353

Documenta Praehistorica XXXIX (2012)

The system of local supply of stone toolsin Amzabegovo-Vr[nik culture from Neolithic Macedonia

Vasilka DimitrovskaInstitute of History and Archaeology, ‘Goce Del;ev’ University, {tip, MK

info@arheo.com.mk

Introduction

The Kratovo-Zletovo palaeo-volcanic area (Fig. 1) inthe eastern part of the Republic of Macedonia isknown as a region abundant in various types ofrocks and minerals. It covers an area of 970.1km2

and has been the subject of various investigationsdue to its polygenetic landscape (Serafimovski 1993;Arsovski 1997; Boev, Yanev 2001; Milevski 2005;2010). The geomorphic features of this region, com-bined with the presence of prehistoric archaeologi-cal sites, require detailed surveys and research ofthe raw materials found in the stone assemblages insome of the excavated archaeological sites which arein, or are near, this area. Exploring the origin of theraw material that might have been used in the pro-duction of stone implements at the Neolithic archa-eological sites like Amzabegovo (Koro∏ec, Koro∏ec1973; Gimbutas 1976), Rug Bair (Sanev 1975; Di-mitrovska 2011b; Dimitrovska, Boev 2012), AlinDol (Zdravkovski, πurbanovska 1983.111–123),

Vr∏nik (Gara∏anin, Gara∏anin 1961.7–40; Grbi≠1954.115; Gockova-Slavska 1955.19), Grlo (Nacev2009.8), and Grn≠arica (Nacev 2009); or Eneolithicarchaeological sites such as Bogoslovski Kamen (Na-cev 2009.5), Buril≠evo (Nasteva 1989.49; Sanev1961), St. Atanas (Atanasova 2010), Grad-Del≠evo(Koli∏trkoska Nasteva 2006.38–53), Cocev Kamen(Dimitrovska 2010b) and Vini≠ko Kale (Dimitrov-ska 2011a), leads to the issue of the system of localsupply of stone tools in Amzabegovo-Vr∏nik culture.

The raw material from Amzabegovo and RugBair

Amzabegovo-Vr∏nik culture (Gara∏anin 1979.79–212) was spread across the eastern part of the Re-public of Macedonia, including the middle and north-ern part of the country (Sanev 1995), and territori-ally overlapped with the Kratovo-Zletovo region. For

ABSTRACT – Although the number of Neolithic sites excavated in the territory of the Republic ofMacedonia is considerable, the stone tools pertinent to these sites are still less known because theyhave never interested investigators. The results of surveys in the Kratovo-Zletovo area and analysesof stone assemblages from several archaeological sites of the Amzabegovo-Vr∏nik culture point to asystem of local supply for stone tools used by the local communities. The aim of this paper is to drawattention to areas abundant in lithic raw materials and suggest that they were local sources for theproduction of stone artefacts in the Amzabegovo-Vr∏nik culture in Neolithic Macedonia.

IZVLE∞EK – Kljub temu, da je bilo na prostoru Republike Makedonije izkopano veliko ∏tevilo neolit-skih najdi∏≠, so kamnita orodja iz teh najdi∏≠ ∏e vedno slabo poznana, ker ponavadi niso pritegnilazanimanja raziskovalcev. Rezultati terenskih pregledov na obmo≠ju Kratovo-Zletovo in analizezbirov kamnitih orodij iz ∏tevilnih arheolo∏kih najdi∏≠ kulture Amzabegovo-Vr∏nik ka∫ejo na sistemlokalne preskrbe s surovinami. V ≠lanku opozarjamo na obmo≠ja, bogata s kamnitimi surovinami,in predlagamo, da so le-ta predstavljala lokalne vire surovin pri proizvodnji kamnitih orodij v kul-turi Amzabegovo-Vr∏nik.

KEY WORDS – Neolithic; Amzabegovo-Vr∏nik; Macedonia; raw materials; stone tools

DOI> 10.4312\dp.39.26

Vasilka Dimitrovska

354

millennia, the environment, whichis abundant in volcanic rocks and mi-nerals, provided the prehistoric in-habitants of the region and its imme-diate periphery with access to vari-ous resources needed in the manu-facture of stone tools.

A thorough analysis of the raw ma-terial used in the production of stonetools was performed on materialfrom two archaeological sites pertai-ning to the Amzabegovo-Vr∏nik cul-tural group: Barutnica, the epony-mous site of this culture, and RugBair (Fig. 5). A common feature ofAmzabegovo and Rug Bair is the pre-sence of serpentinite, volcanic rocksof andesite and basalt, and sand-stones from which the large majori-ty of the ground and abrasive stone tools at bothsites were produced. The investigation confirmedthat most of the artefacts from these sites weremade of a raw material of local provenance that theinhabitants were able to collect near the sites (Waide1976; Dimitrovska 2011b). The deposits of raw ma-terials found in the lithic assemblages from Rug Bairare (even today) still accessible on the surface nearthe site (Dimitrovska, Boev 2012). The immediateproximity of Rug Bair and Amzabegovo (16km dis-tance), and the similarity in the stone assemblageraises the question of whether it is possible that thequarrying of local resources was carried out in thesame region and that these two Neolithic communi-ties collected raw material in the same place (Fig. 2).

The most telling feature regarding the local origin ofthe raw material sources at Amzabegovo and RugBair is the use of serpentinite (Fig. 3). When the rawmaterial at Amzabegovo was examined, the authorsdetermined a big percentage of stone tools madefrom so-called ‘green stone’, from outcrops on theslopes of Mt. Bogoslovec. The green stone at Amza-begovo was described as rock consisting of mineralswith the highest percentage of serpentine and jade,with intrusions of asbestos (Smoor 1976). The term‘green stone’ can refer either to serpentines whichare rocks made up of serpentine; jadeite and nephri-te, which are the minerals described in the Amzabe-govo assemblage under the term ‘real jade’, or even-tually could be the green schist available in the Kra-tovo-Zletovo region (Dimitrovska 2011b). Nephriteis confirmed in the Neolithic stone assemblages inneighbouring countries, with an attempt to define

a so-called ‘nephrite culture’ in the Balkans (Kostov2005). It is not disputed that some samples of Am-zabegovo might be made of nephrite acquired by im-portation, trade or exchange. It is also possible thatnephrite is of local origin, an assumption that needsto be proven with field research.

According to the excavators, ‘green stone’ was alsofound in the assemblage at Rug Bair (Sanev 1975).The microscopic analysis of the samples from thissite showed that the serpentine was of local prove-nance (Dimitrovska, Boev 2012), possibly origina-ting from Mt. Bogoslovec. Because no petrographicanalyses were performed during past examinations,this new information on the provenance of the RugBair material raises many questions regarding thesimilarity of the raw material at both sites and thesystem of local supply for the other Amzabegovo-Vr∏nik sites.

Primary deposits of raw material

A more comprehensive approach to studying the lo-cal supply of stone tools in Amzabegovo-Vr∏nik cul-ture will be possible when the analyses of chipped

Fig. 1. Kratovo-Zletovo region.

Fig. 2. Raw material for chipped stone tools.

Amzabegovo Rug Bair

• jasper • jasper

• calcedony • calcedony

• flint\chert • quartz

• opalit • quartzite

• quartz|! • tahilite

The system of local supply of stone tools in Amzabegovo-Vr[nik culture from Neolithic Macedonia

355

stone industry from the archaeological sites of Grn≠a-rica, St. Atanas and Cocev Kamen have been com-pleted. In relation to the stone industry, we canmake the assumption that the supply of raw mate-rials was probably local, due to the fact that sourcesof used types of rock have been confirmed in the vi-cinity.

Grn≠arica is a single layer Early Neolithic site, wherethe surface deposits of raw material (chalcedony)are found on the outskirts of the site. This is theonly Neolithic site where it has been confirmed thatthe raw material in the field is compatible with theraw material in the chipped stone assemblage1 (Na-cev 2009). A large array of various raw materialswas used in the production of chipped stone tools,including opalised white tufa. This raw material canbe collected in the vicinity of the settlement at Str-mo∏, where an operational mine is still lo-cated. Its main activity is mining and pro-cessing opalised white tuff, quartzite anddolomite. Tools of opalised tuff have beenfound at Rug Bair (Dimitrovska 2011b),which allows the assumption that perhapsthe inhabitants of these two settlementscollected raw material for their stone toolsfrom the same place.

The Eneolithic sites at St. Atanas and near-by Buril≠evo are located in the region of∞e∏inovo-Span≠evo near the ‘Opalite’ mine,which is still operational today and produ-ces opal, agate, chalcedony and opalisedwood. Tools made from these materialswere found during excavations at the afore-mentioned sites (Nasteva 1989; Atanasova2010.9–14). The results of the investigationbring us very close to resolving the prob-lem of the identification of local supplies ofstone tools in the Eneolithic period. Consi-

dering the number of prospectedand excavated sites in the vicinity(Arheolo∏ka karta 1996), in the fu-ture it will be possible to connect theproducts of this mine with the stoneassemblages from Neolithic settle-ments, specifically those belongingto Amzabegovo-Vr∏nik culture.

Cocev Kamen is an archaeologicalsite with a span of periods, from theNeolithic to the late Middle Ages,when the region was settled. The

surface finds of grey chalcedony of extremely highquality used for chipped stone tools (Dimitrovska2010b.35–36; Milevski, Dimitrovska 2011) overlapwith the area of the ‘Silex’ mine 5km distant, whichis still in use and produces various non-metals (Fig.4). The abundance of cores, rejuvenation artefactsand waste, indicate the existence of a workshop atthis same location. It is also possible that stone toolswere made within the settlement and that the minewas a source of the materials used.

The map of excavated Eneolithic and Neolithic sitesin Eastern Macedonia between Kratovo-Zletovo areaand Bregalnica River shows their locations near orwithin the range of mines which are still active pro-ducing non-metals (Fig. 5). The existence of primarydeposits of some types of raw material is further evi-dence that Neolithic communities living in this region

Fig. 3. Raw material for ground and abrasive tools at Amzabego-vo and Rug Bair.

Fig. 4. Cocev Kamen (Neolithic/Bronze Age), surface findsfrom chalcedony (drawing V. Dimitrovska, after Dimitrov-ska, Milevski 2011.Fig. 6). See legend: 1 double platformpyramidal core for flakes and blades; 2, 4, 6 rejuvenationflakes; 3, 5 single platform pyramidal core for blades.

1 Personal examination of the stone assemblage by the author.

Vasilka Dimitrovska

356

exploited local resources. This assumption should befurther verified in the field and compared with thestone assemblages from archaeological excavations.Also, these factors show a strong need for the furtherstudy of the system of Eneolithic and Neolithic settle-ments that could have played the role of consumer,but also supplying centers for stone materials. A de-tailed study could contribute to identifying local re-sources for stone tools, as well as the identificationof mines and Amzabegovo-Vr∏nik workshop sites.

Balkan flint from Macedonia

In the chipped stone collections from Neolithic sitesin the Republic of Macedonia, we should emphasisethe presence of chalcedony of a yellow-brown or ho-ney colour with sporadic whitish spots that is verywell-know and is often referred to as ‘Balkan flint’(Kaczanowska, Kozłowski 2008.12; Kozłowski, Koz-łowski 1984; Voytek 1985).

Artefacts made of Balkan flint were found at EarlyNeolithic sites of the Star≠evo-Körös-Cris culture(Bonsall 2008.271), at sites within the Iron Gatealong the Danube (Bori≤ 2007.36, 39), at some Cro-atian (πo∏i≤ Klind∫i≤ 2010) and Bulgarian sites (Gat-sov 1993; Gurova 2008), at Early and Middle Neoli-thic sites in Serbia (πari≤ 2002) and along the RiverPindos in Greece (Perlès 2001).

The common feature of all the Neolithic chippedstone assemblages from Amzabegovo-Vr∏nik culturethat have been examined is the presence of artefactsmade from Balkan flint. Their shape shows signs of

prepared-core techniques, and the artefacts canmostly be defined as bilateral retouched blades orend scrapers on bilateral retouched blades, withsemi-abrupt retouch, sometimes with a silica shine(Fig. 7). Balkan flint in the Republic of Macedoniawas discovered at archaeological sites at Na Breg(North Macedonia), Zuniver (Central Macedonia),Mramor (Central Macedonia) and Tumba Mad∫ari(North Macedonia). According to researchers, exceptin the case of Mramor, which is Late Neolithic (Jov-≠evska 1993), the chipped stone assemblages fromNa Breg (Zdravkovski 1988), Zuniver (Arheolo∏kakarta 1996) and Tumba Mad∫ari (Sanev 1988) de-rive from the middle Neolithic layers that are con-temporary with Amzabegovo (Elster 1976) and RugBair, where the presence of this raw material wasalso confirmed (Dimitrovska 2011b).

We have to question the assumption that the pro-duction of ‘Balkan flint’ tools took place outside thevillage, because many Neolithic sites in the territoryof the Balkans suggest that artefacts were made with-in settlements. Pieces of Balkan flint with cortex,flakes, blades and waste found together in many ofthe discussed sites, and especially at Rug Bair, areadditional evidence in support of this hypothesis.20 Balkan flint artefacts were discovered at Amza-begovo, and 11 such specimens were documented atRug Bair. 6 of these artefacts were identified as tools,including a typical crested blade and two pieces con-sidered lithic waste (Fig. 6). The small collection ofBalkan flint is completed with two unretouched fla-kes, one bearing the cortex on less than 50% of itsdorsal side (Dimitrovska 2011b).

2 Map from Naumov 2009.Fig. 1.3, 4.

Fig. 5. Excavated Neolithic and Eneo-lithic sites in East Macedonia andthe location of possible prehistoricsources of non-metals22. See legend:red (Neolithic sites); blue (Eneolithicsites); green – active natural resour-ces for non-metals. 1 Rug Bair. 2 Am-zabegovo. 3 Grlo. 4 Alin Dol. 5 Grn-≠arica. 6 Vr∏nik/Tarinci. 7 Buril≠e-vo. 8 St. Atanas. 9 Bogoslov Kamen.10 Cocev Kamen. 11 Vini≠ko Kale. 12Grad-Del≠evo. A Mine ‘Strmo∏ (Probi-∏tip). B Grn≠arica. C Mine ‘Silex’(Kratovo). D Mine ‘Opalit’ (∞e∏ino-vo-Span≠evo).

The system of local supply of stone tools in Amzabegovo-Vr[nik culture from Neolithic Macedonia

357

Secondary deposits of raw material

Regarding the fact that East Macedonia ischaracterised by an abundance and diver-sity of raw materials, a survey was conduc-ted to find and record new Palaeolithic andMesolithic sites. During the prospecting, noopen air sites were discovered in the Kra-tovo-Zletovo micro region, which is consi-dered one of the richest ore zones in Mace-donia (Filipovski 1974). The survey confir-med the presence of secondary deposits richin silicate. A survey of 7 locations revealedthe distribution of local materials such asopal, opalised wood, quantities of pebblesand cobbles of jasper, quartz and quartzite,as well as andesite and basalt of local ori-gin. A large concentration of jasper, vulca-nite and metamorphites fragments whichderive from the Neokazi jasper quarry wasalso found (πalamanov-Korobar 2006).Since the results showed no traces of stoneproduction, the question of local supply ofraw materials and the correlation with theneighbouring sites in the Neolithic, will re-main open. The lack of Palaeolithic, Mesoli-thic, and Early Neolithic sites in the Repub-lic of Macedonia excludes the possibility of discus-sing issues related to evolutionary trends of artefactsand a comparison of raw stone materials used atAmzabegovo-Vr∏nik sites (Dimitrovska 2010a).

Conclusion

The Kratovo-Zletovo palaeo-volcanic area locatedwithin the territory of the Amzabegovo-Vr∏nik cul-ture has been known since prehistory as a regionabundant in lithic raw materials. It is clear fromthe situation in the field that in the Neolithic period,an abundance of raw materials could be found andexploited in the wider area around the sites, makingthem available to other prehistoric and historicalcultures in this region. Some sources of raw materialwere located relatively close to the sites, and therocks and minerals could be collected from primaryor secondary deposits.

Mines and quarries of non-metals in Eastern Mace-donia have not been the focus of scientific inquiryof Macedonian archaeology, unlike in neighbouringcountries (Bogosavljevi≤-Petrovi≤ 1999; 2005). Thereasons for reconsidering their modern function areindications leading to the resolution of the problemof identifying stone mining and workshop sites. This

connection will permit us to establish the relationsbetween the raw material found at the archaeologi-cal sites pertaining to Amzabegovo-Vr∏nik culture andthe local sources in their vicinity.

These mines and quarries can provide answers tomany questions relating to the identification of mi-ning and workshop sites in this region in terms ofthe local supply of raw materials for stone tools, es-pecially in prehistoric periods such as the Neolithic.The study of these resources can provide informationabout the socio-economic structure of the settlementsand the level of technological development withincertain settlements, which can reveal locations andparallels in the prehistoric stone industry in the Re-public of Macedonia in relation to some assembla-ges in Serbia (πari≤ 2002.11–26; 2006a.197–210;2006b.9–45) and Bulgaria (Gatsov 1993; Gurova,Nachev 2008.29–35) which have already been de-scribed.

According to some researchers, the issue of Balkanflint is very important, since it was listed among theelements that characterise the earliest processes ofNeolithisation in the Balkans (Gurova 2008; 2009).Indications of the existence of primary resources ofcertain raw materials for stone tools in Eastern Mace-

Fig. 6. Balkan flint from the Republic of Macedonia (photoV. Dimitrovska). See legend. 1 Bilaterally retouched blade(Tumba Mad∫ari). 2, 7 Bilaterally retouched blade with frag-mented distal part. 3 Double end scraper on bilaterally re-touched blade. 4 End scraper with fragmented proximalpart. 5 Waste with cortex. 6 Waste. 8 Retouched truncationon bilaterally retouched blade. 9 Perforator on bilaterallyretouched blade (Rug Bair).

Arheolo∏ka karta na Republika Makedonija (Archaeologi-cal map of the Republic of Macedonia) 1996. Tom 2. Ma-kedonska Akademija na umetnostite i naukite. Skopje.

Arsovski M. 1997. Tectonic of Macedonia. Faculty of Geo-logy and Mining. Stip.

Atanasova I. 2010. Kultnata plastika od eneolitskoto na-ogjali∏te Sv. Atanas – s. Span≠evo, Ko≠ansko. Biblioteka‘Iskra’. Ko≠ani: 9–14.

Vasilka Dimitrovska

358

donia, in particular mines and quarries for non-me-tals like ∞e∏inovo-Span≠evo, give rise to the possibi-lity that Balkan flint found at Neolithic settlementsof the Amzabegovo-Vr∏nik culture was not imported,but of local provenance. This has already been con-firmed in the case of Balkan flint artefacts from Am-zabegovo (Smoor 1976), where a comparison ofexamples based on macroscopic examination wasmade with Romanian and Bulgarian flint, which hasinclusions of silica or nummulites (Elster 1976.265).The Geological Map of the Republic of Macedoniacombined with field prospecting and the existenceof primary deposits of raw materials that could becollected in the vicinity of Neolithic settlements (Jo-vanovski et al. 2004.111–141; Makreski et al. 2004.171–184) allow us to test and subsequently confirmor disprove their local origin, following future sur-veys in the field.

At this stage of the investigation, it is very hard toreconstruct the mechanism by which raw stone ma-terials used in manufacturing stone tools were acqui-red, transported and distributed through Amzabego-

vo-Vr∏nik settlements. Raw material documented inNeolithic stone assemblages in the Republic of Mace-donia refers to the system of supply, complementedby the existence of similar material of local prove-nance. The primary and secondary deposits confir-med around the sites by the field survey allow us topropose that certain regions were possible local sour-ces for the production of stone artefacts in Amzabe-govo-Vr∏nik culture from Neolithic Macedonia.

Fig. 7. Balkan flint from the Republic of Macedonia (drawing V. Dimitrovska). 1 Zuniver. 2, 5 TumbaMad∫ari. 3, 4 Mramor.

This paper is dedicated to the memory of Nedeljko∑or∂evi≤, geologist and petrologist, with whom I sha-red many field prospecting, excavations, discussionsand studies about the lithic material. I would also liketo thank the City Museum of πtip for providing mate-rial from the excavation of the site at Rug Bair, aswell as colleagues in the Republic of Macedonia whogave me access to prehistoric stone assemblages. Thestudies of raw material were made possible with thehelp of the Faculty of Natural and Technical Scien-ces, πtip, Republic of Macedonia.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

References

∴∴

Boev B., Yanev Y. 2001. Tertiary magmatism within theRepublic of Macedonia: A review. Acta Volcanologica 13(1–2): 57–71.

Bogosavljevi≤-Petrovi≤ V. 1999. Ka problemu identifika-cije rudni≠kih i radionii≠kih nalazi∏ta kamenih sirovina uperiodu neolita i eneolita. Starinar 49: 155–166.

2005. Praistorijski rudnici na centralnom Balkanu.Zbornik Narodnog muzeja XVIII(I): 79–113.

The system of local supply of stone tools in Amzabegovo-Vr[nik culture from Neolithic Macedonia

359

Gockova-Slavska P. 1955. Probno iskopuvanje na lokalite-tot ‘Vr∏nik’. Glasnik na Muzejsko-konzervatorskoto dru∏-tvo na NR Makedonija 1–2: 19–21.

Grbi≤ M. 1954. Arheolo∏ki naogjali∏ta vo Makedonija. Glas-nik na makedonskoto konzervatorsko dru∏tvo I–9: 100–142.

Gurova M. 2008. Towards an understanding of Early Neo-lithic populations: a flint perspective from Bulgaria. In M.Budja (ed.), 15th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehi-storica 35: 111–129.

2009. Kremichnia faktor v neolitizacionija debat. B:LAUREA. In B. Petrunova, A. Aladzov and E. Vasileva(eds.), In honorem Margaritae Vaklinova. Book II.Sofia: 1–14.

Gurova M., Nachev Ch. 2008. Formal Early Neolithic flinttoolkits: archaeological and sedimentological aspects. InR. I. Kostov, B. Gaydarska and M. Gurova (eds.), Geoar-chaeology and Archaeomineralogy. Proceedings of theInternational Conference, 29–30 October 2008. PublishingHouse ‘St. Ivan Rilski’, Sofia: 29–35.

Jovanovski G., Boev B., Makreski P., Najdoski M. and Mla-denovski G. 2004. Minerals from Macedonia, silicate va-rieties and their localities – identification by FT IR Spec-troscopy. Bulletin of the Chemists and Technologists ofMacedonia, 22(2): 111–141.

Jov≠evska T. 1993. Kukjata od horizont I vo neolitskatanaselba ‘Mramor’ kaj ∞a∏ka. Macedoniae acta archaeo-logica 13: 3–40.

Kaczanowska M., Kozłowski J. K. 2008. The Körös and theearly Eastern Linear Culture in the northern part of theCarpathian basin: a view from the perspective of the lithicindustries. Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis VII: 9–38.

Koli∏trkoska Nasteva I. 2006. Eneolitskoto naogjali∏te vodel≠evsko. Macedoniae Acta archaeologica 17: 38–53.

Koro∏ec P., Koro∏ec J. 1973. Predistoriskata naselba ba-rutnica. DISS. Arheolo∏ko dru∏tvo na Makedonija. Prilep.

Kostov R. I. 2005. Gemmological significance of the pre-historic Balkan ‘nephrite culture’ (cases from Bulgaria).Annual of the University of Mining and Geology, Geologyand Geophysics 48(1): 91–94.

Kozłowski J. K., Kozłowski S. K. 1984. Chipped Stone In-dustries from Lepenski Vir. Preistoria Alpina 19: 259–294.

Makreski P., Jovanovski G., Kaitner B. , Stafilov T. andBoev B. 2004. Minerals from Macedonia. The Dependance

Bonsall C. 2008. The Mesolithic of the Iron Gates. In G.Bailey, P. Spikins (eds.), Mesolithic Europe. Cambrige Uni-versity Press, Cambrige: 238–279.

Bori≤ D. 2007. Mesolithic-Neolithic Interactions in the Da-nube Gorges. In J. K. Kozłowski, M. Nowak (eds.), Mesoli-thic-Neolithic Interactions in the Danube Basin. BAR IS1726. Archaeopress, Oxford: 31–45.

Dimitrovska V. 2010a. Prilog kon vrednuvanjeto na neo-litskiot liti≠ki material. Macedoniae Acta archaeologica19: 33–47.

2010b. Cocev kamen, ne∏to povekje od samo obi≠nakarpa. Kulturen ∫ivot 1–2: 30–37.

2011a. Kulturen segment od eneolitskiot period pe-riod na Isto≠na Makedonija. Katalog od izlo∫ba. Muzej‘Terakota’. Vinica: 2–3.

2011b. Industrija okresanog i gla≠anog kamena saneolitskog lokaliteta Rug Bair u Gorubincima, u ∏i-rem regionalnom kontekstu. Unpublish MA thesis. Phi-losophical faculty, University of Beograd. Beograd.

Dimitrovska V., Boev B. 2012. Petrologic, Morphologic andFunctional Analysis of Ground and Abrasive Stone Toolsfrom Rug Bair, Ov≠e Pole Valley. Geologica Macedonica25(1): 37–52.

Elster E. 1976. The chipped stone industry. In M. Gimbu-tas (ed.), Neolithic Macedonia. As reflected by Excava-tion at Anza. Southeast Yugoslavia. The regents of theUniversity of California. Los Angeles: 257–278.

Filipovski B. 1974. Geolo∏ki sostav na SR Makedonija. InGeolo∏ki sostav i rudno bogastvo na Makedonija. ‘NovaMakedonija’. Skopje: 53–72.

Gara∏anin M., Gara∏anin D. 1961. Neolitskata naselba Vr-∏nik kaj selo Tarinci. Zbornik na πtipski naroden muzejII: 7–40.

Gara∏anin M. 1979. Centralnobalkanska zona. In A. Benac(ed.), Praistorija Jugoslovenskih zemalja II, Neolitskodoba. Akademija Nauke i Umetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine.Sarajevo: 79–212.

Gatsov I. 1993. Neolithic chipped stone industries inWestern Bulgaria. Institute of Archaeology. JagellonianUniversity. Krakow.

Gimbutas M. 1976. Neolithic Macedonia. As reflected byExcavation at Anza, Southeast Yugoslavia. Los Angeles:The regents of the University of California. Los Angeles.

Vasilka Dimitrovska

360

of Quartz and Opal Color on Trace Element Composition– AAS, FT IR and Micro-Raman Spectroscopy Study. Bul-letin of the Chemists and Technologists of Macedonia23: 171–184.

Milevski I. 2005. Basic features of palaeovolcanic relief inthe western part of Osogovo massif. Geographical review40: 47–67.

2010. Geomorphological Characteristics of Kratovo-Zle-tovo Palaeovolcanic Area. Proceedings of the XIX CBGACongress, Thessaloniki, Greece. Scientific Annals. Spe-cial volume 99: 475–482.

Milevski I., Dimitrovska V. 2011. Geomorfolo∏ki i geoar-heolo∏ki karakteristiki na Cocev Kamen. Geografski raz-gledi (44–45): 5–19.

Nacev T. 2009. Arheolo∏ki lokalitet Grn≠arica, s. Krupi-∏te. Trite Keramitki – rezultati od za∏titnite arheolo∏kiistra∫uvanja Zletovica 2007–2009. πtip: 4–10.

Nasteva I. 1989. Pilavo-Burilcevo, eneolitska i helenistickanaselba. Arheolo∏ki pregled 28: 49.

Naumov G. 2009. Patterns and Corporeality: NeolithicVisual Culture from the Republic of Macedonia. BAR IS1910. Archaeopress. Oxford.

Perlès C. 2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece. The firstfarming communities in Europe. Cambridge World Ar-chaeology. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

Sanev V. 1961. Izve∏taj od arheolo∏kite rekognosciranjavo Isto≠na Makedonija. Zbornik na Narodniot muzej zaπtipskiot kraj II. πtip.

1975. Neolitskata naselba Rug Bair kaj s. Gorobinci.Zbornik na πtipski naroden muzej IV–V: 203–246.

1988. Neolitsko svetili∏te od Tumba vo Mad∫ari, Skop-sko, preliminarno soop∏tenie od iskopuvanjata vo 1981.Macedoniae acta archaeologica 9: 9–30.

1995. Neolitot i neolitskite kulturi vo Makedonija. Ci-vilizacii na po≠vata na Makedonija 2: 21–46.

Serafimovski T. 1993. Structural-metallogenic featuresof the Lece-Chalkidiki zone: types of mineral depositsand distribution. University ’Sv. Kiril i Metodij’ Skopje.Faculty of Mining and Geology-Stip, Geological Depart-ment. πtip.

Smoor J. B. 1976. Polished stone tools. In M. Gimbutas(ed.), Neolithic Macedonia. As reflected by Excavationat Anza, Southeast Yugoslavia. The regents of the Uni-versity of California, Los Angeles: 178–184.

πalamanov-Korobar Lj. 2006. Rekognosciranje na paleo-litsko-mezolitski lokacii vo Makedonija – 2001. Macedo-niae acta archaeologica 17: 9–12.

πari≤ J. 2002. Stene kao materijal za izradu okresanih ar-tefakata u ranom i srednjem neolitu Srbije. Starinar 52:11–26.

2006a. Kamene alatke kori∏≠ene u izradi okresanih ar-tefakata tokom neolita na tlu Srbije. Glasnik Srpskogarheo∏kog dru∏tva 22: 197–210.

2006b. Typology of chipped stone artefacts in the Earlyand Middle Neolithic in Serbia. Starinar 56: 9–45.

πo∏i≤ Klind∫i≤ R. 2010. The supply system of siliceousrocks between the Drava, Sava and Danube rivers duringthe Star≠evo culture. In M. Budja (ed.) 18th Neolithic Stu-dies. Documenta Praehistorica 38: 345–356.

Voytek B. A. 1985. The Exploitation of Lithic ResourcesIn Neolithic Southeast Europe. University of California.Berkeley.

Waide W. 1976. Source areas of lithic materials. In M.Gimbutas (ed.), Neolithic Macedonia. As reflected by Ex-cavation at Anza, Southeast Yugoslavia. The regents ofthe University of California, Los Angeles: 279–282.

Zdravkovski D. 1988. Istra∫uvanje na lokalitetot ‘Na Breg’,selo Mlado Nagori≠ane. Macedoniae acta archaeologica9: 43–63.

Zdravkovski D., πurbanovska M. 1983. Izve∏taj od za∏tit-noto istrazuvanje na HEC ‘Mavrovica’ vo s. Nemanjici, Sve-tinikolsko. Zbornik na arheolo∏ki muzej na MakedonijaX–XI: 111–123.