| Summary This communication approaches the social changes in the Final Copper Age and Early Bronze I era in the Balkans focusing on the Eastern Balkans (east of the Olt – Osum – Stryama – Drama north-south geographical axis) from the late fifth and fourth millennia BC. The background presumes that the Balkans are not a unique region but a cultural, geographical and historic entity, in which the cultural processes from different epochs are comparable (in retrospective and prospective plan) between and with other regions. It is also proposed that the similarities and dissimilarities are common characteristics of Balkan prehistoric material culture; in most cases, the dissimilarity in diachronic plan is a result of innovations and interactions, for which the migration theory is the least conceivable explainable strategy. The migration processes were an integrated part of the common cultural processes and changes in the prehistoric Balkans. For the period under discussion, the settlement pattern and pottery production is the most expressive characteristic of the social changes, which gives argument to a shift from sedentary and semi-sedentary toward mobile and semi-mobile communities in the late fifth and earlier fourth millennium BC in the Balkans (Final Copper I-II). In turn, in later fourth millennium BC, there is a reverse tendency – towards intensive sedentarization. In the lower Danube, that process is exemplified through the possible semi-sedentary Cernavoda III culture; the earliest communities of which occupied microregions with excellent environment for mixed (agriculture and stockbreeding) economy, i.e. Hotnitsa-Vodopada. Of special importance is the success in the Early Bronze I investigation of upper Thrace. In light of new evidence from Upper Thrace, (Dubene-Sarovka (Nikolova 1996; 1999a; 1999b; 2000d; Drama- Merdzhumekya (Lichardus et al. 2000), etc.) the process of sedentarization appears to be a long process that covered all or most of the second half of fourth millennium BC. The last model generally contrasts to the 1980s – earlier 1990s view seeing Upper Thrace contemporaneously re-occupied by sedentary population just at the very end of fourth millennium BC, or the beginning of third millennium BC (Ezero A1 culture). Recent archaeological evidence infers a regional variety of cultural development of the Balkan Later Copper societies. A variety of factors that posed as the background of their crisis in later fifth millennium BC, focused on this approach on the ceramic production. Further, the dynamic controversial process in early Balkan fourth millennium BC included social-economic changes (nomadization), social conflicts (Yunatsite), infiltration of population from the northwest Black Sea, and intensification of the cultural integration processes with neighbors and distant cultures. Theoretical difficulties concerning the topic of cultural processes of the Balkans in the fourth millennium BC arise by the fact that theory needs to be explained by not only a given body of records but also the absence of evidence. There is no tradition for social archaeology interpretations of Balkan Prehistory, which would usually be exemplified by selected topical issues or an approach of utilizing only the frameworks of analysis, as in this case, attempting the social change theory to be applied to the region and period under discussion. Introduction and theoretical framework The goal of this communication is to demonstrate the advantage of the social change theory by explaining the cultural changes in the Final Copper and Early Bronze I era in the eastern Balkans. Using retrospective and prospective comparative analyses, it can be argued that the social change theory does not contradict the migration theory, as the pastoral seasonal or one-direction movements were an element of the complicated evolution process in the earlier fourth millennium BC in the region under consideration. However, in my understanding, the origin of the nomadic pastoralism is not a result of migration of steppe nomads, which caused the end of Late Copper society, but a social transformation of the Balkan agricultural-stockbreeding society (Nikolova 1999a; 2000a; 2000b). In addition, the initial and limited steppe nomadic infiltration was integrated in the Balkan social and economic structures. To begin with, the Balkan prehistoric development is a contrast of similarity and dissimilarity in the material culture. This dichotomy concerns synchronous regions and diachronous cultures. In context of material evidence, the discontinuity co-exists with continuity and if we integrate the micro-regional characteristics (at the cultural level), the picture will become very stressful. However, the shortcoming of the micro-regional record allows, theoretically, reconstruction of the cultural process to use key sites and to eliminate the fragmentary character of the former. In addition, newly recovered evidence can generally change not only micro-regional but also the macro-regional model. As far as the later prehistoric Balkans is concerned, we do not have any revolutionary new data within the last two decades. But the increased record from the different micro-regions, for the most part, alternates the common view on the Balkans (Nikolova 1999a; Manzura 1999). It has been supplemented by newly published evidence (Nikolova (ed.) 2000a; 2000b). It is worth mentioning that discussions are one of the most fruitful ways to develop critical research problems such as migrations in the prehistoric Balkans (for the migrations see generally Chapman & Hamerow 1997; Adams 1968). One of the least effective characteristics of the M. Gimbutas’ theory (1961; 1970; 1973; 1978; 1991 and ref. cited there) was her monologue, character and absence of any attempt for interactions within the increasing record base and her critiques towards elaborating a collective research model of cultural changes. Her followers either used the same record base or tried to widen the record base using the same methodology of interpretation (see for instance Mallory 1989; cp. Robbins M. 1980; Anthony 1990; 1997; Merpert 1997; Lichardus & Lichardus 1993). Such studies indicate that without critical insights into historiography, constructing a theory based on one’s own record base and deep knowledge of the archaeology of the region under consideration, it is impossible to analyze the cultural process in-depth and thoroughly. In other words, integration of wrongful inference, or creating inferences based on incomplete knowledge, respectively on priori accepted thesis into theory, in fact, increases the deformation of the reconstructed cultural processes and tracks the roads for new historiographical myth. With regards to the Balkans, the inaccurate chronology of the Co?ofeni culture and respectively of Turnava I Tumulus in Northwest Bulgaria was a skeleton of the so-called second wave of Gimbutas (1978). In fact, all the evidence there indicates an interaction between classical Co?ofeni and the Pit Grave Culture population in earlier third, but not in later fourth, millennium BC (see Nikolova 1999a; ???????? 2000). When problems concerning the reconstruction of the Final Copper society in the Balkans occur, it appears that along with the archaeological data (see below), of primary importance is the theoretical framework for explanation of this data. The term Final Copper Age occurs to define that stage of development of the prehistoric Balkans when, along with typical occurrences of Late Copper Age characteristics, new social strategies of environmental adaptation were integrated, which increased the mobility of the Balkan population (Nikolova 1999a). The result was a gradual decrease of the traditional long-term settlement structures and the start of elaboration of ceramic styles that corresponded to the new social-economic necessities and became a widespread norm in Final Copper II. Therefore, the Final Copper Balkans faces two main theoretical problems – social change and mobile pastoralism (or pastoral nomadism) in prehistory. In this case, the social change can be researched as a component of the general social process, as well as an aspect of the culture change (see Tringham 1971; Fleming A. 1972; Hanbury–Tenison J.W. 1986; Earle T. 1980; Swidler N. 1980; Shennan 1986; Manzura 1993; Häusler A. 1994; Kadrow S. 1994; Naylor 1996; Sherratt 1997; Govedarica B. 1998; Kristiansen K. and Rowlands M. 1998; Papadopoulos J.K. 1997, etc.) As a component of the general social process, the social change is an integrated element for the social evolutionary theory. However, some authors doubt the evolutionary framework for the social change, referring to it as a structural transformation rather then a reproduction of the social order. For instance, in understanding M. Shank and Ch. Tilley (1987: 175 sq.) social strategies, social transformation, power, ideology, altereity, plurality, relationality, displacement, substitution and difference, these are terms "that cannot be properly compressed or integrated into an evolutionary framework". Further, these authors define the historical processes as "always different, singular, non-identical with each other;" the evolutionary view on the history residing in a given basic set of processes is wrong. I am closer to models of L. Nayler and Ph. C. Salzman seeing the social change as an aspect of the culture change that includes in its general characteristics as "an addition, subtraction, alteration, or modification in belief, behavior, or sociocultural products" (Naylor 1996: 43). The changes can be associated with great social-cultural discontinuity, but also as "the assertion of societal continuity in changing or new circumstances" (Salzman 1980: 6). According to Naylor, "the natural and sociocultural environments are the source of all changes, for as environments change, the culture must change.” Further, as that author stresses "sociocultural environmental pressures can come from the area of human relations, changes in these and relations between cultural groups, material products and their consequences, technological changes and their consequences, or changes in political, economic, or religious ideas, beliefs, and products…. To understand the processes of change, one begins by identifying whether the idea for change originates internally (involving only one culture group) or externally "as a result of cultural contacts". The same author suggests that the majority of the people have to accept an alteration or modification of their learned patterns that result in social change (1996: 47-48). The social change includes a system of transformation of the society, one of the economic components of which is the change from predominated agricultural economic basis to predominated mobile pastoral economic basis. The nomadic pastoralism and agricultural sedentarism are two extremes between which there are different transition forms of social-economic structures (Figure 1), such as the transition from one to another pattern is often a dynamic internal process but not caused only by external pressure. Ph.C. Salzman pointed out that "the shift between nomadism and sedentism, and between pastoralism and agriculture, as a current circumstance and set of activities, is in many respects not such an absolute break as it might seem prima facie." (1980: 13) The social processes that bridge them are defined as "a set of changes adopted in response to needs and opportunities" (Salzman 1980: 15). To distinguish between semi-nomadic and semi-sedentary pastoralism, A.M. Khazanov considers the degree of participation of the agriculture in the subsistence economy. In the former, the agriculture is secondary and supplementary, while in the latter, agriculture plays "the predominant role in the general economic balance". "Semi-sedentary pastoralism also implies the presence of seasonal migrations and/or separate, primary pastoral groups and families within the given society. However, these migrations often seem to be shorter in both time and distance than the pastoral migrations of semi-nomads in the same kind of environment." (1984: 21) The key term for this study is pastoral nomadism. A.M. Khazanov uses that term to define "a distinct form of food-producing economy in which extensive mobile pastoralism is the predominant activity, and in which the majority of population is drawn into periodic pastoral migration," the beginning of which is traced back to the Neolithic (1984: 17; cp. Ko?ko & Klochko V.I. 1994). According to this definition, the extensive economy, mobility and periodical migrations are among the most characteristic features of the pastoral nomadism. But it can also be added the tendency of sedentarization when the social environment preconditions or requires such shift (see in detail in Salzman 1980). N. Swidler describes sedentarization as “a process occurring with varying frequencies in virtually all contemporary pastoral nomadic groups. Furthermore, there is every indication to suggest that sedentarization processes are of great historical depth, that nomads, singly and in groups, have been repeatedly drawn into agrarian activities…. Nomads are said to be characteristically resistant to programs designed to encourage settlement" (Swidler 1980: 21). In the typology of pastoral nomadism based on its regional peculiarities, A.M. Khazanov defines "Eurasian steppe type" to distinguish "the huge zone of steppes, semi-deserts and deserts of the temperate zone which stretch from the Danube (the Hungarian puszta) to North China." (1984: 44), then, it includes the whole Lower Danube basin. He subdivided this zone into three sub-zones: (1) areas favorable for agriculture, (2) areas favorable for extensive pastoralism, (3) and marginal areas in which there are preconditions for both activities and the predominant economic activities has depended "on specific historic circumstances and is not determined directly by ecology" (1984: 44). In my opinion, in the Lower Danube (traditionally including the region from Iron Gates to the Black Sea) the leading is in fact the third group. There are natural preconditions for mixed economy in the region under discussion – the combination of plains with hilly forms. The foothills of Stara Planina and the Carpathians have influenced the historical development of the regions as well. Along with this group, the areas such as Dobroudja were favorable in prehistory for extensive pastoralism because of its steppe character. For the herding of sheep in the Eurasian steppe, two values are of special importance: the wide variety of plants that sheep eat, as well as the ability of the sheep to "get at fodder in pasture covered with snow up to 15-17 centimeters deep" (Khazanov 1984: 46). Along with the fodder requirement of the herd, the Eurasian steppe also provides water. But the third factor of the economic life of the nomads – protecting from the cold in winter - has created problems for the subsistence life and has been decided in different ways (Khazanov 1984: 50 and ref. cited there). This theoretical background approach to the cultural processes in the Balkans in the fourth millenium BC proposes the social change as an aspect of the cultural change and as a characteristic of the evolution process. Further, it stresses on the multi-aspect and dynamic characteristics of social-cultural environment pressure and of the social mobility and sedentarism in particular. From this point, we can turn to the Balkans in the fourth millennium BC. The detailed cultural-chronological and regional characteristics are given in Nikolova 1999a including Igor Manzura’s (1999)contribution therein. In the focus of this approach, there will be some evidence published after the cited publication as well. Toward the social development in the Final Copper Balkans: the Eastern Balkans The Balkan Later Copper Society The core of the Balkan Late Copper society includes the communities of Karanovo VI – Gumelnita – Varna complex and Krivodol–Salcuta–Bubanj complex. Both complexes were in close interaction, which resulted in a unification of basic traits of the material culture despite Olt – Osum – Western Sredna Gora being a visible border between them. New evidence from the Upper Stryama valley (Dubene-Sarovka I (Nikolova 2000c) confirms the importance of the Western Sredna Gora as a geographical and cultural border. But the Yunatsite tell (close to Western Sredna Gora foothills) is a clear instance of strong diffusion of the Krivodol cultural ceramic style from the west (possibly from the Struma-Iskur valleys). At the same time, re-excavations of Devetaska Peshtera (not far from left Osum River side) and Draganesti-Olt (close to the Olt River bed) represent models of synthetic material culture or even expansion of the S?lcu?a culture to the west (Nikolova 1999a and ref. cited there). Comparing Karanovo-Gumelni?a-Varna and Krivodol-Salcuta-Bubanj complexes, Upper Thrace (an area of the former) and western lower Danube (an area of the latter) had favorable preconditions for intensive and extensive agricultural activity. In the area of the Krivodol-Salcuta-Bubanj complex, the agriculture depended on more limited land resources. They are archaeologically represented by the predominance of thin level or low tell villages, in contrast to the large tells in the Upper Thrace and more numerous low tells in the eastern lower Danube. However, even in Upper Thrace, in micro-regions such as the Upper Stryama valley, the tradition of big multilevel tell villages was not introduced in Late Copper Age (Dubene-Sarovka I, Chernichevo), possibly because of the popularity of stockbreeding. In other words, stockbreeding and agricultural economies were in dynamic interactions in the Balkans in Late Copper Age and the Balkan Late Copper society cannot be straightforward described as society with homogenous economic base. This conclusion is very important for the reconstruction of the social processes. Once there is no homogeneity in the basic economic structure, exchange could be expected of the main subsistence products (regular, periodical or accidental). The second important component of the economic system was metallurgy. As the last is dependent extremely upon the ore resources, the development of the early Balkan metallurgy was based on extensive contacts between the Eastern and Western Balkans, the inner characteristics of which requires an additional detailed research. For later Copper Age, of importance is the fact that such important metal ore resources, as Ai Bunar, in fact were explored after the pick of development of the Karanovo VI culture (at least partially) (Nikolova 1999a). Also, the prospering of the copper production in the northwestern Balkans contrasted to the tendency of the decreasing of the representative Krivodol-Salcuta-Bubanj pottery, then, there were asymmetric interrelations – cp. for instance Telish 2 and 3; in the last village a Jászladány axe has been discovered. There are many reasons to believe that the pottery production was one of the important components of the economic-and-social organization of the Balkan Late Copper Society. But, unfortunately, the organization of the pottery production of that society is a non-investigated problem. There are four hierarchical systems recognized in the organization of the ceramic production: household production, household industry, workshop industry, and large-scale industry (after Van der Leeuw). Household production is typically handmade, periodic, and based on little investment of raw materials, tools, facilities, and time, made to satisfy the household’s yearly needs, but possibly including a part for gifts, dowry, and exchange for other goods. The household industry produces similar pottery but in larger quantity, as part of it has been exchanged for agricultural or other sources of incomes, while the workshop presumes emergence of pottery specialists (usually family members), and of changes in ceramic technology (wheel- or mold-made ceramics). The large–scale production is based on workshops or factory and produce vessels on a tremendous scale, increasingly standardized, "as potters attempt to minimize time and energy invested per vessel". Additionally, itinerant potters have their own productive system (Sinopoli 1991: 99-100). In the evolution of the ceramic pottery production, there are two factors that increase the standardization – increased frequency and scale of pottery production, and / or introducing new technology (mold or wheel). In both cases, the result influences the efficiency of production. Then, if the society needs more efficient production, it may result in the increased standardization and development of the organization of the pottery production. Facing the Late Copper Age, Karanovo-Gumelnita-Varna and Krivodol-S?lcu?a-Bubanj pottery is possibly the culmination of the prehistoric standardized production in the Balkans. We do not have direct evidence, but according to the result, the pottery was made as household seasonal production, household industry, and I assume, workshop industry, as well as by itinerant potters. All these aspects of the pottery production require interactions at a different scale (Sinopoli 1991: 99-100) with close and distant communities, developing an exchange system. From formulating in such a way, a research problem follows because if for some reason the system of exchange transgresses, it will affect all components of the cultural systems. M. Gimbutas believed that those were the steppe scepter invaders that destroyed the Balkan Late Copper system (1978; 1991 and ref. cited there). But in the 1990s, neither the data on scepters increase nor the narrow chronology was confirmed. On the other hand, the increased evidence base inferred a gradual, but not one-step and not linear, process of transformations and innovations in the Balkans. Then, the exclusive possibility is to look for inner reasons to explain the changes in the Balkans. We can start with one of the most popular household activities – the pottery production. The enormous amount of earthenware from Karanovo-Gumelnita-Varna and Krivodol-Salcuta-Bubanj complexes infers it was the main storage; cooking and serving ware in the different household, despite some wooden vessels, might have existed. The tendency towards standardization of the pottery limited the potters in clay use as not every paste was suited to assumed mold or primitive wheel-like technique. As the graphite pottery might have involved two or more level burning process, it can be assumed that at least part of it was a result of local or itinerant workshops (Figure 2). But the exhausting of the quality clay (and graphite) resources might have followed by a decrease in the profession of the producers of luxury ceramics and re-specialization. Closed in the border of the household production, the pottery become more utilitarian, while the luxury pottery was spread over vast areas (for instance the Maritsa – Drama – Struma – Iskur areas in Final Copper I) from possible large-scale artisan centers in the occupied marginal agricultural lands. But along with its spreading, the quantity of the luxury ceramics decreased. Using prospective instances, it can be assumed that such pottery could document access of elite to fine wares, or it may signify contacts between the certain social groups throughout vast territories. As far as the technomic pottery is concerned, I believe it was mainly household production, being long-term, often low-burned in open air and produced seasonally by members of the community households. Of importance for the analysis of the ceramic and social change is the problem of the transmission of the ceramic knowledge production. The simplistic model of production techniques and decorative styles is passed on from mother to daughter, according to which the similar pottery results from co-resident women who had replicated matrilocal residence pattern. In fact, potters "must be seen as active transmitters and transformers of their craft rather than as passive recipients of traditional knowledge" (Sinopoli 1991: 120-121 and ref. cited there) The assumed decreasing of the pottery workshop specialized production can be related to another economic trait – the exhausting of the land and decreasing of the agricultural surplus that would support the so-called non-agricultural segment of the population. That economic variable again affected the organized system of production and exchange, as well as the inner structure of the Balkan Late Copper society. In contrast to data of the metallurgy and the pottery, the importance of social analysis burial record originates mostly from the Northeast Balkans – from the areas of the Gumelni?a and Varna cultures. This data has been the subject of numerous archaeological analyses; of special interest is the investigation of J. Chapman who combines the burial and settlement data from Northeast Bulgaria (2000 and cited references to his earlier works and to the publications of Golyamo Delchevo and Vinitsa cemeteries). What I have recognized among the data from Golyamo Delchevo and Vinitsa cemeteries is that both belonged to communities with different local cultural and social standard. According to anthropological data, a considerable number (7 or 64%) of females from Vinitsa cemetery died between the ages of 40 and 60 years, while at Golyamo Delchevo, only two females died between the ages of 40 and 50 years. Male cemeteries prevail at both cemeteries, but the burial goods at Vinitsa are much richer than at Golyamo Delchevo. In addition, another difference concerns the clustering of children. There is no single grave of newborns documented at Golyamo Delchevo. It looks more probable that they were not recognized on the terrain. Then, I ignore that difference as a cultural comparative criterion. A. Raduncheva on her side (Raduncheva 1976) reported two Infant 1 graves with decayed bones from Vinitsa. The second children’s age group is between 6 and 10 years, which seem to be another critical barrier for the local population there. Despite the possibility that the excavated area at Golyamo Delchevo incompletely represents the population buried there, available data possibly indicates the different standard of life in two distinct micro-regions in northeastern Bulgaria in Late Copper Age. It looks the Vinitsa adult population did not have biological stresses until 40 years. The death of the young population looks more accidental than a regular norm – they would be 21% of the dead population while the adults over 40 represent about 34%. At Golyamo Delchevo, 50% of the population given died between 15 and 40 years. Such a ratio can be interpreted as a possible existence of biological decease like chronic malnutrition. Despite the possible pattern of separate graveyards of old population or possibly only part of the cemetery to have been excavated, the hypothesis of different village societies represented at Vinitsa and Golyamo Delchevo can be included in the common social model of the Balkans according to the recent data. Unfortunately, to testify the proposed reason for the age at time of death differences, we have to wait for re-examination of the anthropological data from both cemeteries if they are preserved. But it can also be stressed that the difference given can reflect only the different method of dating of the skeletons. The last creates many problems in modern anthropology. Then, the hypothesis proposed also requires additional data for verification. Likewise, the regionalisms of the Late Copper Age society can be demonstrated by the evidence from Russe tell where numerous graves were discovered on the territory of the village. Unfortunately, the incomplete publication of the burials makes any interpretations difficult of this very important burial data for Balkan prehistory and my effort to interpret this important record is to be published elsewhere. The pitfalls of the migration and climatic catastrophe theories Social changes are a complex cultural process that usually influences all or most of the elements of the social system (see the cited literature above). As the archaeological record consists of material evidence, to reconstruct the social changes we need to explain the changes in the material culture. The migration theory seemed accurate for Late Copper – Final Copper – Early Bronze changes as it was assumed the Balkan cultures changed from being more complex towards more ordinary. That assumption was based on the pottery evidence inasmuch as in the Cernavoda I culture and the cultures from Scheibenhenkel horizon have dominated the plain pottery with a more low-burned and exception ornamented (mostly incised, pricked, stamped or encrusted) earthenware. As the interruption was assumed to have been caused by outer factors (imaginable steppe invaders), for the migration theory there were no other research problems than migrated factors for material culture changes. After increasing the non-popularity of M. Gimbutas’ theory, some authors replaced the migration theory with the climatic catastrophe, that it is again based in the assumption that the material culture dramatically decreased and changed in the Balkans. Strictly speaking, the palaeoclimatic characteristics of the Balkans are from limited regions and in my opinion, the recent record does not infer any climatic catastrophe at the end of the Copper Age (Bozhilova & Tonkov 1995; Özdogan 1999: 209; Atanassova 1995; see also Furlan D. 1977; Nandris 1977; Gribben 1978; Harding 1982; Kuniholm 1990; cp. Peiser B.J. 1998). For instance, neither pollen data from key regions, such as Drama valley next to the North Aegean coast area, nor that from the Black Sea, indicates drastic changes (Nikolova 1999a and ref. cited there). Similar conclusions follow from the pollen diagrams from Pirin Mountains (Bozhilova & Tonkov 1995) where the authors found some evidence of possible human impact (seasonal high-mountain pasture) traced back in prehistoric times. As far as the Black Sea is concerned, difficulties in the interpretation of the marinepalynological data for the Late Holocene have been reported because of the involved climatic, anthropogenetic and hydrodynamic processes, as well as the limited samples. Furthermore, enlargement of the herb communities dominated by Artemisia and Chenopodiaceae is explained with possible variability in precipitation and the drier condition of the European Subboreal documented also in the South Dobroudja Black Sea coast ((Atanassova 1995: 80-81). The 5000 BP as a commonly accepted lower chronological border of Subboreal characterized as “warm and dry” gives in calibrated dates circa 3800-3700 BC while the end of the Copper Age correspond to a Late Atlantic climatic period generally characterized as “warm and wet.” Beyond these general characteristics, local fluctuations and deterioration have been reported as being documented from different parts of Europe. However, there is no single evidence that at the end of the fifth and the beginning of the fourth millennium, the proposed transgression of the Black Sea catastrophically impacted Upper Thrace and the Lower Danube as it has been written by H. Todorova (see the cited literature in Lichardus & Lichardus-Itten 1993: 72-73). As my social change theory proposes, in the late fifth and earlier fourth millennium BC the crisis was of the Balkan society but not of the region. Towards the archaeological base of the social change theory In the last decades, the material evidence base for the social change theory employed to later Balkan prehistory generally increased. In its core is the long-term transformation of the Krivodol-Salcuta-Bubanj complex in the western lower Danube recently argued based on the detailed cultural-chronological sequence (Nikolova 1999a), the data on relocations of cultural patterns, as well as the evidence of graduate sedentarization in the Balkans in later fourth millennium BC. The skeleton remains from earlier Final Copper on the Yunatsite tell (Matsanova 2000) make the historical picture dynamic and controversial. The applications for the eastern parts of the Balkans are based on the retrospective-prospective analysis of the evidence, but the evidence is not so expressive as from Central and Northwestern Balkans. The first region from the Eastern Balkans is the eastern lower Danube basin, between the Olt – Osum Rivers and the Danube Delta. This is the one usually thought to have been invaded by steppe tribes that caused the end of Gumelni?a cultures. But it has been shown that there are common ceramic elements between Gumelni?a and Cernavoda I cultures. The migrationists have not ignored the last, but explained them as survival in the new culture (Thomas 1992; cp. Manzura 1999). The same elements occur in the social change theory as a record of continuation in the transformation process (Nikolova 1999a). The migrationists do not stress on the fact that there is a topographic continuity in the settlement pattern (e.g. Harsova), nor does the pattern of the Cernavoda I culture correspond to nomadic and semi-nomadic pastoralists that have had short-lived villages supplemented by a central place (e.g. Cernavoda). This pattern contrasts to Early Bronze when the indisputable pastoral nomads (Pit Grave Culture) occupied vast territories in the eastern Lower Danube without leaving any significant traces of sedentarization that could argue at least seasonal occupations. The retrospective-prospective cultural analysis infers that on the one hand, in the eastern Lower Danube were preconditions for pastoral nomadism archaeologically documented for the Early Bronze. As in the migration theory, in both cases the population comes from the territories of typical pastoral nomadism, it should be an expected similar way of exploitation of the environment. In fact, the archaeological map shows big differences that in turn questions the validity of that postulation. At the same time, agricultural-stockbreeding communities traditionally occupied the eastern lower Danube that had different degrees of a mobile social pattern. In fact, the tradition of tell villages occurs very late there and only in some micro-regions. In other words, the Cernavoda I culture following the northeastern Balkan settlement pattern represents a model of transformation of the material culture in context of social changes such as increasing mobility, segmentation and decreasing of the population including the dominance of the household pottery production. As the Brailita cemetery is unpublished, there is no an opportunity for diachronous comparative analysis of the burial data. The critical region remains Northeastern Bulgaria as the settlements of the Cernavoda I culture are still not well documented. Some sites were included in the so-called Pevets culture, but unfortunately the material from Pevets remains unpublished. The detailed comparative analysis of Bulgarian and Romanian material provided by Manzura (2002) infers Northeastern Bulgarian material generally differs from that of the Romanian Cernavoda I culture. Nevertheless, the material from Ovcharovo-Platoto (to which can be added Koprivets published in Nikolova 1996), which could be late Cernavoda I, is very scanty. Also, as it has been argued elsewhere (Nikolova 1999a) that Hotnitsa-Vodopada belongs to another cultural-chronological horizon that connects the Lower Danube with the earliest Boleraz (Baden I) in Central Europe, respectively marking the beginning of the Bronze Age in the Balkans. My assumption is that the typical settlements of the Cernavoda I culture are to be discovered to the south of the Danube River. Indirectly, it can be confirmed by the fact that just in the 1980s, for the first time in inner Northeastern Bulgaria, a classical Cernavoda III settlement (Mirovtsi) was found; recently, nobody would postulate that classical Cernavoda III was not distributed in this region. The absence of cordedware settlements can be only a problem of record base but not of the cultural process. In prospective, J. Lichardus, with team, published from Drama (Southeast Bulgaria) some fragmented pottery that has been attributed to the beginning of Cernavoda III culture (2000: 42-45) from Early Bronze I according to my periodization system. The problem with that publication is that the parallels of the fluted ceramic material have been extended only in the north-northeast direction, to Moldavia and Ukraine. In this case, the latter provided a base of the conclusion that “the distribution of the Cernavoda III culture also south of the Lower Danube can be seen in connection with the penetration of the Pit Grave Culture” (Lichardus et al. 2000: 45). This is a typical methodical tool of the migrationist archaeologists, when selected data has been combined to demonstrate archeologically the direction of a migration. But does Drama data really provide such a certain correlation between the Pit Grave Culture and the beginning of the Cernavoda III? The illustrated sherds include bowls, pots, amphora-like vessels including plain, stamped and incised pottery. Except for the sinuous bowl (Lichardus 2000: Fig. 15: 8), there are no expressive parallels in Cernavoda III of any other vessels. Contrary, the emblematic channel and plain sinuous profiled pottery parallels to the west in Upper Thrace – in Dubene-Sarovka IIA ceramics (Yunatsite culture) (Nikolova 1999b; 2000d). This channel pottery has been interconnected and possibly synchronized in the region under discussion through Karanovo VIIA- pit H (Hiller & Nikolov 1997: Fig. 148: 16, 21), but on the whole, the Early Bronze I stage of the channel pottery in Upper Thrace is still at the initial stage of investigation. Then, I believe this is the reason the site of Drama to have been directly connected with the eastern lower Danube, but not with other sites with channel pottery in Upper Thrace. However, if the authors really propose a north – south direction of distribution of the EB I channel pottery, it should be stressed that there are no Pit Grave Culture records in western Upper Thrace (Nikolova 2000e). Also, despite the numerous pottery at Golyama Detelina II tumulus in eastern Upper Thrace (with mixed Pit Grave and Ezero burials according to the archaeological attributes), no channel pottery has been discovered there (Nikolova 1999a). Although the Drama pottery confirmed the dating of Golyama Detelina IV (Leshtakov & Borisov 1995) from EB I (Nikolova 1999a; cp. Lichardus et al. 2000: 45), even in this tumulus there is no channel pottery. The similarity with Drama includes the vertical corded handles that have parallels in Baden culture. But it is not clear if Golyama Detelina and Drama-Merdzhumekya were contemporaneous. The argument of closeness between both sites was used, as a chronological criterion to argue possible contemporaneous sites (Lichardus et al. 2000: 45) but in my opinion, in this case, about 30 km is a considerable distance because of the local micro-regional peculiarities. Drama is close to the mountain region while Golyama Detelina’s micro-region is steppe like. The latter explains the concentration of Pit Grave Culture tumuli in the Radnevo micro-area. So, Golyama Detelina tumulus cemetery and Drama-Merdzhumekya represent two different environmental types. It is another question that even in the Radnevo area it looks like the Pit Grave Culture penetrated in Ezero social environment, which resulted in intensive interactions according to the evidence from Golyama Detelina II (Nikolova 2000e). In my explanation model, Drama-Merdzhumekya settlement pottery documents a local pastoral community that was in intensive interactions with other pastoral or semi-pastoral communities in Upper Thrace and in direct contact with the North. It can be proposed that the site belongs to early Ezero culture and marks the process of sedenterization of the local mobile pastoralists in latter fourth millennium BC. This early stage of Ezero culture is not documented at Ezero tell as it has been stressed also in J. Lichardus et al. (2000: 45), but important common ornaments have already occurred, e.g. pricked and dot ornamentation. For the time being, it is not clear if Karanovo VIIA and earliest EB Dyadovo represent regional peculiarities or if they also include pre-Ezero pottery related diachronically to Drama-Merdzhumekya. The case study from Drama region is important because this is exactly the region from which originates a scepter from Final Copper (Govedaritsa and Kaizer 1996), as well as typical late Tei pottery from the later Bronze Age. Both instances are isolated for that micro-region; for the time being, they can be best explained by infiltration of the northern population. However, in my opinion, they cannot be a model for explanation of all new evidence, in particular of the Early Bronze I pottery from Merdzhumekya that is interrelated mostly with the west. The amphora-like vessel from Merdzhumekya (Lichardus et al. 2000: Fig. 15: 1) brings up the question of how this site relates to the Cernavoda I culture, where its best parallels can be sought. As a possible pastoral central place, it can include scanty material from different periods, then, theoretically, the earliest possible chronological border of that site is Final Copper I (later Cernavoda I culture). I. Manzura stressed first on that similarity (2002). But it could also be a continuation element that only indicates preservation of Final Copper ceramic traditions, and in turn confirms very early dating of the site in the Early Bronze I chronology. For the topic of this study, the newly discovered Early Bronze I evidence from Upper Thrace has completely changed our view on the cultural processes in this region. In light of the new evidence from Upper Thrace (Dubene-Sarovka (Nikolova 1996; 1999a; 1999b; 2000d; Drama- Merdzhumekya (Lichardus et al. 2000), etc.) the process of sedentarization appears to be a long process that covered all or most of the second half of the fourth millennium BC. The last model generally contrasts to the 1980s – earlier 1990s view seeing Upper Thrace re-occupied by sedentary population just at the very end of the fourth millennium BC or the beginning of the third millennium BC (Ezero A1 culture). The channel pottery only indicates the multi-aspect interaction processes that existed in the Balkans in the fourth millennium BC. The traditional methodology of archaeological comparative analysis that mechanically relates to the innovation in the material culture with the new population demonstrates limitation and the absence of a possible satisfactory explanation in all cases of the culture changes. As this communication demonstrates, similar archaeological situations can be a result of different social processes that always require a vast and deep synchronous, retrospective and prospective analysis. Drama-Merdzhumekya is one of these tells which the Early Bronze I populations occupied over the ruins of the Late Copper settlements or over Final Copper traces. Archaeologically, the Early Bronze I settlements have been recorded over Late / Final Copper (Dubene-Sarovka, Yunatsite, Karanovo, Ezero, Dyadovo, etc.), Neolithic tells (for instance Veselinovo), or there were also newly founded settlements (for instance Ognyanovo). For a long period, Ezero was a key site for the cultural-chronological column of Early Bronze I sites in Upper Thrace, it represented a model, according to which the Upper Thrace was occupied at one and the same time. But the newly interpreted and newly obtained radiocarbon dates from Dubene-Sarovka, Plovdiv-Nebet Tepe, etc. have indicated a gradual process of occupation of the tells and other prehistoric sites (Nikolova 1999a; 1999b). It appears that in the later fourth millennium BC, there were preconditions in Upper Thrace not only for sedentarization, but also for an increase of the population. Such demographic patterns characterize the agricultural societies. It is noteworthy to compare the pattern of babies’ burials that in Early Bronze Upper Thrace is comparable by the number of buried children in settlements only with Early Neolithic. In the last period, we had a similar process of gradual cultivation of the land that required considerable labor. In other words, along with other aspects, the numerous settlement burials of babies indicate a high rate of births, which in turn preconditioned a high rate of death. Conclusions and further considerations The migration theory and the theory of social changes applied to the cultural processes during Final Copper and Early Bronze I in the Balkans are not two extremes, as the theory of the social change implies migrations. But the latter are only some of the reasons for the changes in the material culture. In respect to the Final Copper Age, the theory of social change includes explained strategies that employ all the various records but not deliberate data that usually underpin the migration theory. This communication continues to approach the theoretical and archaeological background for explanation of the cultural changes in the Balkans in the latest fifth and during the fourth millennia BC (see Nikolova 1999a; 2000a; 2000b) explained by the development of the theoretical foundation and including new archaeological data and interpretations. The model is social-economic changes from sedentary and semi-sedentary towards mobile semi-mobile communities and followed an intensive process of sedentarization in the latter fourth millennium BC. These changes include not only the most visible archeological sings such as settlement pattern and pottery production (see above). Other cultural components are also important such as a relocation of the population towards exploring higher elevations in the mountains (for instance, the Rhodopes) and adopting new types of weapons/implements (the daggers) that characterize Final Copper in the Balkans. In some regions, such as the Struma valley and Northwest Bulgaria, documentation of a dynamic, but relatively continuing, transformation of the material culture (in light of Kolarovo evidence (Pernicheva 2000) and the newly excavated cemetery near the village of Telish that may fill the hiatus between Telish 3 and Telish 4 from the Final Copper Age). The innovation of arsenic bronze in the later first half of the fourth millennium BC (Vajsov 1993, Hotnitsa-Vodopada) and re-sedentarization in the later fourth millennium BC are among the most significant characteristics of Early Bronze I. Further, the intensification of contact with neighbors and distant cultures and the integration with immigrants from the north-east resulted in the formation of a big cultural system that intensively integrated the Balkans with Northeast Anatolia (Troada), eastern central Europe, and the northwest Black Sea. The vast areas that cover the channel pottery style in Early Bronze I is one of the instances of the intensive interactions. The possible future analysis of the nature of distribution may provide archaeological arguments for the function of the innovation in the later Balkan prehistoric society. The acceptance of the last resulted in formation of the big Balkan Early Bronze I cultural system, in which possibly involved continental Greece, but Final Copper and Early Bronze I are still not well investigated in this region (see Rogers & Shoemaker 1971 for the theory of innovation). M. Rowlands (1993) posed the question of the role of memory in the transmission of the culture. One model that the Balkan prehistory represents is a circa 500 year cycle of considerable change in the ceramic style – from painted Early Neolithic to channel and encrusted Late Neolithic followed by encrusted-and-graphite Early Copper changed by graphite Late Copper, then, by monochrome Final Copper, then, by channel Early Bronze I, and encrusted Early Bronze II. Possibly 6 to 12 generations have been involved in these cycles. On its side, in each cycle, previous elements may continue with different intensity. For instance, the encrusted pottery of Early Copper type still continues as an exception in KaranovoVI – Gumelnita – Varna and Krivodol – Salcuta – Bubanj graphite ceramic styles. Another variant represents the encrusted pottery that occurs among the plain and channel pottery of Early Bronze I in the Southern Balkans. So, we have two aspects – a continuation of some traditional elements transmitted my certain shapes and/or household traditions, as well as invention and acceptance of the innovation and its popularization and widening up to full or considerable replacement of the tradition style. Along with this, the area factor is very strong, as the processes spread over big territories relatively fast. From this perspective, the Final Copper follows the common Balkan prehistoric pattern, the explanation of which includes consideration of stylistic, social, psychological, economic and many other factors responsible for the change of the ceramic style. On the other hand, in historic plan, every one of these cycles has its own historic background and one explanation model cannot be found, which is valid for all periods. Then the future direction of the investigation of the social changes in the Final Copper Balkans is a deep diachronic analysis of the previous cultural processes that would reveal pattern and direction of development to explain at least some of the innovations during this period. In other words, the social processes of shift from predominated sedentary to predominated mobile pastoral communities was a reason for change in the settlement pattern and in the ceramic styles. But the mechanism of these changes was underpinned by the cultural pattern and cultural memory not only of traditions but also of the mechanism of acceptance and distribution of the innovations. The change in the material culture in southeastern Europe in the fourth millennium BC has been a background for many speculations including a development of Indo-European archaeology. As the recent investigations show, changes in the Balkans have not been a result of a new population, on one hand. On the other hand, the dialectic understanding of language formation and development do not require such a population change as a precondition for language change. There is no reason the formation, distribution and development of the Indo-European languages is connected with any material culture changes because these are two different cultural phenomena. As the Thracians, the core of Balkan ancient population from the later second and first millennium BC, were Indo-Europeans, then, the bearers of the earlier archaeological cultures can be seen as Proto-Indo-Europeans with a long, dynamic and controversial history in Europe (Zvelebil 1995), particularly in the Balkans. REFERENCES |
 |
| 2002-2003© International Institute of Anthropology and Prehistory Foundation 2002-2003©Lolita Nikolova, Ph.D. All rights reserved. Published on: 06/26/02. Last updated: 01/18/03 |
 |
|
| since 06/26/02 |
 |
 |
| REPORTS OF PREHISTORIC RESEARCH PROJECTS. WEB SUPPLEMENT No. 1. PUBLISHED BY INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ANTHROPOLOGY AND PREHISTORY FOUNDATION. SALT LAKE CITY - SOFIA - KARLOVO. 2002. ISSN 1310-8174 APPROACH TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF SOCIAL CHANGE (A CASE STUDY FROM BALKAN LATER PREHISTORY) by Lolita Nikolova |
 |
 |
|
|