Rodopi Mountain Between Thrace and Aegea Region...Early Iron Age

T r n a v s k á u n i v e r z i t a v T r n a v e F i l o z o f i c k á f a k u l t a

U n i v e r s i t a s Ty r n a v i e n s i s F a c u l t a s P h i l o s o p h i c a

A N O D O SStudies of the Ancient World

10/2010

T R N A V A 2011

A N O D O SStudies of the Ancient World10/2010

Redakčná rada/Editors:Prof. PhDr. Mária Novotná, DrSc., Prof. Dr. Werner Jobst, doc. PhDr. Marie Dufková, CSc., prof. PhDr. Klára Kuzmová, CSc.

Redakcia/Editorial Staff: prof. PhDr. Klára Kuzmová, CSc.

Počítačová sadzba/Layout: Zuzana Turzová

© Trnavská univerzita v Trnave, Filozofická fakulta

Kontaktná adresa (príspevky, ďalšie informácie)/Contact address (contributions, further information):Katedra klasickej archeológie, Trnavská univerzita v Trnave, Hornopotočná 23, SK-918 43 Trnava+421-33-5939371; fax: +421-33-5939370 [email protected]

Publikované s finančnou podporou Ministerstva školstva SR (Projekt VEGA č. 1/0408/09) a Pro Archaeologia Classica.Published with financial support of the Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic (Project VEGA No. 1/0408/09) and the Pro Archaeologia Classica.

Za znenie a obsah príspevkov zodpovedajú autori.The authors are responsible for their contributions.

Tlač/Printed by: ForPress, s.r.o., Kmeťkova 1, 949 01 Nitra z tlačových podkladov Filozofickej fakulty Trnavskej univerzity v Trnave

Žiadna časť tejto publikácie nesmie byť reprodukovaná alebo rozširovaná v žiadnej forme - elektronicky či mechanicky, vrátane fotokópií, nahrávania alebo iným použitím informačného systému vrátane webových stránok, bez predbežného písomného súhlasu vlastníka vydavateľských práv.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form - electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, including web pages, without the prior written permission from the copyright owner.

ISBN 978-80-8082-500-3ISSN 1338-5410

Obálka/Cover:Motív „Zázračného dažďa“ zo stĺpa Marka Aurélia v Ríme. V okienku: Detail osthotechu z Keseciku, Turecko (Foto: A. Baldiran).Motif of the „Miracle rain“ from the column of Marcus Aurelius in Rome. In the window: Detail of the osthotech from Kesecik, Turkey (Photo: A. Baldiran).Grafické spracovanie/Graphic elaboration: Mgr. Pavol Šima-JuríčekPočítačové spracovanie/Computer elaboration: PhDr. Ivan Kuzma

Proceedings of the International Conference

THE PHENOMENA OF CULTURAL BORDERS AND BORDER CULTURES ACROSS THE PASSAGE

OF TIME

(From the Bronze Age to Late Antiquity)

Dedicated to the 375th anniversary of Universitas Tyrnaviensis

Trnava, 22 - 24 October 2010

CONTENTS

PREFACE

BALDIRAN, A. An Osthotech with Hunting Scene in Çumra – Sırçalı Höyük ............................................................................................. 9

BARTUS, D. Roman Figural Bronzes From Brigetio: Preliminary Notes ................................................................................................ 17

BLAKOLMER, F. Ethnizität und Identität in der minoisch-mykenischen Ikonographie .........................................................................................29

BOUZEK, J. Frontiers in Pre-Roman Thrace ............................................................................................................................................... 41

CHALUPA, A. Mithraism in Ancient Syria: Persian Cult on the Borders of the Roman Empire ............................................................. 57

DAŞBACAK, C. An Essay on the Heating Costs of Roman Baths .................................................................................................................. 67

DIMITROVA, Y. Rodopi Mountain Between Thrace and Aegea Region: Some Elements of a Border Culture of Early Iron Age in Southern Bulgaria .................................................................. 71

DOKSANALTI, E. M. - MIMIROĞLU, İ. M. Giresun/Aretias - Kalkeritis Island ......................................................................................................................................... 85

DUBCOVÁ, V. Götter ohne Grenzen? Transfer der religiösen Ikonographie in der Bronzezeit – Alter Orient und die frühe Ägäis ....................................................................................................................................... 103

GOLUBOVIĆ, S. – MRĐIĆ, N. Territory of Roman Viminacium - From Celtic to Slavic Tribes ....................................................................................... 117

HLAVÁČOVÁ, S. Greek Heroes on the Borders of the Historical Periods ..................................................................................................... 127

KLONTZA-JAKLOVÁ, V. The Meaning of Time in Late Bronze Age Europe and its Reflection in Material Culture .......................................... 133

KOVÁCS, P. Sarmatian Campaigns During the First Tetrarchy ............................................................................................................. 143

KOVÁLIK, L. The Gate Wall and the Doors of Greek Propyla ................................................................................................................. 155

KUČERÁKOVÁ, K. The Upland Settlements of the Púchov Culture and Germanic Tribes Beyond the North-PannonianFrontier, in the Mountainous Part of Central Slovakia ...................................................................................................... 163

LAZAR, I. The Inhabitants of Roman Celeia - An Insight into InterculturalContacts and Impacts Trough Centuries ............................................................................................................................. 175

MUSILOVÁ, M. Bratislavaer Burg - Arx Boiorum im Lichte der neuesten archäologischen FundeArchäologische Forschung - Winterreithalle ................................................................................................................................187

NÁMEROVÁ, A. Relations Between Greeks and Scythians in Black Sea Area ....................................................................................................207

NOVÁKOVÁ, L. Funeral Rites and Cultural Diversity in Hellenistic Caria Based on Epigraphic and Archaeological Evidence ........................................................................................................... 213

ONDERKA, P. – DUFKOVÁ, M. Die meroitische Stätte in Wad Ben Naga, Republik Sudan ............................................................................................... 223

PAPOUŠEK, D. Centrality and Cosmopolitism in the Lukan Imagination of Paul of Tarsus:A Case of Jerusalem ................................................................................................................................................................ 247

POBEŽIN, G. Sources and History: Crossing From Archives to Historiography and Back The Development of Historiographical Method and Episteme in Respect of Using Archival Sources ................................................................................................................................... 255

POPOV, H. – JOCKENHÖVEL, A. At the Northern Borders of the Mycenaean World: Thracian Gold Mining from the Late Bronze and the Early Iron Age at Ada Tepe in the Eastern Rhodopes ......................................................................................... 265

ŠVAŇA, K. The influence of Roman provincial pottery manufacture on the production of the Suebic wheel-made pottery ....................................................................................................... 283

TRANTALIDOU, K. – BELEGRINOU, E. – ANDREASEN, N.Pastoral Societies in the Southern Balkan Peninsula. The Evidence From Caves Occupied During the Neolithic and Chalcolithic Era ......................................................... 295

VERČÍK, M. Die griechischen Bewaffnung im Lichte des kulturellen Austausches ............................................................................ 321

ZIMMERMANN, Th.Legal Aliens on Hattian Grounds? – Tracing the Presence of ‚Foreigners‘in 3rd Millennium Central Anatolia ....................................................................................................................................... 335

Preface

The publication of ANODOS 10/2010 contains 27 articles in English and German which were presented in the form of papers and posters at the international conference “The Phenomena of Cultural Borders and Border Cultures Across the Passage of Time (From the Bronze Age to Late Antiquity)” which was held in Trnava on the 22th - 24th of October 2010. The participants consisted of scholars from eleven countries (Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Slovenia, Hungary, Austria, Germany, the Czech Republic, the USA and the Slovak Republic). Graduate and post-graduate students from Trnava participated in both the organization of the conference and the actual programme. The conference was organized on the occasion of the 375th anniversary of Universitas Tyrnaviensis (1635-1777), the first university in the territory of the Kingdom of Hungary, which then included the historical town of Trnava. The current renewed Trnava University in Trnava (1992), situated in the Slovak Republic, follows the ideas and academic identity of the original university.

At the same time, in 2010 it had been ten years since the Department of Classical Archaeo- logy at Trnava University had established the tradition of organizing international scientific conferences on specific themes in chronological sequence – from the Late Bronze Age to Late Antiquity. The idea came from Prof. Dr. Mária Novotná, the founder of the Department and of the Classical Archaeology study programme in Slovakia. The conferences have been held every two-three years so far (in 2000, 2003, 2005 and 2007) and they have had the following themes: Contacts between Middle Europe and the Mediterranean, Jewellery and Costume, Arms and Armour, and Cult and Sanctuary through the Ages. Contributions have been published in four volumes of Anodos - Studies of the Ancient World (1/2001, 3/2003, 4-5/2004-2005 and 6-7/2006-2007). Another conference of this kind was organized under the title “Trade and Production through the Ages” at Selcuk University in Konya (Turkey) in 2008, in co-operation with Selcuk University (our partner institution).

The conference in 2010 and the publication of its proceedings have been financially supported by the Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic (Project VEGA No. 1/0408/09) and by the voluntary association Pro Archaeologia Classica.

Editors

Trnava, 25 November 2011

Anodos. Studies of the Ancient World 10/2010, 71-84.

71

Rhodopi Mountain between Thrace and Aegea Region: Some Elements of a Border Culture of Early Iron Age in Southern Bulgaria

Yana Dimitrova

Keywords: Early Iron Age, Pottery Complex, Rhodopi Mountain

Abstract: The presented here region is in the heart of Ancient Thrace and through times it has been accepted as a special, or even border zone, because of its specifics. For the early periods of the history one of the cornerstones for understanding of the cultural development is the pottery, that’s why the analysis of the complexes from several sites of the region is very informative for revealing some of the tendencies, characteristic for the Early iron age in Rhodopi mountain and also Ancient Thrace. Here are proposed parts of the characteristics of three pottery complexes, presenting the Eastern and Western zones of the mountain and one between them, as are chosen excavated sites with typical characteristics from the end of IInd – Ist millennium BC mountain regions in South Thrace. Analysis of the archaeological research leads to important conclusions and also to the question of the influence of geographical specifics of the region to the specifics of the cultural development; the wide analogies of the materials define Rhodopi mountain not as a border, but as an important part of the East Balkan region.

During all the historical periods and also in modern times the region of Rhodopi Mountain has been accepted as a special, sometimes a border zone, because of its specifics and conservatism. Today it is situated between two countries – almost 90% of the territory is in Bulgaria and the southern slopes are in Greece (Fig. 1). Even seen as one region, a number of differences determine the separation of Rhodopi in two parts: Eastern part is with the characteristics of hills and low altitude zones, with well developed river-valley network and a mild Mediterranean climate; Western part is with alpine relief, deep, steep-sloped and high valleys and mountain climate. Analysis of the results of the archaeological research raises the question of the geographical reasons for the differences of the cultural development of both parts of the mountain1. One of the cornerstones of the cultural development for the early periods of the history of the region is the pottery, that’s why the characteristics of the pottery complexes of some sites from the Late Bronze age (LBA) and Early iron age (EIA) from Rhodopi mountain would give a good idea for the cultural development of this region of Ancient Thrace. Field researches in recent years have led to gathering of a lot of new data, which have revealed some specifics of the problems, connected with the pottery, which allow the comparison of the development of the cultural processes not only in both parts of the mountain, but also in wider region. Here are proposed part of the characteristics of three pottery complexes, which present the Eastern, the Western part of Rhodopi mountain and one site in the North-Western part of the Eastern Rhodopi, with specifics, characteristic for both parts of the region. The three sites, although with different interpretation (as sanctuaries and a settlement) are with similar topography, typical for the mountain regions of South Thrace from the end of IInd – Ist millennium BC and are studied with

1 The region is researched for many years, as in result are raised many problems, connected with the excavations, the interpretation and publication of discovered sites. Researched with excavations and partially published are sites near Vishegrad (Dremsizova-Nelchinova 1984), on top Alada (Leshtakov 1990), on top Ada tepe (Nekhrizov 2005), Perperikon (Leshtakov 2007), Kush Kaya (Popov 2009), Aul kaya (Nekhrizov 2008а), Dragoyna (Bozhinova 2007) in Eastern Rhodopi and Babyak (Tonkova and Gotzev 2008) in Western Rhodopi.

Yana Dimitrova

72

Fig. 1. Rhodopi Mountain.


73

many years of excavations, which continue till today2. In result some stratigraphical observations have been made and are gathered big pottery complexes, which present the specifics of the development of the pottery production, such as preserved traditions from LBA, some elements, typical for the next period – EIA, specifics of the local development and signs for relations with neighboring and more distant regions. In chronological terms the period of Early iron age is chosen, which, according to the traditional opinions in Bulgarian archaeology, covers the period between 11th and 6th century BC, with determination of two periods and a boundary between them at the end of 9th century BC3. The researches in recent years allow more precise chronology and periodization4.

The sanctuary on the top Ada tepe is excavated with salvage excavations5 with very good methods of field work with many interdisciplinary studies, which give a good example for stratigraphy from LBA till Late iron age (LIA) and for the continuity in the honoring of one sacred place, without interruption, during more than a millennium. According to the geomorphologic and archaeological research of the site and its slopes, before the place was chosen for a sanctuary, here had been doing work, connected with mining6. The sanctuary is located in the central part of Eastern Rodopi mountain, on a top of an elevation with size of 1,2 dc; from three sides the top is circled by a river curve. The observations of the control sections during the excavations and the analysis of the archaeological materials are in the base of a main stratigraphic scheme7.

The settlement site of Dragoyna8 have been excavated regularly since 2004. It is situated in the geographical center of South Thrace, in a transitional region between the Rhodopi Mountains and the vast valley of Maritza river and also between the high parts of the Western Rhodopi and the Mediterranean region of the Eastern Rhodopi. The summit of Dragoyna consists of two culminations, connected by a flat saddle and presents a large complex that could be interpreted as a settlement and its cult place, which ranked at least as a regional center. The site had been inhabited probably uninterruptedly from LBA till the Early Hellenistic Period and through times it changed its size, the center of the occupied territory and the functions of the different parts in the site.

The cult place near Babyak is determined as “the most significant alpine rock sanctuary”9, excavated with some interruptions from 1985 till 201010. The site is located on the north-western part of the Western Rhodopi and is situated on a mountain top, which dominates over the region. The land of the sanctuary consists of two culminations, connected with a small saddle, where are the most significant cultural layers. The archaeological remains cover an area of more than 120 dca, from LBA to LIA, the Roman period and the Late Antiquity. The discovered structures are interpreted as remains of the main ritual practices.

Pottery complexes from the three sites presented here are treated with different methods and systems for working with archaeological materials, as same principles for exploration of the three basic characteristics of the pottery (technology, form, decoration) are followed11, and

2 Here I express my sincere gratitude to the researchers of Ada tepe, Babyak and Dragoyna – PhD G. Nekhrizov, assoc. prof. PhD A. Gotzev, assoc. prof. PhD M. Tonkova and E. Bozhinova for the giving me the chance to work with unpublished materials.

3 Tončeva 1980, 11-14; Cicikova 1972, 79-100; Gergova 1987.4 Bozhinova 2010 and quotations.5 Nekhrizov and Mikov 2002, 42-4; Nekhrizov 2003, 67-8; 2005, 169-228; 2006, 140-2; 2007, 173-6. 6 Popov and iliev 2006, 154-6; Jockenhövel and Popov 2010, 133-5. 7 Nekhrizov 2005, 170-3, as four periods of occupation of the sanctuary can be distinguished from LBA – to the middle

of the 1st century BC. 8 Bozhinova 2007.9 Tonkova 2008, 30.10 Tonkova and Gotzev 2008. 11 Leshtakov 1988.

Yana Dimitrova

74

also a statistical detection of the information. This allows analysis of the ratio between different groups of pottery in the different complexes to be made as also to be clarified the differences of the technological characteristics in these groups in the complexes; the different methods give the possibility to be made a comparison between the presentation and proportion of the different categories of vessels as also the distribution and tendencies in one category in the three sites. Last but not least is the analysis of the preferences in different sites of different decorative techniques that outline the local differences and specificities of each region.

The complex from Ada tepe is presented in accordance with the classification scheme for vessels from LBA and EIA from Eastern Rhodopi, which is a part of a comprehensive system for working with pottery, allowing the recording of information, specific to each pottery fragment12. The main indicators for description of the materials include the characteristics of technology, form and decoration of fragments. It is accepted a division of vessels into two groups, according to their technological characteristics: fine (table) and coarse (kitchen) ware13. Two more principles are in the base of the classification system: functional and morphologic and includes five levels: category, form, type, subtype, variant. The category is connected with the functional indication, named by analogy with ancient or modern vessels with a similar function; in some cases the names are descriptive. The categories are divided into forms, determined by the silhouette of the vessels; the types are connected with important elements, basically the mouth and subtypes with smaller part of the vessel – mainly the mouth rim. The decorative characteristic is also included in the system, based on its technology: stamped, channeled, incised, pierced, plastic, etc14.

The method of working with pottery from settlement site Dragoyna15 in some respects is similar to that of Ada tepe: it consists of statistic information for discovered pottery fragments, which allows being distinguished three main groups, concerning function, technology, forms and decoration – fine (table), coarse (kitchen) and storage ware. The technological determination is based on the observations about the thickness of the walls, the structure of the clay and the treatment of the surface.

The work with the materials from the third site – Babyak, aims to determine the categories (for the system of working with pottery from Eastern Rhodopi they are “groups”) of the vessels and the place of decorative schemes from EIA, the connections between decoration and forms and their chronological position. Here is followed the practice for exploration of the pottery complex to include a characterization of the technology (by visual observations – fine, coarse and storage ware) of the fragments, analysis of their forms and decoration and conclusions about the chronology and evolution of discovered vessels.

As regards the technological characteristic16 of pottery complexes from the three sites it can be made a clear demarcation between the eastern and western part of the mountain, as by this feature the settlement Dragoyna can be assigned to the Eastern Rhodopi. The observation is somewhat conditional, because the pottery production depends on local row materials and is not connected only with the method of treatment and production technology. In any case, in the table ware in both parts of Rhodopi and Thrace is followed the tendency of specific treatment of the surface of part of the vessels, so to be achieved the effect of black, burnished ware. The differences are connected with percentage correlation of this group in different complexes, as

12 Nekhrizov 2005, 21-31; 2008, 121-2. 13 Leshtakov 1988; Stoyanov 1997; Nekhrizov 2008. 14 This system is successfully applied in archaeological research in Eastern Rhodopi and Thrace and proved as good

for analysis of the pottery from sites with stratigraphy, as of complexes without stratigraphic position.15 The work with the materials from the site is done with the participation of the author and the analysis, presented

in the paper is a result of personal observations.16 The conclusions about the technology are based on visual observations of the fragments, as no chemical analyses

are made. Analyses of the admixtures of the clay have been made for Ada tepe, which proved that the pottery production of all technological groups is local.


75

with the quality of the surface treatment. In this respect it is notable for Babyak complex for example relatively low percentage of vessels with such a treatment of the surface in a comparison with Ada tepe complex.

All three complexes present technological groups of vessels, which are divided by the functional principle: the fine ware consists of several groups – vessels for liquids, subdivided into vessels for drinking (cups and kantaros-like), for pouring (jugs, or vessels with oblique mouth), for transportation and storage (amphora-like) and with special functions (like double vessels); vessels for feeding (flat and deep bowls); vessels for storage (last one is in the group of fine ware from Eastern Rhodopi and in the group of coarse ware in Western). Significant part of the pottery complexes are the vessels of the group of the coarse (kitchen) ware, presented with vessels for preparing of food, mainly pots (jars). It is considered that probably they are home made products and thus are with low technological quality and quite conservative development17. Probably part of these vessels with big size from Western Rhodopi complexes have had the functions of storage vessels. The division of these groups is somewhat conditional, because there are examples of vessels used for different activities, i.e. it is possible some of them to be multi-functional.

In the three complexes is presented the category of amphora-like vessels (Fig. 2). In the literature are used different terms for the category, but most popular are “amphorae” 18, “amphora-like vessels”19. Part of the category is from vessels with narrow neck, which supposes their use for transportation and storage of liquids20, oils21, or generally for storage (“storage jars”22). For Ada tepe complex three forms are determined, according to the mouth diameter and silhouette23; from Dragoyna these vessels are presented only by fragments, related to the first two forms from Ada tepe. Fragmentation of the material from Babyak doesn’t allow a detailed typology, but the basic observations and analogies show similar situation. The differences between both parts of the mountain are most clearly perceptible in terms of decoration: in the western part, as in Dragoyna, the percentage of decorated vessels is low, basically incised, rarely – channeled; only few fragments are with stamps. The situation in the Eastern part is different: about 40% of the vessels of this category are decorated, mostly with stamps and channels, as the incised, pierced decoration and compact buckels are very rare. In the literature is stated the opinion that part of the forms of this category from EIA in Thrace are related to those from LBA, as the first two forms are probably with local prototypes24, and the third is a new phenomena for the EIA25. The parallels of the first two forms from Ada tepe and Dragoyna can be found in other sites in

17 Nekhrizov 2008, 114-15; opposite to this opinion, some archaeologist share the view that the vessels for food preparation – i.e. pots, require serious skills, so this group of pottery can not be a home made product; furthermore, in some complexes some types of pots from LBA and EIA show some differences. Anyway, the chronological position of pots can be determine, only if this group is a part of a whole complex with a date, because some of the vessels remain with unchanged form and decoration during different ages.

18 Georgieva 2003, 160-2; Stefanovich and Bankoff 1998, 274-5; Wardle and Wardle 2007, 472; Hochstetter 1984, 38-48; Koukouli–Chrysantaki 1982, 234.

19 Leshtakov 1988; 1990, 3; Borislavov 1999, 201; Nekhrizov 1995, 316; Nekhrizov 2008, 118-19.20 Nekhrizov 2008, 118.21 Hochstetter 1984, 48.22 Wardle 1997, 452.23 Nekhrizov 2005, 173-228. 24 Nekhrizov 2008, 119.25 It is supposed (Nekhrizov 2005, 80-2), that this form is connected with the group of “buckle-urns” or “buckle-

amphorae”, which representatives (Kanchev 1984, fig. 17; Dimitrov 1968, fig. 6; Tončeva 1980, 164; Stoyanov 1997, VIII-XIII; Antonova and Popov 1984, table I: 1 etc.) are determined as a local Balkan variant of “B” type Gava-amphorae (Tončeva 1980, 29); one vessel from Southern Thrace proves, that the production of such amphorae continues during the second phase of EIA (Nekhrizov 2006а, 412-43 and quotations).

Yana Dimitrova

76

Fig. 2. Amphora-like vessels. 1-3 – Ada tepe; 4-6 – Dragoyna; 7-8 – Babyak.

Eastern Rhodopi, Bulgarian and Greek part of the mountain26, Thrace27, further to the Aegean region28. In Bulgarian literature is accepted the opinion, that these vessels are very popular and with some local differences are known in the entire region of Eastern Balkans29. The chronological development of the category is very difficult to be followed and the indication for it can be found in the decoration: mostly channels in the first stage of the EIA and richer decoration with combinations between channeled, stamped, incised motifs in the second phase30.

26 Nekhrizov 2005, tables 20: 1-7, 28, 34: 2-5, 4, 8, 18; Dimitrova 2009, 17, table 2: 1-11; Hänsel 1976, taf. 70: 4; Triantaphуllos 1984, fig. 15-17.

27 Hänsel 1976, taf. 71: 3-4; Gotzev 1994, 118, fig. 8, 12, 119; fig. 9, 4, 6, 8; Georgieva 1983, fig. II: 1-5; Stoyanov and Nikov 2003, fig. 23; Nikov 1994, fig. 4, 5; Bozhinova and Mihaylov 2009, 89-91, fig. 12, 5-13; fig. 13).

28 Koukouli-Chrysantaki 1993, 683, Σχέδ. 5.29 Stoyanov 1997, 69.30 Bozhinova and Mihaylov 2009, 89 and quotations.


77

Cups, cups/jugs and cups/kantharos-like vessels (Fig. 4). These categories has different determinations for the three sites. The term “cups” is with accordance with the modern analogies with vessels for drinking; the term “kantharos-like vessels” has become popular and describes cups with two handles, by analogies with the later greek kantharoi31. For Ada tepe are determined two categories: cups and cups/kantharos-like vessels. This depends on the fragmentary state of the material and it is very difficult for the sherds to be interpreted. These are vessels with similar function, which differ by the number of the handles and by their size. It is generally accepted that smaller vessels or those with one handle are cups; others, with two handles are kantharos-like, or if there is no data for the handles, they are in the category of cups/kantharos-like. For Dragoyna an attempt is made to be distinguished both categories, according to their specific silhouette and size, but it is done with the understanding, that the division is conditional. In Babyak pottery complex the fragments of cups and jugs are integrated in one category due to the inability to be objectively distinguished; the kantharoi are differentiated in separate category. For the three sites is made the observation that the categories consist of smaller vessels for drinking or bigger ones with similar forms and a function probably for serving liquids32.In the three complexes these categories are among the decorated vessels: the data from Ada tepe shows that almost half of the identified fragments are with decoration. In both categories most common are channels: horizontal on the neck, vertical or oblique on the maximum diameter (often with a combination with vertical, plastic rim), vertical, oblique and horizontal on the handles. The plastic decoration is presented with buds and small buttons; the stamped decoration is rare in cups and more frequent and with various combinations in the bigger cups/kantharos-like vessels with most known motifs. The incised and pierced decoration is almost absent with both categories. The observations about Dragoyna are conditional because of the few identified fragments, as most of them are with decoration: channels or grooves, imitating channels, incised and one fragment with stamps. Unlike Ada tepe, among the decoration of the cups from Babyak prevails the incised technique, some times it is a combination between incised and pierced and is placed on the upper part of the vessel. There are few fragments with embossed, oval buds on the maximum diameter. Some of the small fragments with decoration, without preserved mouth are probably belonging to this category and represent the channeled decoration; some of the handles with channels probably also belong to cups. Kantharoi are decorated with channels or grooves, imitating them, in some cases bands of incised lines, filled with pierced ornaments.

These categories have their specifics for the three sites. Although the vessels from Ada tepe and Babyak differ, they have some similar features (channeled decoration, high, vertical handles, rising above the mouth rim, silhouettes of some cups) which are valid for a wide region outside Thrace. The transitional position of Dragoyna site is quite visible here. Some forms (kantharos-like) are close with Eastern Rhodopi and Thrace and some cups forms and decoration are close to the western part of the mountain. In the literature is suggested the connection between LBA and EIA for some of the cups forms, such as their possible autochtonal origin. The analysis of the analogies shows that some models are with wide distribution and longevity33. The origin of the kantharos-like vessels is also searched in similar categories from the previous ages; some suggestions are made, that the earliest prototypes can be seen from the beginning of the Bronze age34. The typical for the end of LBA form of closed, spherical kantharoi can not be found in EIA, but in Rhodopi region can be seen some features, which speak for continuity or preserved traditions in the pottery production of this category. As a tradition from the earlier period for Eastern Rhodopi is accepted the similarity in the silhouette of some vessels of cups/cantharos-

31 Chichikova 1968; Нänsel 1976; Stoyanov 1997, 51-8; Nekhrizov 2005, 86.32 Nekhrizov 2005, 94; Gotzev and Bozhinova 2008, 77.33 Nekhrizov 2008, 117 with quotations.34 Chichikova 1968, 15; Nekhrizov 2005, 95.

Yana Dimitrova

78

like category35 and for Western part of the mountain except analogies of the silhouettes of some cups forms can be also found similarities in some elements of the vessels (for example the form of the knot on the upper part of the kantharos-handles) in complexes from the end of the LBA from the eastern parts of Macedonia36. One specific feature for EIA pottery is the existing of cups with two high handles, so called “flat kantharoi” 37. Analogies can be found in a wide region (with the understanding, that there are specifies for each region) - Thrace38, North-Eastern Bulgaria39, Troy40, Struma valley41 and the Northern and North-Western parts of the Balkans42.

Bowls (Fig. 5). This category has specific presentation in the three sites. For Ada tepe and other sites, interpreted as sanctuaries, they are not popular, probably because of the purposes of the specific activities in the sanctuary43. Contrary, in the other two sites their number is higher. The term for this category is by analogy with modern vessels; when whole forms can be reconstructed, usually are distinguished two categories of them: shallow and deep bowls, related to one or another group by the correlation between different geometrical features (like mouth diameter to bottom diameter; height to width, or other criteria)44. From the three presented here complexes there are not reconstructed whole vessels, so they can not be precisely determined. If the fragments from Ada tepe are with decoration, most common are stamped motifs, only few fragments are with channels and relief ornaments. In Dragoyna complex the vessels with inverted rim are usually decorated with sideways channels (a form, emblematic for the EIA and distributed in the whole East-Balkan area) and some are with stamped motifs on the mouth rim or under the channels, on the maximum diameter. The most popular decoration of these vessels for the EIA – channels, in Babyak complex are rare and some examples are with grooves, imitating the cannels. Some of the bowls are decorated with pierced horizontal rows of strokes or with incised or stamped motifs.

35 Nekhrizov 2005, 96.36 Mitrevski 2007, 445, fig. 3.37 Hänsel 1976, 202.38 Čičikova 1972; Hänsel 1976, taf. 73: 6-8; Nikov 1995, fig. 5; Stoyanov and Nikov 2003, 21, 14-15; Georgieva 1983, 110,

fig. VIII; Savatinov 1995, fig. 4; Nekhrizov 2006а, 410-11; Domaradski et al. 1992, обр. 20; Özdoğan 1987, fig. 6.39 Stoyanov 1997, 51-8, tables I-IV.40 Blegen et al. 1958, fig. 260, 261, 281.41 Valcheva 2002 , 367, fig. 95, 2-3, 368, fig. 97.42 Hänsel 1976, taf. 54: 4, 9; Abb. 3, 4, 16, 17; Jugănaru 2005, fig. 34: 4-7, 38: 2.43 Nekhrizov 2005, 95.44 Hochstetter 1984, 78; Stoyanov 1997, 61.

Fig. 3. Storage vessels and vessels with oblique mouth (jugs). 1-3 – Storage vessels from Ada tepe; 4-6 – Storage vessels from Dragoyna; 7-9 – Jugs from Ada tepe.


79

Some of the conical bowls are known from the prehistory and have very conservative development through the ages. Some of the types of biconical bowls are accepted as a new production for EIA; their discovery only in South-Eastern Bulgaria is considered as a sign of specific local form45. The typical for the EIA bowls with inverted rim, decorated with channels, can be seen during the whole period on a very wide territory on Balkans46 (in Kastanas, for example, they appear from 12 to 5 layer, i.e. 13th – 8th century BC47). According to some authors conical bowls with decoration, similar to channeled, can be found in LBA contexts from the south-western part of the Balkan region48.

One of the most significant differences between pottery complexes from eastern and western part of Rhodopi Mountain is the existence of a specific category in the group of table ware – storage vessels49 in Eastern Rhodopi. In the three complexes as storage ware had probably served vessels from the group of coarse ware (pots) with bigger size. Only few fragments from mouth rims of storage vessels with stamped and channeled decoration are identified in Dragoyna, but they are with washed surface and it is difficult to be determined as a representative for the complex group. The classification of this category from Ada tepe is based on mouth fragments, as there is not preserved a whole profile50. Its representative functions are supported by the fact that the vessels from this category are among most decorated ones (more than 60% of the identified fragments are ornamented), mostly with stamped motifs on the upper part of the body. Unlike most of the categories, this one doesn’t have prototypes in LBA. Moreover, there are not such fragments from layers, dated to the beginning of EIA51; its main production and distribution is during the developed phases of the epoch from sites of South-Eastern Thrace, namely Maritza valley and Eastern Rhodopi52.

As a separate category jugs/ vessels with oblique rim is detected and specified only for Ada tepe53 (Fig. 3). In Babyak complex it is united with the cups and from Dragoyna till now are not identified fragments from jugs (because specific is only the mouth rim and probably not all jugs have been with oblique rim; no whole jug profile has been found till now). The tradition of production of vessels with oblique rim in different forms dates from the EBA and continues during EIA, as similar vessels can be found in a very wide region: in other sites in Eastern Rhodopi54, Thrace55, Troy56, Thasos57 etc.

Mainly the coarse ware consists of pots (jars). They are with highest proportion in the pottery complexes of most of the sites and consist of vessels with similar silhouette and different size, probably with the function for preparation of food or in some cases for storage.

45 Nekhrizov 2008, 120.46 Hänsel 1976, 196; Domaradski et al. 1992, 29-30; Domaradski and Georgieva 1999, 21-2; Gotzev 1994, fig. 3, 1-2, 4;

Nikov 1995, fig. 1в; Stoyanov 1997, 61; Stoyanov and Nikov 2003, 23, fig. 31, 4; Bozhinova and Mihaylov 2009, 91-94, fig. 16-17.

47 Hochstetter 1984, Abb. 22-4. 48 Mitrevski 1997, 51-3, fig. 13:1-6; Georgieva 2003, 164-5 and quotations, as the examples are without stratigraphic

position,, but are with parallels from the LBA North-Western part of the peninsula; Nekhrizov 2008, 120. 49 For the Eastern Rhodopi pottery complex this term is conditionally accepted for a specific group of the table ware

with big size, rich decoration and silhouette, similar to those of the big amphorae.50 Nekhrizov 2005, 194-7; 2008, 120-2.51 Nekhrizov 2008, 121.52 Hänsel 1976, taf. 24/14, 70/10, 73/1, 3-5, 74/4-5; Georgieva 1983, 117, fig Vд; Nikov 1995, 115, fig. 2, л,м; Lichardus

et al. 2001, 161, fig. 55, 2, 11; Leshtakov 2004, fig. 28, 7-9; Nekhrizov 2006а, table 3, 10 and 10, 13; Nekhrizov 2008, 121.

53 Nekhrizov 2005, 192-4; 2008, 117-18 .54 Nekhrizov 2008, 127, табло 3.55 Delev et al. 1982, 274, fig. 177, 183; Nekhrizov 2006а, 485, table. 25, 5; Domaradski et al. 1992, 32, fig. 7 в; 10 б;

Özdoğan 1987, fig. 6/11А, 29, 7/16В, 20, 24; 8, 9/28, 33.56 Blegen et al. 1958, fig. 260-35.474, 288-32.18; 35.625.57 Koukouli-Chrysantaki 1992, 395, fig. 83-IV.

Yana Dimitrova

80

Fig. 4. Cups and kantharos-like vessels. 1-4 – Cups from Ada tepe; 5-7 – Cups from Dragoyna; 8-9 – Cups from Babyak; 10-11 – Kantharos-like vessels from Ada tepe; 12-13 – Kantharos-like vessels from Dragoyna; 14-15 – Kantharos-like vessels from Babyak.


81

As it was mentioned above, although some opinions are that they have their specifics (as the silhouette of some forms, the placing of the relief bands on the body of the vessels) in different periods, most of the forms, the technology of their production and the decoration are quite conservative and it is difficult to be outlined some tendencies in their evolution and distribution in the complexes.

The most specific element of the vessels from the EIA is the decoration, which helps for determination of the chronology, the local specifics and the direction of contacts and influences. All of the techniques, specific for the EIA in the entire region – channels, stamps, incisions, relief and pierced ornaments can be found in the three sites. The difference is between their quantity and proportion in the complexes. The proportion of the fragments with ornaments from Ada Tepe58 (approximately 40%) is higher than average for Eastern Rhodopes, but on the other hand the general tendencies, determined for the region are valid for Ada Tepe. In connection with the stratigraphic observations of the sanctuary is made the conclusion about the increasing of the share of decorated vessels from earlier to the later stages of EIA. In the transition from LBA and to the first EIA period the number of decorated vessels is very small; most of them are with channels, several examples – with incised lines or with relief decoration. In the beginning of EIA the share of the decorated pottery slightly increases, but is still relatively low, as channeled prevails and for the first time appear the stamped ornaments (circles, pseudo-cord) as only several fragments are with incisions and relief ornaments. In the levels of the end of the phase appear some of the motifs, characteristic for the next, second phase of the epoch on Ada tepe and in Eastern Rhodopi59, when the specific feature becomes the increasing of the share of decorated vessels as also the variety of the motifs. In this phase, as in the previous, most preferred are channels, all the stamps are popular, with multiple combinations between them, as also with other decorative techniques. As in the previous periods, the relief and incised decoration are rare, often with combinations with stamps and pierced motifs. As a general conclusion can be said the stamped decoration is the main characteristic for the Eastern Rhodopi pottery complex from EIA. Most of the stamped ornaments and motifs are known in other parts of Thrace and the neighboring regions, as most numerous and stylistically closest parallels can be found in South-Eastern Thrace60.

In the case of decoration, pottery complex of Babyak61 differs from that of Ada tepe; furthermore, the fact that the site is not entirely excavated, the specifics of stratigraphy and pottery, doesn’t allow the detailed observations about the distribution of different techniques. The general impression is that, unlike Ada Tepe among the table ware prevails the incised technique with limited repertoire of elements and motifs; this situation is typical for the region of Western Rhodopi and Upper Mesta and Stuma rivers. Following as number are fragments with pierced, relief, channeled decoration. Unlike the Eastern Rhodopi, the stamped decoration appears very rarely (mostly circles and only few examples of pseudo-cord, as s- stamp is missing).

For the settlement on top Dragoyna can not be made definitive conclusions about the development of ornamentation in the different phases of the epoch, as the excavations are not finished. The most of the EIA fragments are from several complexes, or are without context and present the whole range of decoration techniques (including some of the rare stamps, discovered on Ada tepe) from all the EIA phases. The general observation is that channeled decoration prevails, whereas stamped designs are few, but it is possible that situation to be due to the higher number discovered structures from the earlier phases of the epoch. As it is characteristic for Babyak and Western Rhodopi, the incised ornaments are common here, although in not such a percentage. The basic impression is that in relation with the decoration the medium position of Dragoyna complex between Eastern and Western part of Rhodopi is obvious.

58 The conclusions about the development of the decoration of Ada tepe complex are connected with the stratigraphical scheme of the site (Nekhrizov 2005, 207-28).

59 For example s-stamps and “2”-s.60 Gotzev 1994; Nikov 1999.61 Gotzev and Bozhinova 2008, 83-9.

Yana Dimitrova

82

The analysis of the pottery complexes leads to the conclusion, that Rhodopi Mountain is not a unified territory, isolated from the epoch tendencies. Both geographically and culturally can be seen significant differences between the two parts of the mountain – a situation, characteristic as for the LBA, so for the next – LIA. Almost all determined vessel categories for the three complexes have prototypes (or preserved traditions in the pottery production) in the previous, LBA, as at the same time they reflect the specific for the EIA tendencies – new forms and elements of the decoration. The differences between the presented complexes from both parts of the region can be seen in the proportion of the categories and the forms in them, as also in the preference of the techniques for their decoration and the quantity of decorated fragments. The situation, detected with the excavations of Dragoyna settlement shows, that the division between the two parts of Rhodopi Mountain is not sharp. The results of archaeological researches of the sites show that it is possible the geographical specifics of Eastern and Western Rhodopi to have had some impact in shaping the specifics of their cultural development. The analogies of some pottery forms and decorative techniques of Ada tepe show the closeness of the Eastern part of Rhodopi to the South-Eastern and Aegean Thrace. The materials of Babyak complex are seen to be more conservative as development and parallels and speak for connections of Western Rhodopi with the region of South-Western Bulgaria, namely the upper Struma and Mesta river valleys, as with the Eastern parts of Macedonia. The existence in the three pottery complexes of some similar for the EIA features (specific vessels categories, decorative techniques) with wide analogies in Thrace, Thasos, Troy and Macedonia, define the Rhodopi mountain not as a border, but as an important part of the East Balkan region.

Yana Dimitrova, PhD StudentBulgarian Academy of SciencesNational Institute of Archaeology and MuseumSaborna 2 str.BL-1000 [email protected]

BibliographyAntonova, V., and N. Popov. 1984. “Novi danni za rannia halstadt v severoiztochna Bulgaria (Arheologicheski

razkopki na Shumenskata krepost)”. Thracia 4: 160–84.

Fig. 5. Bowls. 1-4 – Ada tepe; 5-10 – Dragoyna; 11-14 – Babyak.


83

Blegen, C. W., C. Boulter, J. Caskey, and M. Rawson. 1958. Troy. Settlements VIIa, VIIb and VII. Vol. 4, pt.1-2, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Borislavov, B. 1999. Yujna Trakiya v kraya na bronzovata – nachaloto na rannozheliaznata epoha. Problemi na prehoda. Ph. D. diss., Sofia University.

Bozhinova, E. 2007. “The Bronze and Iron Age Site of Dragoyna”. In Aegeo-Balkan Prehistory, edited by B. Horejs and P. Pavúk, 14 June 2007. http://www.aegeobalkanprehistory.net

Bozhinova, E. forthcoming. “Thrace Between East and West: the Early Iron Age Cultures in Thrace”. Bozhinova, E., and J. Mihaylov. 2009. “Sondajno prouchvane na obekt pri km 6+400 – 6+500 (Selishten obekt ot

rannata jeliazna epoha)”. In Spasitelni arheologicheski prouchvania po traseto na AM “Trakia”. LOT 5, obhoden pat na grad Karnobat, km 6+400 – 6+ 800, edited by D. Momchilov, R. Georgieva, R. Hristova, I. Stateva, J. Ivanova, and N. Chakarova-Krasteva, 79-107. Varna: Zograph.

Chichikova, M. 1968. “Keramika ot starata zheliazna epoha v Trakia”. In Arheologia 10, 4: 15-27. Čičikova, M. 1971. “Sur la chronologie de Hallstatt en Thrace.” In Studia Balcanica 5: 79- 92. Čičikova, M. 1972. “Nouvelles donnees sur la culture thrace de l’epoque du Hallstatt en Bulgarie du sud.” In Thracia

1: 79-100. Delev, P., I. Karayotov, M. Domaradski, V. Stoykova, M. Petrova, and E. Kelebcheva. 1982. “Strandzha planina”

in Megalitite v Trakia II. Trakiiski pametnici 3, 263-390. Sofia: Nauka i Izkustvo. Dimitrov, D. 1968. “Troya VIIb2 I balkanskite trakiiski I miziiski plemena.” Arheologia 10, 4: 1-15.Dimitrova, Y. 2009. “Keramikata ot kasnata bronzova I rannata zheliazna epoha ot krepostta liutitsa, Ivaylovgradsko”.

in Laurea. In honorem Margaritae Vaklinova. Vol. 2, edited by B. Petrunova, A. Aladzhov and E. Vasileva, 15-32, Sofia: National Institute of Archaeology and Museum – Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.

Domaradski, M., I. Karayotov, and A. Gotzzev. 1992. “Keramikata or rannozheliaznata epoha ot krepostta Malkoto kale pri s. Ravadinovo, obsht. Sozopol”. Arheologia 34, 4: 29-41.

Domaradski, M., and R. Georgieva 1999. “Glineni sadove.” In Pametnici na trakijskata kultura po gornoto techenie na r. Mesta. Razkopki i prouchvania 26, 19-23. Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Press “Prof. Marin Drinov”.

Dremsizova-Nelchinova, Ts. 1984. “Trakiiskata krepost krai s. Vishegrad, Kadrzhaliisko”. Thracia 6: 104–33.Georgieva, R. 1983. “Selishteto ot rannozheliaznata epoha varhu selishtnata mogila do s. Dyadovo (predvaritelni

nabliudenia)”. Expeditio Thracica 5: 105-25. Georgieva, R. 2003. “The Early Iron Age Pottery from Southwestern Bulgaria and the Tsepina Phenomenon”.

Pyraichmes 2: 159-85. Kumanovo.Gergova, D. 1987. Früh- und ältereisenzeitlische Fibeln in Bulgarien. Prähistorische Bronzefunde. Vol. 14, Bd. 7.

München.Gotzev, A. 1994. “Decoration of Early Iron Age Pottery from South-East Bulgaria”. In The Early Hallstatt period

(1200 – 700 B. C.) in South-Eastern Europe. Proceedings of the International Symposium from Alba Iulia, 10-12 June, 1993, edited by H. Ciugudean and N. Boroffka, 97-127. Alba Iulia.

Gotzev, A., and E. Bozhinova. 2008. “Keramikata ot rannozheliaznata epoha ot svetilishteto pri Babyak”. In Trakijskoto svetilishte pri Babyak I negovata arheologicheska sreda, edited by M. Tonkova and A. Gotzev, 73-94. Sofia.

Hänsel, B. 1976. Beiträge zur regionalen und chronologischen Gliederung der Älteren Hallstattzeit an der Unteren Donau. Beiträge für ur- und frühgeschichtichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer Kulturraumes. Vol. 27. Bonn.

Hochstetter, A. 1984. Kastanas. Die handgemachte Keramik. Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 3. Berlin: Verlag Volker Spiess.

Jokenhövel, A., and H. Popov. “Arheologichesko prouchvane na zlatodobiven rudnik ot kasnata bronzova I rannata jeliazna epoha v rajona na Ada tepe, obshtina Krumovgrad.” In Arheologicheski otkritia I razkopki prez 2009 g.: 133-5. Sofia: National Institute of Archaeology with Museum – BAS.

Jugănaru, G. 2005. Cultura Babadag. Vol. 1. Biblioteca Istro-Pontică. Seria Arheologie 7. Constanta: Ex Ponto. Kanchev, M. 1984. “Selishta i nahodki ot kasnata bronzova i rannozhelizanata epoha v Novozagorsko”. Thracia 6:

134-59.Koukouli–Chrysantaki, Ch. 1982. “Late Bronze Age in Eastern Macedonia”. Thracia Praehistorica (Supplementum

Pulpudeva) 3: 231-58.Koukouli–Chrysantaki, Ch. 1992. Protoistoriki Thasos. Athina: Tameio Arhaiologikon Poron kai Apallotrioseon. Leshtakov, K. 1988. “Osnovni klasifikacionni principi za keramikata ot rannata I srednata bronzova epoha w Trakia”.

Arheologia 30, 3: 1-13. Leshtakov, K. 1990. “Ukrasa na kasnobronzovata keramika ot vrah Alada v Iztochnite Rodopi”. Arheologia 32, 1: 1-17.Leshtakov, K. 2004. “The Thracian Settlement at Assara (Constantia) near Simeonovgrad”. Izvestia na istoricheskia

muzej Haskovo 2: 33-86.Leshtakov, K. 2007. “Keramika s belezi na prehoda ot KBE kam RZHE po danni na poslednite razkopki na Perperikon”.

in Drevna i moderna Trakia. Izvestia na Starozagorskia istoricheski muzei 2, 85-99. Stara Zagora. Lichardus, J., A. Fol, L. Getov, F. Bertemes, R. Eht, R. Katincharov, and I. Iliev. 2001. Izsledvania v mikroregiona na

s. Drama 1983-1999. Sofia: Sofia University Press.Mitrevski, D. 1997. Protoistoriskite zaednici vo Makedonija. Skopje: Museum of Macedonia. Mitrevski, D. 2007. “The Beginning of of the Iron Age in Macedonia”. In The Struma/Strymon River Valley in

Prehistory. In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, edited by H. Todorova, M. Stefanovich, G. Ivanov. Vol. 2, 443-50. Sofia: Gerda Henkel Stiftung.

Yana Dimitrova

84

Mommsen, H., R. Jung, and E. Bozhinova. In press. “Dragojna – eine spaetbronzezeitliche Hoehensiedlung in den bulgarischen Rhodopen mit importierter mykenischer Keramik”. AM.

Nekhrizov, G. 1995. “Late Bronze Age Pottery in the Eastern Rhodopes”. In Prehistoric Bulgaria. Monographs in World Archaeology 22, edited by D. Bailey, I. Panayotov and S. Alexandrov, 309-26. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistory Press.

Nekhrizov, G. 2003. “Spasitelni arheologivheski prouchvania na obekt Ada tepe pri gr. Krumowgrad prez 2002 g.“ in Arheologicheski otkritia i razkopki prez 2002 g, 67-8. Sofia: National Institute of Archaeology with Museum – Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.

Nekhrizov, G. 2005. Keramichniat kompleks ot rannata zheliazna epoha v Iztochni Rodopi. Ph. D. diss., Nationali Institute of Archaeology with Museum – Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.

Nekhrizov, G. 2006. “Spasitelni razkopki na trakijskoto svetilishte Ada tepe”. In Arheologicheski otkritia i razkopki prez 2005 g., 140-2. Sofia: National Institute of Archaeology with Museum – Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.

Nekhrizov, G. 2006a. “Yamno svetilishte ot zheliaznata epoha i selishte ot rannata bronzova epoha pri Svilengrad”. in Spasitelni arheologocheski razkopki po traseto na zhelezopatnata linia Plovdiv – Svilengrad, edited by V. Nikolov, G. Nekhrizov and J. Tzvetkova, 405-508. Veliko Tarnovo: Faber.

Nekhrizov, G. 2007. “Spasitelni razkopki na zapadnia sklon na Ada tepe prez 2006 g.“ In Arheologicheski otkritia i razkopki prez 2006 g., 173-6. Sofia: National Institute of Archaeology with Museum – Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.

Nekhrizov, G. 2008. “Klasifikacionna shema na trapeznata keramika ot rannata zheliazna epoha v Iztochni Rodopi”. in Phosphorion. Studia in Honorem Mariae Čičikova, 114-31. Sofia: Prof. Marin Drinov Academic Publishing House.

Nekhrizov, G. 2008a. “Trakiisko svetilishte Aul kaya pri s. Dolno Cherkovishte, Haskovsko”. In Arheologicheski otkritia i razkopki prez 2007 g., 130-4. Sofia: National Institute of Archaeology with Museum – Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.

Nekhrizov, G., and R. Mikov. 2002. “Spasitelni arheologicheski prouchvania na obekt Ada tepe prig r. Krumovgrad prez 2001 g.” In Arheologicheski otkritia i razkopki prez 2001g., 42-4. Sofia: National Institute of Archaeology with Museum – Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.

Nikov, K. 1994. “Keramikata ot razrushenoto selishte ot rannozheliaznata epoha v Radnevo”. In “Maritza-Iztok”. Arheologicheski prouchvania. Vol. 2, 143-50. Sofia: Gutoranov i Sin.

Nikov, K. 1995. “Ukrasata na keramikata ot rannozheliaznata epoha ot mestnostta “Gradishteto” kraj selo Glavan”. In “Maritza-Iztok”. Arheologicheski prouchvania. Vol. 3, 115-23, Radnevo.

Nikov, K. 1999. Kulturni kontakti na Juzhna Trakia s Egaiskia sviat prez rannata zheliazna epoha po danni na keramikata. Ph. D. diss., Sofia University.

Özdoğan, M. 1987. “Taşlıcabayır, a late Bronze Age Burial in Eastern Thrace”. Anatolica 14: 7-40.Popov, H. 2009. “Kush Kaya. Harakteristika na obitavaneto prez kasnata bronzova i rannata zheliazna epoha”.

Arheologia 50, 1-2: 21-39. Popov, H., and S. Iliev. 2006. “Antichni rudni razrabotki, zapaden sklon na Ada tepe.” In Arheologicheski otkritia

i razkopki prez 2005 g., 154-6. Sofia: National Institute of Archaeology with Museum – Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.

Savationv, S. 1995. “Sondazhni arheologicheski prouchvania v mestnostta “Staroto selishte” kraj grad Radnevo”. In “Maritza-Iztok”. Arheologicheski prouchvania. Vol. 3, 147-69. Radnevo.

Stefanovich, M., and A. Bankoff. 1998. “Kamenska Čuka 1993-95 – Late Bronze age Site in Southwest Bulgaria: Preliminary Findings”. In James Harvey Gaul - In Memoriam. In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, edited by M. Stefanovich, H. Todorova and H. Hauptmann, 255-338. Sofia: James Harvey Gaul Fondation.

Stoyanov, T. 1997. Mogilen nekropol ot rannozheliaznata epoha “Sboryanovo”. Sofia: Svyat. Nauka. Stoyanov, T. and K. Nikov. 2003. “Spasitelni sondazhni prouchvania na obekti ot rannozheliaznata epoha v zemlishteto

na s. Rogozinovo, harmanlijsko”. In Godishnik na Sofiiskia universitet Istoricheski fakultet – Arheologia, 1995, Vol. 2, 7-92. Sofia: Sofia University Press.

Tončeva, G. 1980. Chronologie du Hallstatt ancien dans la Bulgarie de Nord-Est. Studia Thracica 5. Sofia.Tonkova, M. 2008. “Svetilishteto pri Babyak: obshta harakteristika, prouchvania na “Malkoto vasvishenie” (sector

“Sever”)”. In Trakiiskoto svetilishte pri Babyak i negovata arheologicheska sreda, edited by M. Tonkova and A. Gotzev, 30-44. Sofia.

Tonkova, M., and A. Gotzev (eds.) 2008. Trakiiskoto svetilishte pri Babyak I negovata arheologicheska sreda. Sofia. Triantaphyllos, D. 1984. “Les monuments megalithiques en Thrace occidentale.” Pulpudeva 4: 145-63.Valcheva, D. 2002. “Hand-Made Pottery of the Early Iron Age”. In Koprivlen. Rescue Archaeological Investigations along

the Gotse Delchev - Drama Road 1998-1999. Vol. 1, edited by A. Bozhkova. 124-32. Sofia: NOUS Publisher. Wardle, K. 1997. “Change or Continuity: Assiros Toumba at the Transition from Bronze to Iron Age”. Arhaiologiko

Epyo sti Makedonia kai ti Thraki 10, 1: 443-57. Thessaloniki. Wardle, K., and D. Wardle. 2007. “Assiros Toumba. A brief history of the settlement”. In The Struma/Strymon River

Valley in Prehistory. In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul. Vol. 2, edited by H. Todorova, M. Stefanovich, G. Ivanov. 451-79. Sofia: Gerda Henkel Stiftung.

Anodos. Studies of the Ancient World 10/2010.

341

UNIVERSITAS TYRNAVIENSISF A C U L T A S P H I L O S O P H I C A

DEPARTMENT OF CLASSICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

PUBLICATIONS

1. ANODOS. Studies of the Ancient World 1/2001. Proceedings of the International Sym‑ posium The Mediterranean and Central Europe in Contacts and Confrontations. From the Bronze Age to the Late Antiquity. Trnava 2001, A4, 231 pages. ISBN 80‑89074‑02‑2.

Price: 20 EUR

2. ANODOS. Studies of the Ancient World 2/2001. In Honour of Mária Novotná. Trnava 2002, A4, 338 pages. ISBN 80‑89074‑40‑5.

Price: 30 EUR

3. ANODOS. Studies of the Ancient World 3/2003. Proceedings of the International Symposium Ancient Jewellery and Costume in Course of Time. From the Bronze Age to the Late Antiquity. Trnava 2004, A4, 229 pages. ISBN 80‑8082‑006‑6.

Price: 25 EUR

4. ANODOS. Studies of the Ancient World 4-5/2004-2005. Proceedings of the International Symposium Arms and Armour through the Ages. From the Bronze Age to the Late Antiquity. Trnava 2006, A4, 262 pages. ISBN 80‑8082‑109‑7.

Price: 35 EUR

5. ANODOS. Studies of the Ancient World 6-7/2006-2007. Proceedings of the International Symposium Cult and Sanctuary through the Ages. From the Bronze Age to the Late Antiquity. Trnava 2008, A4, 520 pages. ISBN 978‑80‑8082‑228‑6.

Price: 45 EUR

6. ANODOS. Studies of the Ancient World 8/2008. In Honour of Werner Jobst. Trnava 2010, A4, 400 pages. ISBN 978‑80‑8082‑384‑9.

Price: 40 EUR

7. ANODOS. Studies of the Ancient World 9/2009. In Honour of Marie Dufková. Trnava 2010, A4, 143 pages. ISBN 978‑80‑8082‑385‑6.

Price: 16 EUR

8. ANODOS - Supplementum 1. Zentren und Provinzen der Antiken Welt. Trnava 2001, A4, 111 pages. ISBN 80‑89074‑03‑0.

Price: 12 EUR

9. ANODOS - Supplementum 2. Probleme und Perspektiven der Klassischen und provinzial‑römischen Archäologie. Trnava 2002, A4, 79 pages. ISBN 80-89074-36-7.

Price: 12 EUR

Anodos. Studies of the Ancient World 10/2010.

342

10. ANODOS - Supplementum 3. Stadt und Landschaft in der Antike. Trnava 2003, A4, 196 pages. ISBN 80‑89074‑76‑6.

Price: 20 EUR

11. ANODOS - Supplementum 4. Forschungen und Methoden vom Mittelmeerraum bis zum Mitteleuropa. Trnava 2007, A4, 124 pages. ISBN 978-80-8082-167-8.

Price: 15 EUR

12. ANODOS - Supplementum 5. Rüstung und Waffen in der Antike. Trnava 2011, A4, 124 pages. ISBN 978‑80‑8082‑435‑8.

Price: 10 EUR

13. KeLemANTIA - BrIgeTIO. Tracing the Romans on the Danube. Guide 2003, 62 pages. ISBN 80‑89074‑61‑8.

Price: 10 EUR

14. KeLemANTIA - BrIgeTIO. Auf den Spuren der Römer an der Donau. Wegweiser 2003, 62 pages. ISBN 80‑89074‑62‑6.

Price: 10 EUR

15. BOHUSLAV NOVOTNÝ (1921-1996). Biografia. Bibliografia. Spomienky. Trnava 2004, 95 pages. ISBN 80‑8082‑011‑2.

Price: 10 EUR

16. Klasická archeológia a exaktné vedy. Výskumné metódy a techniky I. Trnava 2008. A4, 123 pages. ISBN 978‑80‑8082‑229‑3.

Price: 10 EUR

17. Klasická archeológia a exaktné vedy. Výskumné metódy a techniky II. Trnava 2010. A4, 199 pages. ISBN 978‑80‑8082‑317‑7.

Price: 16 EUR

Documents

Rodopi Mountain Between Thrace and Aegea Region...Early Iron Age