PETIA ILIEVA

THRACIAN-GREEK συμβίωσις ON THE SHORE OF THE AEGEAN Studies on the interaction of Greeks with the neighbouring, “non-Greek” world, especially in the

time of Greek colonisation, became fashionable in recent years. Models of contacts were proposed, ranging in scale from really established apoikiai through pre-colonial contacts and trading posts to imports, tracing possible routes of trade and communication. In most cases discussions focus on “Greek-barbarian” realia; in other words the “centre-periphery” model is still functional. It is questionable, however, whether – and to what extent - the non-Greek consumers of hellenic commodities were thinking of themselves as “periphery” in the very moment of using a specific imported item.

The issue focuses on the function of diagnostic finds in various cultural and historical contexts rather than on the items themselves, their production, stylistics etc. In other words it is important to define how and to what extent the archaeological record could reflect processes that happen in a specific area and originate among its inhabitants, often representing a multi-ethnic community. When exploring the problem from the standpoint of “contacts”, scholars have to face the objectiveness of artefacts as evidence for this aspect of ancient life, which often remains unexpressed in material form, and is therefore invisible to the archaeologist’s eye. Our study concentrates on the period immediately before and after the foundation of Greek apoikiai between Lake Bistonis and the River Hebrus, including the island of Samothrace. Comparing the considerable volume of research in the Western colonies or in those of the Black Sea basin with studies concerning the northern shore of the Aegean, especially east of Lake Bistonis, the impression gained is that the latter region remains virtually unknown. These lands play a key role in the survey of early contacts of Southern Thrace with the Greek world, at least due to the fact that they constitute its physical link with the Aegean basin.

The present study will address the distribution of early Greek imports in southern Thrace and Samothrace and the presence of “Thracian” artefacts in the poleis of the same region and in north-western Asia Minor as evidence of contacts and co-existence between their inhabitants before and after the arrival of the Greeks. Theoretically, the phenomenon usually labelled as “contact” may have materialised in various ways: local or long-distance trade; diplomatic relations ensured by the so called “gift exchange”; barter of natural products; booty of war or single pirate attacks (Stoyanov 2000, 54) or import of a single item – a luxury or exotic artefact possibly bought during a personal travel, the latter being a definite possibility, especially for inhabitants of the coastal areas. Analysing single artefacts of common type, place of origin or chronology according to their context shows that they could act in different ways; in other words, the definition of a specific variety of contact depends on the way an item functioned in the “foreign” cultural background, if this is observable on the field. The theoretical side of the problem has furthermore a chronological aspect: an “imported” artefact could indicate two-way relations until the initial import entered the local repertoire thus turning into evidence for a past contact.1 The nature and intensity of contacts vary in accordance to the area where they happen, as the difference between coastal areas and inland is clearly distinguishable, especially in the geographical and chronological framework of the present study. An important aspect of the whole idea of “contact” concerns the turning point – sometimes almost 1 A good illustration of this process is the appearance and adoption of the so called “Gray Ware” in Thrace. Early Aeolian

shapes were adopted and produced till the Classical period when they started to be replaced by a repertoire of shapes with Attic prototypes (Bozkova 1992, 57-59).

THRACIAN-GREEK συμβίωσις ON THE SHORE OF THE AEGEAN 213

imperceptible from an archaeological standpoint – when the initial contact became “presence”, in other words whether – and how - a complex of foreign goods can possibly be defined as indication for permanent Greek residence or as a simple indication of the natives’ preference for luxuries. Although the identification of an artefact with its manufacturer or user raises serious debate which takes into consideration the complex structure of ancient society, when scholars rely only or mainly on archaeological data, the choice of the information source is quite restricted. In this case the definition of complex artefacts as indication of trade activity or, on the contrary, as marking the presence of representatives of some foreign ethnic group, and the character of the archaeological site respectively, often turns into subjective the understanding of its features. Repeatedly, the Greek presence in neighbouring territories has been equated to the presence of Greek pottery2, which outnumbering local ware 3 or being far more attractive, has become a leading argument. Exploring the problem from a Levantine’s viewpoint J. Waldbaum reasonably raises the question of “how meaningful quantity of pottery is in determining the presence of a specific group of users. Or put more simply, how many sherds make a Greek?” (Waldbaum 1997, 5).

Recently John Papadopoulos and Jane Waldbaum showed clearly that the assumption that Greek pottery is an equivalent of Greek presence is often unjustified (Waldbaum 1997, 1-17; Papadopoulos 1996, 151-81; 1997, 195-219; Flеtcher 2004, 51-77)4. Waldbaum’s criteria for identifying Greek presence include a “broad range of cultural considerations, including preferred shapes of pottery, shapes intended for special uses, inscriptions, and other elements of material culture such as architecture and burial customs” (Waldbaum 1997, 6-11). The quantitative ratio of field data from inland Thrace corresponding to such a model is unequal at present and questions the objective interpretation. The proposed model works well when trying to define resident Greeks in Thrace. Examination of the alternative viewpoint, i.e. identification of local inhabitants in Greek coastal settlements, shows that the criteria usually applied in this case are far more simplified, as the appearance of ceramics incompatible with Greek consumers, which means handmade, is enough for the definition of Thracian (for this particular region) presence5. It does not exclude the argument strength of cemeteries, sanctuaries or epigraphic evidence, but allows the assumption that the criteria defining “foreign” presence in Greek poleis and inland could vary in accordance to the conditions which I. Morris successfully calls “contexts of behaviour” (Morris 1998, 8).

Pre-colonial phase Precise study of already known archaeological data supports the assumption for existing pre-

colonial contacts in inner and Aegean Thrace east of Lake Bistonis, including Samothrace as part of it, with the neighbouring Greek-settled regions in the north-eastern corner of the Aegean basin. It is difficult and probably hazardous to determine how long that phase lasted, at least at the present stage of knowledge; as Graham notes “Often the chronology itself, the basis for the whole idea of a pre-colonial phase, is still in doubt” (Graham 1990, 60).

An interesting and important confirmation of the idea comes from the earliest datable deposit in the Sanctuary of the Great Gods in Samothrace. It includes a group of clay vessels found in a bothros under the floor of the Hall of the Choral Dancers (Temenos). Playing a key role in the discussion about the origin of Greek settlers in Samothrace, for K. Lehmann it is an evidence in favour of Aeolian Greeks coming ca. 700 BC to the island (Lehmann 1998, 19). A.J. Graham denies its strength

2 See, for ex. the case of Samothrace (Lehmann 1950, 8; 1952, 37; Samothrace 4.2, 1964, 241-42), Al Mina (Boardman 1990,

169-90; 1999, 135-61; 2002, 315-61; Niemeyer 2004, 38-50; Waldbaum 1997, 1-17), and Torone (Papadopoulos 1996, 151-81). 3 One should remind Graham’s note that “a quantitative argument has the attraction of simplicity” (Graham 1990, 58). 4 See the scathing comment of J. Papadopoulos that if Al Mina was a Greek emporion, then Lefkandi must have been a

Phoenician settlement (Papadopoulos 1997, 196, 205-206), marking his disagreement with the widespread illusion of ceramics=history (Papadopoulos 1996, 158).

5 See the case of Zone-Mesembria (Tsatsopoulou 1987, 452-78; Tsatsopoulou 1988, 492; 1996, 917; Papadopoulos 2001, 157-94) or that of the Sanctuary of the Great Gods in Samothrace (Samothrace 5, 270).

PETIA ILIEVA 214

as an argument, thus rejecting Lehmann’s idea without suggesting an alternative explanation of the structure (Graham 2002, 231-61). The deposit, however, does exist and its basic role regarding the phenomenon labelled by Graham “pre-colonial contact” (Graham 1990, 45-60)6 remains. It contains a black layer, preserving strong indications of burning and debris, including a considerable quantity of animal bones (mainly of lambs and pigs)7, shells, handmade pots, and wheel-made ware belonging to the G 2-3 group (Samothrace 5, 267). Although both ceramic categories are dominant, the structure contains sherds from the 6th, 5th and 4th c. BC that reflect later building activities on the site and several excavations held before the team of the University of New York, Institute of Fine Arts, started its work. Studying the material, scholars usually emphasise the importance of the pottery group popularly known by its technical labelling as G 2-3. Its presence alongside handmade local vases is usually interpreted as a sign that Greek-speaking Aeolian settlers mingled peacefully with the native Thracians adopting the cult (Samothrace 5, 270; Matsas 2004, 229). In contrast, Graham rejects the connection of G 2-3 with Aeolis, following Beschi’s opinion that it is a Lemnian product, hence “non-Greek” in origin, without suggesting another interpretation (Graham 2002, 238). Such attribution, however, is unlikely, as the morphology, stylistic features8 and chemical analysis of the Samothracian pots (Matsas 2004, 228-29) point to a strong connection with the Troas as the most probable place of their origin.

Nobody, however, tried to view them as indicating a preference of the natives for these fine, luxury vases, possibly estimated as votives in the Sanctuary. Their context, the “co-existence” with local ceramic production and the homogeneous, concentrated presence in one structure, gives reason for this point of view9. It is interesting to note that the North and especially the South Necropolis of Samothrace10 do not provide graves datable to the first half of the 7th c. BC, i.e. synchronous with the general chronology of G 2-3 and its appearance in the Sanctuary, respectively.

A relatively large number of graffiti have been found on vases from the Sanctuary and the South Necropolis (Samothrace 2.2; Samothrace 4.2, 217-28; Graham 2002, 250). None of them, however, comes from a pot of G 2-3 group, which dates from almost a century earlier than the earliest datable inscriptions. Their appearance on the island evidently reflects the coming of the Greek settlers. This raises the question: if G 2-3 indicates the arrival of Aeolian settlers in Samothrace, why did they start inscribing their votives a century later?

The quantitative aspect of G 2-3 from the bothros is worth mentioning, if compared with other sites where it has been found and the period of its production. It is represented by 20 almost intact vessels, 7 in fragmentary condition allowing shape recognition, and 31 fragments without indications of the form, a total of 58 catalogue numbers. The fill that underlay the Hellenistic Hall of Choral Dancers has yielded in addition 9 vessels described by the excavators as “miscellaneous”

6 This so-called bothros covers a primitive hearth founded on the natural ground, 2, 26m under the floor of the Hellenistic

Hall of Choral Dancers (Temenos). It consists of a pavement of small pebbles framed by boulders in horseshoe shape and strong indications of fire (Samothrace 5, 267-72). Although this is the earliest evidence for cult activities on the site, it is impossible to date the hearth itself, as it only contains animal bones. Stratigraphically next comes a layer 0.65m thick, framed by stones circling an area of 3.50m. A stamped clay floor (1.26m under the floor of the Hellenistic building) surrounds the stone frame. This second structure, interpreted by the excavators as being a shallow pit, contains key material for this study.

7 It is important to note that these bones represent the same species as the ones from the dense accumulations of the preceding hearth, thus indicating a continuity in cult tradition.

8 Morphology and stylistics of the G 2-3 ware call for a separate study, but I dare to rely on my work on the problem, which is part of my Ph.D. thesis “Aegean Thrace between Lake Bistonis and the Propontis (8th – 6th c. BC)”.

9 Worth mentioning is the fact that the same type of pottery is known from the territory of the ancient city, but it is very fragmentarily preserved and limited in quantity for the time being (Samothrace 5, 344; Karadima 1995, 488). Unfortunately the lack of systematic excavations and reliable stratigraphy limits the possibilities for interpreting its presence there.

10 They developed as cemeteries of the polis of Samothrace and their earliest graves are good indicators for the time when Greeks settled permanently on the island.

THRACIAN-GREEK συμβίωσις ON THE SHORE OF THE AEGEAN 215

(synchronous with G 2-3, according to their opinion11), a limited number of Gray ware (known by two published examples), and fragments from three karkhesia whose fabric recalls that of G 2-3 (Samothrace 5, 317-83, nos 1-72). This pottery group which was part of the repertoire of one or more ceramic workshops for about half a century according to the established chronology of the style12, is represented by 27 pots and fragments that could hardly be attributed with certainty to one or other specific pot. At best the number of vases might reach 58. Compared with the presence of G 2-3 in Troy (Dörpfeld 1902, 305-310; Blegen et al. 1958; Fisher 1996, 119-32; Aslan 2002, 81-127) and Lemnos (Mustilli 1932/33; Beschi 1998, 48-76; Messineo 2001, 123-45) the number of G 2-3 in Samothrace seems very limited. Considering this specific fact, it is unlikely that they indicate a population using this type of vessels in everyday life, as in the abovementioned production centres. Additional confirmation comes from the morphology of the Samothracian group. It consists mainly of “sessile” and “globular” kantharoi, two crater fragments, two of amphorae and three of jugs/oinochoai, i.e. shapes appropriate for liquids that fit well with the archaeological context.

The peculiarities of the group raise a second question: Why should a homogeneous group of ceramic vessels from a single deposit in a sanctuary signify a permanent presence of people from the region of their origin/manufacture? The distribution pattern of G 2-3 in the Northern Aegean provides a solid basis for the assumption that these vessels had a value of trading commodities outside the certain or hypothetic centres of their production such as Troy (see Momsen, Hertel and Mountjoy 2001, 169-211), Lemnos or Lesbos (fig. 1). The stratigraphic sequence in the ancient town of Thasos that has been a subject of recent re-examination shed new light upon the problem of the distribution of G 2-3 ware. It is known from layer W of the sounding I in “Dimitriadis Champ” following Bernard’s excavations (1964, 77-164). As early as 1978, Graham qualified the stratum as “pre-colonial”, dating the establishment of the apoikia to the moment of appearance of abundant Cycladic pottery, namely са. 650 BC (Graham 1978, 62-98; 2001, 365-402). In 1992 Koukouli-Chrysanthaki described the layer with the same term, although she dated G 2-3 to the 8th c. BC, thus providing space for the traditional dating of the colonisation of Thasos in the early 7th c. BC (Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1992, 717-22). Summarising the distribution of G 2-3 in the settlements of the later Thasian Peraia, she notes its appearance on the Acropolis of the ancient Eion in a “stratigraphic connection analogous to that of the pre-colonial stratum in Thasos” (Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1992, 574). The fill of the sanctuary of Parthenos in Neapolis (Kavala) has yielded a limited number of G 2-3 together with local handmade ware and vessels with subprotogeometric decoration found out of secure stratigraphic context, but probably belonging “to some phase preceding the foundation of Neapolis, analogous to that of the pre-colonial stratum of Thasos” (Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1993, 687). Recent re-examination of the stratigraphy and ceramics of Bernard’s sounding I led to a conclusion supporting the view for the pre-colonial character of stratum W and finds in this stratum (Kohl, Muller, Sanidas and Sgourou 2002, 58-72; Gimatzidis 2002, 73-81). The pottery includes a broad range of styles, such as local, handmade pots, G 2-3 in Aeolian and Lemnian variety, North Aegean subprotogeometric amphorae (“amphores à décor géométrique” in Bernard), as well as skyphoi with pendant semicircles, probably imported from Central Greece (Gimatzidis 2002, 73-81). Analysing the entire complex, Gimatzidis concludes that “…the Thracians that inhabited the island were familiar with products from Southern Greece, mainly from the region of the Thermaic Gulf and North-eastern Aegean before the arrival of the first colonists from Paros” (Gimatzidis 2002, 78). As already mentioned, the pottery assemblage from Thasos includes the important for Samothrace category of G 2-3 ware, whereof the westernmost localisation is for the time being the settlement at Karaburnaki (Therme?) in the Thermaic Gulf

11 It is interesting to note that the morphology of these vessels recalls that of G 2-3 ware, while the choice of their clay,

although not as fine as that of G 2-3, probably tries to imitate the latter’s quality, colour and appearance. 12 The stratigraphic sequence established after the current exploration of Troy gives reason to the assumption that limited

production of G 2-3 ware lasted to the second half of the 7th c. BC. (Aslan 2002, 81-127).

PETIA ILIEVA 216

(Tiverios, Manakidou and Tsiafaki 2001, 255-62). In all these cases it has been taken as indication for contacts (trade) with the region of its origin. Gimatzidis argues that, in the second half of the 8th and the beginning of the 7th c. BC, Thasos became an “important station in a trade network developed in North Aegean” (Gimatzidis 2002, 78). His observation is extremely important, as it confirms the one made by R. Catling, published four years earlier (Catling 1998, 170) and allows for a similar, although considerably smaller in scale, position for Samothrace. The Samothracian finds known at present show that the earliest imports (G 2-3 ware in this case) appeared about half a century later than in Thasos and its Peraia13. It is highly possible that future explorations on the island will change the picture, but it is also possible to assume that the island might be also assumed also, that it “opened” for its immediate neighbours at a later date.

There is a second possible model of explaining the dissemination of G 2-3 ware as a result of a workshop’s movement rather than that of its product14. The assumption that G 2-3 ware may have been manufactured by travelling potters affects primarily the organisation of the production process rather than the function of the product as a commodity distributed on the local market15. Even if preference is given to such model, it would not provide arguments supporting the idea of permanently residing Greeks. Any attempt to find archaeological indications of a Greek cultural context beside ceramic evidence fails, since nothing in the remains suggests that Greek customs of life and death were practiced on the island in the 7th c. BC. This last statement does not change the importance of G 2-3 ware but it should be seen as an argument in favour of the assumption that Samothrace and the north-western Anatolian coast had evidently established cultural links as early as the first half of the 7th c. BC. Viewed from a cultural and historical perspective, Samothrace walked out of Thracian Early Iron Age and entered a “pre-colonial” phase. From the viewpoint of pottery production, this process marks the initial stage of adopting new technological skills or, to put it simply, working with the potters’ wheel.

The distribution pattern of different types of fibulae in the northeastern coast of the Aegean and inland Thrace gives additional support to this conclusion. The penetration of Aegean examples or prototypes in the Thracian hinterland has been usually emphasised (Gergova 1987; Stojanov 1997, 74-82). The opposite movement is however well documented, although by less numerous finds, from the southern coast of Thrace, the islands of Thasos and Samothrace and the northwestern Anatolia (fig. 2). It might be well illustrated by a type known under several designations in the relevant literature. These fibulae are asymmetric, having a bow decorated with a central ovoid/spherical ornament, flanked by strongly moulded rings separated by grooves (fig. 3: 1-9). According to the plate shape, Gergova distinguishes two variants of the general type: АІ3β (“Bogenfibeln mit viereckiger Fussplatte”, Gergova 1987, 24-26) and АІІ3α (“Bogenfibeln mit Fortsatz an der Fussplatte”, Gergova 1987, 27-31). Caner knows them as “Bogenfibeln mit abgesetzter Kugel auf dem Bugel” representing type VІІІ of his corpus (Caner 1982, 49-50). K. Kilian designates these fibulae as “Thracian type”16, in the sense that Thrace was the most probable place of their origin, and Caner

13 Among the earliest imports to Thasos are the so-called North Aegean transport amphorae with Protogeometric

decoration. They belong to a category distributed mainly in the Thermaic Gulf, but familiar also from Troy, where they fall under Catling’s group II (Catling 1998, 151-87; Lenz, Ruppenstein, Baumann and Catling 1998, 191-222). The experts’ opinion suggests the area around Thessalonica as the probable production centre flourishing in the second half of the 8th and the early 7th c. B C. Their distribution as per Troy indicates some kind of route between the Troas and the Thermaic Gulf, additionally strengthened by the appearance of the 7th c. G 2-3 ware on the West. The amphorae, however, are absent from Samothrace for the time being, i.e. there are no indications that in the second half of the 8th c. BC. the island was in touch with those areas.

14 This is the explanation preferred by Prof. Tiverios, to whom I owe the idea. I would like to thank him for his help and the conversations we had about several issues concerning ceramics.

15 The mechanism of its distribution in the market is an additional problem that has been set aside in the present study. In general, it is still almost unexplored for the region of Aegean Thrace.

16 Studying the fibulae from Thrace, D. Gergova accepts type АІІ3α as being of Thracian origin, its main zone of distribution being in southern Thrace. The related variant АІ3β is simultaneously disseminated in Greece and Thrace. Recognising the

THRACIAN-GREEK συμβίωσις ON THE SHORE OF THE AEGEAN 217

accepts this opinion when studying the Asia Minor examples (Caner 1982, 49-50). He mentions in his type VIII one piece of unknown provenance, two from Alişar and Burdur region, and two examples from “Thymbra”, according to Thiersch’s description of Calvert’s excavations in the Troad (Caner 1982, 20-21, 49-50). Caner’s chronology for the “Thymbra” finds is the end of the 8th c. BC and the end of the 8th–beginning of the 7th c. for those from inland Anatolia. Their appearance, important in itself, supports the view for the established link between northwestern Anatolia and the coastal zone of southern Thrace. The type is known from a single find from a grave dated to the 8th - 7th c. BC in the cemetery area of Zone17, a later Samothracian apoikia (Vavritsas 1966, 67-70; Daux 1967, 733, fig. 9). Numerous examples were found in the Southern Necropolis of Samothrace, which has been dated by the excavator to a period following the beginning of the 6th c. (Samothrace 11.2, 969-84)18 and in the Sanctuary at Mandal’ Panaya in the southern part of the island (Matsas, Karadima and Koutsoumanis 1993, 647-55). Two pieces from the EIA necropolis at Kastri on Thasos might be added to this group, although Koukouli-Chrysanthaki sees their origin in the evolution of the Lefkanti series, noting however analogies identified in modern Northern Greece and Thrace (Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1992, 615-16, Pl. 357.10, Π4). Apart from the broad range of parallels in the Aegean basin (Sapouna-Sakellarakis 1978, 63-68, Taf. 16-17) and mainly in inland Thrace (Dobralak and Lakavitza in Gergova 1987, Taf. 2, 28, 31; Taf. 3, 46; Kazanluk and Pavelsko in Gergova 1987, Taf. 3, 44-46; Strjama in Kisjov 2004, ХХХV, 4), the examples from “Thymbra”, Zone, Thasos and Samothrace form a stylistically homogeneous group, as they are almost identical. They probably reflect a local production of the type in the coastal zone of Aegean Thrace that was of primary importance for their distribution in the Troad. With regard to the most numerous, at present, group from the South Necropolis of Samothrace, it is notable that the excavator’s date set it to a purely “colonial” phase. None of them, however, comes from a burial context19, thus allowing the assumption that at least some pieces belonged to earlier, not preserved graves, if the conventional chronology of the type is taken into account. On the other hand, their existence in the cemetery of the polis could mean that the type was still in use in the 6th c. after the arrival of the permanent Greek settlers.

The distribution model of these metal ornaments in the Aegean indicates the role of the coastal area of southern Thrace as part of active interactions immediately preceding the initial stage of establishment of Greek settlements in the region. Although the observation has not yet been supported by ceramic finds from the coastal and inland area east of Lake Bistonis analogous to those from Samothrace and Thasos, some isolated pottery finds from the Hebros valley indicate that the problem originates in the present stage of exploration and publication. This raises some questions about the mechanism of distribution: Who was carrying the commodities? Was there one “active” partner in these relations or were both sides equally interested in establishing contact with the “neighbour”? What was the degree of trading activity undertaken by the Thracians themselves? How far was it interceded by Greek activity and what was the extent of Greek penetration in inland Thrace in geographical and chronological terms?

risk of accepting a direct link between any kind of artefact and ethnicity, I use the term “Thracian type” as a terminus technicus.

17 Zone is the current identification of the archaeological site previously known as Mesembria (Kazarow 1918, 3-33) or Mesembria-Zone (Tsatsopoulou 1997, 615-30). Ιn the mid-1960s A. Vavritsas excavated two graves in the territory of the necropolis of Zone, which are evidently earlier (Vavritsas 1966, 67-70; 1967, 89-95; 1970, 66-75). Their characteristics define them as belonging to the local EIA Thracian tradition, although the contemporary settlement has not yet been identified with certainty.

18 The excavator E. Dusenbery calls them “Astragal fibulae”, (from the bow mouldings). She could not find close parallels for this group, mentioning that the type is absent in Blinkenberg.

19 The cemetery occupies an area less than 300m2 large, which was used, reused and overused for centuries. As a result the 6th and 5th c. cremation burials were almost entirely destroyed when the burial rite changed into inhumation in the 4th c. BC. Graham (2002, 245) correctly observes that “These circumstances make it impossible to associate all the material found with specific graves”.

PETIA ILIEVA 218

It is beyond doubt that long-distance distribution of commodities around the shores of northern Aegean is the result of Greek enterprise and seafaring skills. On the other hand, it seems that the cultural background in south-eastern Thrace is far more complex than previously thought, especially after the arrival of the Greeks on its southern coast. The number, character and context of the imports in inland Thrace, dating before the beginning/first quarter of the 5th c. BC marked a rapid increase of volume and diversity after this date, thus reflecting a significant change in the nature of relations with the Greek settlements in the South. As the archaeology of inland southern Thrace does not provide a basis to assume permanent Greek presence prior to this date, it is hardly reasonable to think of Greek trading activity beyond the immediate hinterland of the coastal zone. Additionally, the role of the coastal Thracians should not be ignored, as they most probably had parallel access to the Greek markets and to the trading routes along the Hebros valley and the Eastern Rhodope. It will be highly hazardous and speculative, however, to judge, on the basis of existing archaeological data, for mechanisms and patterns of distribution that only future explorations in the region could clarify.

Evidence from Greek coastal settlements The existing archaeological evidence from Greek settlement structures and their immediate

surroundings give an impression of a peaceful “συμβίωσις” between the newcomers and the indigenous population in the studied area. Adequate confirmation is easier to be found in isolated categories of finds originating in varying contexts or even out of context, than in structures or entire strata. It is important to remark that there is no case of synchronous diagnostic artefacts known from living quarters, sanctuaries and cemeteries of a single polis, hence the impossibility for a comparative study of their function in different structural backgrounds of the same city. Taking into account the situation resulting mainly from the nature and volume of archaeological exploration in Aegean Thrace, the existence of inscriptions written in Greek characters, most probably representing Thracian language20, familiar from the Aegean and inland Thrace, is extremely indicative. Their appearance in Samothrace and perhaps in the Peraia remains at present restricted to that part of the coastal strip. This cultural phenomenon known only through votive inscriptions from the Sanctuary of the Great Gods and the cemeteries of Samothrace received additional, although partly identical confirmation, in a recent study by D. Matsas (Samothrace 2.2; Matsas 2004, 227-57). On three East Greek kylikes dating from the end of the 6th/early 5th c. B.C., found in the open-air sanctuary at the Mandal’ Panaya locality, non-Greek inscriptions appear (Matsas 2004, 230). Their common element is the partly preserved word ΥΝΕΣΟ, distinguishable in votive inscriptions from the sanctuary of Apollo in Zone (Tsatsopoulou 1989, 585, figs 8, 9). Although the exploration of Thasos and its continental settlements is far more intensive, analogous finds have not been found, which could hardly be an incidental coincidence in all sites21. Similarly, pottery collected from nearby Ainos (or at least the published pieces thereof) does not provide inscriptions similar to the Samothracian ones.

The language, being among the strongest arguments for ethnic (self-) identification, gives priority to the inscriptions as indicating Thracian-Greek relations. The existence of such inscriptions raises many questions about the different aspects of the presumed Thracian-Greek co-existence. Lehmann (Samothrace 2.2, 9) was first to suggest their peaceful intermingling in Samothrace, resulting in common cult activities in the Sanctuary (Table 1). Matsas accepts this view,

20 K. Lehmann first supported the identification (Samothrace 2.2, 8-13). His arguments have been corroborated by a precise

study by Bonfante 1955 that remained the current view, although the existing comparative Thracian material is limited. 21 The existence or non-existence of non-Greek inscriptions is an interesting indication for basically different models of co-

existence between natives and Greek colonists on both islands and their continental establishments respectively. This observation confirms, in general terms, the conclusion of S. Papadopoulos, based on the contextual analysis of the handmade pottery in Aegean Thrace, although his methodological approach is open to objections (see Papadopoulos 2001, 157-94).

THRACIAN-GREEK συμβίωσις ON THE SHORE OF THE AEGEAN 219

adding that, if the Thracian character of Mandal’ Panaya and Zone inscriptions is confirmed, it will prove that the model proposed by Lehmann works outside the Sanctuary of the Great Gods too (Matsas 2004, 231). The Zone inscriptions could, in fact, strengthen Tsatsopoulou’s observation on the demographic structure of the polis22.

The chronology of the graffiti from the Sanctuary of the Great Gods indicates that the non-Greek language was still in use long after the arrival of the Greeks. The best evidence comes from the latest examples of Hellenistic date and the famous stone inscription of the mid-4th c. BC (Samothrace 2.1, �64). Studying the inscribed ceramics from the Sanctuary, Lehmann assumes that their language, mentioned also by Diodorus 5.47.323, was probably spoken by the natives and employed as a lingua sacra by the Greek settlers. Comparing the chronology and quantitative ratio of the non-Greek and Greek inscriptions, he suggests that this non-Greek language gradually went out of everyday use, as the inhabitants of Samothrace became Greek-speakers. Recently Graham supported this possibility, assuming two possible groups of users of the non-Greek language: the Thracians and the Greek colonists. Regarding the Samothracian graffiti it is important that the earliest ones are in non-Greek language (Table 2).

On the other hand, the tradition for inscribing votives, the inscribed shapes and the time of their appearance undoubtedly indicate adoption of Greek elements of worship in the local sanctuary. As mentioned above, the Greek settlers not only adopted the cult and its liturgical language, but most probably used it for inscribing votives as well. If we accept that the language of the non-Greek inscriptions indicates Thracian activities, it is evident that they quickly adopted the foreign pattern of ritual behaviour. Besides, the inscriptions suggest that the Greeks were flexible enough to meet the wish or requirement of the local inhabitants to devote in their native language24. It seems that the colonists adapted a practice familiar from home to the local conditions, thus setting the natives as equal partners.

The adoption of inscribing is an especially important moment, considering the fact that the Thracians are illiterate. The non-Greek graffiti from Samothrace have been compared with similar votive inscriptions from the Kabirion of Lemnos, written in Greek alphabet in Tyrrhenian language (Bonfante 1955, 101-109; Graham 2002, 254-55). Despite the unquestionable cultural analogies between both islands in the archaic period, a basic, very important difference should be mentioned: Tyrrhenian graffiti appeared on Lemnos in local context, i.e. in the pre-Greek period, without permanently residing Greeks. After the establishment of the Athenian cleruchy on the island25, when Lemnian Tyrrhenians had been expelled, a significant difference in the conduct of the cult is observable (Beschi 2000, 79; Graham 2002, 255). In contrast, non-Greek graffiti appeared in Samothrace after the arrival of Greek settlers, in a culturally mixed context indicating mutual borrowings. As a cultural phenomenon they evidently demonstrate combined features: the context and language point to the local reality; the pattern of dedication originates in the Greek world.

Samothrace constitutes a rare instance of a local tradition being relatively well recognisable by indications of different nature in the dominant cultural background of the polis structures26. Some specifics in the equipment of the archaic graves from the South Necropolis can be added. Significant is the presence of numerous fibulae of various types; their state of preservation suggests that they

22 Based on the constant presence of local, handmade pottery in 5th and 4th c. BC. strata in Zone, the excavator P.

Tsatsopoulou assumes a permanently residing Thracian population in the city (Tsatsopoulou 1997, 619). 23 Lehmann connects the survival of the non-Greek language to the Hellenistic period (or possibly later) with Diodorus’

note for its use as a lingua sacra in cult practices μέχρι τοῦ νῦν. The latter wording he interpreted as synchronous with Diodorus rather than with his Hellenistic source (Samothrace 2.2, 12). Graham (2002, 254) agrees with this interpretation, suggesting the 3rd c. BC as the earliest possible date for τοῦ νῦν.

24 It is natural to assume that votives were inscribed, at least initially, by Greeks. 25 The event has been dated around the beginning of the 5th c. BC. (Graham 1963, 128 [=2001, 326], 2002, 255). 26 The chronological aspect of the observation shows that it works for the period immediately after the Greek arrival on

the island; the diagnostic “native” features gradually disappeared with the slow Hellenisation of the local population.

PETIA ILIEVA 220

were used for pinning clothes or shrouds during cremation (Samothrace 11.2, 969). Some of them are remarkable for their unusual size (fig. 3: 7-10), probably reflecting specific features of the local garment, especially if we take into account the ratio of pins represented by 8 preserved examples against 50 fibulae – plus scorched and corroded additional pieces suggesting that their number was even higher. Probably they were the basic available type of personal metal ornament in Samothrace during the archaic period, although local production on the southern coast of Thrace might be assumed only for the already discussed “Thracian” fibulae. The other types found in the South Necropolis, well paralleled in the Aegean and Anatolian coast, indicate the directions of the island’s cultural/trade links27. Of special interest are the already mentioned fibulae of spectacular size probably designed for pinning some heavy, outer garment, such as the weight of the hanging metal ornament indicatees. It is reasonable to remind that the Samothracian climate is not typically Mediterranean, but differs by its cold, snowy winters, especially in the northern part of the island, where the ancient town is situated. It seems that the Greek settlers wisely adopted some elements of the local costume undoubtedly better adapted to the specific climatic conditions than their own.

An intriguing example not paralleled in Greek records comes from the same cemetery. A single grave – S 252 – contains the inhumation of a young man in a pithos. The burial equipment consists of karchesion28, labelled as G 2-3 by Graham, who follows Dusenbery’s identification (Samothrace 11.2, 744), although Love did not include it in this technological group (Love 1964, 207). Dusenbery dates the grave as “probably classical” and Graham proposed a significant revision between the late 7th and the end of the 6th c. BC, relying on the chronology of the karchesion shape (Samothrace 11.2, 744; Graham 2002, 247). His date, however, is open to serious chronological difficulties, if he is right in assuming that the vessel is of G 2-3 fabric. This implies a considerably narrower date in the first half of the 7th c. BC.29 On the contrary, if Graham’s date till the end of the 6th c. is correct, then the designation of the karchesion as G 2-3 is rather problematic, not to say impossible. The most unusual features of the burial are of a different nature. It is the only preserved inhumation among all cremation burials. In addition, according to the excavator’s notes the top of the skull was “split away” and replaced by the same part of another human scull (Samothrace 11.1, 409-410). Trying to explain this, Dusenbery recalls the “famous Scythian custom related by Herodotus 4.65” while Graham refers to Thracian parallels from Ravna (Graham 2002, 247). He is convinced that this could not be a Greek grave, but is careful in suggesting an ethnic explanation, stating that “a single grave is an insufficient basis for historical hypothesis” (Graham 2002, 247). Matsas follows the same careful position, adding that the phenomenon directs to possible Thracian presence in the ancient city (Matsas 2004, 227, n. 2). Indeed, this “single grave” finds considerably later parallels in the same cemetery. A number of “non-usual” graves belonging to the early Roman era (1st c. BC) with unquestionable dismemberment of corpses could indicate the survival of the practice for centuries (Samothrace 11.1, 35)30. Evidently, even if post mortem mutilations have been practiced in the archaic and classical periods it is impossible to detect them in cremation remains31. Careful examination of

27 Especially significant is the most numerous in the cemetery group of “Phrygian” fibulae of Muscarella’s type XII, 13 and

XII, 14. According to his opinion “they were manufactured in East Greece including some of the islands” and not in Phrygia itself (Muscarella 1967, 40).

28 I follow the identification of the shape suggested by Love. Comparing the ancient description of the type with vessels from Samothrace, Lemnos, Lesbos, Thasos and Troy, she concludes that they fit to it better than any other shape (Love 1964, 204-222). To these examples could be added others from inland Thrace (Getov 1965, 203-229), from Daskyleion and the northwestern Anatolian coast (Polat 2004, 215-23).

29 Graham’s date is based on his interpretation of the Samothracian vases of G 2-3 fabric as Lemnian imports. On Lemnos itself, the local variety of the style continues till the end of the 6th c. according to the destruction levels from the Persian attack.

30 Graham’s view is that these examples could not serve as parallels of S 252 because they occur in much later graves. 31 On the other hand, there is no archaeologically known cemetery belonging to a settlement of local community outside

the ancient city, synchronous with the South and North Necropoleis that could reveal features of the native tradition “invisible” through Greek structures.

THRACIAN-GREEK συμβίωσις ON THE SHORE OF THE AEGEAN 221

these “non-usual” graves through “Northern” focus, i.e. considering the numerous similar examples from Thrace which last until late Antiquity, shows that they could bridge the “chronological gap problem”. The appearance of dismemberment of the dead body or, more precisely, graves with skeletons lacking anatomic order, characterises burial traditions in Thracian lands throughout the Iron Age (Georgieva 2003, 314). What distinguishes the Samothracian examples is that they appear in a Greek necropolis, in immediate proximity to the Sanctuary of the Great Gods. The tradition is undoubtedly non-Greek and its reappearing almost five centuries after the establishment of the apoikia confirms the conclusion reached for inland Thrace: “…this practice would have lasted for centuries, but its real extension will hardly be understood” (Georgieva 2003, 316). Their existence in the Roman period suggests that probably some elements of the native tradition survived for a considerable period of time. The presence of grave S 252 and its Roman counterparts in the cemetery of a Greek polis indicates some kind of equality between native Thracians and Greek settlers, although the political status of the first can not be determined with our present knowledge on the ancient city. To the group of “strange”, for the Hellenic mentality, burial contexts, grave S19, dated са. 550 BC, could be added. It consists of an empty, deep, undecorated handmade pot with two short vertical handles, which was set on the ground. Lid fragments corresponding to the diameter of the pot’s rim were found nearby, suggesting that it was originally covered (Samothrace 11.1, 85-86). Interpreting a single handmade vessel as indicating non-Greek presence in the cemetery might be judged as speculative, but it evidently belongs to the local ceramic tradition, thus implying that its appearance could indicate activities of the local/Thracian inhabitants.

Given the different nature of diagnostic finds and contexts from Samothrace – votive inscriptions, fibulae from the South Necropolis; “unusual” graves, continuation of the cult conducted in the Sanctuary of the Great Gods and the open-air sanctuary at Mandal’ Panaya, it is possible to conclude that they indicate not only a peaceful co-existence between colonists and local Thracians, but also different levels of this phenomenon, an example of dialogue and adoption of the “other’s” traditions, especially in a field often defined as conservative – that of beliefs. The only archaeolo-gically explored Samothracian establishment on the opposite shore of Thrace, Zone, gives serious ground to believe that the model was also functional in the continental settlements of Samothrace.

PETIA ILIEVA 222

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aslan, C. 2002. “Ilion before Alexander: Protogeometric, Geometric, and Archaic pottery from D9.” Studia

Troica 12: 81-127. Bernard, P. 1964. “Ceramiques de la premiere moitie du VIIe siecle à Thasos.” BCH 88(1): 77-146. Beschi, L. 1998. “Arte e cultura di Lemno arcaica.” PP 53: 48-76. Beschi, L. 2000. “Gli Scavi del Cabirio di Chloi.” In Un ponte fra l’Italia e la Grecia, 75-84. Padua. Blegen, C., et al. 1958. Troy: The University of Cincinnati Excavations, 1932-1938. Vol. 4: Troy, settlement VIIa, VIIb and

VIII. Princeton. Boardman, J. 1990. “Al Mina and History.” OJA 2(9): 169-190 Boardman, J. 1999. “The Excavated History of Al Mina.” In Ancient Greeks West and East, edited by G.

Tsetskhladze, 135-61. Leiden. Boardman, J. 2002. “Al Mina: the Study of a Site.” Ancient West and East 1(2): 315-31. Bonfante, G. 1955. “A Note on the Samothracian Language.” Hesperia 24: 101-109. Božkova, А. 1992. “Some Aspects of the Wheelmade Pottery from Pre-Roman Thrace” (bulg.). Balkanski

drevnosti 2: 52-59. Caner, E. 1983. Fibeln in Anatolien I. Prähistorische Bronzefunde 14(8). München. Catling, R.W.V. 1998. “The Typology of the Protogeometric and Subprotogeometric Pottery from Troia and its

Aegean Context.” Studia Troica 8: 150-211. Daux, G. 1967. “Chronique des Fouilles 1966.” BCH 91(2): 722-34. Dörpfeld, W. 1902. Troja und Ilion: Ergebnisse der ausgrabungen in den vorhistorischen und historischen schichten von

Ilion, 1870-1894. Athen. Fisher, S.M. 1996. “Troian “G2/3 Ware” Revisited.” Studia Troica 6: 119-32. Flеtcher, R. 2004. “Sidonians, Tyrians and Greeks in the Mediterranean: The Evidence from Egyptianising

Amulets.” Ancient West and East 3(1): 51-77. Georgieva, R. 2003. “Sepultures insolites de Thrace (fin du IIe –Ier mill. Av. J.-C.).” Thracia 15: 313-23. Gergova, D. 1987. Früh- und ältereisenzeitliche Fibeln in Bulgarien. Prähistorische Bronzefunde 14.7. München. Getov, L. 1965. “Tumular Burial in the Region of Dolno Sahrane Village, Municipality of Stara Zagora” (bulg.).

BIAB 28: 203-229. Gimatzidis, S. 2003. “Ο αποικισμός της Θάσου: Η επανεξέταση της κεραμικής πρώιμων φάσεων της αρχαίας

πόλης.” In AEMTh 17, 74-81. Graham, A.J. 1963. “The Fifth-Century Cleruchy on Lemnos.” Historia 11: 127-128 = Graham, A.J. 2001. “The

Fifth-Century Cleruchy on Lemnos.” In Collected Papers on Greek Colonization, 325-26. Mnemosyne suppl. 214. Brill.

Graham, A.J. 1978. “The Foundation of Thasos.” BSA 73: 62-98. Graham, A.J. 1990. “Pre-colonial Contacts: Questions and Problems.” In Greek Colonists and Native Populations,

edited by J.P. Descoudres, 45-60. Oxford. Graham, A.J. 2001. “Thasian contraversies.” In Collected Papers on Greek Colonization, 365-402. Mnemosyne Suppl.

214. Brill. Graham, A.J. 2002. “The Colonization of Samothrace.” Hesperia 71 (3): 231-60. Karadima, Chr. 1995. “Αρχαιολογικές εργασίες στη Μαρώνεια και τη Σαμοθράκη το 1995.” In AEMTh 9, 487-96. Kazarow, G. 1918. “Zur Archäologie Thrakiens.” AA 33: 3-66. Kisyov, К. 2004. “The Thracian Culture in the Region of Plovdiv and Striama Valley in the Second Half of the

1st Mill. BC” (bulg.). Sofia. Kohl, M., A. Muller, G. Sanidas and Μ. Sgourou. 2002. “Ο αποικισμός της Θάσου: η επανεξέταση των

αρχαιολογικών δεδομένων.” In AEMTh 16, 57-72. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Ch. 1992. Προϊστορική Θάσος. Τα νεκροταφεία του οικισμού Καστρί. Athens. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Ch. 1993. “Η πρώιμη εποχή του σιδήρου στην Ανατολική Μακεδονία.” In Αρχαία

Μακεδονία 1, 679-733. Lehmann, K. 1950. “Samothrace: Third Preliminary Report.” Hesperia 19: 1-21. Lehmann, K. 1952. “Samothrace: Fifth Preliminary Report.” Hesperia 21: 19-44. Lehmann, K. 1998. Samothrace, A Guide to the Excavations and the Museum. 6th ed. Thessalonica.

THRACIAN-GREEK συμβίωσις ON THE SHORE OF THE AEGEAN 223

Lenz, D., F. Ruppenstein, M. Baumann and R. Catling. 1998. “Protogeometric Pottery at Troia.” Studia Troica 8: 191-221. Love, I. 1964. “Kantharos or Karchesion? A Samothracian Contribution.” In Essays in Memory of Karl Lehmann,

204-222. New York. Matsas, D. 2004. “Η Σαμοθράκη στη πρώιμη εποχή του Σιδήρου.” In Το Αιγαίο στην πρώιμη εποχή του Σιδήρου,

227-57. Αθήνα. Matsas, D. and A. Bakirtzis. 2001. Samothrace. A Short Cultural Guide. Athens. Matsas, D., Chr. Karadima and M. Koutsoumanis. 1989. “Αρχαιολογικές εργασίες Σαμοθράκης 1989.” In AEMTh 3, 607-17. Messineo, G. 2001. Efestia. Scavi Adriani 1928-1930. Monografie della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle

missioni Italiane in Oriente 13. Padova. Mommsen, H., D. Hertel and P. Mountjoy. 2001. “Neutron Activation Analysis of the Pottery from Troy in the

Berlin Schliemann Collection.” AA 61: 169-211. Morris, I. 1998. “Archaeology and Archaic Greek History.” In Archaic Greece: New Approaches and New Evidence,

edited by N. Fisher and H. van Wees, 1-93. London. Muscarella, O.W. 1967. Phrygian Fibulae from Gordion. London Mustilli, D. 1932/1933. “La necropoli tirrenica di Efestia.” ASAtene 15-16. Niemeyer, H. 2004. “Phoenician or Greek: Is There a Reasonable Way out of the Al Mina Debate?” Ancient West

and East 3 (1): 38-50. Papadopoulos, J. 1996. “Euboians in Macedonia? A Closer Look.” OJA 15: 151-81. Papadopoulos, J. 1997. “Phantom Euboians.” MeditArch 10: 191-219. Papadopoulos, S. 2001. “The ‘Thracian’ Pottery of South-East Europe: A Contribution to the Discussion on the

Handmade Pottery Traditions of the Historical Period.” BSA 96: 157-94. Polat, Y. 2004. “A Grey Monochrome Karchesion from Daskyleion.” TÜBA-AR VII: 215-23. Samothrace = Matsas, D. and A. Bakirtzis. 2001. Samothrace. A Short Cultural Guide. Athens. Sapouna-Sakellarakis, E. 1978. Die Fibeln der Griechischen Inseln. Prähistorische Bronzefunde 14.4. München. Stoyanov, T. 1997. “Sboryanovo”. Early Iron Age Tumular Necropolis. Sofia. Stoyanov, T. 2000. “Contacts of North-Eastern Thrace with Anatolia, Caucasus and the Near East during the

Early Iron age before Greek Colonization” (bulg.). BMNBurgas 3: 50-61. Tiverios, M., E. Manakidou and D. Tsiafaki 2001. “Ανασκαφικές έρευνες στο Καραμπουρνάκι κατά το 2001: ο

αρχαίος οικισμός.” In AEMTh 15, 255-62. Tsatsopoulou, P. 1987. “Αιγαιακή Μεσημβρία. Η ανασκαφική έρευνα στο χώρο της αρχαίας πόλης κατά το

1987.” In AEMTh 1, 469-74. Tsatsopoulou, P. 1988. “Η ανασκαφική έρευνα στην αρχαία Μεσημβρία κατά το έτος 1988.” In AEMTh 2, 489-98. Tsatsopoulou, P. 1989. “Η ανασκαφική έρευνα στην αρχαία Μεσημβρία Θράκης κατά το 1989.” In AEMTh 3, 577-85. Tsatsopoulou, P. 1996. “Μεσημβρία-Ζώνη 1987-1997.” In AEMTh 10, 917-26. Tsatsopoulou, P. 1997. “Η ανασκαφική έρευνα στη Μεσημβρία του Αιγαίου την τελευταία δεκαετία.” In Αρχαία

Θράκη, 616-30. Vavritsas, Α. 1966. “Ἀνασκαφὴ Μεσημβρίας Θράκης.” Prakt: 67-70. Vavritsas, Α. 1967. “Ἀνασκαφὴ Μεσημβρίας Θράκης.” Prakt: 89-95. Vavritsas, Α. 1970. “Ἀνασκαφὴ Μεσημβρίας Θράκης.” Prakt: 66-75. Waldbaum, J. 1997. “Greeks in the East or Greeks and the East? Problems in the Definition and Recognition of

Presence.” BASOR 305: 1-17.

PETIA ILIEVA 224

Distribution map of G 2-3 ware

Distribution map of “Thracian type” fibulae in North Aegean

THRACIAN-GREEK συμβίωσις ON THE SHORE OF THE AEGEAN 225

Fibulae from Northeastern Aegean sites: 1. From EIA necropolis at Kastri, Thasos, drawing after Koukouli-Chrusanthaki 1992, fig. 357.10 2. From EIA grave found in Zone necropolis, drawing after Daux 1967, 733, fig. 9 3. From “Thymbra”, after Caner 1982, taf.9, 139 4. From Samothrace, Mandal’ Panaya, drawing after Matsas, Karadima, Koutsoumanis 1989, fig.15. From “Thymbra”, after Caner 1982, taf.9, 140 6. From Samothrace, Mandal’ Panaya, drawing after Matsas, Bakirtzis 2001, fig.79 7. From Samothrace, South necropolis, drawing after Samothrace 11.2, 982 8. From Samothrace, South necropolis, drawing after Samothrace 11.2, 981 9. From Samothrace, South necropolis, drawing after Samothrace 11.2, 983. Variety of the

general type 10. From Samothrace, South necropolis, drawing after Samothrace 11.2, 973. “Leech type”

according to Dusenbery’s terminology

PETIA ILIEVA 226

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4

Non- Greek Greek

Table 1

Table 2

Greek, non-Greek and Uncertain Inscriptions from the Sanctuary of

The Great Gods

Greek

Uncertain language Non-Greek

1. Inscriptions of 6th century date 2. Inscriptions of 5th-4th century date 3. Inscriptions from Hellenistic period 4. Inscriptions of uncertain date