|Dates||circa 4,700 B.C.E. — circa 3,950 B.C.E.|
|Preceded by||Starčevo culture|
At its full extent the culture extended along the Black Sea coast to central Bulgaria and into Thrace. The aggregate "Kodjadermen-Gumelnita-Karanovo VI" evolves out of the earlier Boian, Marita and Karanovo V cultures. It is supplanted by Cernavodă I in the early 4th millennium.
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"
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.
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 has been lasted short of a millennium from the beginning of Charcolitic to the start of the fifth millennium.
4500-3950 The regional characteristics of A1 phase are diminished, and a more uniform characteristics is identified in discovered artifacts.
|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.
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 pozitions on the belly, stretched laterally, in the position of the “thinker”
- sex representation
- decoration pattern
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
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
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%.
- "A "Lost" Civilization: GUMELNIŢA". Cimec.ro. Retrieved 2016-04-06.
- Raluca KOGĂLNICEANU. "OPINIONS REGARDING THE PERIODISATION OF THE GUMELNITA CULTURE" (PDF). History.uaic.ro. Retrieved 2016-04-06.
- "Cultural Landscapes in the lower Danube area. Experimenting tell settlements." (PDF). Documenta Praehistorica. Dragos Gheorghiu Centre of Research: National University of Arts - Bucharest Romania. XXXV. 2008. Retrieved 2016-04-06.
- [dead link]
- Collins, Gloria. "Will the "Great Goddess" resurface?: Reflections in Neolithic Europe". Austin, Texas: University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved 1 December 2009This site was a student brief done for a class assignment
- "A "Lost" Civilization: Gumelnita". Cimec.ro. Retrieved 2016-04-06.
- Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis, VIII, 2009 SOME KEY FEATURES OF THE DANUBE HOMO SCRIBENS BASED ON THE DATABANK DATDAS Marco MERLINI (Italy)
- 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.
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Gumelniţa-Karanovo culture.|