Library at the International Institute of
Anthropology, Salt Lake City, Utah.
The library is specialized in Prehistory of Eurasia. For specific titles
e-mail to admin@iianthropology.org, or call +(801) 363 3123
Anthropology, Salt Lake City, Utah.
The library is specialized in Prehistory of Eurasia. For specific titles
e-mail to admin@iianthropology.org, or call +(801) 363 3123
Review Note (in Bulgarian). Published on August 9, 2008.
Bisserka Ivanova Gaydarska, Landscape, Material Culture and Society in Prehistoric South East Bulgaria. BAR International
Series. BAR Oxford.
Requested review copy which was received with the assistance of the author.
Biserka Gaydarska. Landscape, Material Culture ands Society in Prehistoric South East Bulgaria. BAR International Series 1618.
2007. BAR: Oxford. 279 p. + CD with images.
Рецензираната работа представлява опит за монографична публикация въз основа на успешно защитена дисертация за
PhD, която доколкото ми е известно, е призната и в България. В същото време текстът показва изключително ниски
критерии за дисертационно знание, което по-скоро напомня едва защитена бакалавърска титла и практическо показване
на неумение нито на събиране на необходимата литература за регионално проучване, нито специфично археологическо
знание, нито наличието на академичен критико-аналитичен подход. Така единствената полза е за онези читатели, които
ще се възползват от преведените на английски по-нови археологически извори за праисторията в района на Марица-Изток.
Несъответствието между цели, задачи и съдържание, неакадемичният подход към исторографията и отсъствието на
задълбочено познание дори на най-основната литература, както и на показване на задълбочено праисторическо
познание прави невъзможен не само анализа на публикацита, но каквато и да било оценка, още повече, че има съмнение
за ползване на литература, която не е цитирана. Тъй като се касае за дисертация, това би било академична
фалшификация.
Като нов момент за изследванията върху праисторията на България би трябвало да се приеме използването на
компютърните географски програми за анализ на лендскейпа на праисторическите обекти. Тяхното ползване обаче, е
толкова елементарно, че не ясно от академична гледна точка дали заслужат внимание за отбелязване. Основнит извод е,
че близките обекти се виждали помежду си – извод, който може да се направи и с обикновено око. Не става дори ясно
защо най-важните за темата илюстрации, свързани с географските компютърни методи на проучване са на диск, без дори
да има обобщаващи илюстрации, които да покажат евентуално достигнатото ново академично знание.
Публикуваната работа е поучителна за онези млади кандидати за археолози, които смятат, че могат да получат по-добро
познание в задгранични университети. В случая се касае за негативен пример. Но тя съдържа и елементи на
неакадемични нападки срещу автори и дори срещу цялостната българска археологическа наука, което съществено се
различава от съвременната тенденци към хуманизиране, академизиране и професионализиране на археологическите
проучвания.
Д-р и. Лолита Николова
Table of Contents (main points with some comments)
Chapter One: Setting the scene, p. 1 sq.
Non-realistic aims and objectives according to the revealed knowledge
Chapter Two: History of recent investigations, p. 7 sq.
Non-academic attempt of a purposeful selection of cited papers among which are missing mandatory titles for this
research
Chapter Three: Theoretical and Methodological Background, p. 17 sq.
Eclectic method of selection of scholarly works on the landscape archaeology, society and material culture,
microregional studies and GIS methodology without complete knowledge on the studied microregion and taking into
account the fact that the results of the investigations have been preliminary published only. That resulted for
instance, in unnecessary critics of missing interdisciplinary investigations (p.33).
Chapter Four: Palaeo-environmental reconstructions, p. 43 sq.
In fact review on the existed literature
Chapter Five: The Sokolitsa Microregion, p. 71 sq.
Chapter Six: The Ovcharitsa Microregion, p. 119 sq.
Chapter Seven: The Drama microregion, p. 155 sq.
Chapters 5-7 consist of translation of archaeological records and some oversimplified conclusions from using of the
GIS methodology (e.g. the sites, which are close each to other were visible). No demonstration of a specific
archaeological knowledge.
Chapter Eight: Landscape, Material Culture and Society in the Sokolitsa, Ovcharitsa and Drama micro-
region - a comparison and synthesis, p. 167 sq.
Without any reason the chapter starts with the so-called fragmentation. It is like beginning typology of pottery with
typology of non-specified small fragments of walls of vessels. In addition, the section consists even of non-
academic critics and reference to pages from the same book. For instance:
p. 167: "Only in the Drama microregion has the abundance of sherds and missing parts of figurines received
interpretative attention, being considered as the result of deliberate practice (p. 160)".
However on p. 160, without any arguments, there is just a statement about an alternative explanation - the inclusion
of older, ancestral material in the materials used for building of new structures, to presence the ancestors (for an
example from the Bronze Age of Mataci, in Dalmatia: Chapman et al. 1996)". Where are the own arguments and the
real interpretation?! It has been repeatedly stated that "the deliberate fragmentation practice is the several
examples of earlier sherds found in a secure later context" (p. 167). However, it is a common excavation practice to
see earlier sherds in later context almost on every multilevel site because of very nature of the destiny of the
fragmented materials at the multilevel site with horizontal and vertical stratigraphy. There is no doubt that one can
think how was ancestorized the social space in Prehistory, but there are so many expressive examples like the
village burials, figurines and even the pits which were dug into the earlier level. It does not look even scholarly to
make conclusions about social practices based on sherds with by nature mobile post-depositional biography on the
prehistoric sites. None of the arguments about deliberate social practices (p. 167) connected with fragments looks
academic.
Despite the increasing of the popularity of the deliberate burnt prehistoric houses, there is no new serious
argument (p. 168) that can really contribute to the problem. Then, we have two non-argued with serious records
statements - fragmentation and burning houses together with the structured deposition (loc. cit.) to be recognized
as "powerful means for the negotiation of social continuity and social change" (p. 168). It is a typical non-scholar
statement since there are missing the arguments. One of the reasons for such statements seems to be the mixed
methodology of the archaeology and the cultural anthropology. A term from the cultural anthropology (social
practice) attempted to be used in the context of the Pierre Bourdieu theory occurs on the window of noway
because the interpretation archaeology well knows that social practices were embodied in the everydayness (p.
168). The research problems are which and how and what sorts of specifics can be recognized. To the extend of
my knowledge the deliberate fragmentation and purposeful burning of the houses would be exception but not the
hallmark of the Balkan Prehistory, including Southeast Bulgaria.
This section also demonstrates the inability of the author critically to read the previous historiography making
major statements even without precise citing. For instance Ezero is a big monograph cited for the statement that at
Ezero were discovered "finished tools from north Bulgarian sources" (p. 170). This is accepted as a record for the
theoretical statements about "long-lasting and recurrent contacts across the mountains between people near the
flint sources in North Bulgaria and the Bronze Age communities" (loc. cit.). It is unclear whether would be a
specialist on Early Bronze Age to accept that there are records in South Bulgaria about such statement. It is well
known that during the Early Bronze Age there is a decreasing of the use of flint in the social practices of the
communities. Most popular are the arrow heads that could. And this is exactly what is written in Ezero monograph
about the flint implements by Rumen Katincharov (Ezeto, ed, by Georgiev et al. 1979: 136-141). Katincharov in fact
compared typologically the Ezero finds with both regions - the Agean and the Northern Balkans, while there is no
any data about specific analysis of the sources of flint. The problem is academic and huge - the author is a flunet in
Bulgarian and one would trust that at least correctly uses the cited references. But as in other cases, the least one
can see is accuracy in using even of the cited literature. Further is coming another cognitive problem - how to
interpret the archaeological records. The retardated flint industry from Early Bronze Age (with the exception mostly
of some profound arrow heads) is not a reasonable argument for dreaming long-distance specialists from "areas
North of Stara Planina" who were "trading and exchanging finished tools and/or blanks in the Thracian plain". First,
it is unclear why the Early Bronze Age is a case study, especially having in mind that in the previous chapters the
author wrote mostly about generally Bronze Age. As we already specified, this period is not a good source for the
history of the flint industry in the prehistoric Balkans. Second, why should the long-distance specialists have
exchanged - what about just traders? On top of everything exactly in the studied by B. Gaydarska region there are
Tumulus graves that can be connected with the Pit Grave Culture households who could have seasonally moved
from North to South and in opposite directions. Also, Katincharov especially points to a broad typological similarity
of the flint tools covering the whole Western Pontic region. Last but not least, who the author argues stating that
she suggests a movement in opposite direction (North - South) as exactly in Early Bronze Age this is accepted as
one of the main directions of contacts because of the Pit Grave Culture?
In general terms, trying to fit the most general scheme of local, regional, middle-distance and long-distance
contacts reflected in the material culture, Gaydarska uses examples from her region of research but without
showing in-depth knowledge of the region and of the problems making conclusions about long-distance exchanged
objects without solid record base or without opportunity to explain in fact the records (like the exotic objects).
The same problem came with the attempt to interpret the differences in the social practices between the Drama
and Sokolitsa regions (p. 170) where the different degree of investigation of the regions and the different types of
the investigated sites is not even mentioned in favor of creating statements about differences in the social
practices, followed by the general conclusion that "these differences are due to specific responses that
communities in the study microregions have offered to potentially unsettling increases in the social differentiation"
(p. 170). Why did the landscape was forgotten? What about the discussion whether in the Maritsa Iztok region was
in past a steppe-like environment? What about the discussion whom belonged the Tumuli? Was it really so
homogenous the community and for which period? Where is the detailed map of the characteristics of the sites
investigated for the different periods in the different regions?
As a chapter from a fiction story follows the curious statement that "the appearance of the barrows should be
envisaged in the context of social tensions at the end of the LCA [Late Copper Age], that have led to the
abandonment of the settlements in the study area and to the emergence of entirely new forms of areas of social
powers" (p. 170). First, this statement is non-scholar since it is ambiguous. While all the time the objects connect
with people, at once the barrow emerged without any explanation how. Second, what does it mean "entirely new
form"?
Following the same cancer born methodology, the explanation of the missing Late Bronze Age barrows is a new
practice. However, the specialists well know that the tradition of erecting new tumuli decreased gradually during the
Early Bronze Age and in fact the Late Bronze follows obviously the traditions from Early Bronze III. But because of
the gap in the investigation in the earlier second millennium cal BCE. To the end of this chapter I neither learned
whom belonged the discussed barrows or what kind of society had been researched although even in the title of
the book is society. About the landscape remained the general conclusion about visibility (p.177).
Conclusions, p. 181
1. The research according to Gaydarska was done "according some aspects of the contemporary theoretical and
methological framework of British archaeology" (p.181). The text shows that wither it was not the leading one or it
was used non-scholarly. One can recognized a supersimplified use of the GIS techniques, no accuracy in using of
the historiogpahy and records and interpretation based from non-record to wrongly reproduced records.
2. The author believes that introduces the concept of social landscape and social practice with this book, however
none of the social practices discussed is based on solid data-base and in fact the basic and leading social
practices are missing from the objectives of the author (e.g. technology as social practice, visible and invisible
kinship as social practice, social reproduction etc.). In other words, the Bulgarian archaeology was not integrated in
"a broader context of human development" (p. 181) but was scholarly abused for pseudo-interpretation.
3. None of the stated results exists in this book: 1. There is no "reconstruction of past settlement pattern, resource
potential and inter-site transport network in each of the three microregions" (p. 181) (if so there would be a
reference to a map as we have for Greece for instance). 2. There is no "comparative interpretation of diachronic
changes in settlement, society, material culture and landscapes in the three microregions" (p. 181). There is no
society at all, instead the rich quality material culture - unspecified fragments, and instead profound landscape
analysis - the oversimplified model of visibility. 3. The three-component identity interactive model (people, places
and objects) in this book is just an idea without even attempt to touch the people, their places and to recognize the
semiotics of their material culture.
Review comments by Lolita Nikolova, PhD
Bisserka Ivanova Gaydarska, Landscape, Material Culture and Society in Prehistoric South East Bulgaria. BAR International
Series. BAR Oxford.
Requested review copy which was received with the assistance of the author.
Biserka Gaydarska. Landscape, Material Culture ands Society in Prehistoric South East Bulgaria. BAR International Series 1618.
2007. BAR: Oxford. 279 p. + CD with images.
Рецензираната работа представлява опит за монографична публикация въз основа на успешно защитена дисертация за
PhD, която доколкото ми е известно, е призната и в България. В същото време текстът показва изключително ниски
критерии за дисертационно знание, което по-скоро напомня едва защитена бакалавърска титла и практическо показване
на неумение нито на събиране на необходимата литература за регионално проучване, нито специфично археологическо
знание, нито наличието на академичен критико-аналитичен подход. Така единствената полза е за онези читатели, които
ще се възползват от преведените на английски по-нови археологически извори за праисторията в района на Марица-Изток.
Несъответствието между цели, задачи и съдържание, неакадемичният подход към исторографията и отсъствието на
задълбочено познание дори на най-основната литература, както и на показване на задълбочено праисторическо
познание прави невъзможен не само анализа на публикацита, но каквато и да било оценка, още повече, че има съмнение
за ползване на литература, която не е цитирана. Тъй като се касае за дисертация, това би било академична
фалшификация.
Като нов момент за изследванията върху праисторията на България би трябвало да се приеме използването на
компютърните географски програми за анализ на лендскейпа на праисторическите обекти. Тяхното ползване обаче, е
толкова елементарно, че не ясно от академична гледна точка дали заслужат внимание за отбелязване. Основнит извод е,
че близките обекти се виждали помежду си – извод, който може да се направи и с обикновено око. Не става дори ясно
защо най-важните за темата илюстрации, свързани с географските компютърни методи на проучване са на диск, без дори
да има обобщаващи илюстрации, които да покажат евентуално достигнатото ново академично знание.
Публикуваната работа е поучителна за онези млади кандидати за археолози, които смятат, че могат да получат по-добро
познание в задгранични университети. В случая се касае за негативен пример. Но тя съдържа и елементи на
неакадемични нападки срещу автори и дори срещу цялостната българска археологическа наука, което съществено се
различава от съвременната тенденци към хуманизиране, академизиране и професионализиране на археологическите
проучвания.
Д-р и. Лолита Николова
Table of Contents (main points with some comments)
Chapter One: Setting the scene, p. 1 sq.
Non-realistic aims and objectives according to the revealed knowledge
Chapter Two: History of recent investigations, p. 7 sq.
Non-academic attempt of a purposeful selection of cited papers among which are missing mandatory titles for this
research
Chapter Three: Theoretical and Methodological Background, p. 17 sq.
Eclectic method of selection of scholarly works on the landscape archaeology, society and material culture,
microregional studies and GIS methodology without complete knowledge on the studied microregion and taking into
account the fact that the results of the investigations have been preliminary published only. That resulted for
instance, in unnecessary critics of missing interdisciplinary investigations (p.33).
Chapter Four: Palaeo-environmental reconstructions, p. 43 sq.
In fact review on the existed literature
Chapter Five: The Sokolitsa Microregion, p. 71 sq.
Chapter Six: The Ovcharitsa Microregion, p. 119 sq.
Chapter Seven: The Drama microregion, p. 155 sq.
Chapters 5-7 consist of translation of archaeological records and some oversimplified conclusions from using of the
GIS methodology (e.g. the sites, which are close each to other were visible). No demonstration of a specific
archaeological knowledge.
Chapter Eight: Landscape, Material Culture and Society in the Sokolitsa, Ovcharitsa and Drama micro-
region - a comparison and synthesis, p. 167 sq.
Without any reason the chapter starts with the so-called fragmentation. It is like beginning typology of pottery with
typology of non-specified small fragments of walls of vessels. In addition, the section consists even of non-
academic critics and reference to pages from the same book. For instance:
p. 167: "Only in the Drama microregion has the abundance of sherds and missing parts of figurines received
interpretative attention, being considered as the result of deliberate practice (p. 160)".
However on p. 160, without any arguments, there is just a statement about an alternative explanation - the inclusion
of older, ancestral material in the materials used for building of new structures, to presence the ancestors (for an
example from the Bronze Age of Mataci, in Dalmatia: Chapman et al. 1996)". Where are the own arguments and the
real interpretation?! It has been repeatedly stated that "the deliberate fragmentation practice is the several
examples of earlier sherds found in a secure later context" (p. 167). However, it is a common excavation practice to
see earlier sherds in later context almost on every multilevel site because of very nature of the destiny of the
fragmented materials at the multilevel site with horizontal and vertical stratigraphy. There is no doubt that one can
think how was ancestorized the social space in Prehistory, but there are so many expressive examples like the
village burials, figurines and even the pits which were dug into the earlier level. It does not look even scholarly to
make conclusions about social practices based on sherds with by nature mobile post-depositional biography on the
prehistoric sites. None of the arguments about deliberate social practices (p. 167) connected with fragments looks
academic.
Despite the increasing of the popularity of the deliberate burnt prehistoric houses, there is no new serious
argument (p. 168) that can really contribute to the problem. Then, we have two non-argued with serious records
statements - fragmentation and burning houses together with the structured deposition (loc. cit.) to be recognized
as "powerful means for the negotiation of social continuity and social change" (p. 168). It is a typical non-scholar
statement since there are missing the arguments. One of the reasons for such statements seems to be the mixed
methodology of the archaeology and the cultural anthropology. A term from the cultural anthropology (social
practice) attempted to be used in the context of the Pierre Bourdieu theory occurs on the window of noway
because the interpretation archaeology well knows that social practices were embodied in the everydayness (p.
168). The research problems are which and how and what sorts of specifics can be recognized. To the extend of
my knowledge the deliberate fragmentation and purposeful burning of the houses would be exception but not the
hallmark of the Balkan Prehistory, including Southeast Bulgaria.
This section also demonstrates the inability of the author critically to read the previous historiography making
major statements even without precise citing. For instance Ezero is a big monograph cited for the statement that at
Ezero were discovered "finished tools from north Bulgarian sources" (p. 170). This is accepted as a record for the
theoretical statements about "long-lasting and recurrent contacts across the mountains between people near the
flint sources in North Bulgaria and the Bronze Age communities" (loc. cit.). It is unclear whether would be a
specialist on Early Bronze Age to accept that there are records in South Bulgaria about such statement. It is well
known that during the Early Bronze Age there is a decreasing of the use of flint in the social practices of the
communities. Most popular are the arrow heads that could. And this is exactly what is written in Ezero monograph
about the flint implements by Rumen Katincharov (Ezeto, ed, by Georgiev et al. 1979: 136-141). Katincharov in fact
compared typologically the Ezero finds with both regions - the Agean and the Northern Balkans, while there is no
any data about specific analysis of the sources of flint. The problem is academic and huge - the author is a flunet in
Bulgarian and one would trust that at least correctly uses the cited references. But as in other cases, the least one
can see is accuracy in using even of the cited literature. Further is coming another cognitive problem - how to
interpret the archaeological records. The retardated flint industry from Early Bronze Age (with the exception mostly
of some profound arrow heads) is not a reasonable argument for dreaming long-distance specialists from "areas
North of Stara Planina" who were "trading and exchanging finished tools and/or blanks in the Thracian plain". First,
it is unclear why the Early Bronze Age is a case study, especially having in mind that in the previous chapters the
author wrote mostly about generally Bronze Age. As we already specified, this period is not a good source for the
history of the flint industry in the prehistoric Balkans. Second, why should the long-distance specialists have
exchanged - what about just traders? On top of everything exactly in the studied by B. Gaydarska region there are
Tumulus graves that can be connected with the Pit Grave Culture households who could have seasonally moved
from North to South and in opposite directions. Also, Katincharov especially points to a broad typological similarity
of the flint tools covering the whole Western Pontic region. Last but not least, who the author argues stating that
she suggests a movement in opposite direction (North - South) as exactly in Early Bronze Age this is accepted as
one of the main directions of contacts because of the Pit Grave Culture?
In general terms, trying to fit the most general scheme of local, regional, middle-distance and long-distance
contacts reflected in the material culture, Gaydarska uses examples from her region of research but without
showing in-depth knowledge of the region and of the problems making conclusions about long-distance exchanged
objects without solid record base or without opportunity to explain in fact the records (like the exotic objects).
The same problem came with the attempt to interpret the differences in the social practices between the Drama
and Sokolitsa regions (p. 170) where the different degree of investigation of the regions and the different types of
the investigated sites is not even mentioned in favor of creating statements about differences in the social
practices, followed by the general conclusion that "these differences are due to specific responses that
communities in the study microregions have offered to potentially unsettling increases in the social differentiation"
(p. 170). Why did the landscape was forgotten? What about the discussion whether in the Maritsa Iztok region was
in past a steppe-like environment? What about the discussion whom belonged the Tumuli? Was it really so
homogenous the community and for which period? Where is the detailed map of the characteristics of the sites
investigated for the different periods in the different regions?
As a chapter from a fiction story follows the curious statement that "the appearance of the barrows should be
envisaged in the context of social tensions at the end of the LCA [Late Copper Age], that have led to the
abandonment of the settlements in the study area and to the emergence of entirely new forms of areas of social
powers" (p. 170). First, this statement is non-scholar since it is ambiguous. While all the time the objects connect
with people, at once the barrow emerged without any explanation how. Second, what does it mean "entirely new
form"?
Following the same cancer born methodology, the explanation of the missing Late Bronze Age barrows is a new
practice. However, the specialists well know that the tradition of erecting new tumuli decreased gradually during the
Early Bronze Age and in fact the Late Bronze follows obviously the traditions from Early Bronze III. But because of
the gap in the investigation in the earlier second millennium cal BCE. To the end of this chapter I neither learned
whom belonged the discussed barrows or what kind of society had been researched although even in the title of
the book is society. About the landscape remained the general conclusion about visibility (p.177).
Conclusions, p. 181
1. The research according to Gaydarska was done "according some aspects of the contemporary theoretical and
methological framework of British archaeology" (p.181). The text shows that wither it was not the leading one or it
was used non-scholarly. One can recognized a supersimplified use of the GIS techniques, no accuracy in using of
the historiogpahy and records and interpretation based from non-record to wrongly reproduced records.
2. The author believes that introduces the concept of social landscape and social practice with this book, however
none of the social practices discussed is based on solid data-base and in fact the basic and leading social
practices are missing from the objectives of the author (e.g. technology as social practice, visible and invisible
kinship as social practice, social reproduction etc.). In other words, the Bulgarian archaeology was not integrated in
"a broader context of human development" (p. 181) but was scholarly abused for pseudo-interpretation.
3. None of the stated results exists in this book: 1. There is no "reconstruction of past settlement pattern, resource
potential and inter-site transport network in each of the three microregions" (p. 181) (if so there would be a
reference to a map as we have for Greece for instance). 2. There is no "comparative interpretation of diachronic
changes in settlement, society, material culture and landscapes in the three microregions" (p. 181). There is no
society at all, instead the rich quality material culture - unspecified fragments, and instead profound landscape
analysis - the oversimplified model of visibility. 3. The three-component identity interactive model (people, places
and objects) in this book is just an idea without even attempt to touch the people, their places and to recognize the
semiotics of their material culture.
Review comments by Lolita Nikolova, PhD
© 2007-2008 International Institute of
Anthropology
© 2007-2008Lolita Nikolova, PhD
29 S State Street #206
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Tel. (801) 363 3123
Anthropology
© 2007-2008Lolita Nikolova, PhD
29 S State Street #206
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Tel. (801) 363 3123
You can submit a copy of book or article to be reviewed and published at http://www.iianthropology.org
Area of interest: Prehistory of Eurasia, Theoretical archaeology, Theoretical archaeology, Social
behavior , Anthropology of everydayness. Address: Reviews, International Institute of Anthropology, 29 S
State Street #206, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, USA
Area of interest: Prehistory of Eurasia, Theoretical archaeology, Theoretical archaeology, Social
behavior , Anthropology of everydayness. Address: Reviews, International Institute of Anthropology, 29 S
State Street #206, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, USA
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
