###### Chapter Two

###### History of recent investigations

2.1 General stages in Bulgarian prehistoric research

Traditionally, the development of prehistoric investigations in Bulgaria has been divided into three stages (Todorova 1995, Borislavov et al. 2001).

The first period is connected with the enthusiasm and curiosity of nineteenth-century foreign collectors, who were soon followed by Bulgarian “encyclopédiste” scholars. The first formal prehistoric investigations in Bulgaria started with a French expedition’s sondage at tell Racheva Mogila in 1898. In the following decades, R. Popov, A. Chilingirov, V. Mikov, G. Kacarov, and N. Koichev made small-scale surface surveys and excavations. Palaeolithic cave settlements and tells from the Neolithic, Copper and Bronze Age were the main focus of interest for those scholars, none of whom was an educated archaeologist. Stray finds and artefacts from field surveys formed the basis of numerous local collections, most of which were united in 1924 to establish the National Bulgarian Museum. Interesting objects started to be classified and, gradually, a primary typology of prehistoric artefacts was established. The results of fieldwork investigations were mainly published separately for each site or expedition but more general reviews of prehistoric finds, houses and tells also started to appear (Mikov 1928, 1929, 1933, 1939). This was the period of random surveys and excavations with poor documentation and controversial methodology. In this period, one of the biggest mistakes in Bulgarian prehistory was made that misled many authorities in European prehistory and remained in currency for almost half a century. The lack of stratigraphic observation and not very precise pottery typology were the reasons for confusing EBA pottery shapes with Middle Neolithic ones. Thus, for a long time, the Neolithic period in Bulgaria was believed to be contemporary with Troy I and was one of the arguments for the short chronology in European prehistory.

The second period started in the late 1940s and lasted almost thirty years. Its formal beginning is marked by the publication of J. H. Gaul’s book “The Neolithic period in Bulgaria” (1948), which was an attempt to overview the results of all the prehistoric investigations from the preceding period. The American archaeologist summarized and compiled the known evidence, differentiating for the first time in the Bulgarian history of research, periods and regions with similar artefacts. He also started a practice of naming cultures, which, in the following decades, led to a redundant plethora of differently named phases and periods for one and the same features spread over large areas.

During the second period, more systematic prehistoric studies were made in both field investigations and post-excavation research. The former consisted of consistent excavations of Palaeolithic caves and prehistoric tells and the gradual application of the stratigraphic method. The latter was mainly oriented towards the relative chronology of Bulgarian later prehistory, its synchronization with the Aegean and Anatolia, and hence its European context. Attempts to improve and develop the preceding typological approach to various artefacts were also made (Popov 1932/34).

In 1947/48, the Bulgarian Academy of Science was founded. One of its institutes was the National Archaeological Institute with Museum that merged the previous Bulgarian Archaeological Institute and National Archaeological Museum. It was soon followed by the establishment of a national network of local museums. The Institute and museums benefited from centralized funding and carried out and controlled all the archaeological investigations in Bulgaria. In 1956 were published the formal regulations for field surveys, sondages and excavations. The state stimulated and funded large-scale research and rescue excavations of numerous archeological sites.

The National Archaeological Institute and local museums facilitated many new field investigations and post-excavation research. Current periodicals and other journals were always available for publishing annual reports, articles, studies or monographs. During the 1970s, there was a boom in new archaeological periodicals – Razkopki i Prouchvania, Studia Praehistorica, Interdisciplinarni Izsledvania, etc.

In the early 1960s, one of the biggest contribution to European chronology was made by G. Georgiev, who established the Karanovo chronological system, according to the data of the stratigraphic sequence of tell Karanovo in Southeast Bulgaria. It consisted of a sequence of 12.40m- thick sediments from the Neolithic, Copper and Bronze Age, which Georgiev separated into seven chronological levels (Georgiev 1961). Karanovo I-IV were related to the Neolithic, Karanovo V-VI to the Copper Age and Karanovo VII to the Early Bronze Age. Georgiev used mainly pottery shapes from the long-term excavations at Karanovo tell to create the sequence and argued that, despite some similarities between the ceramic forms from the Middle Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, in fact, they belong to two distinct periods, separated by a millennium of continuing human occupation. The Karanovo sequence gave opportunities for comparison of pottery shapes with the neighbouring areas and for synchronization of contemporary phenomena. The arguments for the short chronology in European prehistory were seriously threatened. Several attempts to develop and refine the Karanovo chronological sequence were made afterwards but the general terms are still valid (Todorova 1995, Nikolov 1998).

The last research stage that continues up to the present can be defined by the interdisciplinary, mature stage of investigations of Bulgarian prehistory in which contemporary archaeological trends and methods are critically applied. This was a time of many intensive excavations, international joint projects and some general monographs.

Palaeolithic investigations reached their peak in the last 30 years. A small group of Bulgarian archaeologists trained at the Jagellonian University in Kraków started to excavate early prehistoric sites, strictly following the contemporary methods of excavation and recording. The data from previous investigations was reconsidered and complemented with new evidence. Middle and Late Palaeolithic occupations were recognized in several caves in the Stara Planina and the Rhodope Mountains (Ivanova & Sirakova 1995).

The 1970s were a period for entire publications of some of the long-lasting excavations of tells (Todorova et al. 1975, 1976; Raduncheva 1976; Georgiev et al. 1979). They were the first attempts at a complex, analytical study and were considered as signs of a new, developed stage of archaeological research.

The majority of publications, however, did not differ much from the pattern of the 1960s. Their main contribution was to increase the bulk of known sites and artefacts that, at the beginning of the 1980s, formed a substantial amount of empirical data. The paucity of systematic evidence and the prevailing ideological agenda predetermined the selectivity of archaeological debate – e.g. the relative chronology of the Karanovo I culture, the character of the Karanovo IV culture, or the indigenous origin of prehistoric cultures in Bulgaria.

One of the most significant results of prehistoric research during the 1970s was the discovery of pre-Trojanic level at one of the Bronze Age tells in Southeast Bulgaria – tell Ezero. The importance of this Bulgarian evidence for the establishment of European later prehistoric chronology became evident for the second time after the publication of the Karanovo sequence (Georgiev et al. 1979).

In 1977, a Problem-oriented Group for Interdisciplinary Investigations was founded that was supposed to coordinate the joint efforts of archaeologist, botanists, chemists, geologists, physicists and physical anthropologists committed to archaeological investigation. The outcomes of the intensive interdisciplinary investigations were a few general and numerous short, specialised publications. The most significant were the monograph on ancient metallurgy in Bulgaria (Chernikh 1978); the systematization of plant remains (Dennell 1978, Lisistina and Filipovich 1980) and the C14 chronological sequence of some of the most important prehistoric sites (Boyadziev 1995).

Two major monographs appeared in the late 1980s and the early 1990s that corresponded to the research necessity for integration and the coherent interpretation of the huge mass of empirical data accumulated over almost 100 years of prehistoric investigations in Bulgaria (Todorova 1986; Todorova and Vajsov 1993). Todorova summarized all the available Neolithic and Eneolithic evidence, revised many obsolete concepts and tried to present a vigorous picture of prehistoric life in present-day Bulgaria.

Balkan archaeologists from the neighbouring countries referred to Bulgarian data in their general studies (Milojčić 1949; Garašanin, M. V. 1961; Berciu, D. 1961). There were also publications of similar archeological evidence that appeared beyond the borders of a single Balkan country, which stimulated various explanations for their nature (e.g., Barker 1985). As a general trend, there is no consensus about the names, sequence and relative chronology of similar data across the Balkans. However, there is common understanding for some of the archaeological monuments distributed over more than one Balkan country (e.g. the Gumelnitsa culture, also known as K-G-K VI). Balkan regionalism in archaeological studies was (Harding 1983) and still is valid for the majority of Bulgarian researches and non-Balkan archaeologists continue to be the scholars to study Southeast European archeological data from a more general perspective (Bailey 2000, Chapman 2000).

During the last thirty years, several long-lasting international expeditions have been active in Bulgaria, which provided a good opportunity for the exchange of ideas and expertise (e.g., Goliamo Delchevo, Ezero, Diadovo, Yunatsite, Karanovo and Drama). A few foreign archaeologists were given the possibility to work in Bulgaria as well (e.g., Dennell, Chernikh, Hänsel and Parzinger). They were supported during their stay in the country but the effect that their final publications had in Bulgaria was controversial. Some studies were criticized but used (Hänsel 1976, Parzinger 1993); some remained the only ones up to now (Chernikh 1978), while others were in very limited, academic circulation (Dennell 1972, 1978).

Political changes in Bulgaria in 1989 were followed by a global stagnation of the entire society. The archaeological investigations were not directly affected but soon the state subsidy was in sharp decline. Planned and regular excavations were not possible any more and international expeditions and rescue investigations were the only archaeological activities.

The main financial support was from state and international infrastructure and rescue projects that enabled investigations along the line of pipes and highways. Surface survey was the main type of investigation and full excavation of sites was undertaken in only a few cases. There was a substantial loss of information since a) the majority of the sites were partially excavated and, b) the surveys were not made as grid-oriented surface investigations.

In summary, prehistoric investigations in Bulgaria during the last 30 years were dependent on the political and financial conditions of the state. Modern interpretative concepts and field techniques were hardly accepted and developed in contemporary researches. A positive characteristic of this period was the research response made through various monographs and publications to the interpretive demand in Bulgarian prehistoric investigations, in which Bulgarian archaeological evidence is organized in a set of explanatory models. The specifics of these explanatory models is the topic of the next section.

2.2 General interpretative trends in Bulgarian prehistory

The structure of the following statement is predetermined by the inconsistency of approaches in Bulgarian prehistory, as well as by the lack of balance between interpretative ideas and the type and quantity of archaeological evidence. First to be presented is the only formal explanation of processes of change during later prehistory in Bulgaria, followed by a sequence of summaries of general studies of the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Bronze Age. Finally, an overview of the approaches to settlement and burial data in connection to their possible social aspects will be presented, with an emphasis on indicative case studies.

The generalization of the processes of transformation and development during later prehistory follows one and the same pattern of scattered claims within more general or single case studies and is entirely subordinated to the model of ethno-cultural change.

In a series of overview articles of prehistoric studies development in Bulgaria, Todorova (1975, 1980, 1981) tries to identify a trend in the overall prehistoric development in Bulgaria by reconciling the autochthonous and migration concepts. The basis of a Marxist ideology – as the “driving force” of each society - was integrated with the idea of the movement of people, objects and technology in an attempt to explain the variety of archaeological evidence dating from 6200 BC until 1200 BC. These studies comprise an eclectic mixture of (1) Marxist postulates; (2) the claims of other Eastern European archaeologists; (3) Kossinna’s / G. Childe’s culture- historical concept; (4) some archaeological evidence from Bulgaria and (5) general instructions for future archaeological investigations and interpretations. The failure to provide a consistent theoretical model should not be separated from the contemporary ideological situation and the difficulties of operating within the limits of the formal interpretative framework. In summary, Todorova, quoting Chernikh (1979), accepts prehistoric development in Bulgaria as a pulsating historical process with four major culminations – the Early Neolithic (end of VII- middle of VI mill. BC), t he Late Eneolithic (end of V- beginning of IV mill BC), the end of EBA (second half of III mill BC) and the end of the LBA (around XII mill BC). Each of these peaks is characterized by an intensive demographic increase; a boom in metalwork (only for the second and the fourth); the integration of cultural processes leading to large, typologically homogeneous complexes; a readiness to accept and to transmit influences from and towards the neighbouring cultures; and, finally, a general breakdown in ethno-cultural closure (Todorova 1980). Although I am not aware of any recent references to this model, it appears to be still valid, since almost 30 years after its introduction no alternative has been suggested yet.

##### Neolithic

The Neolithic occupation of the Balkans, including Bulgaria, is put in the context of the demographic boom in the Fertile Crescent at the beginning of the VII millennium CAL BC that led to the colonisation of new areas to the North West. Since at the time of the publication of the first monograph on the Neolithic in Bulgaria, the data from South Bulgaria (Thrace) were still inconsistently published, the main claims for Neolithic society were based on evidence from the areas North of the Stara Planina. The racial type that inhabited this area was a mixture of the Mediterranean type (coming from the South), the local Mesolithic type and the Proto-European type (coming from the North East) (Todorova and Vajsov 1993). Although not clearly stated, such a claim was an attempt for reconciliation of migrationist and autotochthonist theories and archaeological evidence was “adjusted” to support such a postulated origin of the Neolithic population in North Bulgaria.

The smallest social unit was a three-member family and from three to five such families used to occupy the Neolithic settlements. Environmental resources were accepted as a limiting factor for the population number on these settlements. These single families were united in larger family formations and were the major production forces of Neolithic society. The evidence from the Late Neolithic settlement of Usoe suggests that there was seasonality in the family gathering – during the summer, the small families were living in light buildings, while, in the winter, the extended families occupied large semi-sunken houses (Todorova and Vajsov 1993).

The Neolithic community was governed by a paramount and there were priests as well. This claim was based on the evidence from the Durankulak cemetery, where “exceptionally wealthy” burials were found (Todorova and Vajsov 1993:239).

It was concluded that the Neolithic society in Bulgaria was not differentiated, since its economical base remained undifferentiated (Todorova and Vajsov 1993:240).

##### Copper Age

The Eneolithic population in Bulgaria was believed to derive from the local Neolithic communities. The basic social structure was the small family – a unit of several families has also been inherited from the preceding period but in contrast to the Neolithic, the big family formations were claimed to have some economical independence within a community unit that inhabits one settlement (obshtina) (Todorova, 1986:215). The role of exogamous marriages during the Copper Age was especially underlined, as well as the greater settlement density. Some of the settlements were six to eight km apart from the next site, which made the investigator infer that there was regulated kin-based tenure of the land, which very often caused disputes over land tenure (Todorova, 1986:215). The major productive force in both cultivation and stock-breeding was the whole community. This claim is based on the evidence that the crop was kept in one main store and there was no data for individual possession of cattle or other animals in the houses. The crop was divided at the end of the summer; and the same collective consumption was claimed for large herbivores killed in a collective hunt (Todorova, 1986:216). Some craft specialization also started during the Copper Age but, in general, the economy of the Eneolithic society was of self-subsistence type. Social differentiation was based on gender and age differences, in which the adult males (20-37 years old) held the highest social status and the children of age 6-7 and females up to 15 years old held the lowest status. On the top of the social hierarchy was a male paramount. A special social stratum was involved in the ritual activities of the society.

These conclusions are presented in a grand narrative of the main diachronic changes all over Bulgaria (Todorova & Vajsov 1993).

##### Bronze Age

Bronze Age investigations in Bulgaria suffer a great lack of general studies in comparison to the preceding periods. There is only one article published in 1975 (Katincharov 1975) - before the main monographs on the Neolithic and the Copper Age in Bulgaria - which contains claims challenged in the later studies of the Chalcolithic. For Katincharov (1975), the development of Bronze Age society had three major characteristics :– a) plough agriculture, that leads to: b) the accumulation of surpluses and to: c) craft specialization (as the second major division of labour), which three years later were claimed as being initiated already in the Chalcolithic (Todorova 1978). This is not the place to analyse in detail why and how Katincharov’s early study remained the only one that discussed BA society in its full course of development, thus leaving many debatable issues unsettled. The only brief comment that cannot be omitted is that the research priorities of Bulgarian BA archaeologists towards the emancipation of the “Bulgarian Bronze Age” were prompted by the pre-C14 confusion of synchronising the Balkan Neolithic (Karanovo III) with the Western Anatolian Bronze Age (Troy) and the subsequent exhaustive chronological debate (Mellaart 1960; Garašanin 1961: Renfrew 1971), as well as by the widespread concept of the destructive invasion of steppe nomadic groups at the end of the IV mill. BC (Gimbutas 1979). Social aspects never became a research issue in Bulgarian later prehistory, although they enjoyed some random short comments within fairly large publications of some tells (e.g. Ezero) or settlement pattern studies (e.g. Maritsa-Iztok). Although Katincharov’s concept is neither discussed nor up-dated, it still is the only formal discussion of BA society that should be summarized here. The BA development was sustained by Engels’ concept of the “social division of labour”, with increasing surpluses leading to property inequality (Engels 1949). On a regional level, this inequality resulted in inter-communal and inter-tribal conflict and hence the development of fortifications. On a site level, increased labour productivity favoured individual household development rather than the previous kin and communal social order. The dominance of males is claimed on the basis of his leading role in commodity production, patrilocal marriages and the family property handed down from father to son. Finally, the LBA was the time of intra- and inter-tribal unification, as well as of deep property and social inequality, in which priests, chiefs and military commanders possessed most of the commodities in circulation (Katincharov 1975). As in all studies mentioned so far, archaeological evidence was not employed to support such claims.

During the course of this study, a long article on the BA in Upper Thrace was prepared (Leshtakov, in press). Unlike Katincharov’s study, a wide variety of archaeological evidence was introduced and interrelated, thus showing the diversity of social practices in the Bulgarian BA. The lack of formal theoretical background, however, led to a failure to incorporate these important data into some kind of coherent social reconstruction.

### Burials and society

Burials or, more specifically, their covering in the form of an impressive mound, were the first to attract amateurs’ and professionals’ interest in the last decades of the 19th century. Almost 14,000 barrows and more than 70 flat cemeteries are known so far in present-day Bulgaria. Despite that fact, there is no unified terminology and commonly agreed understanding of burial phenomenon, which is due to the lack of tradition in discussing theoretical and practical aspects and issues in Bulgarian burial archaeology. Field techniques and post-excavation interpretations have depended to a great extent on the excavators’ background (e.g. Panayotov). However, if a dominant research pattern could be identified, it would be based upon a culture-historical, rather than a contextual or a social, model.

Later prehistory funerary remains were sporadically investigated since 1929 up to the early 1970s. There were both random barrow excavations or the excavation of grave/s within tells and settlements (Popov 1931/32; Georgiev and Angelov 1957). A few other burial sites were found by chance, including the most significant discovery of the Varna cemetery. Until that time, the interpretation of burial evidence did not go beyond a simple reflection of religious beliefs and superstitions.

The sensational discovery of the Varna cemetery, as well as of several other extramural Chalcolithic cemeteries in northeast Bulgaria during the early-mid 1970s initiated various research activities. A promising beginning of broad international debate about the place of Varna in European prehistory was made in 1976 with the organization of an international symposium on the Varna cemetery and the problems of the Chalcolithic (published as Studia Praehistorica I (1976)). Since that year, the ongoing discussions over “the Varna case” has produced more than 60 different studies and articles, mostly written by foreign archaeologists. The Varna discovery inspired a few Bulgarian archaeologists to look at burial data in a broader social, economical and ideological context. Their interpretations were nationalistic (Ivanov 1976) or materialistic (Todorova 1978), which was anticipated considering the primary emotions of national pride and prevailing Marxist ideology at that time. But it was unexpected that the interpretations had not changed much through time, despite the continuous accumulation of data and new trends in archaeological theory (Ivanov 1976, 1988, 1991; Raduncheva 1989; Todorova 1978).

### At present, Neolithic cemeteries in the Balkans are known only from the area of the so-called Hamangia culture. All of the rest of the Neolithic burials derive from the domestic arena. Bulgaria is not an exception of this pattern, the best example of which is the recently published Durankulak cemetery (Todorova 2002) and newly developed analyses of burials within tells (Buchvarov 1994).

Apart from Hamangia cemeteries, the appearance of extra-mural mortuary areas in Bulgaria was claimed to occur during the middle Eneolithic (Todorova 1978) but the only certain evidence derives from the Late Copper Age (Todorova 1978; Raduncheva 1976; Ivanov 1976). The Eneolithic cemeteries known so far from Bulgaria are mainly spread across the Northeastern part of the country. Although new data has accumulated in the last 20 years, present interpretations of Eneolithic mortuary practices are based on four major extramural cemeteries – Goliamo Delchevo, Vinitsa, Devnia and Varna. The social interpretation of the first three cemeteries claims male dominance within the mortuary area, since the number of so called “cenotaphs” was added to the “real” male graves. The “cenotaphs” are body-less graves that have received many different interpretations. In the general study of Eneolithic burial rites summarised here (Todorova 1978, 1986), they are accepted as burial of males that have died far from their home settlement. The argument for a “cenotaph” affiliation to male graves is based on the quantity of the grave goods, whose percentage is almost equal in both grave types (34 for males, 30 for cenotaphs). The number of grave goods is also believed to refle ct social inequality – a finding which explains the presence of graves without offerings, as well as any difference in the characteristics of the grave goods set. The predominance of adult females among the feminine individuals led to the conclusion of “the subordinate role of the women, who were assigned a place in the social hierarchy only after they became mothers” (Todorova 1978:76). Women were linked to the domestic area, while males were assigned a leading economic and social role. However, after the productive age (17-30), females continue to gain status, while males started to lose their dominant place, as reflected by the decrease in the number of offerings in graves with males over 40. On this basis, it was inferred that there was neither matriarchal nor patriarchal social organisation but rather it was “dictated by objective conditions” (Todorova 1978:77). Such social differentiation based only on sex and age was underlined to be valid for the inland territories in contrast to the coastal communities, that were felt to display more prominent social differentiation. The distinction in position of the deceased was explained by tribal (ethnic) differences. The latter was suggested as a result of, and evidence for, exogamous marriages, which led to individuals being buried according to their origin tribal rite within a cemetery of their spouses’ tribe. The Black Sea littoral communities gained their special interpretative status after the discovery of the Varna cemetery. The abundance of gold, metal and exotic objects in the graves was accepted as evidence for the existence of a male stratum that possess great wealth and power. This privileged status was the result of better economic conditions provided by the strategic position of the Black Sea coast in contrast with the inland area, where “the traditional social structure as reflected in burials, remained intact in spite of the profound changes at the close of the epoch brought about by the metal boom and the rapid economic growth” (Todorova 1978:77). This territorial separation leads to an internal contradiction in otherwise related interpretations of the Varna phenomenon as a complex social formation. On the one side are the hypothesis for a) proto-state organisation, in which the Varna cemetery was related to the Varna pile-dwellings - claimed to be an administrative, manufacturing and commercial centre (Ivanov 1988); and b) royal power associated with the so-called Varna culture, for which deep social differentiation was claimed (Todorova 1995). On the other side are the hypothesis for a) pre-state organisation consisting of an upper task-related notable class and a lower agro-pastoral class (Lichardus 1988); and b) a powerful tribal union whose elite members were buried in Varna as its centre and in accordance to their regional practices (Raduncheva 1989). All of the authors claim social complexity but, in fact, treat the Varna cemetery in isolation from any kind of social process. The above-mentioned territorial separation is just one side of this isolation. The continuously supposed relation between the Varna cemetery-Varna pile-dwellings and other Varna culture sites reduces the area that may contain some relevant social information and hence fails to provide conclusive reasons for why and how phenomena like Varna were possible. Putting Varna in a broader context is undoubtedly an advance in our understanding of the complex Late Copper Age reality but none of the commentators has supported with concrete evidence any pre-Varna social dynamics that would result in such deep social stratification.

Meanwhile, there was a strong interest in the Varna cemetery and its context from some Western archaeologists (Renfrew 1978; Chapman 1991; Lichardus 1988, 1991; Price 1993). All but one (Lichardus) of their interpretations have been not welcomed, discussed or even known among the majority of Bulgarian scholars; nevertheless, they considered newly gained empirical data from Bulgarian sites, as well as attempting to implement explanations for different modes of funerary practices.

The merit of the Varna discovery was that the significance of burial data was recognized and accepted by Bulgarian archeologists. They started to look deliberately for cemeteries from different periods and in different regions. More attention was paid to age/sex differentiation, grave goods, position and orientation of the deceased than before. But the analysis usually stops with some detailed description of graves/cemeteries and some dubious ethnographic or possible exact archaeological parallels.

One step beyond that level of interpretation was made in I. Panayotov’s 1989 book “The Pit-grave culture in Bulgaria”. He collected and unified all the known data up to 1987 and provided a full catalogue of pit-grave contexts and the distribution of barrows across modern Bulgaria. The monograph presented a very good theoretical and empirical knowledge of the Russian data, as well as the burial evidence from the neighbouring countries, which most likely pre-determined Panayotov’s culture-historical approach to Bulgarian barrows. The steppe origin of the burial mounds was not questioned but a series of atypical features (e.g. cremation, lack of pits, presence of pottery) prevented the investigator from making a claim for an invasion and a new name was suggested – the Lower Danube variant of the Pit-Grave culture. The latter was summarised as follows:

“at the end of the IV mill. BC…..that coincides with some climatic changes, Indo-European stock breeding nomadic tribes with probable patriarchal organization settled at different places along the river Danube from the Northeast into the areas of the local EBA cultures or spread into their territories; and continuously develop in North Bulgaria (mostly in its Eastern part); and interact with the local population, playing the role of a “mediator” in the creation of “contact continuity” in the new system of cultural entities in both directions East-West (Danube-Dniestr) and North-South (North-South Bulgaria); and become a cultural component in the early stages of the Thracian genesis and in the historical perspective (archaeologically traceable in the barrow tradition), but within other systems of burial practices” (Panayotov 1989:50-51; my translation).

This approach left many unanswered questions, such as the conceptualization of time and space in the barrows and their landscape perspectives, thus becoming one of the problems that need an up-dated reconsideration.

In a series of studies, Nikolova (1992, 1995, 2002) extended the empirical knowledge of the context and nature of Bronze Age burial practices, without presenting any new ideas for their interrelations and general explanations.

The publications of LBA cremations (deriving mainly from Northwest Bulgaria and the Western Rhodopes) and flat cemetery inhumations do not discuss any kind of data that could be summarized here as bearing social information.

The striking variety and diversification of burial practices during the course of the BA has been studied only in terms of chronology and cultural affiliation. An indirect form of social commentary on mortuary data concerns the numerous claims for inter-cultural relations concluded on the basis of mixed or atypical burial evidence (Panayotov 1989, Alexandrov 1994).

In summary, burial studies in Bulgarian archaeology have not yet transcended the reflectionist level of interpretation. Despite the recent introduction of Western aspects of mortuary studies (Alexandrov 1996, Nikolova 2002), the cultural historical approach remains the main interpretative framework for burial data.

### Settlements and society

Settlement studies started in 1898 and continue to be dominated by tell excavations. Several Bulgarian and a few foreign archeologists have used different survey techniques up to the late 1950s, when the stratigraphic method was introduced (Georgiev 1964). During the last 50 years, field methodology was developed and refined and now tells are excavated in “building horizons”. They are usually displayed on the control profile, which enables easy and quick reference to them. Building horizons are believed to contain contemporary features and to represent one coherent settlement. Temporality within a horizon is comprehended as different phases of the features and is seen in terms of floor or plaster renewals. However, this relatively precise technique, as well as the abundance of archaeological material from the sites, did not lead to a proper interpretation of the tell phenomenon. Following the dominant culture-historical approach, tells and their horizons were attributed to different phases of different archaeological cultures. The Bulgarian concept of tells has changed little in the last 50 years and could be easily summarized in few sentences.

The first tells appeared in the early Neolithic in Thrace and Central South Bulgaria and spread to Northeast Bulgaria at the beginning of the Chalcolithic (Todorova 1978, 1986, 1994). Life on tells continued during the Bronze Age, when some new mound settlements also appeared (Georgiev 1964). Tells were always close to a reliable water supply and on fertile arable land (Georgiev 1964, Todorova 1978, 1995). Their occupants were mixed farmers (Georgiev 1964) with a self-supporting subsistence economy (Todorova 1978). There was no evidence for social differentiation or ranking on tells but, nevertheless, its existence was assumed (Todorova 1978, 1995). Some public (Todorova 1978, 1995) and ritual (Raduncheva 1994, Bailey et al. 1998) activities were also identified on tells.

According to the updated information of Archeological Map of Bulgaria, there are 556 tells spread over Central, Southeast and Northeast Bulgaria. Just 10% of them have been studied and only a few have been fully excavated. The main evidence for spatial organization on tells comes from eight fully excavated tells. Some additional data is available from about 55 partially surveyed ones. The distribution of tells, their emergence, abandonment and re-settling were not properly investigated so far. Prehistoric settlements were plotted on a map in 1978 and there is still no updated version according to new information.

The Archeological Map of Bulgaria maintains records of 500 flat settlements or, as they are called in Bulgaria, open-air settlements. Their possible relation to the tell distribution, then dynamics of their occurrence and the abandonment of tells and flat sites, as well as their mobility and sedentism, have provoked sporadic research interest (Leshtakov et al. 2001 and in press). The suggested settlement patterns, however, follow some general patterns from the Near East and are not very well grounded in local, Bulgarian evidence.

Settlement typology, hence settlement terminology and the identification of prehistoric types of occupation, has not been formally discussed (e.g. mature tells, adolescent tells, tell-like settlements, multi-occupational settlements with horizontal stratigraphy, etc). Settlement pattern studies were reduced to a descriptive reconstruction of the site distribution and rarely included some other type of analysis (e.g. soils and subsistence evidence: Dennell & Webley 1975)). The publications of the totally excavated tells provided a very good database for interdisciplinary settlement studies but again rarely involved any different approaches, such as spatial or depositional studies. Intra-site (contextual) and off-site studies were neither theorized nor applied by Bulgarian archaeologists (cf. Chapman 1989: 1990: 1991). Some inter-site (microregonal) studies were conducted over the last 30 years and are summarized in section 3.3.1.

Social aspects of the domestic arena were paid very little attention by Bulgarian archaeologists, maybe due to the common understanding in Bulgaria that socio-historic reconstructions are possible only on fully excavated archaeological sites (Todorova et al. 1983). Amongst the very few Bulgarian publications that contain some discussion of socio-economic issues at all, I have chosen two case studies as relevant examples of the status of social archaeology in Bulgaria.

The first example is the fully excavated Eneolithic tell of Vinitsa in Northeast Bulgaria, whose interpretation presents a concept-oriented explanatory approach (Raduncheva 1976). Vinitsa society is believed to have been predominantly occupied with stockbreeding, hunting and fishing and, to a lesser extent, with agriculture and gathering. Labour organisation, craft specialization and local exchange of raw materials were practiced by the Vinitsa inhabitants. The basic social unit was the family of two that, together with the grown-up children and their spouses, formed the patriarchal domestic commune (zadruga). It consisted of 10-15 members that used to live in one house. Several zadruga were accepted to occupy every middle-size tell, such as Vinitsa. The data from the nearby cemetery were used as a reflection of the wealth and hierarchical status of the dead. General changes over the Eneolithic were attributed to migration waves and presumably they are taken for granted for Vinitsa as well (Raduncheva 1976; cf. Chapman 1989: 1990).

The second example is another fully excavated site in Northeast Bulgaria – the tell of Ovcharovo (Todorova et al. 1983). This case study is chosen here as one of the very few Bulgarian sites that enjoyed a combination of broad research interests and alternative interpretations. It is also an illustration of how one and the same source data are interpreted in Bulgaria according the cultural historical explanatory framework and by some Western archaeologists applying different approaches to social reconstruction (see p. 66-67).

The original publication of tell Ovcharovo provides substantial quantities of information on palaeoeconomy (subsistence and exchange), palaeodemography, craft specialization and ultimately social structure. The social organization on the Ovcharovo tell is presented in the usual descriptive manner, with no reference to any specific theoretical mode, except the self-understood official ideological concept of the then communist Bulgaria. It was characterized as a lineal commune that, in the course of biological reproduction, was related to similar social units within a wider exogamous kin. Craft specialization (inner structure), labour pool and collective tenure of community land were claimed to be the major economical characteristics of Ovcharovo society. The institutions of priests and chiefs were also claimed to be present (Todorova et al. 1983).

The criticism of the official interpretative mode in communist Bulgaria falls outside the aims of this short section, since it requires a much more profound and target-oriented discussion. In addition, both Bulgarian case studies cited here were published in the late 1970s / early 1980s, when any concept differing from the formal regime ideology was unthinkable. This puts previous investigators in a non-comparable position with my post-communist education and opportunity to employ alternative explanatory modes. However, both case studies have some important omissions within their own interpretive framework that I shall comment on here in brief.

Raduncheva’s interpretation is based on Engels’ (1949) social adjustment of Marx’s economical theory. The presumed general common-sense knowledge of Engels’ study prevents any formal statement of the interpretative approach and blurs the boundary between the theoretical model and the interpretation itself. Later, one encounters more difficulties, whose claims derive from the archaeological evidence and which are assumed on the basis of Engels’ notions. The data from the settlement and the cemetery are not cross-referenced and hardly related in a coherent social reconstruction. Although debated, gender relations (e.g. a patriarchal social order is advanced instead of a matriarchal one) were not grounded in the archaeological evidence. Social inequality is turned into a circular argument of social differentiation and its roots are claimed to derive from the preceding Neolithic period, thus leaving social change during the Eneolithic entirely dependent on “outside” factors.

Unlike Raduncheva, Todorova’s claims are not clearly related to any formal explanatory mode and obviously rely on some kind of self-evident social process. Although not necessarily irrelevant, the interpretation is divorced from the carefully studied data and the concluding social reconstruction is randomly and selectively related to specific kinds of archaeological evidence. There is no discussion of intra-communal and intra-kin relations (apart from exogamous marriages) and any social change is imputed to abstract cultural change or ethno-cultural transformations (Todorova et al. 1983).

In summary, prehistoric settlement studies in Bulgaria have not exploited their very considerable potential for social reconstruction. Out-of-date explanatory modes still dictate the interpretation of settlement evidence and limit the possibilities for explanation of change and development in later Bulgarian prehistory.

2.3 History of GIS research

Over the last 20 years, GIS applications in archaeology passed through an uneven but generally progressive development. Initially introduced from, and applied in, the USA, this sophisticated computer-aided method remained an important investigation tool for American archaeologists working within and outside the New World. Although now GIS analyses are broadly practiced around the globe, their results are popular mainly within the circle of GIS practitioners. Regional and local meetings (1988, 1989 and 1992) ended up with serious, theoretically-grounded publications of GIS case studies (Allen et al. 1990, Lock and Stančić 1995) but the use of the acronym “GIS” in the titles and sub-titles of these books immediately reduced the numbers of potential readers to the number of people already involved in GIS practice. This strong claim is based on the lack of any post-1990 discussion about the methodological issues raised in the basic source book for GIS in archaeology – a feedback that should come from outside of the circle of GIS followers. The criticism of the environmental determinism some feel is inherent in GIS and its limitations to a sophisticated cartographic tool were debated in GIS literature but subsequently were only rarely reconsidered in more general works on contemporary theory and practice (e.g., Shennan cited in Kvamme 1995: 6). However, GIS applications papers have recently started to appear in journals with a broader methodological content (Llobera 1996; Sanjuan & Wheatley 1999), thus breaking down the charmed insiders’ circle.

The present status of GIS of neither highly criticised nor broadly applied is explicable through some of its characteristics. GIS analysis need special equipment, certain usually expensive software, specific management approaches to the broad range of in-put data sources, a huge investment in time for digitising or downloading of the source data and, last but not least, the acquisition of the necessary analytical skills to work with the relatively complicated software for academic purposes.

Major contributions to the attempts to take GIS out of isolation were the volume edited by in Lock and Stančić (1995) and the third volume of “The Archaeology of Mediterranean Landscapes” (Gillings et. al. 1999). Apart from the wide range of various GIS applications (e.g. studies that incorporate text data or coinage (Smith 1995), hydrological regime simulations (Gillings 1995) and investigations of population trends (Stančić and Gaffney 1999)), these volumes contain also analytical chapters on the problems, achievements and perspectives of GIS (Harris and Lock 1995) and GIS and Archaeological Theory (Witcher 1999). While Harris and Lock were summarizing the trends and the gradual popularization and diversification of GIS applications, Witcher raises more questions than answers in a stimulating discussion that “attempts to reconcile the abstract and scientific nature of GIS with the more subjective and phenomenologically grounded approach to the past” (Witcher, 1999:19).

Recently, Wheatley and Gillings (2002) have a chosen different approach to introduce the GIS technology in archaeology to a wider audience by publishing a textbook for the technological and analytical abilities of GIS, summarizing the variety of GIS applications in a coherent methodological structure.

The GIS application in the current thesis is following the well established traditions in regional studies (Chapters in Allen et al.1990 and Lock and Stančič 1995). Other issues that are going to be of concern in this study - such as human - landscape, human – nature relation, the social aspects of the landscape - as well as some more broadly discussed theoretical issues as spatial behaviour, time – space relations, have been continuously debated in GIS literature; however, much of this debate has remained outside the mainstream theoretical discourse.

GIS practitioners are fully aware of the limitations of the model, which in fact are shortcomings of the data source or some specific algorithm that usually make them cautious in the final interpretation. Moreover, the most fiery promoters of GIS have pointed out “…this volume is sparked by the potential of GIS for solving archaeological problems. The critical warning is that the problems are indeed archaeological and the method – powerful as it is – is for us to use.”(Allen et al. 1990: 386). What I was trying to say in this brief GIS section is that GIS far from being a universal interpretive tool, yet lacks proper exploration and evaluation of its potential.