Gumelniţa Culture in Central and Southern Dobrudja
by Valentina Voinea
Gumelniţa Culture on the Territory of Dobrudja
The cultural complex of Kodjadermen-Gumelniţa-Karanovo
VI developed at the level of the late Eneolithic, after a period of
vast material and spiritual transformations. Its evolution was concentric
and gradual, as the intensity of the cultural trends decreased from
the center towards the peripheral area. A close look at the genesis area of the Eneolithic
material and spiritual culture elements reveals the existence of a north-Thracian
focus. We do not deny the role of the uninterrupted local evolution,
but we think that the use of new techniques was owed first of all to
the cultural trends (“fashion”) coming from the south of the
The formation of the great cultural
complex of Kodjadermen-Gumelniţa-Karanovo VI would not have been
possible without the preparing stage of the early Eneolithic: Boian
III – IV, Karanovo V,
On the territory of Dobrudja, depending on the earlier cultural background and on the favourable geographical position – two access tracks emerged, the Danube and the Black Sea, starting with the late Eneolithic stage, two regional aspects. Along the Danube, in the central and northern area of Dobrudja the Dobrudjan variant emerged, very similar to the north-Danubian one, which can be explained if we take into account the common genesis background – the Boian culture. The dwelling continuity was found best in the tells on the line of the Danube, Hârşova and Atmageaua tătărască, in the caves on the Casimcea Valley (Gura Dobrogei), in the north at Luncaviţa and Sarichioi. Next to the strong Boian traditions, the Dobrudjan variant has preserved also the early Hamangia traditions, visible especially in pottery production.
In the area of the west-Pontic
seashore, on the Burgas – Corbu de Jos segment, the earlier Hamangia-Sava
cultural background determined the existence of much better outlined
regional differences. The pottery production, the “canons” of clay and
bone objects of art, the burial patterns during the Gumelniţa A1
As one analyses these differences in the light of
the funerary finds, they seem even more clear-cut, but more often than not an
essential fact is ignored. The meer comparison of some artifacts, without
analysing the archaeological context of their discovery, sometimes leads to the
formulation of erroneous conclusions. The funerary inventory vessels from
The shortcomings of archaeological research for the Eneolithic period, in the area of the Romanian seashore favoured the emergence of a theory accepted by many Bulgarian and foreign archaeologists – “the Varna culture”.In the Bulgarian relevant literature the notion evolved from the “Varna type” cultural aspect to the ‘Varna culture’, as the presence of the Gumelniţa culture on the territory of Dobrudja has been denied to a larger or smaller extent. The formulation of such hypotheses was based indirectly on the erroneous interpretation in some studies of various Romanian archaeologists.  .
has the merit of having researched for the first time the west-Pontic
aspect, as she conducted rescue excavations at Costineşti and
The elements considred to be crucial for
defining the ‘
E.Comşa, Neoliticul pe teritoriul jud. Constanţa, Revista Muzeelor, V,1977, p. 66-70.
Vl. Dumitrescu, La stratigraphie des stations appartenant à la lumière des fouilles d’Atmageaua Tătărască, Istros I, 1934, p. 37-43.
Vl. Dumitrescu , recenzie la I.Ivanov Tezaurele necropolei de la Varna (art. în lb. bulg.), SCIVA, XXX, 4, 1979, p. 159-161.
D. Galbenu, Aşezarea neolitică de la Hârşova, SCIV., XII, 2, 1962, p. 285-304.
D. Galbenu, Nouvelles données concernant le dèbut de la civilisation de Gumelnita de Dobrogea, Dacia NS., X, 1966, p. 321-325.
P. Haşotti , Consideraţii cu privire la cultura Gumelniţa în Dobrogea, Pontica XXI-XXII, 1989, p. 13-29.
P. Haşotti, Epoca neolitică în Dobrogea, Bibliotheca Tomitana I, Constanţa, 1997.
I. Ivanov, Le chalcolithique en Bulgarie et dans la necropole de Varna, Ancient Bulgaria, Nottingham, I, 1983, p. 154-181.
I. Ivanov, À la question de la localisation et des ètudes des sites submergés dans les lacs de Varna, Pontica XVI,1993, p. 19-26.
I. Ivanov , Les contacts comerciaux pendant l’epoque eneolithique – voie maritimes et voies fluviales, Thracia Pontica, VI, 1, Soyopol,1994, p. 119-124.
M. Lazarov , Les sites submergés le long du Pont Ouest dans le contexte de l’histoire pontique et mediterraineenne, Pontica XXVI, 1993, p. 7-18.
S. Marinescu-Bîlcu, À propos des influences culture Precucuteni au culture Hamangia à la lumiére de quelques decouvertes inédites de Dobrogea, Dacia NS, XVI,1972, p. 5-12.
M. Şimon, Cu privire la noţiunea de “fază Hârşova” a culturii Gumelniţa, SCIVA, XXX, 3, 1979, p. 359-366.
M. Şimon , Cu privire la relaţia dintre “cultura” Varna şi cultura Gumelniţa, SCIVA, XXXIV, 4, 1983, p. 305-314.
H. Todorova, Kdvanoeneolitniiat necropol crai grad Devnia-Varnensko, Izvestiia Varna, VII, 1971, p. 3-40.
H.Todorova et alii, Goljamo Delcevo, 1975 .
H. Todorova , Kameno-mednata epoha v Bălgariia, 1986.
H. Todorova , Eneolit Bolgarii, 1989.
 E.Comşa (1977, pp. 66-70) proposes the delimitation of a new ‘
 The important climatic transformations from the end of the Eneolithic have been revealed best in the seashore area; the sea transgression phenomenon brought about the flooding of more flourishing settlments near the sea bays (today lakes and sea coasts).