_UDK 903'01(497.2)"634"_
Documenta Praehistorica XXXV (2008)
Towards an understanding of Early Neolithic populations:
a flint perspective from Bulgaria
Maria Gurova
National Institute of Archaeology and Museum, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Bulgaria
gurovam@yahoo.fr
ABSTRACT - The evidence from the Bulgarian Early Neolithic chipped stone industry reveals coher-
ent and diagnostic flint assemblages for the vast Karanovo I and II cultural area, characterized by
high quality yellow-honey coloured flint, quite long and regular blades, with (bi)lateral semi-abrupt
high retouch and sometimes with rounded or pointed ends, as well as highly (re-)used sickle inserts.
These assemblages possess many characteristics of so-called 'formal tools' (as distinct from expedient
ones), the production of which required a special raw material, advanced preparation, anticipated
use, and transportability. The wide geographical distribution and circulation of this formal toolkit
implies that lithics could be conceived as a factor in identity and social cohesion, and as an impor-
tant aspect of the Neolithic mentality for doing things'.
IZVLEČEK - Bolgarski zgodnjeneolitski zbiri kamnitih orodij kažejo koherentno sliko diagnostičnih
tipov, značilnih za kulture Karanovo I in II. Značilna je uporaba visoko kakovostnega kremena ru-
meno-medene barve, dolge in pravilne kline z (bi)lateralno polstrmo retušo, občasno zaobljene ko-
nice in preuporabo armature za srpe. Ti zbiri kažejo značilnosti 'formalnih orodij' (za razliko od
ad hoc orodij); za njihovo proizvodnjo so potrebne posebne surovine, zahtevna priprava, načrtna
uporaba in prenosljivost. Veliko geografsko območje kroženja teh formalnih orodij kaže, da lahko
kamnita orodja razumemo kot element identitete, družbene kohezije in pomemben vidik neolitskega
pristopa k 'delanju stvari'.
KEY WORDS - Early Neolithic; formal flint toolkit; diagnostic tool; big retouched blades; raw mate-
rial; Balkan flint; functional analysis
"Archaeologists can only study the past by means of surviving mate-
rial, and it is perhaps understandable that the primary archaeological
concern has been to explain the creation of the archaeological record
by reference to past human actions."	J. Barrett
Introduction
The richness of Bulgarian Neolithic culture, with the
paraphernalia of its artistic representations and deep
semantic connotations, is well known and still vividly
interpreted and debated. This paper discusses a kind
of material not often considered in this context - flint
assemblages - being far less attractive in embodied
depictions and cognitive suggestions.
In terms of the traditional distinction between diffe-
rent theoretical approaches in archaeology, Bulga-
rian archaeology has tended to follow the conven-
tional culture-historical paradigm which focuses on
placing archaeological material... "in time and space,
[guiding] archaeologists in their successful develop-
ment of archaeological sequences ... and [group-
ing] related materials into 'cultures' with clear spa-
tial and temporal boundaries" (Renfrew and Bahn
2005.213). There have been no systematic attempts
to apply some challenging and relevant processual/
post-processual explanatory or interpretive models.
In this sense the level of
enquiry and knowledge is
based more on the 'what,
where, when' questions,
than on the 'how and why'
(ibid. 214). This could be
regarded as a retrograde
(or at least old-fashioned)
style of pursuing archaeo-
logical research; at the
same time, the lack of cog-
nitive conceptualism has
protected Bulgarian archa-
eology from excessive
theoretical proxies, rheto-
rical speeches, and impro-
vable scenarios. This pro-
tective effect could be seen
as a positive consequence
of the dominant research
orthodoxy.
Whatever the advantages
or disadvantages of exist-
ing approaches to archaeo-
logical research in Bulgaria, there is undoubtedly a
poverty of language, terminology and connotations,
which would otherwise permit recent archaeological
studies to be appreciated and evaluated without
ideological and epistemological scepticism from the
wider scientific community. Notions and concepts
such as 'identity, artefact biography (together with
the functional and symbolic meaning of the arte-
facts), deliberate fragmentation, enchainment and
accumulation, (in-)dividual personhood, social in-
teractions, cultural adaptation and transformation,
symbolic metaphors', etc., unfortunately are not yet
in sufficiently frequent or adequate use. An excep-
tion is the study of flint industries, where the postu-
late of a 'chaine operatoire' is (unavoidably!) ap-
propriated, but usually quite marginally and super-
ficially applied and presented. Other exceptions are
the studies by scholars such as D. Bailey, J. Chapman
and, more recently, B. Gaydarska, which have intro-
duced new epistemological and explanatory aspects
to the interpretation of the material culture of the
Balkan Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods (Bailey
2000; 2005; Chapman 2000; Chapman and Gay-
darska 2007).
Fig. 1. Map with Early Neolithic sites: black symbol - western group studied
by I. Gatsov; red symbol - study and direct observation of the author; blue
symbol - 'monochrome pottery' sites. The three main flint outcrops are indi-
cated by yellow signs in relation to modern cities. Arrows indicate presumed
directions of: spread of Neolithisation - black; distribution of Dobrudzha
flint - yellow. Numbered sites: 1 - Kovačevo; 2 - Slatina; 3 - Rakitovo; 4 -
Kapitan Dimitrievo; 5 - Yabalkovo; 6 - Azmak; 7 - Karanovo; 8 - Dzhulju-
nitsa; 9 - Koprivets; 10 - Ohoden.
of material culture and spirituality, almost exclusi-
vely of pottery (Nikolov 1998; 2006; 2007). Ceramic
vessel ornamentation and the variability of sculptu-
red objects (especially figurines), being particular ar-
tistic depictions of the human mind and imagery in
the past, have unavoidably focused the attention of
scholars on the search for the paraphernalia of (in-
dividual ability, mentality and behaviour of Neoli-
thic people.
Another way of approaching the mind of Neolithic
society involves a more 'prosaic' interpretation of
subsistence and household activities, skill and tech-
nology, toolkit style and evolution (in terms of re-
tardation, innovation and standardization) decision
making, resilience and revival of technology and be-
havioural strategy, etc. The study of flint assemblages
is an intrinsic part of this alternative research di-
rection, and the present paper tries to improve the
interpretive scope of flint toolkits in relation to the
perpetual debate about the Neolithisation process
and its emphasis on social agency (with particular
reference to Bulgaria, but with some indispensable
references to adjacent regions).
Concerning the Neolithic period, very few general
and fundamental studies have been published (To-
dorova and Vaisov 1993); instead, there is a pre-
ponderance of specialized studies of different aspects
Current problems and research objectives
The focus of this study is the diagnostic flint toolkits
which form an intrinsic part of the Early Neolithic
assemblages of the Karanovo I and II cultures. Apart
from their distinctive techno-typological and functio-
nal features, another key feature is the special raw
material from which the toolkits are made: high
quality, yellow-honey coloured flint, with sporadic
whitish spots (well known and often referred to in
the literature as Balkan Platform flint). The complex
of significative traits of these toolkits permits them
to be conceived as one of the diagnostic elements of
Early Neolithic material culture (Gurova 2005).
Typologically, these toolkits consist mostly of medium
to long, regularly-shaped blades, ranging between
12 and 15cm long, frequently with (bi-)lateral semi-
abrupt retouch (from marginal to high and steep),
and sometimes with rounded or pointed ends. Most
of the artefacts in these toolkits possess macro- and
micro-wear traces of use. The flint assemblages re-
veal many characteristics of so-called 'formal tools',
whose production requires "... a special raw mate-
rial, advanced preparation, anticipated use and
transportability' (Andrefski 1994.22). From a tech-
nological point of view, this industry indicates the
application of indirect percussion (punch technique).
Pressure flaking with an organic stick is used for the
characteristic high and steep retouching. It must be
stressed that neither cores nor common debitage
linked with their preparation are attested among the
assemblages. In this sense, any attempt to apply
some diacritic concept of 'chaine operatoire' recon-
struction of the toolkits fails.
These formal tools are recorded in varying density
and quantity among the flint assemblages of many
Early Neolithic settlements, some of which had short
Fig. 2. Formal toolkit from Kovačevo (photo M. Gurova).
life-spans, and others reveal only limited archaeolo-
gical evidence. Only a few sites offer the possibility
of studying the formal tools in conditions of chang-
ing contextual data. For example, Tell Karanovo,
with its representative cultural sequence from Early
Neolithic to Bronze Age, provides a rare opportunity
to trace the development and evolution of flint as-
semblages belonging to different strata. The obser-
vation made is that formal tools as elements of the
typological repertoire are frequently attested from
the Karanovo I to Karanovo II-III periods. During Ka-
ranovo III and even in Karanovo III-IV they appear
sporadically as reminiscent forms (Gurova 2002;
2004). In the new periodization of the Karanovo se-
quence, periods III and III-IV belong to the first stage
of the Late Neolithic (Nikolov 1998.18). To date, no
other well-stratified site permits observations regar-
ding the 'evolution' of formal toolkits.
In spite of the fact that an impressive corpus of flint
studies has been done over the last two decades, too
many questions still arise with regard to these flint
toolkits: tracing their (becoming mythologically over-
exposed!) raw material, its outcrops and procure-
ment strategy; the location of their workshops, iden-
tification of their manufacturers (flint knappers) and
technological origin; the identification of their distri-
bution and exchange network mechanisms; eluci-
dating their interactions and impacts with adjacent
Early Neolithic cultural groups and identities, etc.
Undoubtedly, this article, will not find satisfactory
answers to all these questions, but will try to present
and offer relevant comments on the current state of
research and, without offering an attractive new sce-
nario, will suggest that there are still key problems
concerning the perpetual debate
on the Neolithisation of the Bal-
kans.
In order to make visible and un-
derstandable some of the fea-
tures of the formal toolkits, co-
lour photographs of the artefacts
are presented, mainly to high-
light the distinctive appearance
of the high quality yellow-waxy-
honey flint from north Bulgaria.
Chronological and spatial li-
mits of the formal toolkits
As a first step it is useful to out-
line the chronological framework
of the Early Neolithic in Bulgaria,
with some comments on the sites concerned. The
Early Neolithic can be divided into two phases (Bo-
yadziev 1995. 179):
•	Early pottery ('monochrome' phase) -
6300/6200-6000/ 5900 calBC;
•	Early ('classical' phase) - 6000/5900- 5500/5450
calBC.
The earliest 14C date from Polianitsa-Platoto - 6420-
6230 calBC (Görsdorf andBojadžiev 1996.122) - is
not taken into consideration, since there is no pub-
lished evidence from the site directly relating to the
problem under discussion.
Apart from the relatively new dates from Kovačevo,
the very promising Yabalkovo site (14C dates not yet
published) could refine the dating of the start of the
'classical' Early Neolithic period. Kovačevo has two
early dates of 6159-5926 calBC and 6064-5808
calBC, and a cluster of three dates c. 5980-5730
calBC (Lichardus-Itten et al. 2006.85).
Two sites belonging to the monochrome phase of the
Neolithic are briefly discussed below, and it is worth
mentioning their dating. Ohoden (northwest Bulga-
ria), although sometimes attributed to the mono-
chrome phase, dates to the beginning of the VI mil-
lennium BC (Ganetsovski 2008).
Some dates from Dzhuljunitsa (north central Bulga-
ria), according to the excavator, fall in the last three
centuries of the VII millennium BC1. The pottery fea-
tures confirm the attribution of the site to the earli-
est Neolithic in Bulgaria (Elenski 2004; 2007).
With regard to the time span of the toolkits under
discussion and their function, it is useful to point out
that they are abundant during the whole 'classical'
Early Neolithic Karanovo I and II periods of the Tell
Karanovo sequence, or until c. 5500 calBC. On the
other hand, in terms of their lasting 'retardation' in
the same sequence, the end of the Karanovo III pe-
riod at Tell Karanovo: 5500-5280 calBC (Görsdorf
1997.379) can be regarded as a terminus ante quem
for the presence of formal toolkits.
Spatial distribution of the formal toolkits
Local distribution
The formal toolkits are commonly found in the vast
area of the Karanovo I and II cultures and their con-
stituent regions in southern Bulgaria: Thrace - Tells
Azmak, Karanovo and Kapitan Dimitrievo, and the
Yabalkovo site; the northern foothills of the Rhodo-
pes Mountains - the Rakitovo site, Sofia Plain - Sla-
tina; and Struma Valley - Kovačevo (Fig. 1). The map
shows sites in western Bulgaria which have been
published, albeit briefly, by Ivan Gatsov (black sym-
bols). Other research has been undertaken by the
author, and some of this work is still in progress
(red symbols). In north Bulgaria the flint industry
exhibits a very different pattern (exclusively expe-
dient in character, and an absence of the formal
tools under discussion here), despite the fact that a
proportion of the artefacts were made using the
same raw material as used for manufacturing the
formal tools discussed. Two sites belonging to the
'monochrome' phase of the Early Neolithic sequence
are marked in blue, in recognition of their important
position in the context of the Neolithisa-
tion debate (see below).
Supra-regional distribution
Formal toolkits as a distinguishable cate-
gory of the Early Neolithic flint repertoire
have never before been discussed in the
literature in their complex technological
and social dimensions. Nevertheless, some
aspects of their stylistic 'coherence' have
often been observed in the course of work
on different assemblages from adjacent
major cultural areas - Proto-Sesklo, Star-
čevo, Körös-Cri§. The most common fea-
ture mentioned in these studies is the pre-
sence of raw material from the Pre-Balkan
platform among the Early Neolithic assem-
blages from the Balkans.
Fig. 3. Formal toolkit from Yabalkovo (photo M. Gurova).
1 Personal communication by N. Elenski with confirmation of forthcoming publication of 14C dates.
According to Catherine Perles, a cha-
racteristic feature of the chipped-
stone assemblages of Neolithic Gre-
ece is the "predominant use of non-
local raw materials often obtained
from considerable distances" (Per-
les 2001.201). She claims that..."ho-
ney flint was never worked in the
settlements, and the number of im-
ported blades in each assemblage -
often less than a dozen - was too
small to warrant expeditions to the
sources" (ibid. 207). Perles further
observes that 'sickle blades' were
the dominant 'typological' (formal)
tools in Early Neolithic assemblages,
and that..."Zarger, heavier 'sickle-
blades' of honey or yellow flints
were imported and always as bla-
des rather than cores. They were
produced by indirect percussion
and also pressure-flaking. The ori-
gin of these blades is still unknown:
the west coast is the most likely can-
didate, but the quarries have still to
be found' (ibid. 202).
Unfortunately, there is no up-to-date
data base that would permit compa-
rison with the chipped-stone indus-
tries from Nea-Nikomedeia and Gian-
nitsa in Greek Macedonia. Recently,
interesting and promising research
has been done by G. Philippakis on
north Greek Neolithic assemblages coming from out-
side the obsidian area. I hope our further study and
collaboration will lead to positive issues of reliable
comparison of the assemblages from both regions -
Bulgarian Thrace and Greek Macedonia.
From the Ovce Pole region the crucial culture group
of Anzabegovo-Vršnik is very promising, but still eni-
gmatic from a lithic point of view. The affinities of
this group are uncertain, and will only be revealed
when comparative studies are possible. The mater-
ial from Anza was studied by E. Elster, but there is
no strictly stratified approach to the assemblages,
and consideration of the chronological sequence is
rather complicated. However, Elster mentioned that
among the implements was "honey-brown flint, ap-
pearing to be similar to well known eastern Euro-
pean flint with no known local source" (Elster
1977.161).
Fig. 4. Typological characteristics of the toolkit from Yabalkovo
(drawing M. Gurova).
The Iron Gates region will be briefly discussed on
the basis of Boric's new interpretation of the succes-
sion of sites, cultural phenomena and problems in
this area. The conformity of Early Neolithic Balkan
flint assemblages in terms of the relative abundance
and uniformity of their raw material was underlined
a decade ago, with the intention of putting into com-
parative perspective the studies of Vlasac and Lepen-
ski Vir, undertaken by Kozlowski and Kozlowski
(Borić 1999). Concerning the flint assemblage of Le-
penski Vir (potentially a key site for clarifying many
aspects of the transition from the local Mesolithic to
the Neolithic), clear stratigraphic ambiguities are do-
cumented, which probably explain the fact that Bal-
kan flint was found 'associated' with the architectu-
ral features of Lepenski Vir I and II (Mesolithic strata)
(Borić 1999.53). An assessment of the later, Neoli-
thic lithics is presented by Boric as follows: "With
the start of the Neolithic in the Balkans, there is a
general trend toward the laminarization of blades
and the use of steep retouch, as
well as a tendency to use good
quality raw material of attrac-
tive appearance, such as yellow-
spotted flint from pre-Balkan
platform that most likely origi-
nated in the region of Shumen
in north-east Bulgaria" (Borić
2005.19). It is worth mentioning
two hoards of blanks and cores
made from Balkan flint placed in
Early Neolithic pots (according to
Srejović 1969; 1972) and a nod-
ule refitted with a retouched
blade made of Balkan flint from
sector I at Padina (Borić 1999.
54). These can be regarded as
evidence of exchange practices
among the Iron Gates communi-
ties. Hopefully, new excavations
at Vlasac will produce reliable
evidence and will extend the
study of Early Neolithic flint as-
semblages to the larger supra-re-
gional scale. It should be stressed
that in chronological terms the
transition between Mesolithic-
and Neolithic-type diets "... cen-
tred around... 6156-5721 calBC,
and that agriculture was being
practised in the Lepenski Vir -
Vlasac area by.c. 5700 calBC'
(Bonsall et al. 2000.130).
According to J. Kozlowski, the
'tardif' phase of Golocut (Voyvo-
dina) offers some dozen imple-
ments of yellow flint from the Pre-Balkan platform;
the drawings of some implements from the site con-
firm the typological similarity with the formal tools
discussed in this paper (Koztowski 1982.150; Figs.
11, 12). The same author concludes that in the area
of the Körös-Cri§ culture there are retouched blades
and unretouched sickle segments made of yellow
imported flint - as a result of direct diffusion from
the Balkans (Koztowski 1982.154).
In the southeast there is undeniable evidence of the
penetration of formal tools of Karanovo I aspect in
Hoca qe§me phase II (Gatsov 2000; 2005).
Comparative evidence from Romanian Early Neoli-
thic flint assemblages is very limited and the distri-
bution of 'yellow-spotted' raw material and items in
Fig. 5. Typological characteristics of the toolkit from Yabalkovo (dra-
wing M. Gurova).
this direction is still to be adequately documented,
although Bonsall has reported the presence of Bal-
kan flint artefacts in Cri§ culture contexts at Schela
Cladovei on the left bank of the Danube, a few kilo-
metres downstream from the Iron Gates gorge (Bon-
sall 2003; 2008).
As a concluding remark, it should be stressed that
no special study elucidating the scale and intensity
of the circulation and spread of yellow-spotted flint
artefacts has been undertaken. The reasons are
many, the most important being the scarcity of pu-
blications with relevant and detailed information
about Early Neolithic flint assemblages among which
these formal toolkits are detectable. This applies par-
ticularly to some emblematic sites adjacent to Bulga-
rian lands and cultural areas.
Present state of research on discussed assem-
blages
In the early 1990s, a study of the Neolithic chipped-
stone industry of western Bulgaria was published by
I. Gatsov, with the following general observations
and conclusions (these are quoted directly because
of the important further comments that are derived
from them):
•	During the Early Neolithic a highly developed
technology of macroblade production took place;
the exploitation of cores (mainly single-platform)
"took place sometimes outside the settlement's
area" (Gatsov 1993.40);
•	This technology "was connected with the exploi-
tation of high quality yellow (or wax-coloured)
flint with white or grey spots";..."Early Neolithic
groups were able to exploit raw material sour-
ces which were very distant from their settle-
ments''; .."typical macroblades, especially made
from yellow flint, were obtained either by ex-
changing goods or during special trips to the
area of location of yellow flint outcrops, most
probably in North-West Bulgaria" (ibid. 40-41);
•	"...in the quarry areas, in the workshops, these
groups (of manufacturers) had the possibility to
'waste' the material, selecting only standardized
macroblades. Consequently, in the area of their
settlements, the population was forced to con-
form to the restrictions caused by distant sour-
ces of raw material' (ibid. 44);
• Part of the macroblades were treated with high,
semi-abrupt retouch on one or both sides (ibid.
45).
Essentially, Gatsov's observations contain all the ele-
ments necessary for distinguishing the formal tool-
kit, but he stopped short of doing so, perhaps be-
cause of scarce empirical data, or simply because at
that time it was probably beyond the scope of his re-
search. In his study he presents five Early Neolithic
flint assemblages from sites belonging to the south-
west variant of the Karanovo I culture: Slatina,
Eleshnitsa, Rakitovo, Sapareva Bania, Kovačevo (Ni-
kolov 1996). The sites of Galabnik, Pernik and Gra-
deshnitsa show an affinity in pottery style with the
Karanovo I and II cultures, but instead are interpre-
ted as belonging to the culture of west Bulgarian
painted pottery (Todorova, Vaisov 1993 98). Later,
Gatsov continued his study of Neolithic assembla-
ges from Bulgaria, Turkish Trace and northwest Ana-
tolia, with a particular emphasis on tracing the roots
of Neolithic industries (e.g. Gatsov 2001; 2006; Öz-
dogan and Gatsov 1998; Gatsov and Gurova 1998).
An important aspect of the study was undertaken
in collaboration with a geologist, with the aim of
defining the raw materials of Karanovo I and II as-
semblages and tentatively identifying their outcrops
(Gatsov and Kurčatov 1997, see below).
Over the last decade the present author has carried
out a study (focusing on use-wear analysis) of the
main (Early) Neolithic sites in Bulgaria: the Karano-
vo, Azmak, and Kapitan Dimitrievo tells, and sites at
Kovačevo, Rakitovo, Yabalkovo, Slatina, Dzhuljunitsa
- the study of the latter three is
still in progress (Gurova 1997;
2001a; 2002; 2004). The flint as-
semblages from two early farm-
ing sites in the Marmara region
have also been included: Ilipinar
and Mente§e (Gurova 2001b;
2006). The results of these stud-
ies lead the author to conclude
that among all Early Neolithic
flint assemblages belonging to
the sites of the Karanovo I and
II cultural area, there is a distin-
guishable part of the typological
repertoire, consisting of several
formal tools, which suggests they
should be conceived as diagnos-
tic tool-markers (Gurova 2005).
A diachronic analysis of the most
Fig. 6. Formal toolkit from Rakitivo (photo M. Gurova).
representative sequence from
Tell Karanovo enabled the maxi-
mum time span of their currency
among the flint assemblages of
later Neolithic periods/phases to
be established (Gurova 2004, see
above).
It is worth mentioning briefly
some of the sites I consider to be
very promising for trying to an-
swer the questions formulated
above concerning the formal
toolkits. According to the Kova-
čevo excavation team, it appears
that "...stratigraphical and stylis-
tic evidence from Kovačevo
clearly shows that this region
was occupied at a period earlier
that the currently known for
the Thracian Early Neolithic Ka-
ranovo culture"..!1 If ever there
were direct contacts between
Kovačevo and Karanovo I in
Bulgarian Thrace, they must
only have taken place, judging
from the pottery styles, in a late
period." (Kovačevo Id) (Lichar-
dus-Itten at al. 2006.87). This ge-
neral conclusion is supported by
my own observations on the evo-
lution of the lithics: the Kovačevo
sequence starts with a rich reper-
toire of artefacts that are made from mainly grey to
black raw material that originates from the Western
Rhodopes. In the upper levels of the Kovačevo I se-
quence (Ic and Id), a representative presence of the
discussed flint toolkit is documented (Fig. 2)2. This
site, on the basis of detailed stratigraphic indications
leading to reliable units, will permit us to establish
the precise stratigraphic position/relationship be-
tween these tools and other cultural indicators, such
as white-on-red painted pottery, or some another still
invisible marker.
Another site where these toolkits are very promi-
nent is Yabalkovo, situated in the Maritsa River val-
ley, in Upper Thrace, with cultural attribution to the
Karanovo I horizon and a strong detectable Anato-
lian influence (Leshtakov et al. 2007.208). The im-
pressive abundance of the flint industry from this
site (and the richness of formal toolkits) provides an
Fig. 7. Typological characteristics of the toolkit from Rakitovo (draw-
ing M. Gurova).
opportunity to focus on their technological parame-
ters and eventually trace their origin in some Anato-
lian technocomplex (Figs. 3-5). There is already a
published preliminary report on a series of flint ar-
tefacts, which will be discussed below.
The Early Neolithic site of Rakitovo (in the foothills
of the Rhodopes) is one of the most interesting set-
tlements, combining elements of the Karanovo I cul-
ture on the one hand, and the complex of west Bul-
garian painted pottery with strong similarities to the
Starčevo culture, on the other (Raduncheva et al.
2002). The flint assemblage is very small (50 arte-
facts) and comprises mainly a formal toolkit - 18
tools made of honey-yellow flint (Figs. 6, 7). The rest
of the collection consists of 16 blades, 14 flakes and
fragments, and 2 cores. The debitage items are made
predominantly of a local raw material which is wide-
spread throughout the Rhodope Mountains.
2 This reasoning is argued in my last three reports of Kovačevo, for example: Fouilles neolithique franco-bulgare de Kovačevo- rap-
port 21, Paris 2007.
Fig. 8. Formal toolkit from Slatina (photo M. Gurova).
Slatina, an Early Neolithic site in Sofia city, is equal-
ly rich in formal tools, but the most spectacular evi-
dence is the identification of the workshop area,
with about 2800 artefacts in the large dwelling. The
flint implements were studied and very briefly pre-
sented as an appendix in the publication by N. Ska-
kun and I. Gatsov (Nikolov 1992) (Fig. 8). Of parti-
cular interest here is the 'coexistence' of the formal
tools located in the living space of the dwelling with
the bulk of debitage items concentrated in the knap-
ping area. Unfortunately, the biggest part of the
workshop implements were damaged in the fire that
destroyed the building, and the 'burned' aspect of
their surfaces makes their study very difficult and
limited.
The flint assemblages from Tells Karanovo and Az-
mak have been studied and published by I. Gatsov
and M. Gurova, and later came to be considered as a
diagnostic feature of the tell settlements. The percen-
tage of formal tools is extremely high in the layer of
the Karanovo I and II periods in the eponymous tell
(Fig. 9), as well as in layers I-V of Tell Azmak belon-
ging to the Karanovo II culture (Fig. 10). There is a
clear predominance of blades with high, steep re-
touch among the assemblages from both tells.
The differences between the Early
Neolithic assemblages from the
southern cultural area and those
located north of the Stara Planina
are well known and require no fur-
ther emphasis (Todorova and Vai-
sov 1993). As already mentioned,
formal toolkits are not documented
among the assemblages from Early
Neolithic sites in central and north-
west Bulgaria. It should be remem-
bered that the Early Neolithic has
yet to be discovered in the north-
eastern part of the country, possibly
linked to adverse environmental
conditions at the end of the VII mil-
lennium BC (ibid. 128).
Nevertheless, it is interesting to note
that two sites, Ohoden and Dzulju-
nitsa, both belonging to the 'mono-
chrome' Neolithic - best represented
in the area by the Koprivets culture
- show rather divergent cultural affi-
liations. The former is equated with
the final phase of the Proto-Starcevo
culture, with apparent parallels at
sites such as Divostin, Donja Branje-
vina, Padina, Lepenski Vir IIIa, Gura Baciului and,
respectively, in Bulgaria at Koprivets, Polianitsa-pla-
toto, and Dzhujunitsa (Ganetsovski 2008). The lat-
ter, through its links to the same Koprivets culture,
shows affinities with the Fikirtepe culture in the Mar-
mara region, as well as with the pottery assemblage
from the Anatolian colony on the Aegean coast at
Hoca ge§me (Elenski 2004; 2006).
T. Tsonev has carried out a study of flint assembla-
ges from central-north Bulgaria, which represents a
relevant and basic technological approach toward
the particular local facies of expedient industries,
focusing dominantly on blade production and sho-
wing similarities with Early Neolithic sites in Serbia
and Romania. Some similarities (but not convinc-
ingly presented) with the lithic inventory from Le-
penski Vir are mentioned (Tsonev 2000; 2007). My
pilot study on a part of the Koprivets flint assem-
blage and a preliminary series from Dzuljunitsa
shows the use of a honey-yellow type of raw mate-
rial (identical with that of the Karanovo I culture for-
mal toolkit), but also quite different structure, typo-
logical repertoire and functional features of the as-
semblages in comparison with south Bulgarian ones.
There are no sickle inserts among the collections,
which is a significant observation with regard to the
subsistence activities of local Early Neolithic commu-
nities.
Raw material for the toolkits: where from?
How should we summarize our knowledge of the
raw material parameters of Early Neolithic assem-
blages and, in particular, their formal toolkits? It has
already been mentioned that foreign specialists
have drawn attention to the high quality and yellow-
honey-waxy colour of a particular raw material ori-
ginating from north-east Bulgaria (pre-Balkan plat-
form), and its spread across the region. One study
fixed the provenance in the vicinity of Shumen (Voy-
tek 1987).
On the local level the research has gone more slow-
ly. There have been some sporadic studies of crypto-
crystalline siliceous rocks ('flint') over the past three
decades. The first to show the abundance and vari-
ety of the flint sources from north-east Bulgaria, and
who tried to establish a database and link the identi-
fied flint outcrops with prehistoric artefacts and their
circulation, was K. Kanchev (Kanchev 1978; Kan-
chev et al. 1981).
In his publication, I. Gatsov presumed north-west
Bulgaria was the region of provenance of the raw
material used for Early Neolithic assemblages from
western Bulgaria (see below). At the same time, N.
Skakun noticed that "certain specimens are proba-
bly made of Dobrudzha flint". On the basis of her
deep knowledge of north-east Bulgarian flint assem-
blages both from the Neolithic and Chalcolithic, she
conceived this fact rather as accidental, emphasizing
that the exploitation of Dobrudzha flint started no
earlier than the Chalcolithic (Skakun 1993 54). She
had already reached the same conclusion regarding
a dozen implements from the 'big house' of Slatina
(Skakun 1992.102).
There are two general types of flint recognised
among the assemblages from Tells Karanovo and
Azmak. The investigation was done by geologist Kur-
čatov, who suggested that the abundance of arte-
facts was due to the proximity of local outcrops and
he (more theoretically than actually) identified them
in the region of the Saint Ilia hills in eastern Thrace
and not very far from the tells (Gatsov, Kurčatov
1997.215). This assumption has been quoted repea-
tedly, but never substantiated by further serious re-
search. In fact, it could be considered as having been
disproved.
Preliminary research on a series from Yabalkovo
has led R. Zlateva to reveal that "...the predominant
raw material with identified origin comes from
deposits in Upper Thrace, Sredna gora, north (un-
derstand western) Bulgaria and eastern Rhodopes"
(Leshtakov et al. 2007.201).
Fig. 9. Typological characteristics of the toolkit from Tell Karanovo - Karanovo I and II periods (after
M. Gurova 1997.Taf. 92 and 94).
In fact, the first to presume, somewhat theoretically,
a north-eastern provenance for the raw material
used for Neolithic big blades was T. Tsonev. He did
this in the context of his theory about the role of
long blades in the "communal perception of long
distance exchange through common metaphors"
(Tsonev 2004.262).
The research initiated by the present author, in col-
laboration with the mineralogist Ch. Nachev, has
yielded quite different results. In Bulgaria, according
to the geological data, four
distinguishable flint types are
recorded: Hemus, Dobrudzha,
Moesia, and Rhodope flint.
Each type has a different geo-
graphical distribution, geolo-
gical age and diagnostic fea-
tures (Fig. 11). Mineralogical
comparison of these different
types of flints from Bulgaria
unequivocally distinguishes
Dobrudzha flint as the most
desired material for knap-
ping, and the unique homo-
geneity and dimensions of the
nodules permitted core prepa-
ration and debitage of big la-
minar blanks (Nachev, forth-
coming). Nachev's investiga-
tion is based on geological
samples and archaeological ar-
tefacts from the sites of Ko-
vačevo, Rakitovo, Yabalkovo,
and Dzhuljunitsa. His macro-
scopic observation suggests
that the flint that is most simi-
lar to the archaeological sam-
ples derives from the Dobru-
dzha flint strata in lower Cre-
taceous limestone deposits.
This flint has perfect conchoi-
dal fracture, which makes it
of optimal quality for knap-
ping. The outcrops where this
material originates come from
the districts of Rasgrad, Ispe-
rih, and Shumen. Macroscopic
examination and comparative
analysis of archaeological
samples (Fig. 12. A) and the
contemporaneous flakes ta-
ken from the Chakmaka out-
crops near Isperih (Fig. 12.B),
and Kriva reka secondary deposits, located north
from Shumen (Fig. 12.C) show that they are visual-
ly identical in character. Therefore it is most likely
that the formal flint toolkits from the Early Neolithic
Karanovo I and II cultural sequence in Bulgaria, ori-
ginated from the outcrops in the vicinity of three
towns - Razgrad, Isperih and Shumen (Fig. 1). Fur-
ther thin section analyses by Nachev should reduce
the potential candidates for original outcrops of the
toolkits under discussion. To resolve the problem of
the reliable characterization of 'Balkan flint' sources
Fig. 10. Typological characteristics of the toolkit from Tell Azmak (dra-
wing M. Gurova).
Fig. 11. Geological map showing the distribution of the four major geological units containing 'flint'
deposits in Bulgaria (according to Nachev, forthcoming, Figure 1, adapted version).
inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-
MS) is initiated by analyzing flint samples from var-
ious sources in northern Bulgaria.3 Although archa-
eological evidence for Neolithic workshops in the re-
gion is absent, we have to presume that they existed
in the Early Neolithic for ensuring suitable nodules,
cores (about 18-20cm long) and debitage (blades):
all these products were predestined for the long-
distance exchange of good and perhaps embodied
know-how.
Tracing the origin of the technological features
As mention above, recent examination of the techni-
cal traits of blades (especially with conserved butts
and proximal parts) from sites such as Kovačevo, Ya-
balkovo, Slatina and Rakitovo reveals the use of in-
direct percussion by punch technique. Retouching
was done by simple soft percussion or pressure in
the case of high steep retouch. These observations
were confirmed by J. Pelegrin, in direct conversation
and after observation of a selected series of retou-
ched blades from Yabalkovo.
Chronologically, indirect percussion has been con-
vincingly identified in the Western European Meso-
lithic, c. 7800 BP (6650 calBC). This technique as-
sures the production of big blades, and in special ca-
ses, super-blades, as exemplified by the Neolithic
phenomena of Grand Pressigny (France) and Spien-
nes (Belgium) (Pelegrin 2006.40). Pelegrin's re-
search on blades (most of them fragmented) from
Neolithic strata at Franchthi (6624-6378 calBC) led
him to deduce that lever pressure (the most sophisti-
cated debitage technique) was used to produce most
if not all of them (Pelegrin 2006.48). This sensatio-
nal discovery suggests that there is a priori no theo-
retical reason to deny the appearance and local deve-
lopment of some advanced technological approach.
Concerning the Balkan Neolithic lamellar tradition,
one attempt at tracing its origin was made by J. Ko-
zlowski at 1982. His conclusion was that even in
Greece with its Mesolithic and preceramic Neolithic,
there was a hiatus before the classical Neolithic (Ko-
zlowski 1982.142). Even more drastic is the situa-
tion in Bulgaria where no pre-Neolithic substratum
3 The work will be undertaken in collaboration with C. Bonsall and Rob Ellam at the Isotope GeoScience Facility of the Scottish Uni-
versities Environmental Research Centre, East Kilbride, UK.
Fig. 12. Macroscopic photographs of raw materi-
als: top to bottom, A - archaeological items from:
1- Dzhuljunitsa, 2 - Rakitovo, 3 - Yabalkovo; B -
flint flake from Chakmaka outcrops (near Isperih);
C -flakes from Kriva reka outcrops - near Shumen.
Photo: M. Gurova.
has been identified and the affinity of the Karanovo
I flint industry with the cultural group of Anzabego-
vo-Vrsnik totally excluded the possibility of a local
origin of this industry among an epipalaeolithic po-
pulation (ibid. 149). This rather discouraging con-
cept is repeated consistently by I. Gatsov in his re-
search (Gatsov 2001; 2005; 2006). He concluded
that "the bearers of painted ceramic who brought
this technology and its roots were outside of Eu-
rope. In Bulgaria, it then appears as already estab-
lished know-how" (Gatsov 2006.153). Even more
explicit is H. Todorova who assumed that the ana-
lysis of the flint industries with macroblades from
the Early Neolithic cultures of Karanovo I, Starčevo
and Magulitza reflects their Anatolian roots (Todo-
rova and Vaisov 1993 55).
The problem of tracing our chipped-stone industry
to the comfortable milieu of Anatolia is somehow
cognitive, and as noticed by M. Özdogan... "any at-
tempt at comparing Anatolian assemblage with
that of the Balkans has to consider the nature of
the assemblage as a whole, without overstating the
presence or the absence of selected objects" (Özdo-
gan 2006.23). In the present state of research, such
a relevant comparison is not feasible, and our efforts
should be focused instead on detailed technological
studies of the available assemblages from Kovačevo,
Dzhuljinitsa and Yabalkovo, in order to elucidate the
fundamental and variable technological skills and
decision-making of the Neolithic flint knappers. Many
objective obstacles are unavoidable, including our
lack of knowledge about quarries for obtaining raw
material, about workshops for initial core prepara-
tion and subsequent debitage, about exchange net-
works and strategy, etc. Hopefully, some of these li-
mitatons could be surmounted through new plan-
ned surveys and research. Only then would we be
able to resolve the problem of Early Neolithic mac-
roblade technology in the Balkans.
Functional aspects of the formal tools
By definition, the formal tools are made with some
anticipated functions, and this kind of utilitarian de-
termination represents one of the most peculiar
traits of formal toolkits, whatever their contextual
affiliation. An attempt at use-wear analysis of Early
Neolithic assemblages from Bulgaria was made in
the early 1990s by N. Skakun (Skakun 1992; 1993).
Her study of the functional parameters of west Bul-
garian Neolithic assemblages is informative in a ge-
neral sense and demonstrated a large repertoire of
implement functions, but no possibility of correla-
tion between functional types and their precise stra-
tigraphic positions. The multifunctional aspect of the
artefacts was underlined in the context of common
cereal, hide, bone and wood processing. The pres-
ence of threshing sledge inserts was noted, but with-
out any contextual data (Skakun 199353).
The present author's use-wear observations on nu-
merous collections also show quite variable utiliza-
tion detected on unretouched blades, but mainly on
retouched tools (Gurova 1997; 2001a; 2002; 2004;
2006; Gurova and Gatsov 2000). Blades with margi-
nal retouch are the most polyfunctional among the
artefact categories. Detecting the functions of enough
narrow blades with high steep retouch proved par-
ticularly challenging - in fact, they were mainly used
for scraping wood and hide. Perforators/borers on
bilaterally-retouched blades were mostly used for
drilling different materials.
Among the most impressive and even visually recog-
nisable tools are sickle inserts. These pieces possess
typical cereal polish induced by harvesting (Fig. 13).
Typologically, they comprise unretouched blades,
as well as retouched and truncated blades and end-
scrapers. It is worth noting that these sickle inserts
were often re-sharpened in order to permit reuse for
the same or another function. This approach, if done
repeatedly, resulted in progressive modification of
edges, until they became relatively steep and ineffi-
cient. In some cases, after use in their primary func-
tion, some sickle inserts were reused for hide scra-
ping.
Discussion
The formal toolkits in their contextual embodiment
are intimately linked with the debate and paradigms
of Balkan Neolithisation. Conceivably, they could be
treated as cultural markers, in the same way as the
white-on-red painted pottery of the Karanovo I cul-
ture. Of course, one could say the discriminatory role
of flints as chrono-cultural markers is much more li-
mited, but the important point here is that white-on-
red pottery, whether linked (or not!) to the formal
toolkit, cannot be considered as an indicator of the
beginning of the Neolithic (this refers particularly to
Bulgaria). As Özdogan has argued, it is "...because
painted pottery in Western Anatolia that bears sig-
nificant similarities to those of the Balkans begins
rather late in the Neolithic sequences" (Özdogan
2006.22).
On the other hand, white-painted pottery appears
from the very beginning of the Kovačevo sequence,
but as the excavators of the site have underlined, "it
appears that early levels of Kovačevo have produ-
ced pottery which is earlier than the Karanovo I
culture as it is defined in Bulgarian Thrace. In the
earliest period Kovačevo was really part of a regio-
nal facies that extends from Greek western Mace-
donia in the south (Nea Nikomedeia, Giannitsa)
to the Ovče Pole in the north Anzabegovo, Vrsnik."
(Lichardus-Itten at al. 2002.130). This conclusion
does not contradict the theory of an initial Neolithic
diffusion along the Struma valley, but simply advo-
cates that the first Neolithic settlers in the region
Fig. 13. Microphotographs of cereal polish on a
tool from Kovačevo (cf. Fig. 2, first row, second
from right). Microphoto - M. Gurova, using a Leitz
Orthoplan microscope with a Nikon optical came-
ra. Magnification x 100.
were not those from Thrace, i.e. the bearers of the
Karanovo I culture. This assumption is supported by
the above-mentioned fact that the formal toolkit ap-
pears approximately in level Ic-Id of the Kovačevo
sequence. In this regard, if Struma (as seems likely)
was one of the first and direct routes of Neolithic dif-
fusion into Balkans, then the part of the 'Neolithic
package' consisting of typical Karanovo I pottery and
formal flint toolkits could not be linked with this
first stage of demic and cultural diffusion. The re-
cently envisaged north-east provenance of the raw
material for these toolkits is an additional reason for
discarding the idea of a Struma (and consequently via
Mesta) spread of the Karanovo I culture in Thrace.
How does the situation look if we turn to another
scenario for the first wave of Neolithisation in Bul-
garia, via the old Struma, Vardar and Morava rivers
to the north, and then a 'west to east' movement
along the Danube to north-central and north-eastern
Bulgaria (Todorova and Vaisov 1993.61). As explai-
ned above, there is no Early Neolithic site containing
formal toolkits, and the problem of the 'monochrome'
pottery cultural alliance is complicated enough. The
fact that the formal toolkits were likely made of Do-
brudzha flint, and in that area there are no recorded
Early Neolithic settlements, could become a critical
point for the assumption that after reaching the stage
of white-painted pottery, the 'monochrome' Neoli-
thic area settlers penetrated into Thrace c. 6200
calBC and established the beginning of the Karano-
vo I culture (Todorova and Vaisov 1993 62).
Recently, a new scenario for the origin and spread
of the monochrome Neolithic was advanced, utilis-
ing evidence from pottery analysis of the Koprivets
culture. The idea of M. Özdogan (1997; 1999) sug-
gesting an interaction zone between north-central
Bulgaria, north-west Anatolia and Turkish Thrace, is
gaining adherents and serves to promote the theory
of the penetration of Neolithic elements from north-
west Anatolia to the north via the Maritsa River val-
ley,..."then along the valleys of the Tundzha and
the Sazlijka Rivers, and through the passes of the
Stara Planina into northern Bulgaria (the basin of
the Iantra River)" (Boydzhiev 2006.9). On the basis
of analysis and correlation of the available clusters
of 14C dates related to the transitional period from
the Mesolithic to the Neolithic in local variations
(pre-pottery, aceramic, monochrome), the same au-
thor concluded that the penetration route of the
Monochrome Neolithic from the northwest Balkans
along the Danube proposed by Todorova and Vaisov
(1993) should be rejected (ibid. 9).
Whatever theories of routes and 'waves of succes-
sion' of the Neolithic spread into Balkans have been
formulated, no one has been able to explain the ap-
pearance of the formal flint toolkits - were they
brought with the migrants along their unclear route
from some part of Anatolia (central or north west-
ern), or were they created in the milieu of local pre-
Karanovo enclaves? There were two potential can-
didates for this 'nuclear area' of creation of the tool-
kit's technological and stylistic features: the region
of the Struma and Vardar valleys, which "must have
been directly and independently colonized", but
which settlers have been keeping as "their own,
probably direct connection with Asia Minor." (Li-
chardus-Itten et al. 2006.88). If so, then we have to
suppose that from the very beginning of their adap-
tation to the local conditions, they initiated very long
distance trips to the completely unknown north east
of Bulgaria to discover and start to supply flints, and
establish the big blade industry, and subsequently
go back with the material and the new know-how
for working with it. Then from this nuclear area, the
population with distinctive, white-on-red pottery and
the available formal flint toolkit could start to move
into the east and the Thracian plain. The idea of
west-east movement in the settling of Thrace is not
new, and has been convincingly argued by Thissen
on the basis of the chronological framework estab-
lished for the south Balkan Neolithisation process
(Thissen 2000). This scenario may work vis-a-vis the
pottery evidence, but it is not viable in relation to
the lithic phenomenon discussed.
Not yet proved, but at least more reasonable, is the
possibility that the 'monochrome' population from
central Bulgaria, already sufficiently experienced in
simple lamellar production, as shown by Tsonev's
research, moved to the east in search of something
better than their local flint raw material and rea-
ched the Dobrudzha region with its abundant flint
outcrops. On the basis of their local and independent
elaborating of their technological skills, they could
have become the 'new flint knappers' - in Chap-
man's sense of people with a newly-acquired ability
and decision-making capacity. Unavoidably, they
could reach the Thracian plain for establishing the
Karanovo I culture (as suggested by Todorova) or
simply to join an enigmatic pre-Karanovo I substra-
tum in this area (?). As a consequence, these people
could have predestined their production, especially
for the distribution network of goods, values, and
social messages. In this sense it is worth quoting the
original post-processual interpretation of Early Neo-
lithic 'macroblades' and their circulation offered by
T. Tsonev: ".the social model of tell settlements
also influenced the composition and raw material
distribution of flint assemblages...Thracian tells re-
lied on powerful metaphors that underpin much
larger and more distant exchange mechanisms
with flint raw materials." (Tsonev 2004.261).
Of course, a range of contradictory rhetorical ques-
tions could be formulated if one wanted to object to
this assumption. One of the most crucial is why the
new flint knappers did not leave evidence of these
toolkits in and around settlement sites in northern
Bulgaria? An unsatisfactory answer for the lack of
evidence in north-east Bulgaria (Dobrudzha) could
be that there is no theoretical need to expect the es-
tablishment of longstanding settlements and build-
ings in the area - only temporary camps in the vici-
nity of raw material outcrops serving the flint work-
shop activities are required, and the remains of these
camps may never be discovered. However, the rem-
nants of workshops with their particular instrumen-
tarium (however restricted) must be found and, in
the author's opinion, this should be made a priority
for future prehistoric research in Bulgaria.
To answer all questions in the sphere of the prob-
lems and research on formal toolkits would require
an immense amount of work. In my opinion, the re-
levant issue for this rather complex and complicated
situation is to complete and collate all the data for
these toolkits from the Balkans. This is necessary in
order to advance further with questions of raw mate-
rial supply strategy (were there other outcrops apart
from those in Dobrudzha), and the manufacturing,
functioning and spread of these particular flint as-
semblages across a wide and varied eastern Euro-
pean landscape. To resolve these problems will un-
doubtedly assist in answering some of the more con-
troversial questions raised within the archaeology of
prehistoric identity and the mind of the Early Neoli-
thic Balkans.
-ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS-
I would like to thank Mihael Budja for inviting me to
the 14th Neolithic Seminar in 2007. My thanks also to
Clive Bonsall for his critical reading of the first draft
of this paper, and for suggesting improvements to the
English.
REFERENCES
ANDREFSKI W. 1994. Raw material availability and the or-
ganization of technology. American Antiquity 59/1:21-
34.
BAILEY D. 2000. Balkan Prehistory. Exclusion, incorpora-
tion and identity. Routledge. London and New York.
2005. Prehistoric figurines. Representation and Cor-
poreality in the Neolithic. Routledge. London and New
York.
BONSALL C. 2003. The Iron Gates Mesolithic. In P. Boguc-
ki, P. Crabtree (eds.), Ancient Europe 8000 B.C. to A.D.
1000: Encyclopedia of the Barbarian World. Scribner.
New York: 175-178.
2008. The Mesolithic of the Iron Gates. In G. Bailey, P.
Spikins (eds.), Mesolithic Europe. Cambridge Univer-
sity Press. Cambridge: 238-279.
BONSALL C., COOK G., LENNON R., HARKNESS D., SCOTT
M., BARTOSIEWICZ L. and McSWEENEY K. 2000. Stable
Isotopes, radiocarbon and the Mesolithic-Neolithic Tran-
sition in the Iron Gates. In M. Budja (ed.), 7th Neolithic
Studies, Documenta Praehistorica 27:119-132.
BORIC D. 1999. Places that created time in the Danube
Gorges and beyond, c. 9000-5500 BC. In M. Budja (ed.),
6th Neolithic Studies, Documenta Praehistorica 26:41-
70.
2005. Deconstructing essentialisms: unsettling fron-
tiers of the Mesolithic-Neolithic Balkans. In D. Bailey,
A. Whittle and V. Cummings (eds.), (Un)settling the
Neolithic. Oxbow Books. Oxford: 16-31.
BOYADZIEV Y. 1995. Chronology of Prehistoric Cultures
in Bulgaria. In D. Bailey, I. Panayotov (eds.), Prehistoric
Bulgaria. Madison Wisconsin. Monographs in World Ar-
chaeology 22:149-191.
2006. The role of absolute chronology in clarifying the
Neolithization of the eastern half of Balkan Peninsula.
In I. Gatsov and H. Schwarzberg (eds.), Aegean - Mar-
mara - Black Sea: the Present State of research on
the Early Neolithic. Beier & Beran. Langenweissbach:
7-14.
CHAPMAN J. 2000. Fragmentation in Archaeology. Peo-
ple, places and broken objects in the prehistory ofsouth-
eastern Europe. Routledge. London and New York.
CHAPMAN J. and GAYDARSKA B. 2007. Parts and Wholes.
Fragmentation in prehistoric context. Oxbow Books. Ox-
ford.
ELENSKI N. 2004. Cultural Contacts of North-Central Bul-
garia with Thrace and the Marmara Area in the Early Neo-
lithic. In V. Nikolov, K. Bacvarov, P. Kalchev (eds.), Prehi-
storic Thrace. Sofia-Stara Zagora: 71-79.
2006. Trench Excavation at Dzhulyunitsa-Smardesh
Early Neolithic Site, Veliko Tarnovo Region (Prelimi-
nary Report). Arheologia 1-4:96-117.
ELSTER E. 1977. Neolithic technology: a Case Study in
Lithic Analysis fior Old Europe, 6500-4000 BC. Ph.D dis-
sertation. University of California. Los Angeles.
GANETSOVSKI G. 2008. An Early Neolithic grave from
Ohoden, Vraca district. In M. Gurova (ed.), Prehistoric
Research in Bulgaria: New Challenges. Faber. Veliko
Tarnovo (forthcoming).
GATSOV I. 1993. Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries in
Western Bulgaria. Jagellonian University Press. Krakow.
2000. Chipped Stone Assemblages from South Bulga-
ria an North-West Turkey (Epipalaeolithic/Mezolithic
and Neolithic). In L. Nikolova (ed.), Technology, Style
and Society. Contributions to the Innovations be-
tween the Alps and the Black Sea in Prehistory. Ox-
ford: BAR International Series 854: 1-30.
2005.	Some observation about bullet core technique
during 7th/6th millennium BC. In C. Lichter (ed.), How
did farming reach Europe? Anatolian-European rela-
tions from the second half of the 7th through the first
half of the 6th millennium calBC. BYZAS 2. Istanbul:
213-220.
2006.	The state of research into the problem of the
Pleistocene-Holocene transition in the present area of
Bulgaria. In I. Gatsov and H. Schwarzberg (eds.),
Aegean - Marmara - Black Sea: the Present State of
Research on the Early Neolithic. Beier & Beran. Lan-
genweissbach: 151-156.
GATSOV I., KURČATOV V. 1997. Neolithische Feuerstein-
artefakte. Mineralogische Untersuchung und technisch-ty-
pologische Charakteristik. In S. Hiller and V. Nikolov
(eds.), Karanovo, I, Die Ausgrabungen im Südsektor
1984-1992. Verlag Ferdinand Berger & Söhne, Horn/
Wien. Salzburg - Sofia: 213-227.
GATSOV I., GUROVA. M. 1998. Izsladvane na kremachni
artefakti ot rannoneolithiya plast na Azmashkata selishtna
mogila krai Stara Zagora. Izvestiya na muzeite ot Yugo-
iztochna Balgaria XIX: 7-20.
GÖRSDORF J. 1977. C14 - Altersbestimmungen. In S. Hil-
ler and V. Nikolov (eds.), Karanovo, I, Die Ausgrabun-
gen im Sudsektor 1984-1992. Verlag Ferdinand Berger &
Söhne, Horn/Wien. Salzburg - Sofia: 377-384.
GÖRSDORF J. and BOJADŽIEV J. 1996. Zur absoluten Chro-
nologie der bulgarischen Urgeschichte. Eurasia Antiqua
2: 105-173.
GUROVA M. 1997. Gebrauchsspurenanalyse des neolithi-
schen Feuersteininventars. In S. Hiller and V. Nikolov
(eds.), Karanovo, I, Die Ausgrabungen im Südsektor
1984-1992. Verlag Ferdinand Berger & Söhne, Horn/
Wien. Salzburg - Sofia: 363-375.
2001a. Funktsionalen analiz na kremachen ansambal
ot selishtna mogila Kapitan Dimitrievo. Arheologia 2-
3: 38-47.
2001b. Analyse fonctionnelle des assemblages en silex
d'Ilipinar, phases X et IX. In J. Roodenberg, L. Thissen
(eds.), The Ilipinar Excavation II, Pihans93. Leiden,
2001: 297-325.
2002. Feursteininventar aus Sondage O 19 in Tell Kara-
novo: typologische und funktionale Analyse. In S. Hil-
ler and V. Nikolov (eds.), Karanovo, II. Die Ausgra-
bungen in O19. Phoibos Verlag. Wien: 149-175.
2004.	Evolution and Retardation: Flint Assemblages
from Tell Karanovo. In V. Nikolov, K. Bacvarov, P. Kal-
chev (eds.), Prehistoric Thrace. Sofia-Stara Zagora:
239-253.
2005.	Flint artefacts in the context of the diagnostic
finds. Annuary of New Bulgarian University, Depart-
ment of Archaeology VI: 88-103.
2006.	Functional Aspects of the Early Neolithic Flint
Assemblages from Bulgaria and NW Anatolia. In I. Gat-
sov and H. Schwarzberg (eds.), Aegean - Marmara -
Black Sea: the Present State of Research on the Early
Neolithic. Beier and Beran. Langenweissbach, 2006,
157-175.
GUROVA M., GATSOV I. 2000. Research Problems of the
Early Neolithic Flint Assemblages from Thrace (Bulga-
ria). In S. Hiller and V. Nikolov (eds.), In Karanovo, III.
Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa. Phoibos
Verlag. Wien: 155-163.
KANCHEV K. 1978. Prouchvaneto na flintovia material ot
arheologicheski razkopki, problemi I zadachi. Interdistsi-
plinarni Izsledvaniya II: 81-89.
KANCHEV K., NACHEV I., KOVNURKO G. 1981. Kremach-
nite skali v Balgaria i tiahnata eksloatatsiya. Interdistsi-
plinarni Izsledvaniya VII-VIII: 41-59.
KOZLOWSKI J. 1982. La Neolithosation de la zone Bal-
kano-Danubienne du point de vue des industries lithi-
ques. In J. Kozlowski (ed.), Origin of the Chipped Stone
Industries of the Early Farming Cultures in Balkans.
Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Warszawa - Krakow:
132-170.
LESHTAKOV K. 2006. Arheologicheski razkopki na prais-
torichesko selishte do s. Yabalkovo, Dimitrovfradsko. Ra-
nen neolit. In V. Nikolov, G. Nehrizov and Y. Tsvetkova
(eds.), Arheologicheski razkopki po traseto na zhelezo-
patnata liniya Plovdiv-Svilengrad prez 2004 g. Faber.
Veliko Tarnovo: 166-204.
LESHTAKOV K., TODOROVA N., PETROVA V., ZLATEVA-
UZUNOVA R., ÖZBEK O., POPOVA TS., SPASSOV N. and
ILIEV N. 2007. Preliminary report on the salvage archaeo-
logical excavations at the Early Neolithic site at Yabal-
kovo in the Maritsa Valley, 2000-2005 field seasons. Ana-
tolica XXXIII: 185-234.
LICHARDUS-ITTEN M., DEMOULE J.-P., PERNICHEVA L.,
GREBSKA-KULOVA M., KULOV I. 2002. The Site of Kova-
cevo and the Beginnings of the Neolithic Period in South-
western Bulgaria. The French-Bulgarian excavations
1986-2000. In M. Lichardus-Itten, J. Lichardus, V. Nikolov
(eds.), Beiträge zu jungsteinzeitlichen Forschungen in
Bulgarien. Dr. Rudolf Habelt GMBH. Bonn: 99-158.
2006. Kovačevo, an Early Neolithic site in South-West
Bulgaria and its importance for European Neolithiza-
tion. In I. Gatsov and H. Schwarzberg (eds.), Aegean -
Marmara - Black Sea: the Present State of research
on the Early Neolithic. Beier and Beran. Langenweis-
sbach: 83-94.
NACHEV CH. in press. Osnovnite tipove flint na teritorija-
ta na Balgaria kato iztochnitsi na surobini za naprava na
artefakti. Interdistsiplinarni Izsledvaniya XX, in press.
NIKOLOV V. 1992. Rannoneolithno zhilishte ot Slatina
(Sofia). Razkopki i prouchvaniya 25. Izdatelstvo na BAN.
Sofia.
1996. Iugozapaden variant na kultura Karanovo I. Ar-
heologia 2-3:1-8.
1998.	Proucvanija varhu neolitnata keramika v Tra-
kija. Keramicnite kompleksi Karanovo II-III, III i
III-IV v konteksta na Severozapadna Anatolija i Ju-
goiztocna Evropa. Agato. Sofia.
2006.	Kultura i izkustvo na praistoricheska Trakia.
Letera. Plovdiv.
2007.	Neolithi kultovi masichki. NAIM-BAN. Sofia.
ÖZDOGAN M. 1997. The beginning of Neolithic economies
in South-eastern Europe: an Anatolian perspective. Jour-
nal of European Archaeology 5(2): 1-33.
1999.	Nortwestern Turkey: Neolithic Cultures in Be-
tween the Balkans and Anatolia. In M. Özdogan. (ed.),
Neolithic in Turkey. The Cradle of Civilization. Arkeo-
loji ve Sanat Yay. Istanbul: 202-224.
2006. Neolithic cultures at the contact zone between
Anatolia and the Balkans - Diversity and homogeneity
of the Neolithic frontiers. In I. Gatsov and H. Schwarz-
berg (eds.), Aegean - Marmara - Black Sea: the Pre-
sent State of research on the Early Neolithic. Beier &
Beran. Langenweissbach: 21-28.
ÖZDOGAN M., GATSOV I. 1998. The Aceramic Neolithic
period in Western Turkey and in the Aegean. Anatolica
24: 209-232.
PELEGRIN J. 2006. Long blade technology in the Old
World: an experimental approach anf dome archaeological
results. In J. Appel and K. Knutsson (eds.), Skilled pro-
duction and Social reproduction. Aspects of Traditional
Stone-Tool Technology. SAU- Uppsala University. Uppsala:
37-68.
PERLES C. 1990. L'outillage de Pierre taillee neolithique
en Grece: approvisionnement et exploitation des matieres
premieres. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique 114
(IV): 1-42.
2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece. The first farming
communities in Europe. Cambridge World Archaeo-
logy. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
RADUNCHEVA A, MATSANOVA V., GATSOV I., KOVACHEV
G., GEORGIEV G., CHAKALOVA E. and BOZHILOVA E. 2002.
Neolitno selishte do grad Rakitovo. Razkopki I prouchva-
niya 29. Gal-Iko. Sofia.
RENFREW C. and BAHN P. 2005. Archaeology. The Key
Concepts. Routledge. London and New York.
SKAKUN N. 1992. Tipologo-trasologicheski analiz na ora-
diyata na truda ot zhilishtnoto pomeshtenie. In V. Niko-
lov (ed.), Rannoneolitno ziliste ot Slatina (Sofia). Raz-
kopki i prouchvaniya 25. Izdatelstvo na BAN. Sofia: 102-
106.
1993. Results of traseological examination of flint im-
plements from Neolithic settlements in Western Bulga-
ria. In I. Gatsov (ed.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Indu-
stries in Western Bulgaria. Jagellonian University
Press. Krakow: 52-54.
SREJOVIĆ D. 1969. Lepenski Vir, Novapraistorijska kul-
tura u Podunavlju. Srpska književna zadruga. Beograd.
1972. Europe's First Monumental Sculpture. New Di-
scoveries at Lepenski Vir. Thames and Hudson. Lon-
don.
THISSEN L. 2000. A Chronological Framework for the
Neolithisation of the Southern Balkans. In S. Hiller and V.
Nikolov (eds.), In Karanovo, III. Beiträge zum Neolithi-
kum in Südosteuropa. Phoibos Verlag. Wien: 193-212.
TODOROVA H. (ed.) 2002. Durankulak, Band. II, Teil 11,
2, Die prähistorischen Gräberfelder von Durankulak.
Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Sofia.
TODOROVA H. and VAISOV I. 1993. Novokamennata
epoha v Balgaria (kraiat na sedmo-shesto hiliadoletie
predi novata era). Nauka i izkustvo, Sofia.
TSONEV T. 2000. Knapping Technology vs. Patten of Raw
Material Supply (On the Example of Early Neolithic Flint
Assemblages from the Orlovets and Koprivets sites, North-
ern Bulgaria). In L. Nikolova (ed.), Technology, Style and
Society. Contributions to the Innovations between the
Alps and the Black Sea in Prehistory. Oxford: BAR Inter-
national Series 854: 29-35.
2004. Long Blades in the Context of East Balkan and
Anatolian Complex Sedentary Society, distribution and
appearance of Early Neolithic tulip-like pottery in east-
ern Balkans. In In V. Nikolov, K. Bacvarov, P. Kalchev
(eds.), Prehistoric Thrace. Sofia-Stara Zagora: 259-
263.
2007. Flint knapping techniques and paleo-environ-
ment on North Central Bulgaria. NAIM-BAN. Sofia.
VOYTEK B.1987. Analysis of lithic raw materials from
sites in eastern Yugoslavia. In K. Biro (ed.), Papers for
the first international conference on prehistoric flint
mining and lithic raw material identification in the
Carpathian Basin. Budapest-Sümeg. Budapest: 287-295.
back to contents