Symposium "Archaeology of Banat", June 5th, 2009 (Program)
Prehistoric Banat
© 2009 International Institute of Anthropology
© 2009 Lolita Nikolova, PhD
Created: 5-08-09; updated - 6-13-09.
© 2009 Lolita Nikolova, PhD
Created: 5-08-09; updated - 6-13-09.
 | |  | |  | |  | |  |
External link to City Museum of
Vrsac:
http://www.muzejvrsac.org.rs/A
rheologija/ArheologijaE.htm
Vrsac:
http://www.muzejvrsac.org.rs/A
rheologija/ArheologijaE.htm
Prehistoric Banat in the Eurasian cultural context:
From archaeology toward prehistoric cultural anthropology
Lolita Nikolova, PhD, International Institute of Anthropology & Art Institute of Salt Lake City,
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
lnikol@iianthropology.org
Key words: Prehistoric Eurasia, Banat, Starčevo, Vinča, Tiszapolgar, Bodrogkeresztúr,
Baden, Pit Grave Culture, enculturation, anthropology of everydayness, prehistoric cultural
anthropology, subsistence economy, marriage, household, prehistoric political
organization, ideology, art, entertainment, contemporary past, etc.
The development of our archaeological and anthropological knowledge makes possible to
construct more adequate concepts on the earliest cultural Past of Eurasia known generally
as Prehistory. We can also name this stage of development of the human society Archaic
period (abt 2 million BC till later 4th millennium cal BCE), followed by Intermediate (later
4th millennium cal BCE – 14th century), and Advanced (14th century – present). One of the
main scientific tasks in the early 21st century is to turn the research toward flourishing
theoretical frameworks that allow us to interpret the archaeological records within broader
cultural context but at the same time to reveal as many specific components as possible.
From perspectives of prehistoric Eurasia, the Banat is one of the most important regions
for research in depth since it connects geographically and culturally the middle and lower
parts of the Danube Basin, respectively Southeast Europe and Central Europe. This key
cultural-geographical position can be especially well revealed based on the data of the Pit
Grave Culture from Early Bronze Age (later 4th and 3rd millennia cal BCE), which
constructs one of the largest cultural horizons in Eurasia – from the Urals and the South
Russian steppes to Central Europe. The data from Banat demonstrates the transformation
of this culture during its expansion of East to West and the mechanism of interactions with
the local cultures. On the same scale of importance is the opposite direction of movement
that can be illustrated by Tiszapolgar, Bodrogkeresztúr, Hunyadihalom and Baden cultures
(later 5th and 4th millennia cal BCE).
In our presentation we will discuss how the archaeological data can be used for cultural
anthropological research of the Banat in the Eurasian context. We will make difference
between archaeological and cultural anthropological research and then we will approach
some themes as the variations of the subsistence economy in the prehistoric Banat, the
role of households, whether there was a marriage institution, the types of possible social
grouping, the role and expression of the social stratification, the characters of the political
organizations, ideology, entertainment, etc. We will discuss not only the available data but
the absence of data and how to proceed in cases in which we do miss evidence for
resolving essential cultural issues of Prehistory.
The current state of prehistoric research allow us to propose that the success of our
understanding of Past depends on the ability to combine and follow multidirectional
approach by using a variety of methods and styles and different scales of research. From
cultural anthropological point of view, we can propose the following hierarchical levels of
research:
- household level;
- community level;
- net of interrelated communities.
Within each level there would be variations that in turn will make possible to propose a
diversity of competing or complimentary models of cultural development. The Banat offers
extremely rich record base for deductive, inductive and abductive research in these
directions, especially from the Starčevo and Vinča cultures.
In terms of general theory of culture, there are two fundamental topics that cross the
thematic research – enculturation and anthropology of everydayness. The prehistoric
cultures of the Banat allow us to reveal universal and specific components of enculturation
as a constructor of the everydayness and a component of the cultural and social
reproductions.
Last but not least, the modern research in the field of psychology and especially
neuropsychology poses the important problem of the role of the new knowledge in “the life
of the social brain” that may help us to learn more about the mechanism of cultural
changes and of the transmission of culture from generation to generation. The Banat
evidence can be tested against the specific and dominating in this region flatland
environment and comparing eventually in future with other similar environments and
cultures.
In conclusion we will acknowledge the fact, that in later historical period in some
microregions of the Banat settled immigrants from Germany whose descendents are a
considerable part of the today’s Banat culture within the border of Serbia, for instance. This
example shows how people from later historic period adapted themselves in the Banat
flatland environment region and created a local culture that gradually lost the main
components of the homeland culture including even the language. Such prospective
research - that falls in the field of the archaeology and anthropology of Contemporary Past -
is incredibly inspiring for the Archaic (Prehistoric) period of the human culture. There are
many theoretical issues for comparison of the Contemporary Past with Prehistory including
the typical prehistoric rhythm of cultural change is abt 50 years for inner smaller changes
and abt 500 years for more considerable cultural changes (based on the Neolithic, Copper
and Early Bronze Age data from Bulgaria, abt 6300 – 3000 cal BCE).
Finally, I would like to appreciate the wonderful initiative for this Conference and to
acknowledge the opportunity to participate in it.
From archaeology toward prehistoric cultural anthropology
Lolita Nikolova, PhD, International Institute of Anthropology & Art Institute of Salt Lake City,
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
lnikol@iianthropology.org
Key words: Prehistoric Eurasia, Banat, Starčevo, Vinča, Tiszapolgar, Bodrogkeresztúr,
Baden, Pit Grave Culture, enculturation, anthropology of everydayness, prehistoric cultural
anthropology, subsistence economy, marriage, household, prehistoric political
organization, ideology, art, entertainment, contemporary past, etc.
The development of our archaeological and anthropological knowledge makes possible to
construct more adequate concepts on the earliest cultural Past of Eurasia known generally
as Prehistory. We can also name this stage of development of the human society Archaic
period (abt 2 million BC till later 4th millennium cal BCE), followed by Intermediate (later
4th millennium cal BCE – 14th century), and Advanced (14th century – present). One of the
main scientific tasks in the early 21st century is to turn the research toward flourishing
theoretical frameworks that allow us to interpret the archaeological records within broader
cultural context but at the same time to reveal as many specific components as possible.
From perspectives of prehistoric Eurasia, the Banat is one of the most important regions
for research in depth since it connects geographically and culturally the middle and lower
parts of the Danube Basin, respectively Southeast Europe and Central Europe. This key
cultural-geographical position can be especially well revealed based on the data of the Pit
Grave Culture from Early Bronze Age (later 4th and 3rd millennia cal BCE), which
constructs one of the largest cultural horizons in Eurasia – from the Urals and the South
Russian steppes to Central Europe. The data from Banat demonstrates the transformation
of this culture during its expansion of East to West and the mechanism of interactions with
the local cultures. On the same scale of importance is the opposite direction of movement
that can be illustrated by Tiszapolgar, Bodrogkeresztúr, Hunyadihalom and Baden cultures
(later 5th and 4th millennia cal BCE).
In our presentation we will discuss how the archaeological data can be used for cultural
anthropological research of the Banat in the Eurasian context. We will make difference
between archaeological and cultural anthropological research and then we will approach
some themes as the variations of the subsistence economy in the prehistoric Banat, the
role of households, whether there was a marriage institution, the types of possible social
grouping, the role and expression of the social stratification, the characters of the political
organizations, ideology, entertainment, etc. We will discuss not only the available data but
the absence of data and how to proceed in cases in which we do miss evidence for
resolving essential cultural issues of Prehistory.
The current state of prehistoric research allow us to propose that the success of our
understanding of Past depends on the ability to combine and follow multidirectional
approach by using a variety of methods and styles and different scales of research. From
cultural anthropological point of view, we can propose the following hierarchical levels of
research:
- household level;
- community level;
- net of interrelated communities.
Within each level there would be variations that in turn will make possible to propose a
diversity of competing or complimentary models of cultural development. The Banat offers
extremely rich record base for deductive, inductive and abductive research in these
directions, especially from the Starčevo and Vinča cultures.
In terms of general theory of culture, there are two fundamental topics that cross the
thematic research – enculturation and anthropology of everydayness. The prehistoric
cultures of the Banat allow us to reveal universal and specific components of enculturation
as a constructor of the everydayness and a component of the cultural and social
reproductions.
Last but not least, the modern research in the field of psychology and especially
neuropsychology poses the important problem of the role of the new knowledge in “the life
of the social brain” that may help us to learn more about the mechanism of cultural
changes and of the transmission of culture from generation to generation. The Banat
evidence can be tested against the specific and dominating in this region flatland
environment and comparing eventually in future with other similar environments and
cultures.
In conclusion we will acknowledge the fact, that in later historical period in some
microregions of the Banat settled immigrants from Germany whose descendents are a
considerable part of the today’s Banat culture within the border of Serbia, for instance. This
example shows how people from later historic period adapted themselves in the Banat
flatland environment region and created a local culture that gradually lost the main
components of the homeland culture including even the language. Such prospective
research - that falls in the field of the archaeology and anthropology of Contemporary Past -
is incredibly inspiring for the Archaic (Prehistoric) period of the human culture. There are
many theoretical issues for comparison of the Contemporary Past with Prehistory including
the typical prehistoric rhythm of cultural change is abt 50 years for inner smaller changes
and abt 500 years for more considerable cultural changes (based on the Neolithic, Copper
and Early Bronze Age data from Bulgaria, abt 6300 – 3000 cal BCE).
Finally, I would like to appreciate the wonderful initiative for this Conference and to
acknowledge the opportunity to participate in it.