| Balkan Prehistoric Periodization-chronological Schemes |
General notes
The modern prehistoric schemes on Balkan Prehistory are based on two main cultural-chronological
columns – Karanovo cultural-chronological column for Upper Thrace and pre- Vinča and post-Vinča
sequence in the Northwest Balkans with Vinča as main site. However, none of them completely
includes data either about the local cultures or the neighbor close and distant regions. Some regions
like the lower Danube and Southwest Bulgaria have their basic sites but there are missing long-lasting
multilevel sites with as long cultural-chronological column as in Upper Thrace and in the Northwest
Balkans. Another big problem is the still incomplete data base of the 14C dates for absolute chronology.
For every serious prehistorian scholar the elaboration of a precise chronological scheme is a mirage
while there are few writers with steady scheme but some of them are not well grounded as a result of
mechanical compilation of different opinions or non-scholar approach to Prehistory.
In our understanding, the precise chronological scheme should be based first of all on excellently
documented stratigraphy. We could refer only to a few sites with a reliable stratigraphy. Among them for
instance in Bulgaria are the older excavations of the Karanovo tell, the Ezero tell, the Yunatsite tell, the
Dubene-Sarovka tell and the Drama tell. Other sites like Ovcharovo, Golyamo Delchevo, Slatina, the new
excavations of Karanovo etc. are either not well excavated or with ambiguous and critically published
information.
The second important factor for a precise chronological scheme is well argued publications.
However, for sites like Ovcharovo and Golyamo Delchevo (excavations of H. Todorova) the best one can
say is that the government money were used at least not for destruction of the sites without
archaeologists. Despite the enormous amount of government money used, the popular non-
professional excavations of H Todorova left the eastern lower Danube Prehistory at the level of the early
20th century when D. Berciu founded the basics of the regional chronological since the cited writer
wither re-discovered well known culture naming them with different names or elementary matched
discovered material to well-known from other regions. The new material excavated and not well
published (or not published) can be used today cautiously only, having in mind the nature of the pseudo-
scholar writings of H Todorova – a compilation of other opinions or conclusion on her own “excavation”
but without published material or selectively published without opportunity for a critical analysis, and
obviously with big author's problems when it comes to a scholar approach to Prehistory.
Typical and popular is the scheme from the monograph of H Todorova from 1986 (.pdf).
Being a complication of the opinions of G Il. Georgiev, D Berciu, A Comşa and P Roman there is no
author scholar involvement since the sites excavated by Todorova and included in the schemes were
unpublished, no precise chronology was demonstrated and some of the statements are obviously
wrong because of not well reading of P. Roman for instance.
Revealing the pseudoscholar methods used by H Todorova helps to understand the visible gap in
the development of the Balkans chronological and stratigraphic archaeology in the southeast
microregions.
The first pseudoscholar method is description of the excavated situation and material without
precise publications. It flourished in the works by H Todorova and had its absurd pick in the book of V
Nikolov on the earlier Neolithic in Upper Thrace. For instance in the 1986 monograph could be seen not
only decades of drawing based on photos of published materials (including all illustrations of the
Krivodol sequence) but also mentioning for instance,of excavated sites like Shabla I and Shabla II
attributed to the end of the Neolithic, early and Middle Eneolithic without reference to any publication of
the excavated material.
The second pseudoscholar method widely used by Todorova is the proposed hiatuses for sites
based on fragmentary knowledge and even mixing the materials of sites. Such imaginary was used for
Karanovo, Azmak Kapitan Dimitrievo and other sites (Todorova 1986: 54) (1).
To analysis scholarly the prehistoric sites first we need to know in details the local material culture
and to consider that the trenches usually do not represent the whole stratigraphy of the site. The cake
model does not refer to the prehistoric sites which consist of very dynamic and complicated history of
the accumulation of the cultural layers.
(1) Banyata Mogial: “… Our analysis showed that at the base of the fourth layer were represented the
first and second phases of the Maritsa culture, followed by short term hiatus …..”. First there is no
detailed description of what the author understand by the first and second phase of the Maritsa culture in
the Upper Maritsa valley (and nobody would know since there is no excavated site). Second, there is no
serious scholar who would not considerer that the local spot excavated of the given site does not
represent the whole chronology of the site itself. And at Kapitan Dimitrievo there were trenches only.
The modern prehistoric schemes on Balkan Prehistory are based on two main cultural-chronological
columns – Karanovo cultural-chronological column for Upper Thrace and pre- Vinča and post-Vinča
sequence in the Northwest Balkans with Vinča as main site. However, none of them completely
includes data either about the local cultures or the neighbor close and distant regions. Some regions
like the lower Danube and Southwest Bulgaria have their basic sites but there are missing long-lasting
multilevel sites with as long cultural-chronological column as in Upper Thrace and in the Northwest
Balkans. Another big problem is the still incomplete data base of the 14C dates for absolute chronology.
For every serious prehistorian scholar the elaboration of a precise chronological scheme is a mirage
while there are few writers with steady scheme but some of them are not well grounded as a result of
mechanical compilation of different opinions or non-scholar approach to Prehistory.
In our understanding, the precise chronological scheme should be based first of all on excellently
documented stratigraphy. We could refer only to a few sites with a reliable stratigraphy. Among them for
instance in Bulgaria are the older excavations of the Karanovo tell, the Ezero tell, the Yunatsite tell, the
Dubene-Sarovka tell and the Drama tell. Other sites like Ovcharovo, Golyamo Delchevo, Slatina, the new
excavations of Karanovo etc. are either not well excavated or with ambiguous and critically published
information.
The second important factor for a precise chronological scheme is well argued publications.
However, for sites like Ovcharovo and Golyamo Delchevo (excavations of H. Todorova) the best one can
say is that the government money were used at least not for destruction of the sites without
archaeologists. Despite the enormous amount of government money used, the popular non-
professional excavations of H Todorova left the eastern lower Danube Prehistory at the level of the early
20th century when D. Berciu founded the basics of the regional chronological since the cited writer
wither re-discovered well known culture naming them with different names or elementary matched
discovered material to well-known from other regions. The new material excavated and not well
published (or not published) can be used today cautiously only, having in mind the nature of the pseudo-
scholar writings of H Todorova – a compilation of other opinions or conclusion on her own “excavation”
but without published material or selectively published without opportunity for a critical analysis, and
obviously with big author's problems when it comes to a scholar approach to Prehistory.
Typical and popular is the scheme from the monograph of H Todorova from 1986 (.pdf).
Being a complication of the opinions of G Il. Georgiev, D Berciu, A Comşa and P Roman there is no
author scholar involvement since the sites excavated by Todorova and included in the schemes were
unpublished, no precise chronology was demonstrated and some of the statements are obviously
wrong because of not well reading of P. Roman for instance.
Revealing the pseudoscholar methods used by H Todorova helps to understand the visible gap in
the development of the Balkans chronological and stratigraphic archaeology in the southeast
microregions.
The first pseudoscholar method is description of the excavated situation and material without
precise publications. It flourished in the works by H Todorova and had its absurd pick in the book of V
Nikolov on the earlier Neolithic in Upper Thrace. For instance in the 1986 monograph could be seen not
only decades of drawing based on photos of published materials (including all illustrations of the
Krivodol sequence) but also mentioning for instance,of excavated sites like Shabla I and Shabla II
attributed to the end of the Neolithic, early and Middle Eneolithic without reference to any publication of
the excavated material.
The second pseudoscholar method widely used by Todorova is the proposed hiatuses for sites
based on fragmentary knowledge and even mixing the materials of sites. Such imaginary was used for
Karanovo, Azmak Kapitan Dimitrievo and other sites (Todorova 1986: 54) (1).
To analysis scholarly the prehistoric sites first we need to know in details the local material culture
and to consider that the trenches usually do not represent the whole stratigraphy of the site. The cake
model does not refer to the prehistoric sites which consist of very dynamic and complicated history of
the accumulation of the cultural layers.
(1) Banyata Mogial: “… Our analysis showed that at the base of the fourth layer were represented the
first and second phases of the Maritsa culture, followed by short term hiatus …..”. First there is no
detailed description of what the author understand by the first and second phase of the Maritsa culture in
the Upper Maritsa valley (and nobody would know since there is no excavated site). Second, there is no
serious scholar who would not considerer that the local spot excavated of the given site does not
represent the whole chronology of the site itself. And at Kapitan Dimitrievo there were trenches only.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |