International Symposium 

The Carpathian Basin and Its Role in the Neolithisation of the Balkan Peninsula 

Sibiu, 18-20 mai 2007 

Protostarčevo – Precriş. the analize of some chronological systems of the early neolithic

prof.dr. Gheorghe Lazarovici, dr. Cornelia-Magda Lazarovici

1a. Revision of the Chronological Systems

The appearance of terms such as Pre- and Proto- represent the result of the research development, some materials being considerated or demonstrated as being older. The first examples are related with Thessaly discoveries, where Presesko have been considered older as Sesklo, then Protosesklo older as Presesklo (in the '60) and later Monochrome was considered the oldest.

After the beginning of the archeological excavations in Macedonia (Anzabegovo, Vršnik, Porodin etc.) and Thessaly (Vl. Milojčić, M. Gimbutas, D. Theocharis) the old chronological system established by Vl. Milojčić (1944; 1949a; 1949b; 1950) and D. Garašanin (1954) have been annotated by M. and D. Garašanin, Korošec - T. Bregant, M. Grbić, Al. Benac, B. Brukner, R. Galović (1968), B. Čović, S. Karmanski (etc.), or even changed based on the new archaeological results and interpretations (D. Srejović 1969).

Tatiana Bregant (1968) has established the more attentive analyze regarding the comparative stratigraphy based on the Anzabegovo stratigraphy.

D. Srejović (1969; 1971; 1979) after Lepenski Vir excavations review Vl. Milojčić – D. Garašanin chronological systems, but not of others authors. Based only on radiocarbon results, he has introduced Protostarčevo I and II terms, but did not make larger synchronizations. Exactly this sort of analyze, radiocarbon, now prove that his discoveries are later.

After his excavations at Gura Baciului, N. Vlassa (1972; 1972a) has established the horizon with the same name, later annotate by M.Garašanin (1979) as Gura Baciului – Cârcea

St. Dimitrijević make in our opinion the most complex stylistic and stratigraphic analyses (1974; 1979) and elaborates a chronological system that is generally viable. Regarding his „Monochrome” stage we have had express our limitations (Gh. Lazarovici 1983), because of the Donja Branjevina „stratigraphy”.

1b. The problem of the local background. Some microlithic tools with Paleolithic traditions from Epipaleolithic and Mesolithic of the Iron Gates and neighboring areas determine to introduce some theories and repartees regarding the „Azilian” discoveries (D. Berciu, C. S. Nicolăescu-Plopşor, D. Srejović, Letica, B. Jovanović, I. Radovanović, V. Boroneanţ, Al. Păunescu etc.). From this moment two groups of researchers have been noticed. The first group includes the ones that search for a Protoneolithic, Pre Pottery Neolithic or Neolithic without pottery, that believed Protostarčevo was born from this (D. Srejović, R. Tringham, J. Pavuk). The second group speaks about migrations.

1c. Balkan–Anatolian Migrations. Researchers that agree these ideas, directly or indirectly sustain the existence of southern migrations (J. Nandriş – FNT; M. Nica, N. Vlassa, I. Paul etc.) or Balkan-Anatolian migrations (B. Brukner, M. Garašanin, Vl. Dumitrescu, Gh. Lazarovici etc.).

1d. N. Vlassa, then M. Nica and I. Paul have important contributions for the completion of the early phases of Starčevo-Criş culture. But M. Nica and I. Paul – M. Ciută proposed only local chronological systems, maybe because they overestimate the role of the Presesklo culture, or they do not understand that there are more southern migrations.

1e. New archeological excavations at Gura Baciului (Gh. Lazarovici, Z. Maxim 1995) and Miercurea Sibiului (S. A. Luca, C. Suciu 2005), the common database for the Early Neolithic in the Balkans impose the revision of some opinions and dating, an analytical analyze of the archaeological materials, including the terms such as Precriş and Protostarčevo.

2. Our chronological system (Gh. Lazarovici) included from the very beginning the analytical study of the archaeological material as well as comparative stratigraphy. Based on these we have established nine stages of development for the period under analyze. Number of stages is bigger at T. Bregant, or smaller at St. Dimitrijević (seven-eight). Because of the confusion and identification of our chronological system with the older one established by Vl. Milojčić [even we have take into consideration and make synchronizations with Protosesklo, Preseklo and the first stages at Lepenski Vir (Gh. Lazarovici 1968; 1975. 1976; 1977; 1979) and later with the Monochrome horizon (Gh. Lazarovici 1983; 1995; 1996; 2003, 2006 etc.)], I. Paul (1995) and especially M. Ciută (2005) include the Transylvanian Starčevo-Criş after their Precriş I-II (extensive analyze Gh. Lazarovici 2005).

The fact that M. Garašanin reconsidered the Anzabegovo I discoveries, synchronic with Preseklo (M. Garašanin 1998a) and abandon the idea that Anzabegovo Ia = Monochrome, permit the elimination of some missunderstandings regarding the dating.

New radiocarbon data for Romanian Early Neolithic (P. Biagi, symposium 2005 London) represent a new confirmation of our synchronisms and of most of our opinions.

The appearence of big monograps such as Grivac (M. Bogdanović)and The Morava Valley (publication of a larger team), the new archaeological materials published for Lepenski Vir, permit us to bring new evidences regarding the synchronisms and the periods of Early Neolithic in South Central Europe (Axis Anzabegovo - Gura Baciului).