Archaeology Magazine - June 1966 - 20

GUMELNITZA

continued

The presence of the Cucuteni painted ware is very
important not only for the relationship between the
two cultures but also for their relative chronology.
This problem has been discussed in detail elsewhere;
hence we shall only summarize here. Until recently
archaeologists believed that Gumelnitza phase A was
generally contemporary with Cucuteni phase A and
the beginning of phase A-B, while Gumelnitza B
was considered contemporary with the latter part of
Cucuteni A-B and Cucuteni C. But during the last ten
years the discoveryof some pre-Cucuteni and Cucuteni
pottery in Gumelnitza settlements in Muntenia led to
the conclusion that the last pre-Cucuteni phase in
Moldavia was contemporary not only with the last
Boian phase in Muntenia but also with the earliest
Gumelnitza phase; therefore the Gumelnitza culture
arose before the appearance of Cucuteni. This further
suggested that the Gumelnitza culture was one of the
factors that determined the change from pre-Cucuteni
to Cucuteni culture. On the other hand, the presence
of polychrome Cucuteni vessels of phase A (actually
A3) in sites belonging to Gumelnitza phases A2 and
B1 leads logically to the conclusion that Cucuteni A3
was contemporary with Gumelnitza A2 and Bj. This
means that the following stage of the Cucuteni culture (phase A-B) must have been contemporary with
the later Gumelnitza Bx stage, and that the final phase
of the painted pottery (Cucuteni B) was contemporary
with the last stage (B2) of Gumelnitza, wherever it
developed, and with the first phase of the Cernavoda
culture. The relationship may be presented in schematic form:
Pre-Cucuteni = Gumelnitza Ax
Cucuteni A1 and A2 = Gumelnitza ArA2
Cucuteni A3 = Gumelnitza A2-Bi
Cucuteni A-B = Gumelnitza later B1
Cucuteni B = Gumelnitza B2 and Cernavoda 1
The Cernavoda culture developed south and east of
the Danube ; its people afterwards crossed the Danube
in a relatively small area, where they put an end to
the further development of the Gumelnitza culture.
With regard to absolute chronology, the problem
is rather difficult, on the one hand because we possess
too few radiocarbon dates and, on the other, because
some of these dates are difficult to accept. In any case,
it is certain that the discoveries of Gumelnitza described above and the whole early stage of phase B
belong in the third millennium b.c., most probably
in its second half. The few dates obtained by radiocarbon for Gumelnitza phase A2 indicate the second half
of the fourth millennium, so it is only natural to place
172

phase B in the following millennium, although its
exact duration is unknown. It is certain, however,
that this phase could have lasted to 2000 b.c., when
the transition period to the Bronze Age begins. In our
regions the Bronze Age could not have begun before
1800-1700 B.c., in contrast to the southern regions of
the Balkan peninsula, where the beginning of the
Bronze Age may be placed in the third millennium.
As to the origin of polychromy in the Gumelnitza
culture (as it is found on the vessels described, with
the patterns bordered by lines) we are inclined to
think that it may be ascribed to the influence of the
neighboring Cucuteni culture. Still, this influence and
even the example provided by the imported Cucuteni
pottery did not induce the Gumelnitza people to adopt
this technique for their polychrome painting: as we
see, they used the crusted technique for polychrome
ware. This might seem rather surprising, as the Gumelnitza people knew the technique of painting before firing, but they used it only for graphite painting.
The most recent discoveries at Gumelnitza, as well
as all we know about this culture, which existed in
southern Rumania and Bulgaria, show the high level
of craftsmanship possessed by these tribes. Joining
local tradition to new cultural elements borrowed
from Anatolia and the Aegean and at the same time
receiving influences from neighboring tribes, they
succeeded in achieving a cultural synthesis of high
artistic value in pottery-making as well as in clay
plastic art. Along with the Cucuteni painted pottery
culture, the Gumelnitza culture may be considered one
of the superior Late Neolithic cultures on the lower
Danube and in the Balkans. The type site of Gumelnitza is rightly considered one of the most important
of that period within the whole of southeast Europe.
Though the upper level was greatly damaged by
farming during the last century, the deeper layers no
doubt still hide treasures which will be brought to
light by further digging on a large scale.
NOTE
For the 1924 and 1925 excavationsat Gumelnitza,see VI.
Dumitrescu,"Découvertesde Gumelnitza,"Dacia I (1924)
325-342and "Les fouillesde Gumelnitza,"DaciaII (1925)
29-103.The soundingmade in I960 is not yet published.
For the figurinesfrom that excavationsee "Figurinesfrom
Gumelnitza,"Antiquity38 (1964) 221-222.For a detailed
discussionof Cucuteni-Gumelnitza
relationships,see VI.
Dumitrescu,"Considérationset données nouvellessur le
des civilisationsde Cucuteniet
problèmedu synchronisme
de Gumelnitza,"Dacia,New SeriesVIII (1964) 53;66.The
problemof the originand evolutionof the Cucuteniculture
has beendiscussedrecentlyby the authorin his studies,"La
civilisationde Cucuteni,"Berichtenvan de Rijksdienstvor
9 (1955) 6-48 and
het OudheidkundigBodemonderzoek
"Origineet évolutionde la civilisationde Cucuteni-Tripolje,"
ArheologiaXIV (1963) 1-40.
Archaeology Magazine - June 1966

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Archaeology Magazine - June 1966
