Chronotypic tension in Bulgarian

prehistory: 6500-3500 BC

Douglass W. Bailey

Chronotypes: Models or patterns through which time assumes practical or conceptual

significance, they are themselves temporal and plural, constantly being made and
remade at multiple individual, social and cultural levels. They interact with one another,
sometimes cooperatively, sometimes conflictually.
(Bender and Wellbery 1991: 4)
From the Neolithic to the early Bronze Age, Bulgarian prehistory is marked by two
chronotypes of human behaviour: one cyclical in nature, the other linear. These
chronotypes dictated most social action from 6500 to 3500 BC and are well documented by
calendars, record keeping, the organization of production and the organization of society,
the management of economic resources, the treatment of the deceased and the
organization of habitation strategies. For the majority of this period the two opposing
chronotypes coexisted co-operatively, each driving different elements in society. During
the Chalcolithic Period (4700-3800 BC) a tension arose between the two. The increasing
conflict and tension between chronotypes resulted in a shift from the coexistence of two
systems to the predominance of one, the linear chronotype. The predominance of the
linear chronotype is marked by a major break in cultural and social patterning around 3500
BC, the beginning of the early Bronze Age.

The cyclical chronotype

Cyclical organization of time and society is a characteristic of European social organization

since at least 35,000 BC. Inferences drawn from modern ethnographic work on
hunter-gatherers and the interpretation of faunal remains from Upper Palaeolithic sites
document strategies of resource management and exploitation founded on repeated cycles
of animal and plant availability. Binford, Woodburn and others have built models for
complex foraging and hunting groups (applicable to both the Upper Palaeolithic and the
Mesolithic) in which the hunter-gatherer groups plan their manipulation of the resources
available to them. Thus for Binford, groups occupy different locations (base camps, field
camps and cache sites) as the schedule of their needs, as well as the schedule of their prey,
dictates (Binford 1980). The management of animal resources through non-domestic

World Archaeology Volume 25 No. 2 Conceptions of Time and Ancient Society

? Routledge 1993 0043-8243/93/2502/204 $3.00/1
 Chronotypic tension in Bulgarian prehistory 205

husbanding, culling and herd conservation also depended on knowledge of the cyclical
movements and birthing patterns of animal behaviour. Certainly these practices existed in
the Upper Palaeolithic, if not in earlier periods (Legge 1972; Jarman 1972; Higgs and
Jarman 1969; 1972; Sturdy 1972; Bahn 1977; 1983; 1984; 1990; but see also White 1985;
1989). For Woodburn, and for others such as Testart, complex hunter-gatherer groups
plan their activities with special reference to storage and the cyclicity of both their needs
and the availability of resources (Woodburn 1980; 1982; Testart 1982).
The recent work of Rowley-Conwy on Mesolithic communities in north-western Europe
supports a model of hunter-gatherer social complexity which is based on knowledge and
ability to predict cyclical patterns of resource exploitation and settlement relocation
(Rowley-Conwy 1983; 1986). The ability to predict the availability patterns of a seasonally
changing pool of wild resources allowed societies such as the Erteb0lle in Denmark to
maintain a comfortable non-agricultural life-style beyond the date of the availability of
domesticated plant and animal stocks. Erteb0lle groups moved between permanent base
settlements and special purpose camps on a seasonal basis, engaging in economically
specialized exploitation of resources (Rowley-Conwy 1986: 25; 1983). Suggestions of
seasonal mobility to exploit a particular set of resources have been put forward by Binford
for the Eskimo (Binford 1980) and for Europeans by Gamble (Gamble 1978).
There have been suggestions that Mesolithic Europeans herded red deer as if they were
domesticates (Jarman 1972; Chaplin 1975). While Rowley-Conwy has cautioned against
the likelihood of the domestication of red or roe deer (due to the difference in animal
behaviour between roe and red deer on the one hand and sheep and cattle on the other
(Rowley-Conwy 1986:26)), much of the success of the Mesolithic and Palaeolithic
hunter-gathers exploitation of species such as deer was due to the knowledge of seasonal
animal movement and breeding behaviour.
The Erteb0lle, like other complex hunter-gather groups (Northwest Coast Indians,
Bering Straits Eskimo, North Alaska Eskimo and the Japanese Ainu), lived in
environments where several species of migratory mammals (especially birds and fish)
appeared at different times of the year (Rowley-Conwy 1983: 112). Additional work on
the Mesolithic sites of the Danube Gorges of central and eastern Europe (e.g. Lepenski
Vir, Vlasac) has documented the existence of pre-agricultural communities which thrived
on similarly predictable patterns of locally exploitable resources (river fish, deer, pig, wild
ox, wild cat, badger and lynx). These sites were occupied on a semi-permanent annual
basis (Kaiser and Voytek 1983) by groups which managed local deer populations and
selectively slaughtered pigs (Boroneant 1989: 475). Voytek and Tringham have argued for
the storage of resources at sites in the Gorges, especially smoked fish at Vlasac II and III
and of other goods at other sites (Voytek and Tringham 1989: 493, 498).
With the beginning of the classic European Neolithic, cyclical exploitation of wild (or
more accurately 'managed-wild' animal resources) was intensified to include seasonal and
annual exploitation of domesticated animals (sheep, goat, pig and cattle) and plants
(cereals, pulses and legumes). While evidence for the cyclical planning of resource
exploitation and community organization from the Upper Palaeolithic and the Mesolithic
is indirect in nature (i.e. they are inferred from the ratios of faunal remains, movement of
settlement, location of shell middens, and presence of floral and faunal seasonal
identifiers) the evidence for cyclical planning during the Neolithic is more direct.
206 Douglass W. Bailey
The Bulgarian evidence documenting successful adherence to cycles of resource
management during the Neolithic is especially clear and is of four types: inventories of
bone, antler, flint, stone and ceramic tools and the botanical and faunal remains to which
these tools were dedicated; treatment of the deceased; settlement practice; and calendars.
Neolithic tool inventories reflect the early farming activities of their owners. Antler
picks and hoes were used to prepare the soil for planting and to tend the plants while they
grew. Flint blades have been identified as sickles (on the basis of silica gloss on their edges)
used either on their own or hafted, in a line, on bone or antler, to form a scythe. Flat and
cupped stones were used as grinding platforms and mortar and pestles. Ceramic pots and
clay silos are frequently found in the houses of the period (Fig. 1). In his analysis of
botanical remains from Chavdar and Kazanluk in central Bulgaria, Dennell recovered
evidence of a crop rotation system based on cereals and pulses (Dennell 1978: 112). Most
houses had ovens; many of the ovens were used for processing grains for storage (sieving
and carbonizing (Dennell 1972: 152)), for facilitating winnowing (parching to free kernels
from husks (Dennell 1972: 154)), for baking bread, or for all of these activities. Almost
every settlement from Neolithic Bulgaria (especially in the south of the country) reveals
evidence of the planting, harvesting, processing and storage of cereal grains.
Planting, harvesting and storage are factors integrally dependent on accurate prediction
of temporal cycles. Planting is successful only if carried out at a specific time of year.
Knowledge of cereal growth rates permits successful harvesting. Knowledge and tracking
of the shelf-life of stored cereals enables replanting. The life of an agriculturalist can only
succeed in association with a knowledge of annual, seasonal and intra-seasonal cycles.
Arguing that much temperate European early agricultural life succeeded by taking
advantage of the short period of optimum ground water present between winter floods and
summer desiccation, Sherratt suggests that crops were grown during the spring (Sherratt
1980).

0
r

....
IMMMMMH^
. Figure 1 Early Neolithic floor plan with grain
silos, oven (markedwith diagonals)and storage
=:=
::e _m pots from Slatina (after V. Nikolov 1990).
 Chronotypic tension in Bulgarian prehistory 207

Like agricultural production, the management of domesticated animal stock for meat
and secondary products requires the ability to predict specific cycles of time. Neolithic
economies are marked not only by the appearance of domesticated ovicaprid, pig and
cattle but by the high percentages of domesticated to wild animals exploited. To have
successfully maintained these high domestic to wild ratios Neolithic breeders required
precise knowledge of animal mating schedules and gestation periods. Once these breeders
began managing their herds for products other than meat (i.e. secondary products
(Sherratt 1981)) the knowledge of cyclical schedules increased and dependence on
successful tracking of these cycles intensified. While efficient breeding for meat may have
required relatively simple management and culling strategies based on sex (retaining more
females than males) and age (retaining only breeding stock beyond most efficient weight to
feed ratio), breeding for secondary products required comprehension of more complex
cycles. Dennell argues for secondary product exploitation at Kazanluk and Chavdar:
selective culling of ovicaprid between 3 and 5 years; killing of pigs in their second year;
separation of young from old cattle (Dennell 1978). Thus production of dairy products
(documented by ceramic dairying sieves) required knowledge of lactation periods. The
production of textiles from wool (documented by loom weights, spindle whorls and
pattern impressions) required knowledge of wool growth rates and fleecing cycles.
Evidence for the cyclical chronotype during the Bulgarian Neolithic is not limited to the
economies of the communities but includes the organization of habitation and the
treatment of the deceased. Cyclical time is evident in Neolithic settlement practices in two
ways. First, settlement tells in the southern central part of the country were occupied on a
seasonal basis (e.g. Karanovo, Chavdar, Yunatsite). Traditional interpretations of these
settlements hold that occupations of the tells was continuous, sometimes for periods in
excess of a thousand years. Recent research by Todorova and others on the specifics of
house rebuilding and repair and the use of so-called fortification walls as barriers against
seasonal floods (Todorova 1982; Todorova etal. 1983; Bailey 1990) shows that tell
occupation was most probably seasonal or annual, with interruptions in habitation by
small-scale abandonments to avoid seasonal flooding or to facilitate summer upland
grazing strategies (as suggested for summer grazing of sheep and goat (Dennell
1972: 151)).
The second evidence of cyclical occupation of settlement is found in north-east Bulgaria.
Tell formation characteristic of the Neolithic is only found in the southern regions of the
country. To the north settlement was based, as it had been in the Mesolithic, on
semi-permanent pit dwellings spread along low river terraces (e.g. at Usoe and
Podgoritsa). While the limited information published on settlements of this type constricts
our observations, it appears that Neolithic habitation in north-eastern Bulgaria followed
the Erteb0lle model of seasonal and intra-seasonal movements and reoccupations in
accordance with migratory animal species (I. Angelova, personal communication).
In addition to its place in strategies of Neolithic settlement, the cyclic chronotype is also
evident in the Neolithic treatment of the dead. Individuals were interred within the
domestic space (beneath house floors, in habitation pits) or in clay source pits immediately
adjacent to the domestic space. Little if any effort was made to distinguish individuals in
burial; few if any grave goods accompanied corpses, and clay figurines, made to represent
the deceased, were simply ornamented and were very few in number. The burial of the
208 Douglass W. Bailey

deceased in the space of the living suggests that the purpose of burial ritual was to include
the dead and inanimate in the space of the living and animate household. In this manner
the life cycle revolved around the house. The body interred within it, or near it, began a
new life in association with the house and its inhabitants. The placement of the dead within
the domestic space was also a characteristic of the Danube Gorge Mesolithic and may have
been characteristic of earlier burial ritual, although the identification of relationships
between burial and domestic spaces during the Upper Palaeolithic has aroused recent
debate (Gargett 1989; Louwe Kooijmans et al. 1989).
With the exception of burial ritual, all strategies based on the cyclical chronotype during
the Neolithic are intensified during the Chalcolithic. The evidence for agricultural
production, processing and storage increases in quantity: large storage vessels abound,
grain silos are more evident, almost all houses have grinding stones and at least one oven
(Fig. 2). With respect to animal management, the evidence for secondary products
exploitation increases in quantity (Vasilev 1985; Todorova 1986; Bailey 1991). Large
numbers of loom weights are found at most sites, ceramic sieves increase in appearance,
and zoomorphic figurines (e.g. from Ovcharovo and Drama) suggests that cattle were used

Figure2 Late Chalcolithichabitationhorizonfrom Ovcharovoshowingovens, silos and house

associations(afterTodorovaet al. 1983).
 Chronotypic tension in Bulgarian prehistory 209

for transportation (see Bailey 1991). Increases in agricultural production may document
cattle use to pull ploughs. The discovery of cattle with splayed phalanges at Vadastra in
south-western Romania supports the use of cattle for traction by the late Neolithic (Ghetie
and Mateescu 1973; Mateescu 1975). While detailed age profiles for cattle are not available
from many of the major Bulgarian tells, the evidence from Ovcharovo documents a shift to
older animals (four years and older) in the middle and late phases (Karanovo V and
Karanovo VI/A) of the site's occupation (Vasilev 1985; Bailey 1991).
With respect to habitation, use of Neolithic tells continues in the south and new
settlement mounds develop in the north (e.g. Ovcharovo, Polyanitsa, Turgovishte,
Podgoritsa). Similar patterns of occupation to those noted in the Neolithic (i.e. marked by
short-term abandonment and reoccupation) are documented in the Chalcolithic. Sherratt
argues that tells were located on flood plains to take advantage of the optimal levels of
water available between winter floods and summer desiccation (Sherratt 1980: 317).
The most striking evidence for the cyclical chronotype during the Chalcolithic are the
seasonal and annual calendars. Four types of calendars have been recovered: calendar
grids; 'altar' decoration; cave painting; and the so-called cult pillars.
Only one calendar grid has been recovered from a Chalcolithic settlement in Bulgaria, at
the Gradeshnitsa Culture site of Slatino in the western part of the country (Chokhadzhiev
1984; 1986: 190). The grid is inscribed on the bottom of an oven model, of which many
were recovered from the site, and is divided into six columns of ten rows each (Fig. 3). The
sixty fields of the grid are decorated in three ways (incised vertical lines; incised horizontal
and vertical lines or red ochre) or are left blank. Chokhadzhiev argues that the twelve
ochre fields represent months. Different combinations of blank and incised fields divide
the sequence of twelve months into three groups. The first group of months represents
winter, the second group spring and summer and the third autumn (Chokhadzhiev 1984).
The calendar also notes the progress of days in a month, the days being divided by phase of
the moon represented by incised fields. It is significant in implicating the calendar grid in
agricultural production to note that each house at Slatino contained a grinding stone and
an oven. Excavation of the site also produced abundant evidence for spinning and
weaving.
The second category of calendars from Chalcolithic Bulgaria are represented by the
three decorated 'altars' from Ovcharovo in the north-eastern part of the country

4
11111 III
11
-ml II

III 4I I I
III __ I
lll il
III ilia i!I Figure3 Calendargrid from Slatino. Black fields represent ochre
II 1111 Ii (afterChokhadzhiev1984).
210 Douglass W. Bailey

Figure4 AltarcalendarsfromOvcharovo(afterTodorova1986).

(Todorova et al. 1983; Koleva 1986; V. Nikolov 1991). The face of each altar is painted
with symbols of the sun, the moon and thunder. A series of lines painted on each edge of
these altars mark the daily and monthly passage of time (Koleva 1986) (Fig. 4). Koleva
interprets these lines as representing a 365 day year divided into two periods, one 281 days
in length consisting of spring, summer and autumn, and a second period 84 days in length
representing winter. On the other hand, Vasil Nikolov has argued that the altar calendars
represent only the period from the spring equinox until the beginning of July; that is, those
periods most important for the development of summer crops (V. Nikolov 1991). While
Koleva and Nikolov disagree on the periodization, both agree that the solar and floral
imagery on the sides of the altar calendars link the altars to cyclical prediction strategies for
agricultural production.
The remaining two types of calendars, the cult pillars and the cave art, are less definitely
identified as calendars. The identification of the cult pillars (Fig. 5) as calendars rests on an
imaginative reconstruction of pillar function in marking the summer solstice on the
horizon (V. Nikolov 1991; Nedelchev 1991). Possible solar images on the pillars (circles
with jagged edges) are offered to confirm the pillar's use in predicting solar movement and
seasonal scheduling. It is equally unclear whether the cave art clearly serves calendric
purposes. Stojchev and Stoev have argued that a linear display of images painted on the
walls of a cave in northern Bulgaria represent an annual calendar (Stojchev and Stoev
1991). Stojchev and Stoev suggest that the imagery included in the wall painting (e.g. solar
and astral imagery) represents different seasons and important phases of the agricultural
year and that the sequence of the art on the cave wall is intended to guide the viewer
 Chronotypic tension in Bulgarian prehistory 211

/X <- /Figure 5 Cult Pillar from Polyanitsa;

)"y S/
fY^
Vj 10.2cm x 3.0 cm (afterBonev 1976)

Figure6 EarlyNeolithic stampsfrom Slatina:

0 0,^^
~/r \ ~a) ~/ with double parallelzig-zags;and b) double
ended with triple parallel zig-zags (after V.
"^.^ ^y'^ C^^~ Nikolovetal. 1991).

A B

through an annual sequence. Gerasimova-Tomova has also discussed cave imagery,

representing events relating to a solar calendar (e.g. sun, moon and eclipse), which she
believes is calendric, although the dating places the images closer to the Iron Age than the
Chalcolithic (Gerasimova-Tomova 1991; Gerasimova-Tomova etal. 1991). Without a
definite chronology for the cave painting, without evidence that the calendar images were
made at the same time and thus were intended to be considered together, and without
more critical studies of the cult pillars, it is difficult to place either the cave calendars or the
cult pillars in the corpus of Chalcolithic calendars.
Regardless of the validity of the last two categories, the recovery of calendar grids and
the altar calendars is significant documentation of cyclical time management in the
Bulgarian Chalcolithic. Indeed, the complete inventory of evidence (calendars; animal
and plant management; short term habitation abandonment and reoccupation; and burial
practice) makes it clear that Neolithic and Chalcolithic social strategies were heavily
committed to a cyclical chronotype.

The linear chronotype

While the cyclical organization of social strategies is evident from the Bulgarian Neolithic
and Chalcolithic (and possibly also from the Upper Palaeolithic), it is equally clear that a
linear chronotype drove other aspects of the same social communities at these times. The
evidence for linear organization centres around three fundamental strategies of social
behaviour: permanent record keeping; burial ritual (during the Chalcolithic) for the
maintenance of social continuity; and the creation and long term maintenance of tell
settlements.

Record keeping
Two forms of record keeping existed in Bulgaria during the Neolithic and the Chalcolithic:
stamp seals (often referred to as 'pintaderas') and symbolic inscriptions on pot bases.
Stamps appear in the archaeological record from the early Neolithic to the end of the
Chalcolithic and the early Bronze Age (e.g. Emen Peshtera near Veliko Turnovo and
Manole-Razkopanitsa near Plovdiv). Although stamps are found in each phase of the
212 Douglass W. Bailey
B

Figure7 Symbolsfromstampseals:a) concentriccircles(Salmanovo;earlyor middleChalcolithic;

diameter5.7 cm); b) cruciform(Gradeshnitsa-Malo Pole; earlyNeolithic);c) spiral(Azmak;early
Neolithic);d) rectilinearmeander(Pernik;earlyNeolithic;5.2 cm x 2.6 cm) (afterMakkay1984).

Neolithic and Chalcolithic, almost half of all stamps come from early Neolithic contexts,
mostly from sites in the west (Gradeshnitsa-Malo Pole, Slatina, Kovatcheva, Kremenik
bei Sapareva Banja, Pernik and Bulgarchevo) and the central and south-central regions
(Azmashka Mogila, Chavdar, Karanovo and Kirdzhali). The most common motif is the
zig-zag which appears in parallel pairs or in groups of three or more parallel lines (Fig. 6).
Also represented are crosses, spirals, concentric circles and rectilinear pattern meanders
(Fig. 7).
There is considerable debate over the function of the stamps and the meaning of the
symbols incised or modelled in relief upon their faces. While some read the symbols as
religious ideograms (e.g. Todorova 1978: 84) others are more cautious, only agreeing that
the symbols provide a means to access the thought of prehistoric minds (B. Nikolov 1970;
1986). In the wider context of changes in material culture (grain silos, large storage pots)
and social strategies (management of land and animals resources) evident during these
periods it is more profitable to interpret the stamps as mechanisms of establishing and
maintaining ownership.
Regardless of the interpretation proffered, it is clear that stamps were used to
communicate (in the sealings) a concept. They made permanent, in symbolic form, a
relationship between someone or something and a pot or sealing. By making the
relationship permanent the stamps bestow a historical identity to the object so stamped.
The identity is retained in visible state beyond the temporal limits of the object's
production and stamping. The stamping bears the symbol in a permanent non-verbal
medium. It functions to keep a record.
 Chronotypic tension in Bulgarian prehistory 213

A B

Figure9 Early Chalcolithicincised signs from

() Brenitsa: a) cruciform;b) rectilinear(after B.
Nikolov 1986).

Figure8 Early Neolithic incised signs from

Brenitsa:a) rectilinear;b) spiral;c) and d) 'B'
shape(afterB. Nikolov 1986).

A B

Figure10 Early Chalcolithicincised signs from

Gradeshnitsa(afterB. Nikolov 1986).

Like the use of clay stamps, the phenomenon of inscribing the bottoms of pots with
symbols also is characteristic of both Neolithic and Chalcolithic Bulgaria. Bogdan Nikolov
has recently provided a useful review of pot symbols in the Bulgarian Neolithic and
Chalcolithic (B. Nikolov 1986). Nikolov notes that incised symbols on the bases of pots
appear rarely in the early Neolithic (Karanovo I-II); as at Azmak in Thrace and
Gradeshnitsa-Malo Pole to the west (B. Nikolov 1986: 168; 1975: fig. 15B), the cruciform
is a common symbol. Excavation of late Neolithic sites, however, has produced one of the
highest concentrations of pots with signs on their bases (Todorova 1978: 84; 1986; B.
Nikolov 1986: 169). Many signs representing a variety of styles and combinations of
different motifs are found in the north-west at Brenitsa, in the north-east at Kushlata and
in the south-west at Bulgarchevo. Most common are the spiral, cross-hatched square and
nondescript rectilinear symbols (Fig. 8).
The largest number of signs from the Chalcolithic come from the early Chalcolithic
Gradeshnitsa culture in the north-west (Brenitsa, Popitsa, Baurene and Gradeshnitsa) (B.
Nikolov 1986: 172). At this time signs were also in use at sites in Thrace (Yasatepe,
Azmak, Stara Zagora-mineral baths and Karanovo) and in north-eastern Bulgaria (at
Balchik, Kodzhadermen, Deneva-Salmanovo, Devebargan, Ovcharovo, Golyamo Del-
chevo, Vinitsa and Ruse). Crosses and rectilinear grids are very common (Fig. 9) though
more complex combinations also appear (Fig. 10). Less numerous are the signs which
appear in the middle Chalcolithic (at Zaminets in the north-west and at Okolglava in the
west) although their infrequency results from the rarity of middle Chalcolithic settlement
rather than a decrease in the inscription of pots with symbols. While some signs appear
214 Douglass W. Bailey

from late Chalcolithic contexts, the phenomenon is most evident during the late Neolithic
and the early Chalcolithic.
The debate over the meaning of the symbols incised on the pot bottoms resembles that
surrounding the function of the ceramic stamps. Some scholars locate the signs' meanings
in religious and spiritual thought (e.g. Todorovic 1969: 78), while others suggest that the
signs represent an early form of writing. Using Greek archaic vases as a model, Vasic
argued that the certain incised signs found on Vin6a pots represent letters of an early
European writing (Vasic 1932-6). Forty years later, Georgiev drew the same conclusions
about the Gradeshnitsa signs (Georgiev 1970: 7). A number of researchers have suggested
that the signs signified property ownership (Winn 1981: 317; Tringham and Krstic 1990;
but see Todorovic and Cermanovic 1961: 78). As Tringham has noted, the mechanism of
ownership existed at several levels; she suggests that the signs from her Neolithic
excavations at Selevac in Yugoslavia were used to identify single integrated households
and to differentiate one household or settlement from another (Tringham and Krstic
1990: 609).
While the particular function of each sign is unclear (i.e. whether they communicated
pot ownership, a potter's workshop or some other pot-linked identity) all commentators
agree that, like the stamps, the signs represent an early form of record keeping, a
mechanism to extend the visibility and durability of a message through time, from the
moment of inscription to an extended future beyond the limits of oral communication.
Both the pot-base monograms and the stamps functioned to preserve and display
information through time. That they were placed in permanent media ensures their
survival along a linear temporal dimension. In this way the symbols recorded information
across time; from pot-maker to pot-trader and user; from stamp-user to sealing-viewer.
While it remains unclear which specific function the stamps and monograms served, there
is no doubt that they were used to communicate information over time along a linear
historical dimension.

Chalcolithic treatmentof the deceased

Treatment of the deceased during the Chalcolithic was radically different from the
patterns established during the Neolithic and Mesolithic. Where Mesolithic and Neolithic
practice repositioned the dead in the sphere of the living and thus recycled the deceased,
Chalcolithic practice centred on distancing the body of the deceased away from the space
of the living and on identifying the persona of the deceased. The intentions of Chalcolithic
burial practice were two fold. A visible identification of the deceased at the time of death
was made through the inclusion of specific artefacts, possessions and symbols in the burial
(usually personal ornaments). In this way the identity of the deceased was displayed (and
most probably manipulated) at the time of burial. The display of these inclusions during
inhumation measured (and recorded) the individual's personal, familial and community
identity. Corpses of selected individuals were buried in unmarked cemeteries to the west
of settlements. After the deceased had been buried in an unmarked grave the image of the
deceased, and by association the family or community to which the deceased belonged,
was kept alive and visible within the settlement through the display of ceramic figural
representations of the individual (Fig. 11). Figurines maintained the visible presence of the
 Chronotypic tension in Bulgarian prehistory 215

deceased in the world of the living and thus maintained the social continuity of familial or
community lineage beyond the limits of the biological life-cycle. While figurines had been
used in the Neolithic to keep the deceased visible, Neolithic figurines are few in number
(found at less than 20 per cent of sites) and are simple in decoration. All Chalcolithic
settlements contain figurines and the variety of their shape is as great as their decoration is
complex. In both the Neolithic and the Chalcolithic figurines were representations of
deceased individuals. The use of these representations shifted from the Neolithic (when
emphasis was placed on recycling the corpse and its representation in the house) to the
Chalcolithic (when emphasis was placed on removing the corpse from the domestic sphere
while conspicuously displaying the identity of the deceased). Burial practice and the use of
anthropomorphic figurines were the primary mechanisms used to maintain social cohesion
over time in Chalcolithic Bulgaria. The treatment of the deceased during the Chalcolithic

. t*;y
X
?
Figure Chacolithic
figu-.
': :}'
1.::-:A--'0 :0'
St.
:;?:- 0.vFigure 11 Chalcolithicfigu-
f rine from Balchik (after To-
dorova1986).
216 Douglass W. Bailey
served to maintain and legitimate the continuity of social groups through time along the
linear dimension.

Long-term settlement continuity

Concern for linear continuity of settlement matched Chalcolithic strategies to maintain
lineage continuity beyond the limits of human biology. At this time, most habitation was in
small aggregations (six to ten buildings) of houses built of clay mixed with chaff on timber
frames. Each settlement marked the preferred locus for an individual Neolithic or
Chalcolithic community. Through the seasonal abandonment and reoccupation of the
settlements, the repair and rebuilding of the clay and timber houses, the settlements grew
to substantial multi-layered tells. Some (such as Yunatsite in south-central Bulgaria)
reached 9 metres in height and more than 150 metres in diameter. While building and
rebuilding houses, the Neolithic and Chalcolithic settlers did not remove from the site the
disused rubble of previous generations of houses. On the contrary, they stamped the
broken rubble and timber into their foundations and built the new houses on top of them.
The consequent growth of tell height satisfied an important need. It made the settlement
a visible and identifiable component of the landscape (Sherratt 1983: 192-3). The tell
marked each community's preferred settlement locus. Tells appear today, as they did
6,000 years ago, as conspicuous features in the river floodplains. Further evidence for truly
monumental habitation structures appears at the end of the Chalcolithic when houses were
built with stone foundations (e.g. Durankulak (Todorova 1986: 172)). The creation of a
tell settlement, its development over successive seasons and generations of rebuilding, and
the gradual introduction of stone building techniques establish visible markers of
habitation through time along the linear dimension.
The evidence of ceramic stamps, symbols incised on the bases of pots, the treatment of
the dead (during the Chalcolithic), the establishment, development and implication of
habitations as visible markers of settlement loci, argue forcefully that a linear chronology
directed a substantial proportion of social action during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic in
Bulgaria. These manifestations of the linear chronotype document the historical
consciousness of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic inhabitants of south-eastern Europe.

Multiple chronotypes and chronotypic tension

During the Neolithic and Chalcolithic two chronotypes drive most social action. For the
most part these separate chronotypes existed in different parts of the community's
material and social cultures. In some cases one chronotype took over the mechanism of the
other. Thus we see a shift in the significance and meaning of burial ritual from the
Neolithic, when individual corpses were recycled into the foundations of houses and
seldom represented in effigy, to the Chalcolithic when individuals were buried with
conspicuous ornament and were kept alive in houses through the use and display of
complex anthropomorphic imagery.
Just as the meaning of a single action (such as burial ritual) changed over time, so also
were both linear and cyclical chronotypes evident in single classes of material culture.
 Chronotypic tension in Bulgarian prehistory 217

Calendars and settlements are examples of such chronotypic multiplicity. On the one
hand, calendars display information regulating seasonal and annual cycles of agricultural
activity. On the other hand, by recording the cyclic information in a permanent medium
the calendar participates in the linear record keeping, storing and displaying information
for successive seasons, years or generations. The tell settlements are similarly multiple in
chronotype. In the seasonal abandonment, reoccupation and rebuilding of tells, habi-
tation is guided by a cyclic chronotype. Inhabitants leave in order to graze sheep in the
upland during the summer or to avoid seasonal floods; they return to plant and harvest
their crops. While the cyclical chronotype drives the abandonment and reoccupation, the
linear chronotype drives the longer-term use of the multi-layered tell, conspicuous in the
landscape, as a marker of the place which a particular community identifies as home.

Chronotypic tension and the end of the Chalcolithic

During the Chalcolithic, production of primary and secondary products increased. In turn
the importance of adherence to the cyclical chronotype increased. At the same time,
however, commitment to a linear, historical perspective intensified as major effort and
wealth (gold, copper, shell and bone jewelry in burials) was invested in maintaining social
continuity beyond the limits imposed by biology. More important developments affected
trading and exchange networks.
While trade and alliance networks existed throughout the Neolithic and Chalcolithic
(e.g. related to flint, obsidian, Spondylus gaederopus, and probably copper and gold)
traffic in trade increased towards the end of the Chalcolithic and dominated the early
Bronze Age (especially with respect to the movement of metal ores and bronze tools and
ornament). Sherrat characterizes the increase in trade as a shift in perspective, from one of
inward-looking and general self sufficiency (characterized by the Neolithic and Chalco-
lithic) to one of outward-looking, dependent on new developments to the north, south and
west (for the Bronze Age). Those communities (such as the spectacular cemetery at
Varna) which were oriented to external contacts were the ones which flourished (Sherratt
1983: 193-5).
Inter-regional contacts and alliances gained importance during this period of increased
trade. While Bulgaria had been the centre of south-eastern Europe during the
Chalcolithic, the region became a crossroads on the periphery of the new systems. A
distinctive system of symbols, which could be maintained without respect to limitations of
time or space, developed in response to increasing inter-regional contacts. Symbols of
power, authority and prestige are evident in the late Chalcolithic (e.g. at the Varna
necropolis, axes, chisels). Such symbolic systems define the linear chronotype: time and
space are overcome by universal durable symbols of record keeping and stamps (during
the Neolithic and Chalcolithic) and by corpuses of selected prestige goods (during the early
Bronze Age). Durable records of alliances established one year (or season) removed the
need to re-establish the alliance each year or season.
Early Bronze Age life was substantially different from that of the Chalcolithic. The
appearance of large numbers of rich burials, as at Varna, Devniya and Durankulak,
decreased. Burial ritual itself changed from settlement-associated cemeteries of individ-
uals (e.g. Ovcharovo, Vinitsa, Golyamo Delchevo) to isolated small groups of mounds
218 Douglass W. Bailey

covering single, usually male, bodies (e.g. at Turnava and Knezha near Vratsa, Lovech,
Bereket and Obruchiste near Star Zagora, Belogradets near Varna and Plachidol near
Dobrich). Much of the symbolic material culture changed; anthropomorphs and
tectomorphs are replaced by a more constricted usage of symbolic goods (e.g. axes).
Some have sought to explain these changes in terms of invasion, migration and
population change (e.g. Gimbutas 1977; 1979). Sherratt's idea of a shift in perspective,
from inward-looking and centred to outward-looking and exchange-based, is a truer
representation of the social changes documented in the archaeological record (Sherratt
1983: 195). The increase in trading contacts and the wider horizons of interactions and
alliances necessary for bronze production combined to reinforce the outward perspective
of Bulgarians during the third millennium. The shift in perspective matches an increased
dependence on a linear chronotype. Indeed the linear chronotype facilitates and aids the
maintenance of alliances and long-range trade networks.
The shift in chronotype which marks the changes evident in the archaeological record in
the middle of the fourth millennium BC was not sudden, nor was it complete. It is clear that
the linear chronotype was one of two major strategies driving social action since the
beginning of the Neolithic. The break at 3500 BC therefore is a development of a system
documented for more than three millennia. The decline of the importance of the cyclical
chronotype around 3500 BC is contemporaneous with the colder climate accompanying
the Piora oscillation which produced a landscape more suited to ovicaprid pastoralism and
less to agricultural production (Barker 1985: 106).
As the predominance of the linear chronotype was not a sudden break, the cyclical
chronotype did still exist after the end of the Chalcolithic for the production of agricultural
resources and the intensification of sheep pastoralism noted by Dennell and Webley
(Dennell and Webley 1975; Dennell 1978). Sherratt's identification of a major increase in
the production of secondary products (and the inherent cyclical structure of animal
management for secondary products) during the early Bronze Age also implies that the
cyclical chronotype still had a significant place in Bulgarian life after the end of the
Chalcolithic. Indeed during the early Bronze Age some inhumation burials returned to the
domestic locus, although the houses are now more permanent, built on stone foundations
and not open to cyclical regeneration. It is most accurate to speak, not of the
predominance of one chronotype over another at 3500 BC, but of a shift in the relative
importance of the linear and cyclical chronotypes.

Conclusions

Neolithic and Chalcolithic societies were driven by two chronotypes, one cyclical the other
linear. In some instances these chronotypes stood in opposition to each other (e.g.
agricultural and animal breeding cycles of reproduction versus linear record keeping)
while in others they combined in a single part of the archaeological record (e.g. tell
settlements) to drive strategies of both chronotypes at the same time. Some classes of
artefact document both chronotypes at different levels: the calendar grids and altar
calendars tracked cycles of days, months and seasons in a cyclical manner at the same time
 Chronotypic tension in Bulgarian prehistory 219

as they recorded the tracking information along the linear dimension for the benefit of
future generations.
Prehistoric chronotypes are clearly evident in the archaeological record of the Bulgarian
Neolithic and Chalcolithic. The variety and interaction of the chronotypes recovered from
this record are proof that chronotypes are plural and manifold. It is no longer acceptable,
nor is it accurate, to label prehistoric European society as possessors of single perspectives
of time. Clearly reconstructions of prehistoric social organization and social behaviour
must address prehistoric perspectives of time which were multiple, interacting and
conflicting.

9.ii.93 Centerfor Slavic and East European Studies

University of California, Berkeley

References

Bahn, P. 1977. Seasonal migration in South-west France during the Later Glacial period. Journal of
Archaeological Science, 4: 245-57.
Bahn, P. 1983. The neolithic of the French Pyrenees. In Ancient France (ed. C. Scarre) Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press, pp. 223-70.
Bahn, P. 1984. Pre-Neolithic control of animals in Western Europe: the faunal evidence. In Animals
in Archaeology. Vol. 4: Husbandry in Europe (eds C. Grigson and J. Clutton-Brock). Oxford:
British Archaeological Reports S 227, pp. 27-34.
Bahn, P. 1990. Motes and beams: a further response to White on the Upper Palaeolithic. Current
Anthropology, 31(1): 71-6.
Bailey, D. W. 1990. The living house: signifying continuity. In The Social Archaeology of Houses
(ed. R. Samson) Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 19-48.
Bailey, D. W. 1991. The social reality of figurines from the Chalcolithic of northeastern Bulgaria: the
example of Ovcharovo. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Archaeology, University of Cam-
bridge.
Barker, G. 1985. Prehistoric Farming in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bender, J. and Wellbery, D. E. 1991. Introduction. In Chronotypes: the Construction of Time (eds J.
Bender and D. E. Wellbery). Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 1-18.
Binford, L. R. 1980. Willow smoke and dogs' tails: hunter-gatherer settlement systems and
archaeological site formation. American Antiquity, 45: 4-20.
Bonev, A. 1976. Glineni modeli na kultovi stulbove ot dye selishtni mogili v Turgovishtki okrug.
Arkheologiya, 18(1): 24-35.
Bonsall, C. (ed.) 1989. The Mesolithic in Europe: Papers Presented at the Third International
Symposium, Edinburgh, 1985. Edinburgh: John Donald.
Boroneant, V. 1989. Thoughts on the chronological relation between the Epipalaeolithic and the
Neolithic of the Low Danube. In Bonsall 1989: 475-80.
Chaplin, R. E. 1975. The ecology and behaviour of deer in relation to their impact on the
environment of prehistoric Britain. In The Effect on Man of the Landscape: the Highland Zone (eds
220 Douglass W. Bailey

J. G. Evans, S. Limbrey and H. Cleere). London: Council for British Archaeology, Research
Report 11, pp. 40-2.
Chokhadzhiev, St. 1984. Arkheologicheski danni za kalendar v nachaloto na kamennomednata
epokha. Arkheologiya, 26(2-3): 1-7.
Chokhadzhiev, St. 1986. Friuhaneolithische Keramik aus der prahistorischen Siedlung bei Slatino,
Bezirk Kjustendil. Studia Praehistorica, 8: 185-202.
Dennell, R. W. 1972. The interpretation of plant remains. In Papers in Economic Prehistory (ed. E.
S. Higgs). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 149-60.
Dennell, R. W. 1978. Early Farming in South Bulgaria from the VI to the III Millennium BC. Oxford:
British Archaeological Reports S 45.
Dennell, R. W. and Webley, D. 1975. Prehistoric settlement and land use in southern Bulgaria. In
Palaeoeconomy (ed. E. S. Higgs) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 97-109.
Gamble, C. 1978. Resource exploitation and the spatial patterning of hunter-gatherers: a case study.
In Social Organization and Settlement (eds D. Green, C. Haselgrove and M. Spriggs, M.). Oxford:
British Archaeological Reports S 47, pp. 153-85.
Gargett, R. H. 1989. Grave shortcomings: The evidence for Neanderthal burial. Current
Anthropology, 30(2): 157-90.
Georgiev, G. I. 1970. Pismenostta vurkhu glinenata plochka ot Gradeshnitsa. Arkheologiya,
12(3): 7-9.
Gerasimova-Tomova, V. 1991. Kalendar', dat' i datirovanie. Interdistsiplinarni Izsledvaniya,
28: 80-4.
Gerasimova-Tomova, V., Stojchev, T. and Stoev, Al. 1991. Astronomicheska simvolika pri
naskalnata peshterna zhivopis. InterdistsiplinarniIzsledvaniya, 16A: 203-13.
Ghetie, B. L. and Mateescu, C. N. 1973. L'utilisation des bovins a la traction dans la N6olithique
Moyen. VIIle Congres International des Sciences Prehistoriques et Protohistoriques, Beograd, 1971.
pp. 454-61.
Gimbutas, M. 1977. The first wave of Eurasian steppe pastoralists into Copper Age Europe. The
Journal of Indo-European Studies, 5(4): 277-339.
Gimbutas, M. 1979. The three waves of the steppe people into east central Europe. Actes Suisse
d'Anthropologie, 43(2): 227-35.
Higgs, E. S. (ed.) 1972. Papers in Economic Prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Higgs, E. S. and Jarman, M. R. 1969. The origins of agriculture: a reconsideration. Antiquity,
43: 31-41.
Higgs, E. S. and Jarman, M. R. 1972. The origins of animal and plant husbandry. In Higgs
1972: 3-14.
Jarman, M. R. 1972. European deer economies and the advent of the Neolithic. In Higgs,
1972:125-48.
Kaiser, T. and Voytek, B. 1983. Sedentism and economic change in the Balkan Neolithic. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology, 2: 323-53.
Koleva, V. 1986. Danni za kalendar v kultovata stsena ot Ovcharovo. Interdistsiplinarni
Izsledvaniya, 16A: 131-52.
Koleva, K. 1991. Kalendar' v drevnosti po arkheologicheskim istorichnikam. Interdistsiplinarni
Izsledvaniya, 28: 85-96.
Legge, A. J. 1972. Prehistoric exploitation of the gazelle in Palestine. In Higgs 1972: 119-24.
 Chronotypic tension in Bulgarian prehistory 221

Louwe Kooijmans, L. P., Smirnov, Y., Solecki, R. S., Villa, P., Weber, T. and Gargett, R. H. 1989.
On the evidence for Neanderthal Burial. CurrentAnthropology, 30(3): 322-29.
Makkay, J. 1984. Early Stamp Seals in South-East Europe. Budapest: Akad6miai Kiad6.
Mateescu, C. N. 1975. Remarks on cattle breeding and agriculture in the middle and late Neolithic
on the Danube. Dacia, 19: 13-18.
Nedelchev, N. 1991. Slunchevite dimive ot Polyanitsa i boru monuphatsiu v solarnite religii na
Balkanite. Interdistsiplinarnilzsledvaniya, 28: 165-70.
Nikolov, B. 1970. Nachenki na pismenost prez khalkolitnata epokha v nashite zemi. 1. Glinena
plochka s pismeni znatsi ot Gradeshnitsa, Vrachanski okrug. Arkheologiya, 12(3): 1-7.
Nikolov, B. 1975. Selishte ot stariya neolit pri s. Gradeshnitsa, Vrachanski okrug. Arkheologiya,
17(1): 25-40.
Nikolov, B. 1986. Signs sur des ouvrages en argile de l'epoque prehistorique en Bulgarie
Occidentale. Studia Praehistorica, 8: 166-84.
Nikolov, V. 1990. Die neolithische Siedlung Slatina in Sofia (Ausgrabung im Jahr 1985). Studia
Praehistorica, 10: 77-85.
Nikolov, V. 1991. Kalendarna interpretatsiya na kultovata stsena ot Ovcharovo. Interdistsiplinarni
Izsledvaniya, 28: 97-103.
Nikolov, V., Grigorova, K. and Sirakova, E. 1991. Rannoneolitno selishte Slatina v Sofiya: purvi
stroitelen khorizont (predvaritelno suobshtenie). Arkheologiya, 33(3): 13-26.
Rowley-Conwy, P. 1983. Sedentary hunters: the Erteb0lle example. In Hunter-Gatherer Economy
in Prehistory (ed. G. Bailey). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 111-26.
Rowley-Conwy, P. 1986. Between cave painters and crop planters: aspects of the temperate
European Mesolithic. In Hunters in Transition (ed. M. Zvelebil). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 17-32.
Sherratt, A. G. 1980. Water, soil and seasonality in early cereal cultivation. World Archaeology,
11(3): 313-30.
Sherratt, A. G. 1981. Plough and pastoralism: aspects for the secondary products revolution. In
Pattern of the Past (eds I. Hodder, G. Isaac, and N. Hammond). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 261-306.
Sherratt, A. G. 1983. The eneolithic period in Bulgaria and its European context. In Ancient
Bulgaria (ed. A. Poulter). Nottingham: University of Nottingham, Department of Archaeology,
pp. 188-98.
Stojchev, T. and Stoev, Al. 1991. Astronomicheska interpretatsiya na nyakoi graphiti ot Bulgarskite
Peshteri. InterdistsiplinarniIzsledvaniya, 28: 194-202.
Sturdy, D. A. 1972. The exploitation patterns of a modern reindeer economy in west Greenland. In
Higgs 1972: 161-8.
Testart, A. 1982. The significance of food storage among hunter-gatherers: residence patterns,
population densities, and social inequalities. CurrentAnthropology, 23: 513-37.
Todorova, H. 1978. The Eneolithic of Bulgaria. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports S 49.
Todorova, H. 1982. Kupferzeitliche Siedlungen in Nordostbulgarien. (Materialien zur Allgemeinen
und Vergleichenden Archaologie 13) Munich: Verlag C. H. Beck.
Todorova, H. 1986. Kamenno-Mednata Epokha v Bulgariya. Sofia: Izdatelstvo Nauka i Izkustvo.
Todorova, H., Vasiliev, V., Yanushevich, Z., Kovacheva, M. and Vulev, P. (eds) 1983. Ovcharovo.
Razkopki i Prouchvaniya 8. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bulgarskata Akademiya na Naukite.
222 Douglass W. Bailey

Todorovic, J. 1969. Written signs in the neolithic cultures of Southeastern Europe. Archeologia
Iugoslavica, 10: 77-84.
Todorovic, J. and Cermanovic, A. 1961. Banjica: Naselje Vincanske Kulture. Belgrade: Muzej
Grada.
Tringham, R. and Krstic, D. (eds) 1990. Selevac: A Neolithic Village in Yugoslavia. Monumenta
Archaeologica 15. Los Angeles: UCLA, Institute of Archaeology.
Vasic, M. 1932-6. Praistorijska Vinca I-IV. Belgrade: Driavna Stamparija Kraljevine Jugoslavije.
Vasilev, K. 1985. Izsledvane na Phaunata or Selishtna Mogila Ovcharovo. Interdistsiplinarni
Izsledvaniya 13. Sofia: Arkheologicheski Institut na Bulgarskata Akademiya na Naukite.
Voytek, B. A. and Tringham, R. 1989. Rethinking the Mesolithic: the case of South-east Europe. In
Bonsall 1989: 492-99.
White, R. 1985. Upper Palaeolithic land use in the Perigord. A Topographic Approach to Subsistence
and Settlement. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports S 253.
White, R. 1989. Husbandry and herd control in the Upper Palaeolithic. Current Anthropology,
30(5): 609-32.
Winn, S. M. M. 1981. Pre-writing in Southeastern Europe: the Sign System of the Vinca Culture.
Calgary: Western.
Woodburn, J. 1980. Hunters and gatherers today and reconstruction of the past. In Soviet and
WesternAnthropology (ed. E. Gellner). London: Duckworth, pp. 95-117.
Woodburn, J. 1982. Egalitarian societies. Man (N.S.) 17: 431-51.

Abstract

Bailey, Douglass

Chronotypic tension in Bulgarian prehistory: 6500-3500 BC

Chronotypes are the models through which time takes on practical or conceptual significance. This
paper explores the tensions between two different chronotypes in the prehistoric archaeology of
Bulgaria, one essentially linear and the other cyclical. Their development is traced in relation to the
pattern of settlement, the subsistence economy, social organization, the treatment of the dead and
development of calenders and record keeping.