FORMAL EARLY NEOLITHIC FLINT TOOLKITS ...

Geoarchaeology and Archaeomineralogy (Eds. R. I. Kostov, B. Gaydarska, M. Gurova). 2008.
Proceedings of the International Conference, 29-30 October 2008 Sofia, Publishing House “St. Ivan Rilski”, Sofia, 29-35.
FORMAL EARLY NEOLITHIC FLINT TOOLKITS:
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND SEDIMENTOLOGICAL ASPECTS
Maria Gurova 1, Chavdar Nachev 2
1 National Institute of Archaeology and Museum, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1000 Sofia; gurovam@yahoo.fr
2 National Museum “Earth and Man”, 1421 Sofia; chnachev@hotmail.com
ABSTRACT. Bulgarian Early Neolithic chipped stone assemblages reveal coherent and diagnostic flint toolkits for the vast Karanovo I and II
cultural area, characterized by high quality yellow-honey coloured flint, quite long and regular blades with (bi)lateral semi-abrupt high retouch and
sometimes with rounded or pointed ends, as well as highly (re-)used sickle inserts. One of the most challenging questions in relation to these
toolkits is the identification of their raw material outcrops, supplying strategy and the network of their wide scale distribution.
Archaeological background
The focus of this study is the diagnostic flint toolkits which
form an intrinsic part of the Early Neolithic assemblages of the
Karanovo I and II cultures. Apart from their distinctive technotypological
and functional features, another key feature is the
special raw material from which the toolkits are made: high
quality, yellow-honey coloured flint, with sporadic whitish spots
(well known and often referred to in the literature as Balkan
Platform flint). The complex of significative traits of these
toolkits permits their consideration as one of the diagnostic
elements of the Early Neolithic material culture (Gurova, 2005).
Typologically, these toolkits consist mostly of medium to
long, regularly-shaped blades, ranging between 12 and 15 cm
long, frequently with (bi-)lateral semi-abrupt retouch (from
marginal to high and steep), and sometimes with rounded or
pointed ends. Most of the artefacts in these toolkits possess
macro- and micro-wear traces of use. The flint assemblages
reveal many characteristics of so-called “formal tools” whose
production requires a special raw material, advanced
preparation, anticipated use and transportability” (Andrefski,
1994, 22). From a technological point of view, this industry
indicates the application of indirect percussion (punch
technique). Pressure flaking with an organic stick is used for
the characteristic high and steep retouching (Fig. 1). It must be
stressed that, with only one exception, neither cores nor
debitage linked to their preparation are attested among the
assemblages. In this sense, any attempt to apply some
diacritic concept of chaîne opératoire reconstruction of the
toolkits fails.
These formal tools are recorded in varying density and
quantity among the flint assemblages of many Early Neolithic
settlements, some of which had short life-spans, and others
reveal only limited archaeological evidence. Only a few sites
offer the possibility of studying the formal tools in conditions of
changing contextual data. In spite of the fact that an impressive
29
corpus of flint studies has been done over the last two
decades, too many questions still arise with regards to these
flint toolkits: tracing their (becoming mythologically
overexposed!) raw material, its outcrops and procurement
strategy; the location of their workshops, identification of their
manufacturers (flint knappers) and technological origin; the
identification of their distribution and exchange network
mechanisms; elucidating their interactions and impacts with
adjacent Early Neolithic cultural groups and identities, etc.
Fig. 1. Typological characteristics of the toolkit from Yabalkovo (drawing
M. Gurova)

Chronological and spatial features of the formal
toolkits
In order to put the discussed problem in adequate
chronological framework, we present the division of the Early
Neolithic in Bulgaria, according to the recent study on absolute
dates (Boyadziev, 1995, 179): Early pottery (‘monochrome”
phase) 6300/6200 – 6000/5900 cal BC; Early (‘classical”
phase) 6000/5900 – 5500/5450 cal BC. Regarding the time
span of the toolkits under discussion and their function, it is
useful to point out that they are abundant during the whole
“classical” Early Neolithic Karanovo I and II periods of the Tell
Karanovo sequence, or until ca 5500 cal BC. On the other
hand, in terms of their lasting ‘retardation’ in the same
sequence, the end of the Karanovo III period at Tell Karanovo:
5500-5280 cal BC (Görsdorf, 1997, 379) can be regarded as a
terminus ante quem for the presence of formal toolkits.
Spatial distribution of the formal toolkits
Local distribution
The formal toolkits are commonly found in the vast area of
the Karanovo I and II cultures and their constituent regions in
Southern Bulgaria: Thrace – the Tells Azmak, Karanovo and
Kapitan Dimitrievo, and the Yabalkovo site; the Northern
foothills of the Rhodope Mountains – the Rakitovo site, the
Sofia Plain – Slatina; and the valley of Struma – Kovačevo
(Fig. 2). The map shows sites in Western Bulgaria, which have
been published (Gatsov, 1993). Other research has been
undertaken by the author, and some of this work is still in
progress (Gurova, 1997, 2001, 2001, 2004, 2005, in press). In
North Bulgaria the flint industry exhibits a very different pattern
30
(exclusively expedient in character and an absence of the
formal tools under discussion here), despite the fact that a
proportion of the artefacts were made of the same raw material
as used for the manufacturing of the discussed formal tools.
Two sites belonging to the “monochrome” phase of the Early
Neolithic sequence are marked in blue in recognition of their
important position in the context of the Neolithisation debate.
Supra-regional distribution
Formal toolkits as a distinguishable category of the Early
Neolithic flint repertoire have never before been discussed in
the literature on the complex technological and social
dimensions. Nevertheless some aspects of their stylistic
‘coherence’ have often been observed in the course of work on
different assemblages from adjacent major cultural areas –
Proto-Sesklo, Starčevo and Körös-Criş. The most common
feature mentioned in these studies is the presence of raw
material from the Pre-Balkan platform among the Early
Neolithic assemblages from the Balkans.
According to C. Perlès a characteristic feature of the
chipped-stone assemblages of Neolithic Greece is the
“predominant use of non-local raw materials often obtained
from considerable distances” (Perlès, 2001, 201). Recently,
interesting and promising research has been done by G.
Filippakis on the north Greek Neolithic assemblages, coming
from outside the obsidian area. I hope our further study and
collaboration will lead to positive issues of reliable comparison
of the assemblages from both regions – Bulgarian Thrace and
Greek Macedonia.
Fig. 2. Map with Early Neolithic sites: triangles without numbers – western group studied by Gatsov; grey triangles – study and direct observation of the
author; numbers 9 &10 – ‘monochrome pottery’ sites. The three main flint outcrops are indicated by white signs in relation to modern cities. Arrows
indicate presumed directions of: spread of Neolithisation – black; distribution of Dobrudzha flint – white. Numbered sites: 1 – Kovačevo; 2 – Slatina; 3 –
Rakitovo; 4 – Kapitan Dimitrievo; 5 – Yabalkovo; 6 – Azmak; 7 – Karanovo; 8 – Dzhuljunitsa; 9 – Koprivets; 10 – Ohoden

From the Ovče Pole region the crucial culture group of
Anzabegovo is very promising, but still enigmatic from a lithic
point of view. However the researcher, Elster mentioned that
among the implements there was “honey-brown flint appearing
to be similar to well known eastern European flint with no
known local source” (Elster, 1977, 161).
The Iron Gates region will be also mentioned on the basis of
Borić’s assessment on the lithic industries underlying “…a
general trend toward the laminarization of blades and the use
of steep retouch, as well as a tendency to use good quality raw
material of attractive appearance, such as yellow-spotted flint
from pre-Balkan platform that most likely originated in the
region of Shumen in North-East Bulgaria” (Borić, 2005, 19).
According to Kozłowski, the tardif phase of Golocut
(Voyvodina) offers some dozen implements of yellow flint from
the Pre-Balkan platform; the drawings of some implements
from the site confirm the typological similarity with the formal
tools discussed in this paper (Kozłowski, 1982, 150, Figs. 11-
12). The same author concludes that in the area of the Körös-
Criş culture there are retouched blades and unretouched sickle
segments made of yellow imported flint – as a result of direct
diffusion from the Balkans (Kozłowski, 1982, 154). In the
Southeast there is undeniable evidence of penetration of
formal tools of Karanovo I aspect in Hoca Çeşme phase II
(Gatsov, 2000; 2005).
Comparative evidence from the Romanian Early Neolithic
flint assemblages is very limited and the distribution of “yellowspotted”
raw material and items in this direction is still to be
adequately documented, although Bonsall has reported the
presence of Balkan flint artefacts in Criş culture contexts at
Schela Cladovei on the left bank of the Danube, a few km
downstream from the Iron Gates gorge (Bonsall, 2003; 2008).
As a concluding remark it should be stressed that no special
study elucidating the scale and intensity of the circulation and
spread of yellow-spotted flint artefacts has been undertaken.
The reasons are many, the most important being the scarcity
of publications with relevant and detailed information about
Early Neolithic flint assemblages among which these formal
toolkits are detectable. This applies particularly to some
emblematic sites adjacent to Bulgarian lands and cultural
areas.
Raw material for the toolkits: where from?
How should we summarize our knowledge of the raw
material parameters of Early Neolithic assemblages and, in
particular, their formal toolkits? It has already been mentioned
that foreign specialists have drawn attention to the high quality
and yellow-honey-waxy colour of a particular raw material,
originating from North-Еast Bulgaria (Pre-Balkan platform) and
its spread across the region. One study fixed the provenance
in the vicinity of Shumen (Voytek, 1987).
At local scale the research has gone more slowly. There
have been some sporadic studies of cryptocrystalline siliceous
rocks ‘flint” over the past three decades. The first archaeologist
to show the abundance and variety of the flint sources from
North-Еast Bulgaria, who also tried to establish a database and
a link of the identified flint outcrops to prehistoric artefacts and
their circulation, was Kanchev (1978; Kanchev et al., 1981).
31
In his publication Gatsov (1993) presumed North-west
Bulgaria to be the region of provenance of the raw material
used for Early Neolithic assemblages from Western Bulgaria
(vide supra). At the same time, Skakun noticed that “certain
specimens are probably made of Dobrudzha flint”. On the
basis of her deep knowledge of North-East Bulgarian flint
assemblages both from the Neolithic and Chalcolithic, she
conceived this fact rather as accidental emphasizing that the
exploitation of Dobrudzha flint started no earlier than the
Chalcolithic (Skakun, 1993, 54). She had already reached the
same conclusion about a dozen implements from the ‘big
house’ of Slatina (Skakun, 1992, 102).
There are two general types of flint recognised among the
assemblages from the Tells Karanovo and Azmak. The
investigation was done by V. Kurčatov who suggested that the
abundance of artefacts was due to the proximity of local
outcrops and identified them (more theoretically than actually)
in the region of the Sveti Ilia Hills in Eastern Thrace, not very
far from the tells (Gatsov, Kurčatov, 1997, 215). This
assumption has been quoted repeatedly, but never
substantiated by further serious research. In fact, it could be
considered as disproved.
Preliminary research on a series from Yabalkovo has led
Zlateva-Usunova to reveal that “…the predominant raw
material with identified origin comes from deposits in the Upper
Thrace, the Sredna Gora, North (understand Western) Bulgaria
and the Eastern Rhodopes” (Leshtakov et al., 2007, 201). In
fact, the first to presume, somewhat theoretically, a northeastern
provenance for the raw material used for the Neolithic
big blades was Tsonev. He did this in the context of his theory
about the role of long blades in “communal perception of long
distance exchange through common metaphors” (Tsonev,
2004, 262).
The research initiated by the present author (M. Gurova), in
collaboration with the mineralogist Ch. Nachev, comprises
analysis of archaeological artefacts from the sites of Karanovo,
Kovačevo, Rakitovo, Yabalkovo and Dzhuljunitsa and different
flint outcrops from the country in order to identify the
provenance of the formal Early Neolithic toolkits raw material.
Microscopic and comparative analyses of thin sections from
the mentioned materials are in progress (Figs. 3, 4).
Fig. 3. Cryptocrystalline chalcedony and micro fauna filled with microcrystalline
chalcedony – blade fragment, archaeological site Rakitovo,
sample N582; possible source – Upper Cretaceous (Moesian flint);
transmitted light, crossed polars

Fig. 4. Cryptocrystalline chalcedony, microfauna filled with microcrystalline
chalcedony and clastic particles – blade fragment, Neolithic
archaeological site Yabalkovo, sample N18; possible source – Upper
Cretaceous (Moesian flint); transmitted light, crossed polars
Further thin section analyses should reduce the potential
candidates for original outcrops of the toolkits under
discussion. Although archaeological evidence for Neolithic
workshops in the region of North-East Bulgaria is absent, we
have to presume that they existed in the Early Neolithic for
ensuring suitable nodules, cores (about 18-20 cm long) and
debitage (blades): all these products were predestined for long
distance exchange of good and perhaps embodied know-how.
Sedimentological aspects of prehistoric flints
The siliceous concretions (flint) are relatively well studied in
Bulgaria. The published sedimentological works are about
Upper Jurassic siliceous concretions in West Bulgaria
(Atanasov, 1954; Nachev, 2005), Low Cretaceous flint in
Northeast Bulgaria (Goranov, 1965; Nachev, Kanchev, 1984;
Nachev, 2008, in press) and Upper Cretaceous siliceous
concretions (Soultanov, 1982; Nachev, 2008 in press).
32
Part of the present work is based on sedimentological
examinations of flint and flint-like materials from the territory of
Bulgaria. They include terrain observation (more than 100
localities), macroscopic observations (descriptions of
specimens – 480 numbers) and microscopic descriptions (700
thin-sections from 65 outcrops). The microscopic observations
of artefacts with Neolithic and Chalcolithic age have
preliminary character and are based on macro-and
microscopic observations of 180 thin sections from 16
archeological sites. According to some authors, the siliceous
concretions (flint) consist from autogenic minerals of SiO2
(silica). They have concretion structure and are hosted
predominantly in limestones or chalk. The natural flint outcrops
are widely spread in Bulgaria. The siliceous concretions are
represented in almost geographic and morphotectonic zones.
Significant accumulations are located in the Moesian
Platform and adjustment parts of the Balkan Alpine Orogen
(Fig. 5) (Nachev, Nachev, 1986). In the Phanerozoic rocks in
Bulgaria the siliceous concretions are found in 16 stratigraphic
levels and different paleogeodynamic environments are
recognized (Nachev, Nachev, 1989). The main stratigraphic
levels, which are of theoretical and practical interest for
archeology, are the Upper Jurassic (Oxfordian), the Low
Cretaceous (Aptian) and the Upper Cretaceous (Coniacian,
Campanian and Maastrichtian).Some meaning in archaeology
may have the hydrothermal chalcedony veins in the Upper
Cretaceous Sredna Gora zone (Sredna Gora atypical flint) and
in the Oligocene Rhodopes volcanic zone (Rhodopes atypical
flint). The term “Pre-Balkan Platform” is not a correct term for
Moesian Platform. The “Balkan flint” probably means every flint
in the Moesian Platform and adjustment parts of the Balkan
Alpine Orogen including both Low Cretaceous (Aptian) flint and
Upper Cretaceous (Campanian and Maastrichtian) flint. The
geographic and stratigraphic distribution of the main levels of
siliceous concretions (flint) with archaelogocal significance in
Bulgaria is shown on Fig. 5.
Fig. 5. Geological map of the main types of flint-born rocks in Bulgaria: 1 – Upper Jurassic limestones (Oxfordian age) with siliceous concretions (J3 ox ) -
Hemus flint; 2 – Low Cretaceous (Aptian age) limestones with siliceous concretions (К1 a ) – Luda Gora flint (Dobrudzha flint); 3 – Upper Cretaceous chalk
and chalk-like limestones (Campanian and Maastrictian ages) with siliceous concretions (К2 cp-m ) – Moesia flint; 4 – Upper Cretaceous volcanogenous
rocks (Coniacian, Santonian and Campanian ages) in Sredna Gora Zone (K2 Cn-Cp ) – Sredna Gora atypical flint; 5 – Chalcedony veins in Oligocene
volcanogenous rocks in Rhodope Zone (Pg3) – Rhodope atypical flint ; 6 – boundary between tectonic zones

Hemus flint (J3 ox ). The silica concretions are hosted in grey
micrite limestones (Nachev, 2005). The flint-rich level in
limestones belongs to the Oxfordian age. The shape of the
concretions is approximately ellipsoidal, with pale grey colour.
The size of the concretions varies from 1 to 15 cm, mainly 8-10
cm. A few low meters of the flint bearing section are of a
brown-reddish color. The structure is massive, practically
without inclusions. The crust is pale yellowish, from 0.2 to 1 cm
in thickness. The grey flint formed characteristic yellow patina
in water (alluvial and karst) conditions. The fracture is smooth
(in grey varieties) – conchoidal in separate parts of the
specimens. The brown-reddish varieties show rough fracture.
This flint has many tectonic cracks in three directions like. The
cracks are with calcite filling. Part of the specimens is strongly
weathered. Very rarely are visible relics from limestones. The
mineral composition is chalcedony, quartzine, quartz, and
calcite. Biodetritus is from Foraminifera and Spongia (Porifera).
All the biocomponents are silicified. The Upper Jurassic
limestones are widespread and characteristic topography
element in the district – there is abundance of small flint
deposits in the region. Clearly observed are the following types
of flint deposits: 1 – primary; 2 – secondary (placer). The
secondary deposits are divided to the following genetic types:
eluvial deposits; colluvial (slope embankments) deposits;
proluvial deposits; alluvial (river) deposits; karsts deposits. The
Upper Jurassic flint-rich limestones formed two stripes of
outcrops in North-West Bulgaria. The first stripe is connected
to the north branch of the Belogradchik anticline near
Granitovo, Oreshets and Yanovets. The second stripe is
related to the South branch of the Belogradchik anticline near
Salash, Varbovo, Targoviste, Prevala and Dolni Lom. The
Oxfordian flint is used as a local source of flint during the Early
Paleolithic (1.3 Ma).
Ludogorie or Luda Gora (Dobrogea) flint (К1 a ). The silica
concretions are hosted in Low Cretaceous (Aptian) micrite
limestones with pale grey colour. The colour of the concretions
is predominantly pale brown or beige, very rarely grey. Very
often it shows concentric-zonal structure (pale brown, reddish
and grey stripes). The size varies from 1 to 50 cm, mainly 5-15
cm, very rarely (30-50 cm). The shape is regular –
approximately ellipsoidal, rarely may be rod-like. Distinctive
feature is the white silica-carbonate crust, 6-12 mm thick, in
separate specimens with onion weathering. The intercalations
are very rare, small (1-5 mm), round, with a pale cream colour.
The fracture is smooth (in brown and beige varieties),
conchoidal or cone in separate part of the specimens.
The grey varieties show a rough fracture. The mineral
composition is micro- and cryptograin chalcedony, moganite
and quartz. Biocomponents are only sponge spiculae which
are fully silicified. The Aptian flint-rich limestones give material
for different types of flint secondary (placer) deposits. The main
of them are eluvium-proluvium deposits, where angular pieces
of flint are hosted in soft sandy-carbonated masses. Such
examples are Kriva Reka, Tetovo, Kamenovo, Ravno, Chukata
(near Razgrad) etc. Another placer deposits in this region are
from paleoalluvial type like Drianovets locality etc. The Aptian
flint has a large geographic distribution in North East Bulgaria,
to the North of Novi Pazar and between meridians of Rouse
and Dobrich. The main outcrops are near Vetovo, Koubrat,
Razgrad, Isperih and Novi Pazar. Clearly are distinguished two
microscopic types of Ludogorie flint: the first one with micro- to
33
cryptoground mass and single sponge spiculae and the second
– microcrystalline aggregates with recrystallization of
chalcedony.
The first one, named Ludogorie flint – Type Ravno (Figs. 6,
7) is observed in the Northeast part of area – along the Topchii
River near Topchii, Kamenovo, Ravno, Koubrat, Belovets,
Tetovo, and Chereshovo. The second, named Ludogorie flint –
Type Kriva Reka (Figs. 8, 9) is observed in the Southwest part
Fig. 6. Cryptocrystalline chalcedony and sponge spiculae filled with
microcrystalline chalcedony – siliceous concretion; deposit Ravno (near
Kamenovo), sample N431, Low Cretaceous (Ludogorie flint – type
Ravno); transmitted light, crossed polars
Fig. 7. Cryptocrystalline chalcedony and sponge spiculae filled with
microcrystalline chalcedony – nucleus from siliceous concretion;
archaeological site Kamenovo, sample N5K1, Low Cretaceous
(Ludogorie flint – type Ravno); transmitted light, crossed polars
Fig. 8. Cryptocrystalline chalcedony and microcrystalline chalcedony –
siliceous concretion; deposit Kriva Reka, sample N8-2, Low Cretaceous
(Ludogorie flint – type Kriva Reka); transmitted light, crossed polars

Fig. 9. Cryptocrystalline chalcedony and microcrystalline chalcedony –
siliceous concretion; deposit Goliam Porovets – Chakmaka (near
Isperih), sample N4, Low Cretaceous (Ludogorie flint – type Kriva Reka);
transmitted light, crossed polars
of the area – between the villages of Goliam Porovets,
Drianovets, Krivnia, Chukata (Razgrad), Lisi Vrah, Kriva Reka
and Rouzhitsa. The Ludogorie flint – Type Ravno is very often
found as artefacts, especially in North-East Bulgaria (Rouse,
Kamenovo, Ravno) and the Thracian valley (Ezero, Diadovo).
The second type (Ludogorie flint – Type Kriva Reka) has a
relatively low distribution as artefacts.
In the Popovski Hills Region (Goranov, 1965) and at the
Yantra River are described bedded siliceous rocks in vertical
alternation with Aptian limestones. These bedded siliceous
rocks altered laterally in Ludogorie flint to West direction and
this flint is a possible raw material for artefacts production
durring the Neolithic. Localities of such type are Golyamo
Gradiste, Byala, Krepcha, Tsenovo, Beltsov and other sites.
Moesian flint (К2 cp-m ). The silica concretions are hosted in the
Upper Cretaceous (Campanian) chalk, chalk-like limestones
and fine grained biomorphic limestones (Maastrichtian). In
such a way they formed a few stratigraphic levels, but the very
rich layer of flint is the Upper Campanian, where the
concretions are condensed in a layer with approximately 1
meter thickness. The colour of the concretions is brown, pale
brown and grey, massive and spotted structure (brown with
pale grey spots). Concentric-zonal structure is very rare. The
size varies from 5 to 100 cm, mainly 15-35 cm, rarely up to 100
cm. The shape is extremely irregular, with many branches
(ameba-like). Macroscopic distinctive features are very often
big relics from chalky limestones, sometime dissolved, with
dimensions up to 10 cm. The crust is thin (1-2 mm), white,
chalk contain, with silica-carbonate composition. The fracture
is rough to smooth. The natural polish and yellow patina are
typical for paleo and recent alluvial depositions. The mineral
composition is a micro and crypto chalcedony (up to 75%),
moganite (up to 25%), opal, quartz (2-3%) and framboidal
pyrite. The microscopic observation shows micro to crypto
groundmass and abundance of lightly fragmentated and
chaotic distributed microfauna (Fig. 10). These microscopic
features are diagnostic for Moesian flint. The Upper
Cretaceous flint-rich rocks formed (Fig. 1) three large areas of
outcrops in North Bulgaria (the Moesian Platform and
adjustment parts of the Balkan Alpine Orogen), from West to
Wast as follow: the first one between Montana and Lovech, the
second – between Pleven and Nikopol and the third – between
Shumen and Devnya.
34
Fig. 10. Cryptocrystalline chalcedony and microfauna filled with microcrystalline
chalcedony – siliceous concretion; deposit Somovit (near
Nikopol), sample N11a, Upper Cretaceous (Moesian flint); transmitted
light, crossed polars
In this big territory Moesian flint has large distribution and
has formed big deposits. Throughout this big area the Moesian
flint has similar features. Only in the Pleven-Nikopol region the
Moesian flint is hosted in non deformed rocks. That is why the
flint from these outcrops has a better quality. This fact and the
convenient transport connection along the Danube River,
determined the big outcrops on the Danube cost near Nikopol
and Somovit, as the most probable source of flint raw materials
for vast territories in Serbia and Romania.
Sredna Gora atypical flint (K2 Cn-Cp ) is represented as
hydrothermal veins from chalcedony varieties in the Upper
Cretaceous volcanogenous rocks (of Coniacian, Santonian and
Campanian ages) in the Sredna Gora paleovolcanic zone. This
atypical flint (Fig. 1) forms a few deposits, but with a large
geographic distribution in the Thracian Plain. Because of the
strong tectonic treatment, its irregular shape and domain of
recrystallization, this material (only as local source) has a very
small participation in artefacts production.
The Rhodopes atypical flint (Pg3) is represented as
hydrothermal veins of chalcedony varieties (chalcedony, agate
and jasper) in the Oligocene volcanogenic rocks in the
Rhodopes Zone. The Rhodopes atypical flint has a large
geographic distribution in the Eastern and Central Rhodopes
and has formed a large deposition. A few of these deposits
(near Asenovgrad, Chirpan and Haskovo) are distributed in the
Thracian Plain. This fact determines their participation in flint
toolkits in Thrace. The atypical flint from the Rhodopes zone,
because of its irregular shape, many inclusions, domains of
recrystallization, tectonic treatment and other peculiarities has
significance only as a local source of flint durring the Neolithic
and Chalcolithic.
The microscopic examinations of artefacts, despite their
preliminary character give the following clear suggestions: the
flint toolkits in the Central West Bulgaria are with significant
participation (up to 90%) of Moesian flint (Chavdar and
Kazanluk sites); there are evidences for participation of
Moesian flint in the Rakitovo site in the Rhodope Region; the
Kovachevo site (Struma valley) in conditions of total lack of
local flint sources is characterized with participation of
Ludogorie flint – 2% (for formal toolkits) and up to 50% of the
Rhodopes atypical flint with probable source from the Batak-
Dospat region.

References
Andrefski, W. 1994. Raw material availability and the
organization of technology. – Amer. Antiquity, 59, 1, 21-34.
Atanasov, G. 1954. Kremachnite obrazovania v oksfordskite
varovitsi. – Ann. Sofia Univ., Fac. Biol.-Geol.-Geogr., 48, 2,
61-79 (in Bulgarian).
Bonsall, C. 2003. The Iron Gates Mesolithic. – In: Ancient
Europe 8000 B.C. to A.D. 1000: Encyclopedia of the
Barbarian World (Eds. P. Bogucki, P. Crabtree). Scribner,
New York, 175-178.
Bonsall, C. 2008. The Mesolithic of the Iron Gates. – In:
Mesolithic Europe (Eds. G. Bailey, P. Spikins). Cambridge
Univ. Press, Cambridge, 238-279.
Borić, D. 2005. Deconstructing essentialisms: unsettling
frontiers of the Mesolithic-Neolithic Balkans. – In:
(Un)settling the Neolithic. 2005. Oxbow, Oxford, 16-31.
Boyadziev, Y. 1995. Chronology of prehistoric cultures in
Bulgaria. – In: Prehistoric Bulgaria (Eds. D. Bailey, I.
Panayotov). Monogr. World Archaeology, 22, 149-191.
Elster, E. 1977. Neolithic Technology: a Case Study in Lithic
Analysis for Old Europe, 6500-4000 BC. PhD Dissertation.
Univesity of California, Los Angeles.
Gatsov, I. 1993. Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries in Western
Bulgaria. Jagellonian Univ. Press, Kraków.
Gatsov, I. 2000. Chipped stone assemblages from South
Bulgaria and North-West Turkey (Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic
and Neolithic). – In: Technology, Style and Society.
Contributions to the Innovations between the Alps and the
Black Sea in Prehistory (Ed. L. Nikolova). BAR
International Series, 854, Oxford, 1-30.
Gatsov, I. 2005. Some observation about bullet core technique
during 7 th /6 th millennium BC. – In: How Did Farming Reach
Europe? Anatolian-European Relations from the Second
Half of the 7 th through the First Half of the 6 th Millennium
cal BC (Ed. C. Lichter). BYZAS 2, Istanbul, 213-220.
Gatsov, I., V. Kurčatov. 1997. Neolithische Feuersteinartefakte.
Mineralogische Untersuchung und technisch-typologische
Charakteristik. – In: Karanovo I. Die Ausgrabungen im
Südsektor 1984-1992 (Hrsg. S. Hiller, V. Nikolov). Verlag
F.Berger & Söhne, Horn/Wien; Salzburg – Sofia, 213-227.
Goranov, A. 1965. Siliciti (halcedonoliti) apta v Popovskom
raione – 7 Kongress Carpato-Balkanskoi Geologicheskoi
Associacii, 2, 1, 329-331 (in Russian).
Görsdorf, J. 1977. C 14 -Altersbestimmungen. – In: Karanovo I.
Die Ausgrabungen im Sudsektor 1984-1992 (Hrsg. S.
Hiller, V. Nikolov). Verlag F. Berger & Söhne, Horn/Wien;
Salzburg – Sofia, 377-384.
Görsdorf, J., J. Bojadžiev. 1996. Zur absoluten Chronologie
der bulgarischen Urgeschichte. – Eur. Antiqua, 2, 105-173.
Gurova, M. 1997. Gebrauchsspurenanalyse des neolithischen
Feuersteininventars. – In: Karanovo I. Die Ausgrabungen
im Südsektor 1984-1992 (Hrsg. S. Hiller, V. Nikolov). F.
Berger & Söhne, Horn, Wien; Salzburg – Sofia, 363-375.
Gurova, M. 2001. Funktsionalen analiz na kremachen
ansambal ot selishtna mogila Kapitan Dimitrievo. –
Arheologia, 2-3, 38-47 (in Bulgarian).
Gurova, M. 2002. Feursteininventar aus Sondage O19 in Tell
Karanovo: typologische und funktionale Analyse. – In:
Karanovo II. Die Ausgrabungen in O19 (Hrsg. S. Hiller, V.
Nikolov). Phoibos Verlag, Wien, 149-175.
Gurova, M. 2004. Evolution and retardation: flint assemblages
from Tell Karanovo. – In: Prehistoric Thrace (Eds. V.
Nikolov, K. Bačvarov, P. Kalchev). Sofia, 239-253.
35
Gurova, M. 2005. Flint artefacts in the context of the diagnostic
finds. – Ann. New Bulg. Univ., Dep. Archaeol., 6, 88-103.
Gurova, M. (in print). Towards the Early Neolithic populations:
flint perspective from Bulgaria. – Docum. Praehistorica, 35.
Кanchev, К. 1978. Prouchvaneto na flintoviya material ot
arheologicheski razkopki, problemi i zadachi. –
Interdistsiplinarni Izsledvaniya, 2, 81-89 (in Bulgarian).
Kanchev, К., I. Nachev, G. Kovnurko. 1981. Kremachnite skali
v Bulgaria i tiahnata eksploatatsiya. – Interdistsiplinarni
Izsledvaniya, 7-8, 41-59 (in Bulgarian).
Kozłowski, J. 1982. La Néolithosation de la zone Balkano-
Danubienne du point de vue des industries lithiques. – In: Origin
of the Chipped Stone Industries of the Early Farming Cultures in
Balkans (Ed. J. Kozłowski). Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe,
Warszawa – Kraków, 132-170.
Leshtakov, K., N. Todorova, V. Petrova, R. Zlateva-Uzunova,
O. Özbek, Ts. Popova, N. Spassov, N. Iliev. 2007.
Preliminary report on the salvage archaeological
excavations at the Early Neolithic site Yabalkovo in the
Maritsa Valley, 2000-2005 field seasons. – Anatolica, 23,
85-234.
Nachev, Ch. 2005. Flintat ot rayona na peshterata “Kozarnika”,
Belogradchishko s ogled ns negovata praistoricheska
upotreba. – Nationalna Teoretichna Konferencia.
Bourgas, 77-80 (in Bulgarian).
Nachev, Ch. 2008. Osnovnite tipove flint v Bulgaria, kato
surovina za naprava na artefacti. – Interdistsiplinarni
Izsledvaniya, 20 (in Bulgarian; in press).
Nachev, Ch., I. Nachev. 1986. Distribution and evolution of the
siliceous rocks in Bulgaria. – Compt. Rend. Acad. Bulg.
Sci., 39, 8, 81-83.
Nachev, I., K. Kunchev. 1984. Aptian and Quaternary flint in
North-East Bulgaria. – In: III Seminar on Petroarchaeology.
Plovdiv, 1984, 65-82.
Nachev, I., Ch. Nachev. 1989. Distribution and evolution of
siliceous rocks in Bulgaria. – In: Siliceous Deposits of the
Tethys and Pacific Regions (Eds. J. Hein, R. Obradovich).
Springer-Verlag, New York – Berlin – Heidelberg, 81-92.
Perlès, C. 2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece. The First Farming
Communities in Europe. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
Skakun, N. 1992. Tipologo-trasologicheski analiz na oradiyata
na truda ot zhilishtnoto pomeshtenie. – In: Nikolov, V.
1992. Rannoneolitno Zhilishte ot Slatina (Sofia). Razkopki i
Prouchvaniya, 25, 102-106 (in Bulgarian).
Skakun, N. 1993. Results of traseological examination of flint
implements from Neolithic settlements in Western Bulgaria.
– In: Gatsov, I. 1993. Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries in
Western Bulgaria. Jagellonian Univ. Press, Kraków, 52-54.
Soultanov, A. 1982. Gornokrednite kremachni konkrecii ot Severna
Bulgaria. – Paleontologia, Sstratugrafia i Lithologia, 17, 51-59
(in Bulgarian).
Tsonev, Ts. 2004. Long blades in the context of East Balkan
and Anatolian complex sedentary society: distribution and
appearance of Early Neolithic tulip-like pottery in Eastern
Balkans. – In: Prehistoric Thrace (Eds. V. Nikolov, K.
Bačvarov, P. Kalchev). Sofia – Stara Zagora, 259-263.
Voytek, B. 1987. Analysis of lithic raw materials from sites in
Eastern Yugoslavia. – In: Papers First Intern. Conference
on Prehistoric Flint Mining and Lithic Raw Material
Identification in the Carpathian Basin (Ed. K. Bíro).
Budapest-Sümeg, Budapest, 287-295.