| Theory of Balkan Prehistory |
© 2009 International Institute of Anthropology
© 2009 Lolita Nikolova, PhD
Created: 10-19-09.
© 2009 Lolita Nikolova, PhD
Created: 10-19-09.
Comments, critics, suggestions
 | |  | |  | |  |
Some comments (impossible a detailed review because of the absence of author's argument(s) and comprehension):
1. There are missing most important academic works on Bulgarian prehistory, some of which were obviously used and not cited. Most
curiously, by citation of my book "The Balkans in Later Prehistory" I am listed as an editor, while I am the author and there are two
contributors – Igor Manzura and Cristian Schuster. And even most curiously - Krauss believes it is fine two times to mention the Mikov's
wrong sychronization (pp. 117, 137) but never to mention even a word about the chronic mistakes of Todorova and her wrong
synchronization of Ezero and generally to question her method of interpretation.
2. One may not believe but in 2009 there is a new publication in which some figures are after Тодорова 1986 where we have popular non-
academic illustrations (because of absence of validation) to illustrated Copper Age. Who needs these figures? Rajko Krauss had missed
to mention that obviously the academic world did not learn more about the Maritsa culture even after the Todorova's dissertation. At the
same time he decided that to reproduce most weird figures from 1986 in 2009 is just fine.
3. Abb 1. (p. 118). It is listed according to the new research, but in fact it represents a model of Georgiev to which are added the most
controversial theses of the pre-Karanovo I stage (such is not documented in the Upper Thrace), Karanovo II-III and Karanovo IV-V, and the
so-called break Karanovo VI - VII. No contributions of Krauss' at all. In this student-like visualization the chronological hiatus between
Karanovo VI and VII Krauss includes the Final Copper Age and “Transition period”. However, 3000 cal BCE is the beginning of Early Bronze
II. Where is Early Bronze I? I am sure that students in their classes on Balkan prehistory offer much better visualization based on
comprehensive literature.
4. There is more than clear Early Bronze I pottery at Karanovo tell. Does it date from after 3000 cal BCE? Did Krauss read in my
monography that only Ezero A1 dates from pre-Troy. Where is his validation about channel pottery later than Ezero A1? I think these
questions are too specific for this author, who clearly shows that can write about problems without having even a surface knowledge.
The main general outcomes of this published Krauss' writing:
1. Obviously for years the Bulgarian prehistory has been manipulated.
2. Because of this manipulative character of Bulgarian prehistory, probably after the retirement of Mikov, his contributions to Karanovo
excavations were diminished. Looking through the writing of Krauss, it came in my mind that we need to name Karanovo chronological
column the Mikov-Georgiev chronological column because they both excavated and both have contributions to this column.
3. We obviously need as soon as possible a detailed critical outline of the research of Bulgaria prehistory which to come from a
knowledgeable, critical thinking and independent archaeologist.
1. There are missing most important academic works on Bulgarian prehistory, some of which were obviously used and not cited. Most
curiously, by citation of my book "The Balkans in Later Prehistory" I am listed as an editor, while I am the author and there are two
contributors – Igor Manzura and Cristian Schuster. And even most curiously - Krauss believes it is fine two times to mention the Mikov's
wrong sychronization (pp. 117, 137) but never to mention even a word about the chronic mistakes of Todorova and her wrong
synchronization of Ezero and generally to question her method of interpretation.
2. One may not believe but in 2009 there is a new publication in which some figures are after Тодорова 1986 where we have popular non-
academic illustrations (because of absence of validation) to illustrated Copper Age. Who needs these figures? Rajko Krauss had missed
to mention that obviously the academic world did not learn more about the Maritsa culture even after the Todorova's dissertation. At the
same time he decided that to reproduce most weird figures from 1986 in 2009 is just fine.
3. Abb 1. (p. 118). It is listed according to the new research, but in fact it represents a model of Georgiev to which are added the most
controversial theses of the pre-Karanovo I stage (such is not documented in the Upper Thrace), Karanovo II-III and Karanovo IV-V, and the
so-called break Karanovo VI - VII. No contributions of Krauss' at all. In this student-like visualization the chronological hiatus between
Karanovo VI and VII Krauss includes the Final Copper Age and “Transition period”. However, 3000 cal BCE is the beginning of Early Bronze
II. Where is Early Bronze I? I am sure that students in their classes on Balkan prehistory offer much better visualization based on
comprehensive literature.
4. There is more than clear Early Bronze I pottery at Karanovo tell. Does it date from after 3000 cal BCE? Did Krauss read in my
monography that only Ezero A1 dates from pre-Troy. Where is his validation about channel pottery later than Ezero A1? I think these
questions are too specific for this author, who clearly shows that can write about problems without having even a surface knowledge.
The main general outcomes of this published Krauss' writing:
1. Obviously for years the Bulgarian prehistory has been manipulated.
2. Because of this manipulative character of Bulgarian prehistory, probably after the retirement of Mikov, his contributions to Karanovo
excavations were diminished. Looking through the writing of Krauss, it came in my mind that we need to name Karanovo chronological
column the Mikov-Georgiev chronological column because they both excavated and both have contributions to this column.
3. We obviously need as soon as possible a detailed critical outline of the research of Bulgaria prehistory which to come from a
knowledgeable, critical thinking and independent archaeologist.
Krauß, R. (2008). Karanovo und das südosteuropäische Chronologiesystem aus heutigen
Sicht. Eurasia Antiqua 14, 117-149.
Sicht. Eurasia Antiqua 14, 117-149.
Internal link to notes on research and evaluation in science:
http://www.iianthropology.org/psychology_research_methods.html
http://www.iianthropology.org/psychology_research_methods.html
From theoretical point of view the article is a unsuccessful attempt to substitute in science a reflective-critical thinking
method with manipulative oversimplified methodology based on absence even of minimum knowledge for an academic
publication. Most characteristics: no comprehensive outline of literature, no critical thinking, no original scholarly
concept(s) and no demonstration of deep knowledge
method with manipulative oversimplified methodology based on absence even of minimum knowledge for an academic
publication. Most characteristics: no comprehensive outline of literature, no critical thinking, no original scholarly
concept(s) and no demonstration of deep knowledge
| No living break |
| NLB |
| LLCB |
| Living, leaving & coming back |
| Living and leaving |
| LL |
| Models A (scale models) of living at settlements and leaving the settlements in prehistoric Antiquity (no-temp-perm scale models) (L. Nikolova, posted 10-19-09) |
| Model A.1 |
| Model A.2 |
| Model A.3 |
| Variants (e.g. males go to war or with the stock for pasture that may impact the accumulation of cultural layers) |
| Variants (e.g. males go to war or with the stock for pasture that may impact the accumulation of cultural layers) |
Diachronic axis
| Village 10 Village 9 Village 8 Village 7 Village 6 Village 5 Village 4 Village 3 Village 2 Village 1 |
Model B.1 = Model A.1
*Model B.2 (Relations village occupation – culture phase)
B.2.1 Village is occupied during the whole culture phase
B.2.1 Village is occupied only during a part of the culture
phase (B.2.1.1 earlier; B.2.1.2 later)
B.2.2. Village is not occupied during the culture phase
Model B.3 (Relation village – demography)
B.3.1 The population of the village is steady during the
whole culture phase
B.3.2 The population of the village is steady but there is
a seasonal dynamics
B.3.3 There is a fluctuation of population
Model B.4 (Relation village – ethnicity)
B.4.1. The ethnicity is homogeneous and the marriages
are within the village or within the neighborhood
B.4.2 The ethnicity is heterogeneous
B.4.1.2 Regular distant marriages
B.4.1.3 Regular or periodical small-scale inner migration
Model B.5 (Relation village – community)
B.5.1 The village was occupied by descendants of
primary community during the whole life of the site
B.5.2 The village was occupied by descendants of
primary community during only a part of the life of the site
* Updates are a part of methodology.
*Model B.2 (Relations village occupation – culture phase)
B.2.1 Village is occupied during the whole culture phase
B.2.1 Village is occupied only during a part of the culture
phase (B.2.1.1 earlier; B.2.1.2 later)
B.2.2. Village is not occupied during the culture phase
Model B.3 (Relation village – demography)
B.3.1 The population of the village is steady during the
whole culture phase
B.3.2 The population of the village is steady but there is
a seasonal dynamics
B.3.3 There is a fluctuation of population
Model B.4 (Relation village – ethnicity)
B.4.1. The ethnicity is homogeneous and the marriages
are within the village or within the neighborhood
B.4.2 The ethnicity is heterogeneous
B.4.1.2 Regular distant marriages
B.4.1.3 Regular or periodical small-scale inner migration
Model B.5 (Relation village – community)
B.5.1 The village was occupied by descendants of
primary community during the whole life of the site
B.5.2 The village was occupied by descendants of
primary community during only a part of the life of the site
* Updates are a part of methodology.
| Models B (structural models) of variants of relationship between the village and culture phase, demography, ethnicity and community (L. Nikolova, posted 10-19-09) |
Comment: These models are my intellectual response to the writing of Rajko Krauss (2008). They were includes in my research outline of my research
paper at Argosy University (4th quarter 2009, but I may develop them in future and incorporate them into the relevant theoretical literature on the topic)
(L.N. - Oct 19, 2009).
paper at Argosy University (4th quarter 2009, but I may develop them in future and incorporate them into the relevant theoretical literature on the topic)
(L.N. - Oct 19, 2009).