| ARCHAEOLOGY AND ARCHAEOLOGISTS
IN BULGARIA AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 3RD
MILLENNIUM AD
Tsoni Tsonev (Junior Representative, Central/Eastern
Europe, Central Asia - Institute of Archaeology
and Museum, Sofia, Bulgaria) tsts@bas.bg
Introduction
During the last decade Bulgaria has gone
through dramatic changes in many domains
of social life. The typical figure of the
Bulgarian archaeologist, however, remains
lonely, confined within his old debates
and excavation practices, isolated like
never before from the general public he
meant to serve. In most cases he turns a
blind eye to European and worldwide debates
that go on among the European and world
archaeological communities.
Yet this concise definition is valid only
to a certain degree and changes took place
even in that area of our knowledge of the
past held tightly by the previous communist
regime. For example, a new generation of
archaeologists stepped into territories
exclusively preserved for the old archaeological
establishment that disappeared amidst the
complex changes of post-communist realities.
This makes it difficult to chose an appropriate
approach to my presentation of Bulgarian
archaeology. There are three possibilities:
how archaeology was founded and developed
in Bulgaria; a more theoretical approach
that concerns the development of the discipline
after WWII; or to give only the technical
details of archaeological practice in the
country that is relevant to the protection
of cultural and archaeological heritage.
I chose to start with a short questionnaire
distributed in May 2000 among archaeologists
employed in Bulgaria’s 70 archaeological
and historical museums. The questionnaire
was done in agreement of the “Conflict Situations
and Destruction of Cultural Heritage” task
group of the WAC Executive, taken during
the Athens meeting in November 1999. I managed
to do this survey with the kind permission
and help of the-then head of the Centre
of Museums and Fine Art Galleries, Tsonia
Drajeva. The answers to this short questionnaire
of 15 questions give the best presentation
of present-day archaeology in Bulgaria.
It is not enough by far for more detailed
study but from the point of view of the
purpose for which it was made and the short
time in which it was done, the results of
the questionnaire form a highly representative
sample.
There were 69 responses out of 70 sent
out to museums, an exceptional rate of return.
It is noteworthy that eight answers come
from the Institute of Archaeology and Museum,
Sofia, where there are about 100 employees,
and two answers from the National History
Museum, which employs about 15 archaeologists.
The rest come from the regional museums,
none with more than 3 archaeologists actually
employed. The responses thus constitute
a highly representative sample of archaeologists
working throughout the country, with a focus
on regional museums.
The rule was that respondents would remain
anonymous and had the right not to answer
any question(s) about which they felt incompetent
or uneasy. Whatever comments they had on
the questions or on any other issue they
thought relevant to this problematic they
had to send in a separate letter signed
by the author or authors. The result was
that two additional personal letters arrived,
one of which (written by Ivan Ivanov, Varna
Archaeological Museum - Varna is the third
biggest city in Bulgaria) addresses the
wider educational program of the Museum
with the secondary schools of the town.
Questionnaire
1. Was there (is there?) a permanent exhibition
in the local museum with materials from
your archaeological site?
Yes No
51
16
2. Was there (is there?) a temporary exhibition
in the local museum with materials from
your archaeological site?
Yes No
59
8
3. Do you think that part of the archaeological
finds uncovered by you can be included in
international exhibitions?
Yes No
Cannot Decide
65
3
4. Is it possible now (was it possible
in the past when you finished off your excavations)
to set up a small museum at the archaeological
site (to build up a small building in which
to preserve in situ part of the site or
the whole site)?
Yes No
Possible but not done
Built up a museum
31
19
11
7
5. Is your archaeological site in
good condition now?
Good Bad
Left demolished.
18
25
14
6. Are the sites you investigate included
into:
the map of the village-planning?
the cadastre of agricultural lands?
the cadastre of wood lands?
Yes No
59
6
7. Did you receive (do you receive now?)
regular funding from the local government
budgets or any other material support -
free work force, etc.?
Yes No
Before Yes
Before No
13
13
40
1
8. Are the sites you investigate included
into the electronic ‘Archaeological Map
of Bulgaria’
Yes No
Do not know
55
4
8
9. Is there any interest (to your knowledge)
from the business sector about your site
as attractive means for the organization
of business meetings, advertising, museum,
local community festivals and for attraction
of tourists?
Yes No
31
37
10. Do you know if your sites are included
in the curriculum of the secondary schools
of the village?
Yes I know
No I don’t know
Not included
35
29
1
11. Do secondary students attend your sites?
Yes No
53
14
12. Do you know that your sites are included
in the curriculum of university courses?
Yes, I know No,
I don’t know
38
30
13. Do university students have access
to or do they work with materials from your
sites for preparation of their course or
Master papers?
Yes No
Don’t know
62
5
1
14. Have you prepared part of your finds
to serve as didactic materials for education
of undergraduate, graduate students or secondary
students?
Yes No
54
13
15. Have you ever been invited to attend
(officially or unofficially) the community
council on tourism of the respective municipality?
Yes No
16
52
I shall comment on these results. The first
three questions concerning exhibitions were
introduced by the-then representative of
the Centre of Museums and Fine Art Galleries
(CMFAG), architect Malvina Ruseva. The interest
of CMFAG, a structure within the Ministry
of Culture, is understandable, since it
organizes and gives permission for archaeological
exhibitions abroad and issues export permits
for cultural heritage objects. As can be
seen from the answers to the first two questions,
there is a high involvement of actual archaeological
materials into temporary or permanent museum
exhibitions. The answer to the third question
reveals the high expectations and the high
self-evaluation of archaeologists about
their field work. Compared with the actual
number of the Bulgarian archaeological exhibitions
abroad, however, which number no more than
one at the present moment (Thracian Gold),
it shows that the archaeologists who conduct
archaeological excavations cannot, despite
their desire, organize exhibitions abroad.
The problem is a complex one. The negative
result stems in part from the existing bureaucracy.
More important, though, is the lack of experience
in local museum administrations and the
lack of interest amongst local governments
and central institutions. It also shows
the lack of experience of archaeologists
in proposing regional or thematic exhibitions
with less spectacular but interesting science-
and education- oriented problems that can
attract foreign museums and institutions.
Part of the exhibitions abroad were organized
with the direct involvement of the Minister
of Culture and they seemed to serve more
as an attribute of political power rather
than to have much scientific and educational
value (they involve the most spectacular
objects, such as the Thracian Gold, for
example). Few exhibitions have better subject-
and object-oriented presentations combined
with editions in foreign languages that
concern wider topics of archaeological studies
in Bulgaria than the 1997 exhibition in
Florence, Italy organized by Institute of
Archaeology and Museum, Sofia.
The fourth question may be considered as
a certain measure of the attitude the local
administrations have towards the cultural
and archaeological heritage. Archaeologists
are positive and consider that their sites
are worth preservation by museums built
up in situ. The administrations, however,
do not meet the expectations of the archaeologists
and only seven such museums were built up
during the communist past when the main
drive was to produce political propaganda.
This attitude at present reveals that local
and central administrations are quite restricted
and even hostile towards the archaeological
and cultural heritage or they do not see
its potential for stimulation of enhanced
identification of local ethnically-mixed,
or divided in other aspects communities,
for raising their educational standards
or for business development on the basis
of information technologies.
The sixth question is a correction to the
previous one and concerns the assessment
given by the actual excavators of the state
of preservation of their archaeological
sites. The assessment is strongly negative,
which is additional evidence of the hostile
attitude of the administrations in Bulgaria
towards the cultural and archaeological
heritage. One fifth of the sites are left
demolished, one third are left in bad condition
and the rest have a positive score. The
requirement of the administration that archaeologists
should register the sites in various planning
and cadastral registers is fulfilled almost
90% by the archaeologists. That is to say
that local administrations should know the
presence of archaeological sites within
the villages and in the agricultural and
wooded lands because they are already registered
on village planning maps or on cadastral
maps.
The seventh question reveals the actual
response of the administration to the financial
demands of archaeologists. The question
whether there was regular funding from local
administrations “before” means during the
communist regime. Fifty percent of the interviewees
give a positive answer, while at present
only about 20% receive regular funding.
This result confirms the conclusion that
archaeological heritage is far from a priority
amongst present local administrations.
The next question shows that almost all
archaeological sites are included into the
national Archaeological Map and that this
project of the Ministry of Culture works
effectively nationwide. As a certain compensation
for the lack of interest of the administration,
private business shows some interest towards
archaeological heritage; almost 50% of those
interviewed confirm in question 9 that there
is some interest shown from the business
sector.
The next questions concern the educational
effect of the archaeological excavations.
The actual secondary school history curriculum
includes little or nothing about archaeology,
while the job descriptions of museum employees
requires only 2 hours per year to be spent
on lecturing pupils! This unsatisfactory
official framework, however, is compensated
for by archaeologists themselves, though
they are not paid for the additional hours
occupied with school children either in
the field or in the museum exhibitions.
The current practice in Bulgaria is that
archaeologists do employ children during
their excavation campaigns. This fact, however,
cannot be considered as pure relations between
an employer and its employees; it is rather
a continuation of the educational school
programs and school children receive in
summer not only additional knowledge, skills,
etc., but through their own experience develop
a sense of place and new points of reference
to the community they live in.
This ‘pedagogic’ side and community-value-laden
vocation of archaeologists’ work has never
received any official attention. There is
no consistent policy of the Ministry of
Education that links the education of secondary
school pupils with the wider background
of natural and humanitarian studies encompassed
by archaeological investigations and museum
work. So far there is only one positive
exception, the Varna archaeological museum,
where more than 4000 pupils per year go
through organized visiting and training
programs.
Almost similar are the results of the involvement
of archaeology into higher education. Archaeologists
from museums throughout the country employ
students during their fieldwork, provide
them with materials for their university
papers from their own excavations or from
the museums’ depots and even have ready
made teaching collections that facilitate
students in their work. Again this additional
occupation of the museum archaeologists
is not recognized officially. Most of the
universities that teach archaeology maintain
only restricted (mostly for financial reasons)
archaeological excavations that cannot meet
the requirements of the curriculum. The
latter states that students have to do certain
practice in archaeological excavations.
Most students have to look by themselves
for excavations that can assure the required
number of practices and more importantly
to secure enough archaeological materials
for their semester works or master papers.
This practice worked smoothly during the
communist regime, when the education was
formally free. In the present situation,
however, in which students pay for their
education even at state universities, museum
archaeologists feel released from that kind
of obligation because universities do not
pay them any money for their additional
work. To a certain extent this gap is bridged
by a special program started recently by
‘Open Society’ in Sofia that provides limited
funding for students in order to be able
to attend the archaeological practices required
by the universities’ curricula. Again the
Ministry of Education and the Ministry of
Culture remain passive observers of the
changes that go on and there is a lack of
any long-term vision or policy regarding
these issues. The high scores of involvement
of both pupils and students in the archaeological
investigations (visible from the questionnaire)
and museum work is due, in my view, not
to the actual system of education and Cultural
Heritage Management but to the great traditions
in education established in Bulgaria in
the 19th and the first half of the 20th
centuries.
The last question may also be considered
as another measure of involvement of archaeologists
in community planning. The score is low
but common sense suggests that archaeologists
can be included more seriously in the activities
of community councils on tourism. These
local advisory bodies to local administrations
are meant to propose ideas and initiatives
that will stimulate tourism in their local
regions. In many places such councils have
never been formed but even in municipalities
where they were constituted few archaeologists
are invited to join their work.
The overall result of this questionnaire
can be assessed as positive in two directions.
First it is spread nationwide on behalf
of the CMFAG, Ministry of Culture, and WAC.
My purpose was to make the name of WAC as
popular as it can be in Bulgaria. The second
objective was to send a positive message
concerning the thorny issues of archaeological
investigations and cultural heritage management,
which as far as museum archaeologists are
concerned are widely neglected. The high
score of responses makes the results not
only significant from a statistical point
of view but shows that these questions are
close to the hearts of the audience. Yet,
there is a negative side of this questionnaire.
This high score of responses is also due
to the fact that it was spread throughout
the Ministerial subordination network. That
is to say that since museums are subordinated
to the Centre of Museums…(CMFAG), Ministry
of Culture, they were obliged to respond
to the inquiry, though in the instructions
that accompanied the questionnaire it was
pointed out that a response was not obligatory.
My initial intention was to distribute the
questionnaire independently, by receiving
some funding from ‘Open Society’ or another
institution. If it was done independently
of the Ministry of Culture in this way,
my expectations were to receive no more
than 20-30 answers, if any. Whatever speculations
on these results can be made, the general
outcome seems to be incontestable in that
a kind of a base is established for future
cooperation between WAC and CMFAG, the National
Institute of Cultural Heritage (NICH), the
Institute of Archaeology and Museum (IAM),
Sofia and a number of regional museums.
The current practice of field archaeology
and issuing permissions for excavations
is fairly simple in Bulgaria. It was established
at the beginning of 20th century and differs
from that in most European countries.
But I shall start the consideration of
this problem with my personal opinion that
there is a lack of any coordination between
planning authorities at local or government
levels and rescue or research fieldwork
done by archaeologists. Thus the archaeologists
and architects and building engineers who
represent investors remain separated into
two different domains. The former in most
cases dig in a hazardous way, where they
find something worth digging and the latter
build up according to the planning committees
at local or central government levels. There
is a lack of any regional or nationwide
planning for archaeological survey and excavation,
but such planning could form a base for
cooperation with the formalized regional
and nationwide plans for development and
construction. The institutions occupied
with archaeological heritage in Sofia and
the museums in the country have never made
any attempt whatsoever to create a kind
of a formal, predictive assessment of the
occurrence of archaeological sites within
the limits of villages and various types
of land system. Such information would be
of special use to planning and development
departments of the central and local administrations.
The current practice is that the existing
system of central, regional and local museums
only provide rescue excavations and consultations
when the building works are seriously hampered
by spectacular remains that cannot be overlooked
and become visible to the public by the
media.
Formally, permission for excavations is
issued by a commission for field work (terrain
surveys and excavations) constituted by
members of IAM, Sofia and NICH. There are
written, official guidelines published by
the Ministry of Culture, 1997 (State Newspaper,
issue 12, pp 14-20) that regulate the conduct
of archaeological survey and excavations.
As a general statement (made by specialists
of the IAM) these rules may be considered
as satisfying the current needs of the country.
They strictly define the matter of the archaeological
studies, including their interdisciplinary
character. They may serve as a guidelines
for wider, planned archaeological investigations.
The statement defines the ways in which
foreign researchers may participate in archaeological
studies and the ways of registration and
documentation of archaeological sites. Though
this is a positive step, the whole process
of planning and conducting excavations is
placed on the wrong side of the administrative
structure of the country. It works only
within the Ministry of Culture and is supremely
‘controlled’ by the Prime Minister in the
case of foreign archaeological expeditions.
In my view, archaeological planning and
excavation should go into the Ministry of
Regional Development and the planning commissions
of local administrations. This is the only
way the big private investors and central
and local governmental planning bodies will
be able to preview proper budgets for archaeological
fieldwork and museum needs for storage and
exhibition of artefacts unearthed during
various construction works. The same is
true for the system of registration of archaeological
sites and monuments – the Archaeological
Map of Bulgaria (AMB). The idea dates back
as early as 1914 but its real start was
in 1992. It was officially published as
Regulation No 26 of the Ministry of Culture
from April, 10 1996 (State Newsletter, issue
34, 1996). This is a simple computer system
for the registration of archaeological sites.
It was created and is run by IAM, Sofia,
NICH and CMFAG, Ministry of Culture. Each
of the regional museums runs its share of
the AMB and must constantly fill in its
content. Potential developers are meant
to use this system but the truth is that
little interest is shown. Probably, this
is due to the fact that AMB is entirely
controlled by the Ministry of Culture, IAM,
Sofia and the regional museums, which do
not have direct access to the planning authorities
either at national and at local levels.
Developers do not need to apply for permission
to work in areas covered by the AMB (except
for very limited areas in some city centres
that are protected by law as Cultural Heritage
Zones) or from the institutions that maintain
it, which often leaves the planning departments
free to ignore the AMB data. The overall
result is that planning authorities tend
to overlook the map as a management tool.
This unsatisfactory state of administrative
services leaves the cultural and archaeological
heritage to its own faith and to the good
will (rarely expressed) of planning authorities
and investors. It not only creates a hostile
administrative environment but it fuels
constant chaos, which helps only the illegal
trade of antiques. The lack of planned funding
of fieldwork, high-standard research, conservation
and restoration gradually leads to deterioration
and destruction of cultural and archaeological
heritage, which can be seen from the results
of the questionnaire presented above. Some
regional museums are better in view of subsidies
from local budgets (only richer municipalities
can afford better funding) that allow conduct
of limited excavations or other surveys.
Recently, they lost some of the funding
(increasing restrictions imposed on public
expenditures) and so museums cannot afford
fieldwork and previously planned, long-term
excavations were stopped. Regional and smaller
museums face the problem of severe cuts
of staff members. As a consequence even
the positions of experienced archaeologists
with long practice have been threatened
or some untimely retired.
This lack of funding and resources led
to another serious consequence - annual,
regional symposia and regular meetings between
archaeologists disappeared as a practice.
It disturbed effective communication between
archaeologists and collegial interaction
declined considerably. The only act of unification
that still works are the annual meetings
of archaeologists at the IAM, Sofia, where
the excavators are obliged to present in
20 minutes their fieldwork results during
the season. These meetings, however, reflect
the ever- decreasing scope of planned excavations.
The lack of funding leads to a gradual decrease
of the standards of archaeological practices
and research. They were never high but the
present fragmented, small-scale studies
are destroying the country’s archaeological
community. Most colleagues fulfil only immediate
problems and neglect a broad, research-based
approach that involves many different specialists.
There is a lack of vision of the wider implications
of archaeology for a town or a region. Modern
management methods, which emphasise presentation
that aims to provoke wider community attention
are simply neglected. With few exceptions
the staff employed in museums has little
or no motivation for doing this, which stems
from its low morale and nihilistic attitudes.
In that connection, it should be mentioned
that employees within the system of Ministry
of Culture, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
and Ministry of Education have the smallest
salaries compared with the police, army
and other governmental organizations.
One of the most serious problems that Bulgarian
archaeology faces is the lack of any research
opportunities. The major difficulty here
is the lack of research funding. It is meant
to be done through the National Science
Foundation, which sponsors most of the research
of the various institutes of the Academy
of Sciences and other research units and
universities. The amount of money, however,
is ridiculous - approximately the price
of a personal computer! Universities have
more research funds though they are of the
same order of magnitude. Municipalities
also used to fund archaeological excavations
but with few exceptions they are unable
to do so in the present financial situation.
Current administrations both at national
and local level generally do not understand
that excavations inevitably entail wide-ranging
interdisciplinary practice. Artefact and
various ecofact-based analyses are critical
to make sense of the results of archaeological
intervention. More importantly, they do
not see its potential to increase educational
standards and the benefits for local communities
of such excavations. That research funds
can be augmented by financial support from
the local authorities and archaeologists
widely helped “in kind” by the police, army,
etc. is understandable. Unfortunately, archaeology
remains in the far corner of administrative
concerns and is entirely overlooked.
The current crisis in archaeological investigation
is coupled with a lack of training and career
development. State and municipal museums
do not have any funds out of short term
commissions for archaeologists and other
staff members within the region they operate.
They do not maintain programs for additional
education of their staff - computer skills,
various specialist courses that increase
their knowledge with the latest development
of pottery, chipped stone analyses, or interdisciplinary
analyses; the present state of affairs mean
many colleagues are unaware of the latest
advance of 14C dating and do not know anything
about current prices, laboratories worldwide
and even the activities of the Sofia laboratory
(presently out of work owing to a lack of
money). The interdisciplinary analyses that
can serve archaeological investigations
are conducted mostly in research units and
universities in Sofia and other towns are
not known by the archaeological community
and thus their potential remains hidden
from archaeologists and their wider public.
Not only are there no training budgets but
budgets for books and journals are entirely
cut off. The supply of literature is done
mainly through exchange programs but this
scheme does not provide enough literature
because money for editing new books is very
limited and what archaeological writing
appears in Bulgaria is the result of personal
initiative in attracting sponsors, or private
publishers. The only edition kept up regularly
in these hard times is the traditional journal
Archaeology, written in Bulgarian,
which most museums subscribe to. This journal
is also widely distributed throughout Europe
and can be found in the specialist libraries
of archaeological institutions. Yet the
problems with maintenance of higher research
standards and proper publication of the
materials found do not start with the ‘poor’
years of transformation to a market economy.
During the communist past, the state provided
considerable amount of money for excavations.
Excavations became the main and a good source
of additional income of archaeologists,
some of whom lived on commissions most time
of the year. Intentionally or not, this
run for easy money for excavations put a
greater emphasis on digging at any cost,
while proper publication of materials remained
highly unpopular. An additional reason for
this ‘golden’ rush is that the communist
regime was interested only in mass propaganda,
and not in conducting well-planned scientific
investigations and consequent dissemination
of the results. The colossal plans for expensive
editions like the Lovec Encyclopaedia
(after the administrative centre in northern
Bulgaria) that was meant to include all
the information from various scientific
expeditions: geology, archaeology, etc.
in that region and sponsored by the local
communist authorities, never appeared. Almost
the same can be said about the well- illustrated
History of Bulgaria and other regional
or national editions.
The strong ideological roots of archaeological
investigations do not stem from the communist
regime but can be traced back as far as
the liberation of Bulgaria from the Ottoman
empire. The modern Bulgarian nation began
amongst other newly-emerged European national
states and had to compete intensely with
its neighbours: Greeks, Turks, Serbs, Romanians,
etc. It is not a surprise that most Bulgarian
archaeologists are occupied with medieval
archaeology. In the search for national
identity all its varieties started to be
explored: history, the main ethnic groups
that constitute the Bulgarian nation, regional
characteristics, etc. Though most of the
arguments proved to be questionable, the
construction of the idea of the “Other”
always focussed on its exclusion or denigration
from the point of view of the national history
– the Turks are the most obvious example
but all the other neighbouring nations were
treated in the same way. The strong traditions
of German archaeology - close reflections
of G. Kossina’s ideas - created the mainstream
doctrines that put a greater accent on the
importance of proto-Bulgarians at the expense
of Slavs. The origins of proto-Bulgarians
were sought not only in the Far East but
also in prehistoric cultures. This approach
was only augmented and became an official
dogma during the communist regime, though
the accent was changed - Slavs became the
most important ingredient of the Bulgarian
nation. The interesting thing is that even
during the communist regime the strong presence
of proto-Bulgarians was still alive. It
is indicative that at the beginning of the
1980s a pompous and expensive movie was
made about the Khan Asparuh, founder of
the Bulgarian state, that portrays him in
a romanticized way. The justification of
the communist regime centred on creating
substitutes for Bulgaria’s missing royal
traditions. This led to a number of comic
situations, the most famous of which is
that of the communist dictator Todor Zivkov
and the sarcophagus of Khan Omurtag. I was
told the story by Prof. Velisar Velkov.
It seemed to be one of his favourites and
he used it to cheer up his students during
archaeological excavations. A sarcophagus
was unearthed in one of the old medieval
capitals of Bulgaria. It was supposed to
belong to one of the first Bulgarian rulers
- Khan Omurtag. The sarcophagus was left
closed, archaeologists were denied access
to it and Zivkov personally flew from Sofia
to be present at opening the expected royal
sarcophagus. To his disappointment the sarcophagus
turned out to be empty. The continued search
for royal remains did not stop with this
attempt. Veliko Tarnovo, another medieval
capital, was totally rebuilt, thus destroying
all its archaeological remains. The patriarch’s
church at the top of the citadel, which
was destroyed by an earthquake in 1913,
was renovated. Instead of proper restoration
of its initial Christian paintings, a new
wall painting, which had nothing to do with
orthodox church of any religion, presented
the appearance and the heroic deeds of Bulgarians
through the centuries. This new complex
of rebuilt citadel and patriarch’s church
remains in visual contact with the new residency
of Zivkov built on an adjacent hill. The
“royalism” of the late communist regime
appeared in many forms, thus substituting
and falsifying the lost identity of Bulgarians
during the communist regime and justifying
the power of the communist dictator. It
is not clear what motivated the strongly
assimilationist policies directed against
Bulgarian Turks in the second half of the
1980s but certainly this newly-created,
artificial past played a considerable role
in motivating the members of Politbureau
and Zivkov himself to start overt persecution
of Turkish population.
After the fall of the communist regime
the past still remained in the grip of politics
and preserved its manipulative power. Again
proto-Bulgarians became a subject of ‘scientific’
conferences and books written by non-professional
writers maintain doubtful theses of their
ancient and “noble” origin. This trend continues
up to the present day and to my surprise
even historians from the Sofia University
took part in a kind of a conference organized
by the ‘Tangra’ society that again unifies
non-professional circles. This conference
received moderate media coverage; it appeared
several times in the national radio channel
but was not shown by the national television.
Large-scale manipulation of the general
public was undertaken twice at the beginning
of the 1990s. The first one, the so-called
‘Tsaritchina excavations’ was conducted
by the general headquarters of the Ministry
of Defense. Some clairvoyants predicted
that deep in solid rock near the village
Tsarichina there lies a pyramid of extra
power left by an alien civilization as a
legacy to the Bulgarian nation, which will
enable it to save the world. Of course the
diggers found nothing but the entire campaign
was covered by the central media. The participants
in this public theatre never consulted the
institutes of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences,
other research units or universities. None
of the participants had a scientific degree,
a fact indicative of how far police and
military institutions remained unaccountable
to the society they were meant to serve.
Another large-scale manipulation covered
extensively by the central media happened
in the mid 1990s. An old copy of Paisj’s
‘History of Bulgarians’ (written in the
second half of the 18th century) was stolen
from the Hilendarski monastery in Aton,
Greece and exhibited in the Bulgarian National
History Museum. This was proclaimed as a
highly patriotic deed and Bulgarians through
the media were invited to visit and see
it at the specially organized exhibition.
Only when the newly-elected president interceded
was the book given back to Greece.
Archaeology in Bulgaria has not only been
suppressed by communist propaganda and physically
fragmented by economic crises and administrative
bias but also lacks fresh ideas and interpretative
models that can free it from the domination
of the culture-historical approach. The
same old debates about chronology and periodization
schemes continued during the last decade
though with somewhat less intensity. It
puts the accent of interpretation exclusively
on similarity and differences among archaeological
cultures. In the early 1990s this tendency
went to an extreme where even prehistoric
cultures like the Neolithic ones were interpreted
as ethnically definitive and the term “ethnic-cultural”
features was coined. Quite a number of articles
are titled in the following way: the first
part announces that some archaeological
problem which mostly compares similarities
of certain category of artefacts or culture
that cover large regions is taken into consideration
and the second part of the title consists
of the phrase “…in Bulgarian lands”. This
last means that the archaeological category
or culture that is considered to be uniform
reaches far beyond the present political
borders of Bulgaria and underwrites cultural
unification of Bulgarians in the territories
of neighbouring countries. This practice
was sanctioned with a decision of the Prehistoric
Department of IAM, Sofia and with somewhat
diminished intensity is applied even now.
Thus the “royalist” propaganda of the late
communist regime that meant continuation
of the vanished medieval royal tradition
in the-then ruling communist dictatorship
turned into extremely nationalistic and
manipulative propaganda after the fall of
the regime. The sequence: old proletariat
internationalism - late communist royalism
- nationalism rounds the picture of the
ideological and philosophical background
in which social sciences and archaeology
in particular had to develop in Bulgaria
in recent decades.
I would like to mention one more fact,
which I consider as a far echo of the above-presented
circumstances: the past is quite vivid in
the everyday political life of the present.
To a certain extent this is justified by
the intense debate about the assessment
of the communist past and the existence
of and the intention to destroy communist
monuments like the Mausoleum (destroyed
last year), the Monument of the Soviet Army,
statues of Lenin, Zivkov (which do not exist
any more), etc. While most of the visible
traces of the communist regime were not
dealt with by going to the sorts of extremes
described earlier, as in the previous regime
the past remains a favourite theme of present-day
politicians. Presidents, prime-ministers,
ministers, parliament members, mayors, etc.
continue to deliver public speeches and
try to gain popularity through interpretation
of the ‘heroic’ and romanticized past (mostly
concerning the Bulgarian Revival in the
18th and 19th centuries). While the actual
cultural monuments from that and other periods
gradually decay, the rush for popularity
increases and the contested past is present
throughout modern political life. Though
the overtly nationalistic political parties
were marginalised, unlike those in Serbia
and Romania, and never gain enough support
to enter parliament, this result is due
not to the present-day politicians but rather
to the greater religious and ethnic tolerance
of Bulgarian people.
Against this background we should not be
surprised by the prolonged Bailey case (from
1992 to 1996) that culminated in accusations
of espionage and the exclusion of a British-American
archaeological team from Bulgaria. The actual
forces that led to this state of affairs
lay in the-then very left-wing socialist
government that adopted a clear policy directed
against the West: similar accusations were
made against ‘Open Society’ and some journalists.
Another actual force was the marked xenophobia
shown by the archaeological establishment
and especially by some of the former leading
communist party members of IAM, Sofia. But
my argument is that this eruption of xenophobia
is due not that much to the political situation
and personal relations than to the other
monster that survived the communist past
– the culture-historical approach in archaeology.
I do not play down the personal responsibility
of the main heroes of these events but to
me sufficient explanation cannot be given
without considering its wider context. The
strong presence in contemporary political
life of a contested past that remains into
the grip of the old communist propaganda
makes it quite explicable. The obvious fact
is that cases similar to the Bailey case
never happened in other scientific disciplines
or professional domains in Bulgaria. This
only reminds us of the extent to which archaeology
remained in the grip of old communist perspectives
and it may be considered as a link in the
chain of large-scale manipulations of the
past that happened in the last decade in
Bulgaria. This is also meant to say that
the archaeological establishment is not
ready to accept other than its own views
about the past. In fact the past is actually
divided chronologically and colonized personally.
It consists of time-space divisions strictly
divided among the members of the archaeological
establishment. Each of these ever-decreasing
chunks of time and space has strictly defined
borders and wars between their owners are
fought with life-long intensity and often
the ‘vendettas’ continue amongst subordinate
staff and institutions. As I have witnessed
for more than 20 years, the archaeological
debate in Bulgaria constantly focuses on
chronology and periodization, and results
in harsh quarrels and life-long struggles
to prove the greater antiquity and the wider
perimeters of the various time-space chunks.
The competition for characteristic, uniform
traits exerts pressure on doing more excavations
in a particular region with the hope that
they will uncover the artefacts needed to
prove particular hypotheses. The past ‘golden
rush’ of excavations has turned into a rush
to discover hypothetical, formal features.
Under this self-sustained pressure the standard
of excavations remain very low. The clear
rules for excavation practices issued by
the Ministry of Culture are respected only
by few colleagues. Extensive archaeological
excavations, though of smaller scale than
before, continue to be led without well-defined
scientific goals or reasonable excavation
practices. And during these excavations
only some of the materials if any are published,
while the interdisciplinary side of the
study is often just left aside. This practice
is highly exclusive, which is the opposite
of what should be happening if archaeology
means to serve the wider public. This kind
of archaeological practice excludes in most
cases any participation of the local community.
The artificial goals fail to encourage the
wider understanding of the local public;
for them a few shards cannot justify the
amount of money spent on their excavation.
Along with such practical reasons often
put up by local people, the artificial goals
of archaeological excavations mean nothing
to the local communities. They do not understand
what it is all about and archaeologists
and museum employees do not offer programs
for popularization of the remote past. People
do not recognize the enormous potential
of archaeology and its ability to improve
education standards in developing, for example,
writing skills, increased motivation for
learning, community integration, development
of a sense of place in ethnically-divided
communities, etc. The lack of coordination
between the Ministry of Education and its
regional inspectorates and the Ministry
of Culture and its regional museums, as
well as the abstract, artificial world of
current archaeological interpretations make
impossible joint initiatives aimed at improving
the present situation.
In a continuation of the attitudes of the
previous regime, national and local administrations
see in archaeology and in museum work a
mere attribute of political power or a badge
to boast about rather than as a vivid and
highly valuable social and educational activity.
Thus the fictional and highly artificial
world of culture-historical archaeology
has strong implications in the post-communist
realities in Bulgaria. The easy money stopped
coming and archaeologists with their artificial
goals fail to attract wider public attention
and support from national and local institutions.
Understandable because of the economic and
financial crises in which the nation finds
itself, the fact is that municipality councils
and central government budgets do not consider
archaeology as a priority, and try to avoid
putting money in it.
Yet the devil is not as bad as it looks.
The high degree of participation and immediate
answers sent by museum archaeologists to
the questionnaire of WAC and Ministry of
Culture suggests that there is no hesitation
among them about the current crises of cultural
and archaeological heritage and archaeology.
At least the name of WAC became known to
them, as did the fact that there exists
an organization that deals with problems
like theirs. This also creates a basis for
possible future cooperation between WAC
and various institutions like IAM, Sofia,
NICH, CMFAG, Ministry of Culture and some
local museums and non-governmental organizations
like Open Society, Sofia.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Tsonja Drazeva, Malvina
Russeva, Maria Staneva, Boris Danailov from
the Centre of Museums and Fine Art Galleries,
Ministry of Culture, Sofia, as well as Zarin
Velikov from National Institute for Cultural
Heritage, Sofia, for their help and support
to the inquiry I made among Bulgarian archaeologists.
I thank all colleagues who responded to
the questionnaire and sent their additional
comments.
|
World
Archaeological Bulletin