History:Gumelnița–Karanovo culture

Short description: Neolithic culture

Gumelnița–Karanovo culture

Period	Neolithic Europe, Chalcolithic Europe, Old Europe
Dates	c. 4700 BC – c. 3950 BC
Preceded by	Starčevo culture, Karanovo culture, Hamangia culture, Boian culture
Followed by	Varna culture

The Gumelniţa–Karanovo VI culture was a Neolithic culture of the 5th millennium BC, named after the Gumelniţa site on the left (Romanian) bank of the Danube.

Geography

The enthroned "Lady of Pazardžik" of the Karanovo VI culture (c. 4500 BC)

Ceramic container cover

Painted ceramic vessel

At its full extent the culture extended along the Black Sea coast to central Bulgaria and into Thrace. The aggregate "Kodjadermen-Gumelnita-Karanovo VI" evolved out of the earlier Boian, Marita and Karanovo V cultures. In the East it was supplanted by Cernavodă I in the early 4th millennium BC.

Periodization

One of the most flourishing civilizations from the last half of the 5th millenium [sic] BC is (next to the Ariuşd Cucuteni – Tripolie complex) Gumelniţa Culture... absolute chronology, still under discussion, according to the latest calibrated data, assigns this culture (as mentioned above) to the limits of the last half of the 5th millenium [sic] BC and maybe to early 4th millenium [sic] BC.

—Silvia Marinescu-Bîlcu, "Gumelniţa Culture"

This matches exactly the view of Blagoje Govedarica (2004).

The first periodization of Gumelnita culture was suggested by VI. Dumitrescu who split the civilization of Gumelniţa into two phases: A and B. Later on, Dinu V. Rosetti divided the civilization into Al, A2 and B1, B2.

Gumelniţa A

With a centric evolution from geographic point of view, the intensity of the cultural trends decreased from the center towards peripheral area. Having a strong Boian background at the origins, mixed with Maritza elements, the Gumelnita culture lasted short of a millennium from the beginning of Chalcolithic to the start of the fourth millennium BC.

Gumelniţa A1

4700-4350 Gumelnita-Karanovo VI-Kodjadermen is also aggregated with Varna culture, still are debates along historians considering the distinctive character of Varna culture.

Gumelniţa A2

4500-3950 The regional characteristics of A1 phase are diminished, and a more uniform characteristics is identified in discovered artifacts.

Synchronisms

Gumelnita Culture	Adiacent Culture 1	Adiacent Culture 2	Adiacent Culture 3
Gumelniţa A1	Precucuteni 3	Cucuteni A1 – A2	Varna 1
Gumelniţa A2	Cucuteni A3	the beginning of the Cernavoda 1 culture

The evolution of the Gumelniţa-Kodjadermen-Karanovo VI is ended on the north bank of the Danube after the arrival of Cernavoda cultures population.

The layers at Karanovo are employed as a chronological system for Balkans prehistory.

Art

The Gumelniţa is remarkable by the richness of its anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations. Some consider the achievements of prehistoric craftsmen to be true masterpieces.

The representation from Gumelnița art differ by other cultures by the following:

• statuettes morphology characterised by expressivity, gesture and attitude.
• modelling technique
• arms positions on the belly, stretched laterally, in the position of the "thinker"
• sex representation
• decoration pattern

Seashell ornament is relatively common. At least some of the shellfish used come from the Aegean regions, for example the spondylas and the dentals.

As evidence from archaeology, thousands of artifacts from Neolithic Europe have been discovered, mostly in the form of female figurines. As a result a goddess theory has occurred. The leading historian was Marija Gimbutas, still this interpretation is a subject of great controversy in archaeology due to her many inferences about the symbols on artifacts.

The analysis of the finds uncovered by archaeological excavations revealed a few characteristics of the Gumelniţa objects of art, likely to lead to a few main trends of the spiritual life investigation.

Thus, the prevalence of a female character is clear, as it represents 34% of all the anthropomorphic representations. That might represent a deity, the term having a general significance, of worship, without being able to specify under the current stage of the researches which is the nature and status of this deity. The male representations are very few, about 1%, while about 10% are the asexual representations, therefore with no sign (breasts, sexual triangle) which might point to the sex of the statuette.
—Gumelniţa Anthropomorphic and Zoomorphic Objects of Art by Radian Romus Andreescu

Gallery

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Technological developments

Gumelniţa culture has some sign of work specialisation:

...we do not have enough data on the internal organization of the community, but next to the dwellings themselves, arranged or not in a certain order, we encounter workshop-dwellings for processing lithic material, bones, horns, ornaments, statuettes, etc.).

—Gumelniţa Culture by Silvia Marinescu-Bîlcu

Danube Script

During the Middle Copper Age, the Danube script appears in three horizons: The Karanovo VI–Gumelniţa–Kodžadermen cultural complex (mainly in Bulgaria, but also in Romania), the Cucuteni A3-A4–Trypillya B (in Ukraine), and Coțofeni I (in Serbia). The first, rates 68.6% of the frequencies; the second, rates 24.2%; and the third, rates 7.6%.

See also

• Old Europe
• Vinča culture
• Tărtăria tablets
• Vinča symbols
• Sesklo culture
• Cucuteni–Trypillia culture
• Hamangia culture
• Butmir Culture
• Tisza culture
• Linear Pottery culture
• Lengyel culture
• Funnelbeaker culture

Bibliography

• Stefan Hiller, Vassil Nikolov (eds.), Karanovo III. Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa Österreichisch-Bulgarische Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in Karanovo, Band III, Vienna (2000), ISBN:3-901232-19-2.

External links

• Gumelnița culture museum
• Brukenthalmuseum.ro
• Civa.uv.ro
• Civa.uv.ro
• Bulgariatravel.org
• Worldmuseumofman.org
• Culture.gouv.fr
• Cimec.ro
• Cimec.ro
• Arheologie.ulbsibiu.ro
• Larson, Greger; Albarella, Umberto; Dobney, Keith; Rowley-Conwy, Peter; Schibler, Jörg; Tresset, Anne; Vigne, Jean-Denis; Edwards, Ceiridwen J. et al. (25 September 2007). "Ancient DNA, pig domestication, and the spread of the Neolithic into Europe". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104 (39): 15276–15281. doi:10.1073/pnas.0703411104. PMID 17855556. 
• Arheologie.ro