive gift, but by all
circumstances something much more than pure aesthetic pleasure. In
other words, evaluation of art is always hierarchical classification of
values and context.
6. Gold and Balkan Prehistory
I always was wondering how gold was discovered in the Balkans. The
recent deeper research showed that I needed to stop to be so proud that
it was first invented in the Balkans. A good candidate is also Egypt. Then, I
decided that probably gold was accidentally discovered when the rivers
changed their beds and small grains wondered some eyes of our
prehistoric ancestors. Later they may have also found gold ores. But as
the Balkan records show, the gold was valued as wealth. The color of
gold increased the wealth and not the aesthetic value, because if
aesthetics/beauty was primary, we may have much more gold objects.
When there is wealth, there is a competition, visible and invisible self-
social regulation and even development of institutions to make the
access to the wealth resources limited and as a question of power. The
gold invented or invertibly increased in art the role of wealth. The people
compared the color with sun and made the gold mythological, religious
and aesthetic but first of all a wealth sign of the developed prehistoric
society. Accordingly, the relation of gold to art and aesthetics is again
secondary and not primary. Gold became a sign of wealth because it was
rare.
Conclusions
Recently the theoretical prehistoric science has been developed as a
complex and multidisciplinary which goals include authors to avoid
building mythology, sharing archaeological narratives and developing
sacred knowledge about our distant ancestors. This prehistoric science
is anthropological, but also it should be knowledgeable. Today everybody
can share thoughts and ideas, but for such activities we have Internet. For
some reasons, however, there is still a belief that having access to
sponsored publishing is just enough to become published author. Yes. It
is possible, but unfortunately, at the expenses of time, that the
professional authors can spend for much more exciting bigger or smaller
things from our everydayness.
References
Bailey, Douglass W. (2000). Balkan Prehistory. Exclusion, Incorporation
and Identity. Routledge. London & New York.
Bailey, Douglass W. (2005). Prehistoric Figurines: Representation and
corporeality in the Neolithic. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, London
and New York.
Bailey, D.W. (2008). Art to archaeology to archaeology to art. Transcript of
a lecture. Durham broadcast. Retrieved from http://www.ucd.
ie/scholarcast/transcripts/Art_to_Archaeology.pdf
Bojadziev, J. (2007). Absolute chronology of the Neolithic and Eneolithic
cultures in the valley of Struma. In , H. Todorova, M. Stefanovich, &
G. Ivanov (Eds.), The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory.
Proceedings of the International Symposium Strymon Praehistoricus
Kjustendil-Blagoevgrad-Serres-Amphilpolis, 27.09-01.10.2004 (pp. 309-
316). Sofia: Gerda Henkel Stiftung & Museum of History,
Kyustendil.
Gaydarska, B.,& Chapman, J. (2008). The aesthetics of colour and
brilliance -or why were prehistoric persons interested in rocks, minerals,
clays and pigments? In R.I. Kostov, B. Gaydarska, M. Gurova (Eds.),
Geoarchaeology and Archaeomineralogy. Proceedings of the
International Conference, 29-30 October 2008 (pp. 63-66). Sofia:
Publishing House “St. Ivan Rilski”. Blog on the proceedings at http:
//ancientworldonline.blogspot.com/2009/01/international-conference-on.
html
Maddox, M. (online). Aesthetic or Aesthetical. Retrieved from
http://www.dailywritingtips.com/aesthetic-or-aesthetical/
Nikolova, L. (1999). The Balkans in Later Prehistory. BAR, International
Series 791. Oxford.
Nikolova, L. (2009). Towards the origin of art. Power point presentation.
Retrieved from http://www.iianthropology.org/files/origin_of_art.pdf
Vajsov, Ivan. (2007). Promachon-Topolnica. A typology of painted
decorations and its use as chronological marker. H. Todorova, M.
Stefanovich, & G. Ivanov (Eds.), The Struma/Strymon River Valley in
Prehistory. Proceedings of the International Symposium Strymon
Praehistoricus Kjustendil-Blagoevgrad-Serres-Amphilpolis, 27.09-
01.10.2004 (pp. 79-120). Sofia: Gerda Henkel Stiftung & Museum of
History, Kyustendil.
Additional literature:
De Waele, A. & Haerinck, E. (2006). Etched (carnelian) beads from
northeast and southeast Arabia. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, 17,
1, 31-40. (Abstract)
Iseminger, G. (2004). The Aesthetic Function Of Art. Cornell: Cornell
University Press.
Hudson, B. (online). Thoughts on some chronological markers of
Myanmar archaeology in the pre-urban period.
Retrieved from http://acl.arts.usyd.edu.au/~hudson/BHpaperFeb05.pdf
Kostov, R., & Pelevina, O. (2008). Complex faceted and other carnelian
beads from the Varna Chalkolithic necropolis: Archaeogemmological
analysis. In R.I. Kostov, B. Gaydarska, M. Gurova (Eds.),
Geoarchaeology and Archaeomineralogy. Proceedings of the
International Conference, 29-30 October 2008 (pp. 67-72). Sofia:
Publishing House “St. Ivan Rilski”. Retrieved from http://mgu.
bg/geoarchmin/naterials/12Kostov&Pelevina.pdf
Blog on the proceedings at http: //ancientworldonline.blogspot.
com/2009/01/international-conference-on. html
Parker, David. (2005). The Principles Of Aesthetics. IndyPublish.com.
http://www.authorama.com/principles-of-aesthetics-1.html
| Prehistory and art |
© 2009 International Institute of Anthropology
© 2009 Lolita Nikolova, PhD
Created: 8-30-09
Last updated: 9-28-09.
© 2009 Lolita Nikolova, PhD
Created: 8-30-09
Last updated: 9-28-09.
Internal link:
(Power point
presentation(.pdf)
(Power point
presentation(.pdf)
Karanovo tell provides the
longest stratigraphic column
on the development of the
prehistoric art in Europe.
longest stratigraphic column
on the development of the
prehistoric art in Europe.
Early Neolithic tulip-like
vessel with white on red
ornamentation. The artistic
style was geometric.
vessel with white on red
ornamentation. The artistic
style was geometric.
Brownish-black
handmade pottery from
later Neolithic in Upper
Thrace (Karanovo III
culture, Late Neolithic).
handmade pottery from
later Neolithic in Upper
Thrace (Karanovo III
culture, Late Neolithic).
| Muldava, South Bulgaria. Neolithic. |
Kozarnika, North Bulgaria.
Paleolithic. The first
possible evidence about
abstract thinking in the
Balkans.
Paleolithic. The first
possible evidence about
abstract thinking in the
Balkans.
Ovcharovo, Late Copper
Age. Model of house.
Age. Model of house.
Slatino, Southwest
Bulgaria. Early Coper Age.
Bulgaria. Early Coper Age.
 |  |  |