The study titled “The Transitional Period between the Eneolithic and the Bronze Age in Bulgaria” sets to offer a synopsis on the problem of the Transitional period between the Eneolithic and the Bronze Age in Bulgaria. Its primary...
moreThe study titled “The Transitional Period between the Eneolithic and the Bronze Age in Bulgaria” sets to offer a synopsis on the problem of the Transitional period between the Eneolithic and the Bronze Age in Bulgaria. Its primary objective is to expose the processes which triggered the transformations of the settlement model occurring during the Transitional period, which later became distinctive of the Early Bronze Age. Those changes consider chiefly the adoption of a new type of topography (landscape preferences), the emergence of single-layer settlements, of new residential architecture, of new settlement plans. The study attempts to uncover the connection between the settlement model of the Transitional Period and the one characteristic of the Early Bronze Age. It also examines a number of aspects of the material culture, identifying phenomena typical of the period under consideration. To accomplish its goals, the paper compares the settlement models characteristic of the Late Eneolithic with those of the Early Bronze Age and seeks to identify the process of the transformation of these in the Transitional period. The paper also presents certain connections and parallels to the rest of the Balkan Peninsula and to the territories north-east of the Danube River.
The first chapter offers a brief overview of the history of research on the Transitional period, summarizing the most important opinions on the subject. It was made possible by the work already accomplished by a number of scholars, who had studied in depth this highly contentious period. Several key theories circulate in the contemporary debate, each with its strong and weak points. The chapter offers a review of the discussions and the polemics on the nature of the Transitional period, as well as on its definition and periodisation.
According to the first theory, which launched the period’s definition, the end of the Eneolithic was brought by a large scale invasion of cultural groups inhabiting the region north of the Black Sea. It was accompanied by devastating for the indigenous population conflicts and “military” confrontations. According to this theory, the so-called Steppe invasion was preceded by substantial climate changes, and the settling of the carriers of the new cultural traditions led to a fundamental change in the archaeological face of the entire Balkan Peninsula.
On the other hand, according to the proponents of another theory there were no collisions or “military” confrontations between the local Balkan societies and the migrants. This group of scholars adopt the view that the transformations had occurred as a consequence of extensive contacts and gradual, peaceful introduction of new population. According to some of the supporters of this theory, climate change was also the cause for the switch from one kind of economy to another – from agriculture to stock breeding, undertaken by the indigenous population, with the latter economy becoming emblematic of the Transitional Period. According to them, with the destruction of a large portion of the cultivated fields forced that same populace to seek new means of subsistence, based on nomadic way of living.
According to a third theory, the Transitional Period, is not a discrete phase in its own right. There is an extended hiatus (cesura), and according to the proponents of this school of thought, the fall of the Late Eneolithic society was caused by the specifics of the population’s religious beliefs, which drove it to abandon voluntarily its residences and vacate these territories.
In the presentation of the archaeological characteristic and the settlement model, I had adopted the first thesis, but with certain reservations regarding the scale of the invasion and conflict. I believe, that at this stage of the research, it is most adequate to classify the period into Post-Eneolithic and Proto-Bronze. Presently, such internal periodization offers the best explanation for the processes which led to the transformation of the cultural traditions on Bulgarian territory.
Following a review of the absolute chronology of the period, the paper examines in detail the settlements and the settlement system of the Transitional period, with focus on the best known sites from the period, such as: Hotnitsa-Vodopada, Telish-Redutite, Rebarkovo-Dzhugera, Galatin-Chukata, Bezhanovo-Banunya, Sadovets-Ezeroto, Mezdra-Kaleto, Devetaki Cave, Borovan-Ezeroto, Trapezitsa, Varhari, etc. A comparison between the data from these settlements and the data from the Late Eneolithic and the Bronze Age, offer a clear picture of the transitional nature of the processes which led to the emergence of the Early Bronze societies and the establishment of their distinctive settlement structures. This part of the paper describes the principle characteristics of the topography and the stratigraphy and offers a comparison to those of the Late Eneolithic and the Early Bronze Age. Attention is given to the sites with structures attesting to sedentary way of life. Several types of dwellings are defined: dugouts (sunken), half-sunken (or partially sunken dwellings), rectangular buildings constructed on ground level, and apsidal buildings constructed on ground level. Dugouts and half-sunken buildings had of course been utilized as dwellings back in the Neolithic period but are atypical in the Eneolithic settlement model. It is established that changes affecting the rectangular buildings constructed on ground level are accompanied by changes in construction techniques and design specifics. In the Transitional period was introduced use of transient, wattle and daub construction. The adobe disappears. Apsidal plan buildings appear, a trend which evolves into the Early Bronze Age. I refer to a number of parallels for each type of dwelling, indicating the source for their appearance on Bulgarian territory and their spread to the western parts of the Balkan Peninsula. An argument corroborating the proposed continuity between the settlement model of the Transitional Period and that of the Early Bronze Age is also the established fact, that on a number of sites, the deposits associated with this period are superseded by an Early Bronze Age deposit. An example of this stratigraphy offer: Vaksevo-Studena Voda, Bezhanovo-Banunya, Sadovets-Kaleto, Sadovets-Ezeroto, Lepitsa, Devetaki Cave, etc. In certain instances, the Bronze Age site does not stratigraphically supersede the previous period but is found in its immediate proximity. The similarity in terms of topography offers yet another support for the proposed conclusions.
In this study I had attempted a synopsis analysis of the pottery production – one of the principal indicators of a readily traceable change. I established that the pottery assemblage from the Transitional Period is distinguished from the one of the earlier age for the simplified forms, by the production methods, and by the application of organic temper and ground shell from aquatic molluscs. The examined pottery assemblages clearly demonstrate the appearance of new elements such as: Scheibenhenkel, ribbon handles raised high above the rim, rounded bases, etc.), forms (milk jugs, huge variety of cups, S-profiled vessels). New types of incised decoration also appear: inscribed in notched ribbons hatched panes, notched rims, cord ornament, etc. Despite the evolution of these new elements, in terms of technology and quality, the Transitional Period pottery assemblage is a backward step, compared to the production techniques, the typological diversity, and the ornamentation, known from the Late phases of the Eneolithic Age.
The review of the Transitional Period did not omit an analysis of metallurgical developments. In this sphere, the principal, transitional phenomenon is the introduction of the arsenic (As) laced copper. It was precisely the invention of this typical of the Transitional Period new technology which made possible the production of finer, while also possessing greater tensile strength tools. The addition of arsenic to the copper alloy is the first step towards the invention of bronze metallurgy, which gave the name to the subsequent age. During the Transitional Period appear also the first metal cutting and thrusting weapons – knives and daggers. The large number of daggers dated to this period indicates proliferation of a new metal production and ascribes the region of modern day Bulgaria to the emerging Circum-Pontic metallurgical province. The transitional nature of the metallurgical production could also be traced in other typical of the age tools – the axes, the adzes, and the combo tools.
Finally, the paper regards one of the most interesting aspects of the prehistoric culture as a whole – the spiritual culture of the Transitional Period. Spiritual life is among the most robust elements of all communities, and thus any observed change is an important indicator of the introduction of new population groups. In this chapter I examine the diagnostic changes in anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines, burial rites, personal ornaments, and jewellery. In this section I present abundant comparanda of similar finds from the territory of the Tripolye-Cucuteni, and from the lands to the east of it. The appearance of male anthropomorphic representations, the stone zoomorphic sceptres, the previously unknown inhumation in an extended position with legs contracted at the knees, the use of ochre blankets, etc., are further arguments in favour of the transitional nature of the period under scrutiny.
I hope this work had succeeded to provide the missing pieces for the Transitional period and to answer at least some of the posited questions. In the words of Zygmunt Bauman, “Reality is as thin as the paper on which it is printed”. Thus, I implore the reader to see in this paper but a humble contribution to the study of the Transitional Period in Bulgaria, which I hope future researchers would enrich.
