Chronotypic Tension in Bulgarian Prehistory: 6500-3500 BC

Douglass W. Bailey

World Archaeology, Vol. 25, No. 2, Conceptions of Time and Ancient Society. (Oct., 1993), pp.
204-222.

Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0043-8243%28199310%2925%3A2%3C204%3ACTIBP6%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C

World Archaeology is currently published by Taylor & Francis, Ltd..

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/taylorfrancis.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic
journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,
and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take
advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.org
Fri Jan 4 04:17:42 2008
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. TI-rcse
chronotypes dictated most social action from 6500 to 3500 WC 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 tlai:
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 WC) 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 orn
hunter-gatherers and the interpretation of faunal remains from Upper Palaeolithic sires
document strategies of resource management and exploitation founded on repeated cycles
of animal and plant availability. Binford, Woodburn and others have built models for
conyiex foraging and hunting groups (applicable to both the Upper Palaeolithic anci ihc
Mesolithic) in which the Irunter-gatherer groups plan their manipulation of tlne resources
available to them. Thus for Winford, groups occupy different locations (base canrps, 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 nou-i-domestic

World Archaeology Vol~rvne25 No. 2 Corzcq?tiorzso$ T'irne and A~rcienlSocipiy

0Kouiletlge 1 9 9 3 0043-M2431931250212204$3.001i
 Chronotypic tension in Bulgarian prelzistory 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 ancl
Jarman 1969; 1972; Sturdy 1972; 13ahn 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 ErtebGlle in Denmark to
maintain a comfortable non-agricultural life-style beyond the dare of the availability of
domesticated plant and animal stocks. E r t e b ~ l l egroups 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 Kowley-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 Ertebslle, 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 (Boroneani 1989: 475). Voytek and 'Tringham have argued for
the storage of resources at sites in the Gorges, especially smoked fish at Vlasac I1 and [I1
and of other goods at other sites (Voytek and Iringham 1989: 493,498).
With the beginning of the classic European Neolithic, cyclical exploitation of wild (or
more accurately 'managed-wild' anirnal 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 Dougiu.rs W . Bailey

The Bulgarian evidence documenting successful adherence t o cycles or 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 t o which
these tools were dedicated; treatment of the deceased; settlement practice: and calendars.
Neolithic tool inventories reflect the early farrning activities of their owners. Ar-)tier
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 thcir cdgt:s)
used either on thcir own or hafted, in a line, on bone or antler, to form a scythe. Flar ancl
cupped stones were used as grinding platlorms and mortar and pestles. Ceramic pots drrd
clay silos are frequently found in the houses o l the period (Fig. I ) . In his analysis oi'
botanical remains from Chavdar and Kazanluk in central Bulgari;a, Dennell rea:overcd
evidence of a crop rotation system based on cereals and pulses (Dennell 1978: E. 12). Most
houses had ovens; many of the ovens were used for processing grains for storage (sieving
and carbonizing (Dennell 1972: I S ) ) , for facilitating winnowing (parching to free kernels
frorn husks (Dennell 1972: 154)). for baking hrcad, or for all of these activities. Alenost
every settlement from NcolitPiic Bulgaria (especially in the south of the country) rcwcals
evidence of the planting, harvesting, processing and storage of cereal g., Y^'l~ns.
'

Planting, harvesting and storage are factors integrally dependent on accurate prediction
of temporal cycles. Planting is succcssf~rlonly i f carried out ;it a specific time of ycai..
Knowledge of cercal growth rates permits successful harvesting. Knowledge and tracking
of the shelf-life of stored cereals er~ablcsreplanting. 'The life of an agriculturalist can only
succeed in association with a knowledge of arrnual, seasonal and intra-seasonal a:yclcs.
Arguing that much temperate European early agricultural life succeeded by taking
advantage of the short period of optimum gl-ounti water present between winter floods and
summer desiccation, Sherratt suggests that crops were growrr during the spring (Sherratf
1980).

Figure 1 Earl! Neolithic floor plan with grain

~ ~ I o s oven
, (markcd ~vithdiagonals) and storagc
pots frorn Slatina (aftcr 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 anld
cattle but by the high percentages of domesticated to wild animals exploitetl. T o 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 intcnsified. 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 et al. 1983; Bailcy 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 surnmer 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. T o 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 bleolithic habitation in north-eastern Bulgaria followed
the ErtebGlle 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. Intlividuals 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 withiri
the domestic space was also a characteristic of the Danube Gorge Mesolithic and rnay 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 agricultairal
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 prodilcts
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

Figure 2 Late Ghalcolithic habitation horizon Crom Ovcharovo showing ovcns, silos and housc
associations (afterTodorova et 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 VIIA) 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).
'Ihe 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 'altars9 from Ovcharovo in the north-eastern part of the country

Frgurr 3 Calendar g r ~ dfrom Slnt~no.Black fields represent ochre

(after Chokhncith~ev1984)
Figirrt, 3 Altar calendars from Ovcharovo (after. Todorova 1986).

('Fodorova et al. 1983; Koleva 1986: $I. Nikolov 1991). 'The face of eacla altar is painted
with symbols of the sun, the moon and thunder. A series of lincs painted on each edge oT
these altars mark the daily and monthly passage of time (Koleva 1986) (Fig. 4). Koieva
interprets these lines as representing a 365 day year divided into two periods, one 28 i days
in length consisting of spring, summer and autumn, and a second period 84 days in length
representing winter. O n 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
IColeva and Nikolov disagree on the periodiaation, 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.
l'he remaining two types of calendars, the cult pillars and the cave art. arc less defi niteiy
identified as calendars. The identification of the cult pillars (Fig. 5) as calendars rests on an
imaginative reconstruction of pillar [unction in marking the summer solstice on the
horizon (V. Nikolov 1991; Nedelchev 1991). Possible solar images on the pillars (circler!
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 argucd ehat a linear display of images painted on nhc
walls of a cave in northern Bulgaria represent an annual calendar (Stojchev and Stoev
1991). Stojchev and Stoev suggest ehat 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 viewes-
 Chronotypic tension in Bulgarian prehistory 211

Figure 5 Cult Pillar from Polyanitsa;

10.2 cm x 3.0 cm (after Boncv 1976)

Figrive 6 Early Neolithic stamps from Slatina:

a) with dout~leparallel zig-zags; arid b) double
ended with triple parallel zig-zags (after V.
Nikolovet al. 1991).

2 n

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; <;erasirnova-Tomova et al. 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 Turnov~oand
Manole-Razkopanitsa near Plovdiv). Although stamps are found in each phase of the
212 Douglass W . Bailey

I.i'guri, 7 Symbols from stamp scals: a) concentric circ1c.s (S:ilrnanovo; early o r rniititlc B'halcolithic;
diameter 5.7 cnl); b) cruciform (Gradcsh~~itsa-Malo Polc: uarly Nuolithic); c) spiral (Azmak: c a r i ~
meander (Pcrnik: early Neolithic; 5.2 cm x 2.6 cm) (after fk%;~kka\:
Iqcolithic); d) rectili~~c:tr 1983).

Neolithic and Chalcolithic, almost half of all stamps come from early Neolithic contexts,
njostly from sites in the west (Gradeshnitsa-Malo Pole. Slatina, Movatcheva. Krernenik
bei Sapareva Ranja, Pernilc and Rulgarchevo) and the central and south-central region.;
(Azmashka Mogila, Ghavdar, Karanovo and Kirdzhali). Thc nlost conlrnon nnotii' i.; t l ~ c
zig-zag which appears in parallel pairs or in groups of three on inore paridle1 iincs (Fig. 6).
Also represented are crosses, spirals, concentric circles and rectilinear pattern r~reanders
(Fig. 7).
'There is considerable debate over the I'unction of the stamps and the meaning of tile
symbols incised or modelled in relief upon their faces. While some read the symbols a?>
religious ideograms (e.g. Todorova 1978: 84) others are more cautious, orily agreeing t h a t
the symbols provide a rnleans to access the thought of prehistoric minds (B. Wikoiov 19'70:
1986). In the wider context of changes in material culture (grain silos, large storage pots)
and social strategies (management of land and aninsall; resources) evident during these
periods it is more profitable to interpret the stamps as r-xnechanisrns of estaltlishing ianc"!
maintaining ownership.
Regardless of the interpretation proffered, i i is clear tEa;i"lstarnps were used i a j
cornanunicate (in the se;ilings) a concept. '%'heymade permanent, in symbolic form, ;:
relationship between someone or something and a pot or sealing. By making ihc
relationship permanent the stamps bestow a historical identity to the object so stampeti.
.I,h e identity is retained in visible state beyoricl the tcmporal limits of the okjec'l's
production and stamping. The stamping bears the symbo! in n jtcrnianent non-vcrb;rl
medium. It functions to keep a record.
 Chronotypic tension in Bulgariun prehistory 21 3

Figure 9 Early Chalcolithic incised signs from

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

D
C

Figure 8 Early Neolithic incised signs from

Brcnitsa: a) rcctilincar; b) spiral; c) and d) 'B'
shape (after B. Nikolov 1986).

Figure 10 Early Chalcolithic incised signs from

Gradeshnitsa (after B. 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 1-11); 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 grid:; 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 0k.olglava 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
from late Chalcolithic contexts, the phenomenon is most evident during the late Neoiithic
and the early Chalcolithic.
T h e debate over the meaning of the syn~bolsincised on the pot bottoms rescmbiei tlrar
surrounding the function of the ceramic stamps. Some scholars locate the signs5n~eanings
in religious and spiritual thought (e.g. TodoroviC 1969: 78). while oiher-s suggest ihilt the
signs represent an early form of writing. Using Grcck archaic vases as a model, Vasil'
argued that the certain incised signs found on VinEa pots represent letters of an early
European writing (VasiC 1932-6). Forty years later, Georgiev drew the same conclu:;ia~!-ic
about the Gradcshnitsa signs (Gcorgiev 1970: 7 ) . A number o f rcscarchcrs have suggested
that the signs signified property ownership (Winn 1981: 3 1'7: 'li'ringliarn and MrstiC 1990:
but see To~Sorovii.and CermanoviG 19661: 78). A s Tringham has noted, thc mechanism c i i '
ownership existed ;it several levels; she suggests that thc signs from her- Neolithic
excavations at Sclcvac in Yugoslavia were used to identify single integrated Ilolisehoiiis
and to diffcrc~ltiateo n e E~ouscholdo r settlement frorn artother (Tringharn arnd Mr-stit
1990: 609).
While the particular furnction of cach sign is unclear (i.e, whether they cornrnunicaied
pot ownershig>. a potter's workshop o r some other poi-linked identity) 1111 cormirnenlators
agree that. like the stamps, the signs represent an early fonn of record keeping, a
mechanism to extend the visibility and durability of a message through tinme, from the
moment of inscription to an extentfed future beyond the Iirnits of oral cornmunicatiorl.
Both the pot-base monograms and the stamps functioned to preserve and ciisplay
information t h r o ~ i g htime. Than they were placed in permanent media ensures their.
survival along a linear t e n ~ p o r a dimension.
l In this way the symbols recorded inforlmr;al ion
across time: from pot-maker to pot-trader and user; from stamp-user to sealing-viewcr .
While it remains unclear which specific function tine stamps and nnonograms served, there
is no doubt that they were used to communicate information over time along a linear
historical dimension.

Chalcolithic irealment of the decer~~eil

vTreatn~entof the deceased during the Chalcolithic was radically different from tklc
patterns established during the Neolithic a n d Mesolithic. WY~ereMesolithic and Ncoliehic
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 frorn the spacc
of the living and on identifying the persona of the deceased. 'The intentions of Chalcoliil-iic
burial practice were two fold. A visible identification of the deceased at the time of de;iih
was made through the inclusion of specific artefacts, posse:;sions and symbols in the buri;i!
(usually personal ornaments). 111 this way the identity of the deceased was displayed (anti
most probably manipulated) at the time of burial. T h e display of these inclusions during
inhumation measured (and recorded) the individual's personal, familial and comrnrrnii.y
iderstity. Corpses of se1i:ctcd individ~ialsw ere buried in unmarked cemeteries to the west
of settlements. After the deceased had been buried in an unmarked gr;tve the image oS the
deceased, and by association the family o r community to which the deceased belonged
was kept alive and visible witinin the settlement through the display of ceramic figural
representations of the individual (Fig. 11). Figurines maintained thc visible presencc of ikri:
 Cl~ronotypictetz,siotz itz Bulgarian prehi,rtory 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 conspic~iouslydisplaying 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 (Ihalcolithic

Figuri, 11 Chalcolithic figu-

rine from Balchik (after To-
dorova 1986).
216 Douglass W. Baikey

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 mair~tairn
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 1ocu.s 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 buildirig 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 settlenlent
a visible and identifiable component of the landscape (Sherratt 1983: 192--3). The Cell
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: 17'2)). 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 chsonodypes 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- t h e mechanism of ihc
other. Thus we see a shift in the significance and meaning of burial ritual frorn the
Neolithic, when individual corpses were recycled into the fout~ciationsof houses and
seldom represented in effigy, to the Chalcolithic when individiaals were buried with
conspicuo~tsornament and were kept alive in houses fhrougi-n the use and display oi'
complex anthropomorphic imagery.
.Tust as the meaning of a single action (sucla as burial ritual) changed over tinre, so also
were both linear and cyclical chronotypes evident in single classes of material cultiire.
 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, reoccupatiori 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 o f the Chulcolithic

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, ,Ypondylus 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 comniunities (such as the spectacular cemetery at
Varna) which were oriented to extcrlial 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, Dcvniya 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
covering single, usually male: bodics (e.g. at l'urnava and Knezha near Vratsa. Lovech,
Wereket and Bbruchiste near Star Zagora, Belograciets ncar Varna and Plachidoi na:ar
Dobrich). Much of the symbolic material culture changed; anthropon~orphs ;inti
tectomorphs are replaced by a more constricted usage of symboiic 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 chronlotype. Indeed the linear chronotype facilitates and aidla the
maintenance of alliances and long-range trade networks.
'Fhe 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 thai
the linear chronotype was one of two major strategies driving social action since the
beginning of the Neolithic. '('he 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 pastoralisn-i and
less to agricultural production (Barker 1985: 106).
As the predominance of the linear chronotype was not a sudden break, the cyclicai
chronotype did still exist after the end of the Chalcolithic for the production of agric~alfuriil
resources and the intensification of sheep pastoralism noted by Dennell and Webley
(Dennell and Wehley 1975: Dennell 1978). Sherratt's identification of a major incrcasi: in
the prodlaction of secondary products (and the inherent cyclical structure of aninmai
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 thc
Chalcolithic. Indeed during the early Bronze Age some inhumation burials returned to the
domestic locus, although the houses are now nlore permancnb, 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 RG, but of a shift in the relative
importance of the linear and cyclical chronotypes.

Cowelusions

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.8. tell
settlements) to drive strategies of both chronotypes at the same time. Some classes of
artefact doclament both chronotypes at different levels: the calendar grids and altar
calendars tracked cycles of days. months and seasons in a cyclical manner a t elre same time
 Clzronofypic tension in Bulguriun prehistory 21 9

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 Bulgarit~n
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.

Center for Slavic and East European Studies

University o f California, Berkeley

References

Bahn, P . 1977. Scasonal migration in South-west France during the Eater Glacial period. Journal of
Archaeological Science, 4: 245-57.
Bahn. P. 1983. The neolithic of thc French Pyrcnccs. In Ancient Frunce (cd. C. Scarre) Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press. pp. 223-70.
Bahn. P. 1984. Pre-Neolithic control of' animals in Western Europc: thc faunal evidcncc. In Anirnuls
in Archaeology. Vol. 4 : Husbandry irz 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 Whitc on thc Uppcr Palaeolithic. Current
Arlthropology, 31(1): 71-6.
Bailcy. D . W . 1990. The living house: signifying continuity. In The Sociul 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 northcastern Bulgaria: the
cxample of Ovcharovo. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Archaeology, University of Cam-
bridge.
Barker, G . 1985. I'rehlstoric hrming in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bender, J . and Wellbery, D . E . 1991. Introduction. In Chronotype.~: of Tirne (eds J .
the Constr~~ction
Bender and D . E. Wellbery). Stanford: Stanford University Prcss, pp. 1-18.
Binford. L. R . 1980. Willow smokc and dogs' tails: huntcr-gatherer settlement systcms and
archaeological sitc formation. Americur~Antiquity, 45: 4-20.
Boncv, A . 1976. Glineni modeli na kultovi stulbovc ot dve sclishtni mogili v Turgovkhtki okrug.
Arkheologiya, 18(1): 2 4 3 5 .
Bonsall, C . (cd.) 1989. The Mesolithic in Europe: Paperv Presented at the Third Internutional
Symposium, Edinburgh, 1985. Edinburgh: John Donald.
Moroncanf. V. 1989. Thoughts on !he chronological relation between the Epipulacolithic and the
Neolithic of the Low Danube. In Bonsall1989: 475-80.
Chaplin. K. E . 1975. The ccology and bchaviour of deer in relation to their impact on the
environmcnt of prehistoric Britain. In The Effect on Man ofthe Landscape: the Highland Zone (eds
J . 6.Evans, S. Limbrey and F1. Clcere). London: Council for British Archaeology, Rcsc;in.ch
Report I I , pp. 40-2.
Chokhad;.hiev, St. 1984. Arkhcologichcski danni za lialcl~darv nachaloto Ira liamcnnomcdrrara
cpokha. A r k l z ~ o l o g i y a2, 6(2-3): 1-7.
C'hokhadzhiev. St. 1986. Friihiineolithische Meraniil< aus der prahistorischcn Siedlung bei Slatin(:.
Bezirk Kjustendil. Studia I'raehistorica, 8: 185-202.
Dennell, R. W. 1972. The interpretation of plant remains. In J'clper.~in fi,'(,o~rornicP r ~ h i s t o r y( cd. 1.;.
S. Higgs). Cambridge: Carnhridge Univcrsity P r c s ~pp.
, 119-60.
Dennell, R . MI. 1978. fi,-rrrly Frrrrning irz South Bulgariafrom /he V i r o tlzt~(illWil/t~r~niurn
RC. 0:tEord:
British Archaeological Report:, S 4.5.
Dcnncll, R . W . and Weblcy, D. 1975. Prehistoric settienlent and lanil L I ~ Gin so~~tlierrr
Bu1gari;i. l i ?
Pala~oecoiromg~ (cd. E. S. Higgs) Carrrl>ridgc:Cambridge Univcrsity Press" pp. 97-109.
iiamble, C. 1978. Resource exploitation and the spatial patterning of hunter-gathcrerb: n cnsc \r:iti:;.
In Socia/ Orgailization and Settlerrzerzt (cds D . Green, C.1-kasclgrovc anal M . Spriggs, tvl.). Oxfoi-cl:
Hritistr Archaeological Reports S 47. pp3. 153--85.
Gargett. R . M. 1989. Grave shortcomings: 'Tire evidence f'ci:. N~:andcrth;ll i~rrriai. C7i.ri.i,i,ir?
ilntlzroy?ology, 30(2): 157-90.

k',, Stojchev, 1'.and Stocv. AI, 1991. Astr.onomichcsica simvo1ik;i trr i

Gerahirno\'a-To~~~c)v:~~
' [ ~ . 203-13.
nasltalnata pcshterna zhivopis. h ~ t ~ r d i s t . ~ i p l i r( z~s( I~cr~~L~.i( u I ~16.4:
Ghetie, B . 1,. and hlatecscir; C . N. 1073. I~.'utilisationtics bol~insi la. traction d;irrs la NColithiqLc,
Moye~i.V IIIo Congris /rzfeirzufionul dcs Scicnccr Pr4l~istorir~rrc.sc f Pvofol~istoiiqcres,R ~ o g r u d 1")7!.
,
pp. 4.54-61
Gimbutas, M . 197'7. Tile first wavc or t ~ i r a s i a nsteppe )iastoraiists into cop pi:^. Age Y-'_uropc.4 . h ~
.lo~rrnn/of Irztfo-Euroy~em,Ytiidics. 5(4): 277-339.
Girnbuias, M. 1979. Thc thrcc waves of the steppe pcoplc into cast seiiir::l I:~iropc."4cfcs S u i ~ s r
d'Ant/lioj)o/ogie. 43(2): 227 -35.
I-Bigg~EE.S . (ed.) 1972. Pupcr:s in Ecor~ornic/'rehi.stoq~,Cambridge: Cambridge University Prcss
iliggs. E, S. and Jarman. h4. R.. 1069, The origins o l agriculture: a rcconsideraiion. Ai7ficjrliry
43: 31-41.
Higgs, E. S. and Jarman, M. R. 197%.Tlic origins of animal and plani hirsbandry. in liigg:;
1972: 3-14.
Yanna~i. M. Ha. 1972. European decr cconornics a n d i l ~ caclverrt si'{he Neolithic. Pr-i Higkri;,
1972: 12548.
Kaiser. T . andVoytck, R . 198.3. Sedentism a n d economic changc in tile Balkan Neoli~hic..lorlrtzali!f
Anfl~ropologicnlArclrcrc.oloe)., 2: 323--53.
Koleva. V. 1986, Danni za kalcndar \, kultovata stscna o i Ovcharovo. Irrtcrclicfciplir~ai~~ii
izs!cd\~nniyrr.I 6A: 131--52.
Koleva. M. 1991. Kalc~idar'1. drevriosti po arkircologichr:skirr~ istorichnikam, ~iifrrdi.ctsij~lin~a~'iii
(z.rietivculiya, 28: 85- 96.
Lcgge, A. J . 1972. Prehistoric exploitation of the gazcilc i ~ Pr alcstinc. Iri i Tigg.; 19'2: ! 19-2J-
 Chronotypic tension in Bulgarian prehistory 221

Louwe Kooijmans, L. P., Smirnov, Y , , Solecki, R. S., Villa, P . , Weber, T. and Gargett, R . H . 1989.
O n the evidence for Neanderthal Burial. C:urrent Anthropology, 30(3): 322-29.
Makkay, J. 1984. Early Stamp Seals in South-Enst Europe. Budapest: AkadC~niaiKiadS
Mateescu, C. N. 1975. Remarks on cattle breeding and agriculture in the middle and late Neolithic
on the Danube. L)nciu, 19: 13-18.
Ncdclchev, N. 1991. Slunchcvitc dimivc ot Polyanitsa i boru monuphatsiu v solarnitc rcligii na
Ralkanitc. Interdist~iplinarnlIz~ledvaniya.28: 165-70.
Nikolov, B. 1970. Nachcnki na pismenost prcz khalkolitnata cpokha v nashite zcmi. 1 . Glinena
plochka s pismeni znatsi ot Gradeshnitsa, Vrachanski okrug, Arkheologiya, 12(3): 1-7.
Nikolov, B . 1975. Selishtc ot stariya neolit pri s. Gradcshnitsa, Vrachanski okrug. Arkheologiya,
17(1): 25-40.
Nikolov, B . 1986. Signs sur des ouvragcs cn argilc dc I'cpoque prchistoriquc cn Bulgarie
Occidcntale. Studiu Praehistoricu, 8: 166-84.
Nikolov, V . 1990. Die ncolithische Sietllung Slatina in Sofia (Ausgrabung im Jahr 1985). Studiu
Praehistorica, 10: 77-85.
Nikolov, V. 1991. Kalcndarna interprctatsiya na kultovata stsena ot Ovcharovo. Interdistsiplinurni
Izsledvaniya. 28: 97-103.
Nikolov, V . , Grigorova, K. and Sirakova, E. 1991. Rannoncolitno selishte Slatina v Sofiya: purvi
stroitclcn khorizont (predvaritclno suobshtcnie). Arkheologiyu, 33(3): 13-26.
Rowley-Conwy, P . 1983. Sedentary hunters: thc E r t c b ~ l l eexample. In Hunter-Gatherer Economy
in Prehistory (ed. G . Bailey). Cambridgc: Cambridgc University Prcss, pp. 11 1-26.
Rowley-Conwy, P . 1986. Between cave painters and crop planters: aspects of the temperate
European Mcsolithic. In Hunters in Transition (ed. M. Zvclcbil). Cambridge: Cambridgc Ilniversity
Prcss, pp. 17-32.
Shcrratt, A . G . 1980. Water. soil and seasonality in early cereal cultivation. World Archaeology,
l l ( 3 ) : 313-30.
Sherratt. A . G . 1981. Plough and pastoralism: aspects for thc secondary products revolution. In
Pattern of the Past (eds I . Hodder, G. Isaac, and N. Hammond). Cambridgc: Cambridge Univcrsity
Press, pp. 261-306.
Shcrratt, A . G . 1983. Thc eneolithic period in Rulgar~aand its European context. In Ancient
Bulgaria (ed. A . Poulter). Nottingharn: University of Nottingham, Ilepartment of Archacology,
pp. 188-98.
Stojchcv, T. and Stoev, Al. 1991. Astronomicheska intcrpretatsiya na nyakoi graphiti ot Bulgarskitc
Peshteri. Interdistsiplinarni Izsledvaniya, 28: 194-202.
Sturdy, D. A . 1972. Thc exploitation patterns of a modern rcindeer 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. Current Anthropology, 23: 513-37.
Todorova, H . 1978. The Eneolithic of Bulgaria. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports S 49.
Todorova, H . 1982. Kupferreitliche Siedlungen in Nordosthulgurien. (Matcrialicn r.ur Allgemcincn
und Verglcichendcn Archaologic 13) Munich: Verlag C. H . Beck.
Todorova, H . 1986. IGzmenno-Mednata Epokhu v Bulgariyu. Sofia: Irdatclstvo Nauka i Izkustvo.
Todorova, H . , Vasiliev, V., Yanushevich, Z.,Kovachcva, M. and Vulcv, P. (eds) 1983. Ovcharovo.
Razkopki i Prouchvaniya 8. Sofia: Iztlatclstvo na Bulgarskata Akadclniya na Naukite.
l'odorovit, J . 1969. Written signs in the rrcolithic culturcs oi' Souttrcastern Europe. Arclrcii1iij:ia
lugoslavica, 10: 77--84.
TodoroviC, 3 . and C e r m a ~ ~ o v iA
f . , 1961. Bnrijicca: zV/~sc,ljcVi;'in?an.rke K I ~ J ~ L LBclgradc:
I.~. lViuzrj
Grada.
Tringl~arn,R . and Mn-stit, D. (cds) 1090. Sclcvac.: A ,%:eolifhic Vi!laga, i n Y~~go.slavicx.
Monurncllta
Archaeologica 15. b,os Angeles: IIC%-A.Institute of Archaeology.
VasiC, M . 1932-6. Praisrorijsicn V i n f u I-IV. Bclgradc: DrBavna Starnp;irija Kraljcvine Jugosiaviji:.
Vasilev, K . 1985. Izsletivane nca Phaitnatu o r Seli,slrtna ~Mogiks 0 1 ' c h u r o ~ ' o1ntcrdistsiplinal.ni
.
Yzsledvaniya 13. Sofia: Arkheologicheski Institkit na Bulgarskata Akaderniya Y I ;Naukite.~

Voytek, 13. A . and Tringham, R . 1989. Rethinking thc Mesolithic: tlic: case of South-east Eui-opc. 11:
Bonsall 1989: 392-99.
White. R.1985. U p p ~ Palaeolirllic
r lnnd Lr.st. in tilt>PPrigord: A T o p ~ g r ~ p hAi IcI I I Y O Uto
C ~S~ih.si.stfiz~~(~
and Settltmenr. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports S 253.
Whitc, R . 1989. flusbandry and herd control in the Ilppcr Palacolithic. Q"~~rrcrzt
Arzriiro~~ol!if;~.
30(5): 609-32.
Winn. S. M. M . 1981. Prt.-writing irz S'o~,tlrc~astt~rn
E ~ i r o p e :rile Sign ,Yj'.stc~/n
of the \/'inC/r C i ~ l t ~ l r r .
Calgary: Wcsiern.
Woodburn, 9. 1980. Hunters and gatherers today and reconstructiorl of the past. In SoviPf i a r d
Westt.rn Atilthropologj (ed. E . Gcllner). London: Duckworth, pp. 9 5 1 2'7.
Woodburn. 3 . 1982. Egalitarian societies. ,'Cf'air (N.S.) 17: 431L.52

Abstract

Bailey, Douglaar.
Chronotypic tension in Rulgariaaa prehistory: 65061-3500 BC
Qlhronotypeh arc the 1710del'rthrough which time takes on practical or conccptl~alsignificance. 'i'hi:,
paper cxplores thc tensions between two diffcrerlt chronotypes in thc prehistoric archaeology of
Bulgaria, one csscntially linear and the other cyclical. Their dt.velo~~mcnt is traced in relation t o thc
pattern of settlement. the subsistence economy, social organization. t l ~ ctrcatmcnhof thc cicad ;mi
dcvclopmcrlt of calenders and record Itecping.