Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Pottery in the Upper Thracian Plain, Tundzha Valley and the Burgas Lowland, Bulgaria – Diversity, Technology and Distribution
Abstract
83
Full text
Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Pottery in the Upper Thracian Plain, Tundzha Valley and the Burgas Lowland, Bulgaria– Diversity, Technology and Distribution Rositsa Hristova ABSTRACT The main purpose of this article is to present Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age pottery of the not so known Upper Thracian Plain, Tundzha Valley and the Burgas Lowland in Bulgaria, with an emphasis on ceramic diversity, technology, distribution, and use of vessels in archaeological contexts. The investigation shows that the ceramic of both periods consists of wares for serving, cooking, storage, and transportation. The classes of cups, jugs, plates, bowls, kantharoi -like vessels, amphora -like vessels, jars, storage vessels, and pyraunoi had been in widespread use until the 8th century BC, when anew pottery class– pithoi with a‘wide stamp’– was added. The general transformations, which occurred during the beginning of the Early Iron Age, included modification of the above -mentioned pottery classes to aflattened spherical form; the treatment of the surface through burnishing with the effect of polishing; decoration with acombination of flutes and knobs and firing in reduced atmosphere with control of the process to achieve the desired uniform dark colour. However, absence of major changes in the morphology of Early Iron Age ceramics probably illustrate permanently established eating habits. According to ethnographic models, each change in the pottery production which included astylistic variation of the vessels realized without marked changes in energy investment on the part of the craftsman, such as the introduction of new decorative motifs, new ways of arranging existing motifs and even some small changes in vessel forms, points to ahorizontal differentiation of the society and increased numbers of equivalently ranked groups in agiven society– achange that occurred in our study area in the Early Iron Age. KEYWORDS Upper Thracian Plain; Tundzha Valley; Burgas Lowland; Late Bronze Age; Early Iron Age; pottery diversity; technology; distribution. GEOGRAPHICAL FRAMEWORK The borders of the area under discussion include the Upper Thracian Plain, the Tundzha Valley and the Burgas Lowland (Map 1), which are differentiated not only by geographical characteristics but also by economic and cultural traits. The Upper Thracian Plain is located between 42°23’ and 42°7’ latitude with alength from west to east of around 180 km and average altitude of 168 m above sea level. The greater part of the territory is drained by the huge Maritsa River (tr. Meriç; gr. Έβρος)1 and its tributaries. The Central Balkan range 1 The main water artery of the Upper Thracian Plain is the Maritsa River, which runs approximately in the middle of the lowland. It accepts many Rhodopes and Sredna Gora straits, and the flat terrain allows for the whole lowland to become irrigated (Donchev– Karakashev 2001, 119). The area of its drainage basin (to the Turkish -Bulgarian border) is 21,084 km2 and represents ⅕ of the total area of the country. Until entering the Upper Thracian Plain it has the features of amountain type of river regime, and in the Lowlands its water flow is formed by higher volume tributaries (Galabov 1982, 289). STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/2, 83–118
84 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/2 (Stara Planina) surrounds it on the north, which as anatural border crosses Bulgaria from west to east, and divides the country into two main parts– northern and southern. The low mountain ranges of the Rhodopes, Sakar and Strandja are placed on the south. The Upper Thracian Plain is divided into two parts by the Chirpan Heights. The western part includes the Pazardzhik -Plovdiv field, stretching between Sredna Gora, the Rhodopes, and the Chirpan Heights. There the terrain is flat, whereas to the east the relief, which is alittle hilly, includes the Stara Zagora Plain (Donchev– Karakashev 2001, 117). On the east, the great part of the territory is drained by the huge Tundzha River (tr. Tunca; gr. Τόνζος), 2 which takes its source from the central parts of Stara Planina, and flows until it reaches the Maritsa (Penchev 1982, 289). More to the east of the middle course of the Tundzha River is the Burgas Lowland characterized by the well -expressed radial valley network, whose river arteries run to the Burgas Bay (Georgiev 1991, 380). The conditions in these regions since ancient times were suitable for agriculture and cattle -breeding activities. The main reason for this regional fertility is the rich water supply from the two major rivers, which likely also served as transport links (Leshtakov 2009, 55–57). Map 1: Map of the investigation area of the Upper Thracian Plain to the Burgas Lowland in Bulgaria. 2 The length of the Tundzha River to the Turkish border is 350 km and the area of its drainage basin may be divided into two clearly formed parts: in the first one, the river passes through the Under Balkan Mountain fields, and the second part starts from its gorge to the north of Yambol, and to the south it reaches the border (Galabov 1982, 289).
85ROSITSA HRISTOVA THE LATE BRONZE AGE CHRONOLOGICAL REMARKS AND HISTORY OF RESEARCH Present day Bulgaria is situated between two large and archaeologically well investigated cultural areas –the Aegean and Anatolia on the one hand, and with Central Europe on the other. Depending on which part of Bulgaria is being discussed, the one or the other periodization system has been applied. For example, the ‘Central European’ tripartite periodization scheme– early, middle, and late periods of the Bronze Age– has been applied to the areas north of the Balkan range, in Southwestern and in Southeast Bulgaria, including the Rhodopes Mountains. However, in lowland Thrace the nomenclature of the Bronze Age follows the terminology of the neighbouring countries to the south (Alexandrov 2018, 85–87). Among the earliest, and significant for its time, studies dedicated to the Late Bronze Age is the monograph by Bernhard Hänsel (1976). Although the emphasis in the said work is placed on the regional and chronological development of the Lower Danube region, actual materials from South -East Bulgaria have also been published. The author introduces anew ceramic group ‘Čerkovna’ and stresses that the spherical kantharoid -like vessel is atypical form of Plovdiv -Zimnicea -Čerkovna culture (Hänsel 1976, 204). While in the 1980s Bulgarian archaeology perceived the major division just between Northwestern, Northeastern, and Southern Bulgaria (Panayotov– Valcheva 1989, 12–13), presently there has been atendency towards amore detailed regionalization of the Bronze Age chronology. Ivan Panayotov suggests aperiodization according to which the Bronze Age in Thrace covers six periods. He associates the fifth of them with the Late Bronze Age (Razkopanitsa VII -Asenovets) and the sixth (Plovdiv -Zimnicea) with the end of the Late Bronze Age/beginning of the Early Iron Age (Panayotov 2003, 29–30). During the last few years the expansion of the archaeological record for the Late Bronze Age in the discussed territory was the result mostly of rescue excavations. Aconsequence of the large -scale infrastructure and energy projects, such as the building of the ‘Maritsa’ and ‘Thrakia’ highways or the work on the ‘Maritsa -Iztok’ energy complex, is the accumulation of new information on almost all the main site -types dating to the second millennium BC: settlement sites, sanctuaries, flat and barrow cemeteries. New evidence from pottery, together with anew series of high -precision radiocarbon (AMS) dates, fill the gap in the settlement chronology during the 2nd millennium and show that the Late Bronze Age in Upper Thrace started in the 16th/15th centuries BC (Leshtakov– Tsirtsoni 2016, 481–488, cf. especially the Chokoba 18 A site). The number of stray finds– hoards and individual metal artefacts excavated and purchased– was also significant and summarised in aspecial volume Gold & Bronze. Metals, Technologies and Interregional Contacts in the Eastern Balkans during the Bronze Age (Alexandrovetal. eds. 2018). Despite the accumulated data, except for some general articles related to the Upper Thracian Plain (Leshtakov 2002; Ivanova– Todorova 2014; Bozhinova 2012; Leshtakov– Tsirtsoni 2016), the surroundings of Drama (Lichardusetal. 2001; 2003), and afew articles on several archaeological sites situated to the east of Tundzha (Hristova 2009; 2010; 2011), there are no summary publications for the region between the Upper Thracian Plain and the Burgas Lowland. Given these facts, the following paragraphs represent an attempt to retrace the changes in forms, technology, and distribution of the pottery during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages across the study area and should help with the future reconstruction of the past of ancient Thracian society.
86 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/2 THE LATE BRONZE AGE POTTERY Morphology The Early and Middle Bronze Age Thracian society was probably organized in the form of some type of chiefdoms, which were characterized by the existence of tribal elites and tribal associations (Bonev 2003, 125–126). This organization is possibly reflected in the concentration of valuable objects– e.g. the élite graves of Ovchartsi, Izvorovo, or Kamen (Alexandrov 2018, 95). The period of the Late Bronze Age (16/15th–12/11th century BC) was atime of ‘ethnic’ consolidation in Thracian society, and that process may also be reflected in contemporary pottery assemblages. Thracian ethnogenesis has often been part of the Bronze Age discourse in Bulgaria and cannot be completely omitted here. However, since this amore complex topic, Iprefer not to go any deeper into the matter. In any case, certain features of pottery production and design which emerged during that period (for example, forming technique, forms) persisted throughout the Early Iron Age that followed (Bozkova 2015, 229). On the basis of technological features, such as the clay quality, wall thickness, surface treatment and firing, the pottery can be divided into various groups. On the other hand, according to function, vessels can be classified as tableware, cooking ware, and storage and transportation containers– the majority of them belonging to cooking ware. The pottery from Thrace contains locally produced hand -made pottery. Afew wheel -made fragments have been found, but they are all considered to be imports. The following hand -made vessels display alarge variety of shapes: cups, jugs, plates, bowls, kantharoid vessels, amphora -like vessels, jars, double -vessels, storage vessels, and pyraunoi, all common over alarge area (Bozkova 2015, 229–230; Hristova 2011, 104–137). Local combinations of shapes vary, with certain types predominating: for example, jugs and cups at the Nova Zagora cemetery (Kanchev– Kancheva 1990); kantharoid vessels in the Ovcharitsa cemetery (Kancheva -Russeva 1991); jugs and cups at Malkata Mogila Tumulus, near Golyana Detelina village and Manchova Mogila Tumulus, near Malka Detelina village (Kanchev 1991, 42–44; 46–47), and so on. In the following lines, each of the main typological groups will be discussed. Cups are the better -preserved vessels in the region. The size of the body and the inverted rims can be used as evidence for the function of the cups as drinking vessels. They can be divided into two main groups: large cups (Fig. 1:1) with high hollow feet and small cups with aflat base (Fig. 1:2–10). Quite commonly used were the S -profile vessels (Fig. 1:5–7), inverted truncated cone -shaped (Fig. 1:10), cylindrical (Fig. 1:8–9) and spherical cups (Fig. 1:2). Some of the vessels are richly decorated with Furchenstich, atype of decoration typical for the period, placed on the widest part of the body (Fig. 1:1,4,8). Ornamentation includes mainly angles, triangles and rhombi, sometimes ending with spirals. Jugs are also among the popular vessels used during the Late Bronze Age. Most of them have spherical, flattened -spherical (Fig. 2:2–9) or oval bodies with conical necks (Fig. 2:10–11); the territory discussed here yielded some samples with rich Furchenstich decoration (Fig. 2:4,7). The preferred motif is the circle, which, in many cases in combination with other geometric elements, creates an impression similar to the so -called ‘solar motifs’. The inclusion of additional elements such as spirals, straight or curved lines, dots, combined in different ways gives the impression of avariety of these ‘solar images’ (Fig. 2:1,3,7; Borislavov 2002).
87ROSITSA HRISTOVA Fig. 1: Late Bronze Age cups: 1. Nova Zagora (after Nikov 2001, fig. 4c); 2. Radnevo ‘Staroto Selishte’ (Savatinov 1995, fig. 2e); 3. Nova Zagora (drawing by R. Hristova); 4. Izvor (after Nikov 2001, fig. 4f); 5, 6. Nova Zagora (drawing by R. Hristova); 7. Tsenino (after Hänsel 1976, Taf. 36:1); 8. Vratitsa (photo and drawing by R. Hristova); 9. Nova Zagora (drawing by R. Hristova); 10. Ov‑ charitsa II (after Kancheva ‑Russeva 1991, fig. 3g).
88 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/2 Plates and bowls (Fig. 3,4) can be defined as food -serving vessels. Although both categories are associated with food consumption, certain differences in their function are suggested. Bowls were probably used for food distribution and were therefore deeper, while plates were used for food consumption (Leshtakov 1988, 7). The presence of aspout (Fig. 4:2–4) in some vessels is an indication of their main function associated with the serving of food and pouring liquids. Finding the fragmented ceramics sometimes creates aproblem in distinguishing between bowls and plates because of their similar forms. Most of the vessels have slightly bi -conical or spherical to hemispherical shapes. Some of them are equipped with spouts, aform popular Fig. 2: Late Bronze Age jugs: 1. Malkata Mogila Tumulus (after Kanchev 1991, fig. 7a); 2. Nova Zago‑ ra (after Nikov 2001, fig. 4b); 3. Goliama Detelina (after Kanchev 1991, fig. 6b); 4. Nova Zagora (after Nikov 2001, fig. 4d); 6, 9. Nova Zagora (picture by R. Hristova); 7. Chatalka (after Nikov 2001, fig. 4e); 8. Radnevo ‘Staroto Selishte’ (after Savatinov 1995, fig. 2d); 5, 10, 12. Plovdiv (after Detev 1964, fig. 4); 11. Zagortsi (after Kancheva ‑Russeva– Leshtakov 2015, fig. 3).
89ROSITSA HRISTOVA since the Middle Bronze Age (Leshtakov– Tsirtsoni 2016, 486, 488, fig. 5). Most plates and bowls are not decorated, or have very ordinary ornamentation, such as knobs (Fig. 3:1). In afew cases, ornaments such as angles, triangles, rhombi, nets, stylized birds were incised over the whole outer surface. The rich ornamental style of the vessel in Fig. 3:2 follows the Fig. 4: Late Bronze Age plates/bowls: 1. Radnevo ‘Staroto Selishte’ (after Savatinov 1995, fig. 2g); 2. Chokoba 18 A (after Leshtakov 2010, fig. 1:4); 3, 4. Chokoba 18 (after Petrova– Katsarov 2010, fig. 2); 5–7. Ovcharitsa II (after Kancheva ‑Russeva 1991, fig. 3). Fig. 3: Late Bronze Age bowls: 1. Chokoba 18 A (after Leshtakov 2010, fig. 1:3); 2. Ovcharitsa II (af‑ ter Kancheva ‑Russeva 2000, fig. 25.2:4).
90 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/2 traditions of the Balkan geometric style characteristic of the culture with encrusted pottery in Northwest Bulgaria, Southwest Romania, and Northeast Serbia in the Late Bronze Age (Kuncheva -Russeva 2000, 325; Shalganova 2005, fig. 33, 46). The kantharoid vessels have aspecific form and style characteristic for the Late Bronze Age: rounded bodies, conical necks, sometimes alow hollow base. Two handles are attached to the orifice. Some sub -types differ in the location of the handles and the transitional part between the neck and the shoulders. Some of the vessels are richly decorated with incisions which Fig. 5: Late Bronze Age kantharoid vessels. 1. Drama ‑Merdžumekja (after Lichardusetal. 2003, Abb. 2); 2. Tsenino (after Hänsel 1976, Taf. 36:2); 3. Razkopanitsa (after Katincharov 1989, fig. 5f); 4–5. Manchova Mogila Tumulus (after Kanchev 1991, fig. 4b, d); 6–7. Ovcharitsa II (after Kancheva ‑Russeva 2000, fig. 25.2:1–2).
91ROSITSA HRISTOVA cover most of the body and the lower part of the handles (Fig. 5:1,3). Designs with triangles are popular while dots and lines are added to the composite pattern. The relief decoration of small knobs applied in the zone of the shoulders is also notable. Spherical kantharoid vessels are widespread in the Balkan Peninsula; they were quite typical for along time: from 1600 to 1200 BC (Alexandrov– Petkov– Ivanov 2007, 373–387; Wardle– Wardle 2007, pl. 14; Andreou– Psaraki 2007, fig. 5; Mitrevski 2007, 443–450; Bulatovich 2011, fig. 1). Kanthoroid vessels with ahemispherical shape, astraight profiled neck, high hollow feet or aplate base, and specifically shaped relief decoration on the top of the handles (Fig. 5:6) are identified as belonging to the transitional period between the Late Bronze and the Early Iron Age (Kuncheva -Russeva 2000, 325). For an overview of the development in the west cf. Horejs 2007, 115–126. Fig. 6: Late Bronze Age Amphora ‑like vessels: 1–4. Plovdiv (after Detev 1964, fig. 6a, g,v, 7v).
98 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/2 the remaining traces are visible to the naked eye (Sinopoli 1991, 25–26). Some vessels show evidence of ashell being used to achieve the desired form. Given the fact that Late Bronze Age settlements were established close to rivers, using river shells as forming tools is understandable. Pottery surfaces included various colours, mostly shades of brown, black, grey, red, and beige. The cores display avariety: one-, two, three, or multi -layered breaks,5 and show different firing conditions. Types of Evidence Generally, most of the Late Bronze Age material (Map 2) comes from flat necropoleis: Nova Zagora, Kermen, Radnevo ‘Staroto Selishte’, Polski Gradets, Ovcharitsa II, Drama -Merdžumekja, Badu Bunar, Tsenino, Manole, Plovdiv -Djendemtepe (Kanchev – Kancheva 1990; Nikov– Stoitsov– Yorgova 2010; Savatinov 1995, 147–149; Nikov 2001, 70–71; Kuncheva -Russeva 2000; Lichardusetal. 2001, 172; Koychev 1959; Gotsev 2008, 110); tumuli: Manchova Mogila Tumulus, Malkata Mogila Tumulus (Kanchev 1991, 42–43, 46–47), villages: Razkopanitsa tell, Ovcharitsa-1, Asenovets, Radnevo ‘Staroto Selishte’, Vratitsa,6 Zagortsi, Chokoba 18 A(Detev 1968, fig. 22; Kancheva -Russeva 1991, 71–74; Kanchev 1984, 136–149; Savatinov 1995; Hristova 2011, 104–137; Kancheva -Russeva 2010, 170–171; Kancheva -Russseva– Koleva 2011, 147–150; Leshtakov 2010, 129–131; Leshtakov 2011, 126–129) and pit complexes: Badu Bunar, Plovdiv (Hristova 2009, 41–42; Detev 1964). Map 2: Map of the investigated archaeological sites from the Late Bronze Age in the territory of the Upper Thracian Plain to the Burgas Lowland. 5 According to B. Horejs to classify the break of asherd, the following visually identifiable categories have proved sufficient: smooth, slaty, and grainy, with intermediate grades if necessary (Horejs 2010, 21). 6 Some of the pottery drawings from the Vratitsa site are made by V. Petrova and N. Todorova (Sofia University) with additional work by the author.
99ROSITSA HRISTOVA The preferred burial inventory in the flat cemeteries were cups, jugs, and kantharoid vessels. In general, the decorated vessels found in graves are not numerous (Malkata Mogila Tumulus, Nova Zagora, Drama -Merdžumekja, Ovcharitsa, and Kermen). Finding adecorated kantoroid vessel with abronze rapier (i.e. aslender, sharply pointed sword) in the grave of Drama, as well as adecorated jug together with abronze arrow from the Malkata Mogila Tumulus shows that decorated vessels were aspecific burial commodity. These decorated ceramics were placed in the graves of warriors or special status people. The type of vessel excavated from agrave with cremation located close to the village of Manole is described in the literature as amphora type Gava A. This amphora is interesting because its shape was unfamiliar in Thrace and had no further development. Conversely, it was typical in the Carpatho -Danubian region’sfluted pottery cultures, dated probably to the 11th century BC, but not later than the second half of the 10th century BC (Gumă 1995; Chichikova 1968, 17–18; Gotsev 2010). According to Aleksey Gotsev these vessels mark the transition period between the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age in Thrace. Despite the cremation from the Malkata Mogila Tumulus, the burial sites of Badu Bunar, Manole, and Djendem Tepe are also in contrast with the tradition of inhumation common in the region during both the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age. It is possible that these objects trace some movements of peoples or ideas in the first centuries of the Early Iron Age (Gotsev 2010, 76). Unlike cemetery materials, the ceramics from the settlements represent all known categories for the period. Among the excavated Late Bronze pottery only afew wheel -made fragments were found, which are considered imports. In the Upper Thracian Plain, such pottery only came from the archaeological sites of Vratitsa (Burgas district; Hristova 2011, 105). Initially, some finds with an incised wavy -line decoration from Drama -Kayryaka (Yambol district) were interpreted as comparable to Late Troy VI and VIIa (Lichardusetal. 2002, 177, Abb. 12), but later on it became clear that the fragments actually date to the Early Iron Age (Troy VIIb) (Pavúk 2018, 274). THE EARLY IRON AGE PERIODIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT The end of the Late Bronze Age and the beginning of the Early Iron Age in the territory of the Upper Thracian Plain to the Burgas Lowland have not yet been clearly distinguished. According to some archaeologists, such as Henrieta Todorova (1973), Ivan Panayotov (1989, 1995), and Rumen Katincharov (1982), the Late Bronze Age finished in the 12 th century BC, while Vasil Mikov (1971) and Yavor Boyadziev (1995) assumed the Bronze Age continued until the 11th century BC.According to new radiocarbon datings of material from different sites situated in the territory of Southeastern Bulgaria the transitional period between the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age started in the 12th century BC, while the Early Iron Age spanned the 11th and 10th century BC (Nekhrizov– Tzvetkova 2018, 36). The absence of astratified sequence in the culture layers from Late Bronze to Early Iron Age in archaeological sites situated in the Upper Thrace Plain, as well as the absence of systematically excavated and published sites, is the main problem in defining the end of the use of Bronze Age pottery. In the Rhodope Mountains it is presumed that between 1100–1050 BC there existed aceramic style preceding the fluted decorated pottery typical for the Early Iron Age. This style combined elements and features typical of both the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Early Iron Age (Leshtakov 2007, 85–99). Based on this evidence, Kr. Leshakov claimed this short period could certainly be described as atransition.
100 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/2 Due to the fact that the ceramics from the Upper Thracian Plain show developments in ceramics similar to those in the Eastern Rhodopes (Zdravkova -Dimitrova 2007, fig. 7:4–6, 8:8–14, 9:5–7; Dimitrova 2009), it is completely possible asimilar development be traced in the lands north of the Rhodope Mountains. At this stage of archaeological research, in the Upper Thracian Plain the pottery of Manole, Djendemtepe, and Ovcharitsa II showed signs of transience and probably fall within that transitional period (Gotsev 2010, 76; Kuncheva -Russeva 2000, 325–329). The ceramic materials from the investigated region show that the new pottery style characterized by flutes (cannelures, channels; Figs. 12–15) replaced that of the Late Bronze Age within quite ashort period in the first stage of the Early Iron Age and remained conservative for the entire Early Iron Age. The prototypes of the new shapes with fluted decorations are to be found in the Urnfield cultures of the central part of Eastern Europe (Chichikova 1968, 16–19; Bozhinova 2012, 54). This decoration evolved first in the final stage of the Lower Danube Culture with encrusted pottery during the Ha A1 period, under influences from the Middle and Lower Danube cultures. Slightly later it became popular over nearly all of Thrace (Hänsel 1976, 113–117; Bozhinova 2012, 54). Asimilar trend is marked for the contacts of Troy: imports from the East Mediterranean that are numerous in the Troy VI layers cease in the following layer, Troy VIIb, where they are mainly of northwestern origin. According to recent research the appearance of the new pottery style is much more likely to represent anew fashion than amajor migration. Apossible mechanism for its spread in Thrace was the import of metal vessels.7 The theory about this northern influence can be explained with another European influence noticeable in the appearance of fibulae in Thrace at the end of the Late Bronze Age, which was starting to become atypical feature of Thracian culture from the beginning of the Iron Age onwards. While the settlement pattern of the Early Iron Age in Upper Thrace shows continuity with the previous age, the Late Bronze Age, the appearance of fluted pottery coincides with new traditions in the burial rites where inhumation with the body laid in astretched position was established as the predominant ritual (Bozhinova 2012, 54–56). The other problem of the Early Iron Age in the Upper Thracian Plain is connected with the clarification of the different phases making up the period, with the border at the 9th–8th century BC.It must be established that either 1) there exists one clear phase of fluted decoration followed by ahorizon with stamped decoration; or 2) only one horizon with mixed ceramics during the whole Early Iron Age. This is the main unresolved issue. The problem comes from the fact that until now in the whole investigated region under study there is no archaeological site where alayer with fluted pottery style is followed by alayer with astamped style. In the vicinity of Sakar and the Eastern Rhodope Mountains there are some sanctuaries (for example: Perpericon, Aul kaya, Ada Tepe, Semercheto: Leshtakov 2007, 88–92; Zdravkova -Dimitrova 2007, 496–497; Nekhrizov– Tzvetkova 2018, 22; Bozhinova 2012, 53) that meet the needed criteria, but the direct transfer of information from sacred places to ordinary settlements, as well as vice versa, is very risky (Leshtakov 2004, 65). Despite the lack of clarity about the periods of the Early Iron Age in the area it is afact that the style of ceramics changed significantly after the 9th century BC.The 8th century BC was characterized by an evolutionary development of all aspects of the culture, including ceramics (Shalganova– Gotsev 1995, 7 In the whole territory of modern Bulgaria some golden bowls decorated in the European style of flute wares have been found. One is afind from the Danube island of Belene; one is part of atreasure found in Sofia along with abronze cauldron and aclay bowl; the other one was found in agrave with inhumation under atumulus (together with fluted pottery and an iron sword of the Naue type); the last one originated probably from Central North Bulgaria, Pleven region, and is now part of aprivate collection. Adating from the 8th to 7th century BC was suggested for these finds (Bozhinova 2012, 54–55).
101ROSITSA HRISTOVA 330–334; Gotsev 1994, 97–128). This developed phase (II) of the Early Iron Age is identified with apottery style known as the Pshenichevo group8 (Figs. 16–17). Pshenichevo is the name of the first excavated site in which richly geometrically decorated pottery was found (Hänsel 1976, 192–213). The main characteristic of these vessels is decoration implemented by stamps– mainly concentric circles connected with tangents, an S -ornament forming rows of running spirals, and pseudo -cord motifs. All these motifs were often combined with flutes. Pottery decoration develops gradually from simple to elaborate compositions. The rich geometric decoration of the Pshenichevo style is aphenomenon common to all of Southeast Thrace– the region of the Maritsa and Tundzha Rivers, Sakar, Strandja, and the Eastern Rhodopes. The ornate decoration is less often seen in the west, where its perimeter should be placed in the region of Plovdiv. Further to the east, this diversity is presented in single objects (Ravadinovo). Judging by the materials known so far, Early Iron Age pottery after the 9th century BC demonstrates atendency to the formation of local variants. In contrast to its gradual beginning, this second phase ends abruptly (Bozhinova 2012, 58–59). THE EARLY IRON AGE POTTERY Morphology Compared with the vessels from the Late Bronze Age there are no changes in the classes of Early Iron Age pottery. Forms include various types of cups, jugs, plates/bowls, kantharoid vessels, amphora -like vessels, jars, and large storage vessels. According to their function, Early Iron Age pottery can be said to fall into several groups– for liquids (cups, jugs, kantharoid vessels), for food (plates/bowls), and food storage (amphora -like vessels, storage vessels). The group which comprises vessels for liquids is subdivided into vessels for drinking (cups and kantharoid vessels), for pouring liquids (vessels with oblique rims), for transportation or storage of liquids (amphora -like vessels), and vessels with special functions (double vessels). We should keep in mind that some of the vessels were used for various purposes, i.e. they were multifunctional (Fig. 11:4). At the beginning of the Early Iron Age, most cups had hemispherical bodies decorated only with flutes (Bozhinova 2012, fig. 5)– horizontal on the transition between the mouth and the body and vertical on the body (Fig. 11:2–5). In some cases, asmall knob was formed on the widest part of the vessel (Fig. 11:4,5). The handles rise high above the mouth, sometimes with ‘elbow’ bends in its upper part, with fluted decoration in some cases. Cups with aconic shape and high handles without decoration are very typical for that period and can be used as amarker of the very beginning of the Early Iron Age. This shape has very good parallels with the golden cups (kyathoi) from the Vulchitrun treasure,9 whose date according to some 8 In 1976, Hänsel defined the successive Early Iron Age groups of ‘Chatalka’ and ‘Pshenichevo’, and synchronized them with similar groups to the north (Babadag Iand II) and south (Limnotopos, Axiochory, Kerameikos). Concerning the absolute dating, he suggested the 11th century BC for ‘Chatalka’ and the beginning of the 10th– end of the 7th century BC for ‘Pshenichevo’ (Hänsel 1976, 195–213). Even now, after decades of investigations of the Early Iron Age culture in Thrace revealing better stratified and studied sites, the term is used synonymously for the typical Early Iron Age stamped decoration (Nekhrizov– Tzvetkova 2018, 17–18). 9 On December 28, 1924, while deep -ploughing avineyard in the Durtite Lozya vineyard near the village of Vulchitrun, workers unexpectedly dug up acollection of gold objects: akantharos, four kyathoi, atriple vessel, and disks with handles in the form of bulbs. All are made of solid gold, alloyed with silver and small quantities of copper and iron. At the present stage of research the ritual function of the treasure is accepted as the most plausible (Bonev 1995, 277, 287).
102 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/2 scientists is attributed to the end of the Late Bronze Age, while others noted that the treasure marks the very beginning of the Early Iron Age (discussion in Bonev 1977; Shalganova 2003). There is also atendency for jugs to have ahemispherical body; during the beginning of the Early Iron Age, jugs were limited in quantity, even absent. It is possible because some cups larger in size could have been used as jugs (Fig. 11:4). Compared with the forms of the Late Bronze Age, kantharoid vessels changed to hemi - spherical; handles became taller and ‘fan -shaped’ (Fig. 12:1–2). During the first centuries of the Early Iron Age decoration included only flutes, placed on the body and upper visible part of the handles, as well as the small knob on the wider part of the body, likewise on the cups. Fig. 11: Cups with flute decoration. First phase of the Early Iron Age: 1–2. Ovcharitsa II (after Kancheva ‑Russeva 1991, fig. 3d, e); 3. Radnevo ‘First Primary School’ (after Georgieva 1991, fig. 1a); 4. Yambol (after Shalganova– Gotzev 1995, fig 2:3); 5. Kabyle (drawing by Hyungjoo Lee). Fig. 12: Kantharoid vessels with flute decoration. First phase of the Early Iron Age: 1. Kukuva Mogila Tumulus, Duvanlii (after Filov 1934, fig. 33); 2. Malko Tranovo (after Bozhkova– Nikov 2010, fig. 6); 3. Gorno Cherkovishte (after Bozhinova 2011, fig. 17).
103ROSITSA HRISTOVA Fig. 13: Plates. First phase of the Early Iron Age: 1. Ovcharitsa II (after Kancheva ‑Russeva 1991, fig. 4b); 2–7. Radnevo ‘First Primary School’ (after Savatinov 1995, fig. 3a, b, m and Nikov 1994, fig. 3a, b, v). Inverted cone -shaped plates with incurved rims and slanting flute decoration on the rim, are represented in the region under study by several types and variants.(Fig. 13). The vessels with slanted flutes on the rim were the most common. They are persistent and have awide -range of analogies (Bozhinova– Michailov 2009, 91). Aplate excavated from Staroto Selishte, near Radnevo (Savatinov1995, 149–150, fig. 3а) deserves particular attention because it has been found as asingle example, with its high horizontal handle held above the mouth (Fig. 13:2). Similar handles rising above the mouth are characteristic of the Late Bronze Age (the so -called ‘wishbone’). The closest – and single – parallel among the materials in Bulgaria is the plate from Badu Bunar, near the town of Karnobat, dated later, between the 9th and 8th century BC.These vessels have been found throughout the Early Iron Age in Macedonia and are evidenced in all layers of Kastanas, asite that is the main chronological benchmark in the Balkans for the Iron Age (Bozhinova– Michailov 2009, 93). The amphora -shaped assemblage deserves special attention, as apart of the representative local Balkan variant of Gava amphorae Type B, or the so -called ‘Buckel Amphorae’. This pottery class (Fig. 14) resembles the other vessels for serving and eating. They are impressive with their outer surfaces in black burnished to ametallic shine and decoration consisting of small or big hollow knobs/buckles combined with horizontally and vertically placed flutes.
104 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/2 Some of the vessels have no handles, others have no buckles. This type of vessels is anatural continuation of the popular Gava Type A, which was popular during the period НаА (12th–11th century BC) after Müller -Karpe (Chichikova 1968, 17). Fig. 14: Amphorae with flute decoration. First phase of the Early Iron Age: 1–3. Radnevo ‘First Primary School’ (after Nikov 1994, fig. 5a and Georgieva 1991, fig. 1b, v); 2. Maritsa ‑Iztok re‑ gion (after Gotzev 1994, fig. 1v); 4. Asenovets (after Bozhinova 2012, fig. 3); 5. Gabarevo (after Gotsev 1994, fig. 1g). Jars are among the most widely represented vessels. Their shape and decoration have not changed much compared to the previous period. They are most often provided with two vertical handles and uniform ornamentation, mostly plastic elements, relief bands, and incisions.
105ROSITSA HRISTOVA While the main repertoire of types was formed in the first centuries of the Early Iron Age, the evolution of the pottery that followed (after the 9th century BC) concerned mostly decoration, especially incised and stamped patterns, as well as their combination with flutes or embossed projections. There is achange in some forms. The S -shaped or bi -conical cups have handles high above the mouth and decoration made by acombination of straight lines composed of triangles (Gergieva 1983, 124). The handles of the kantharoid vessels are shorter and their bodies are decorated with incised lines (Shalganova– Gotsev 1995, 331, fig. 2.5). Fig. 15: Storage vessels. Early Iron Age (9th–8th century BC): 1. Chenger №1 (after Balabanov– Pan‑ tov 2015, fig. 2); 2. Kermen (after Kancheva ‑Russeva– Leshtakov 2013, fig. 3); 3. Zavoi (after Bakardziev 2010, fig. 2). Jugs of the 9th–8th century BC have elongated necks and spherical bodies, also decorated with the preferred incised lines. The pots used for storage (Fig. 15) have increased in size and grown diversified in shape. The vessel shown in Fig. 15:2 has asingle parallel found in the East Rhodope Mountains at the Gluhite Kamuni site in level IV (Nehrizov 2017, 21), but there the form is ornate in the style of the second stage of the Early Iron Age (Fig. 19:3 and 4).
106 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/2 Fig. 16: Amphorae from the Second phase of the Early Iron Age: 1. Nova Zagora tell (after Bonev 2003, tabl. 68); 2, 7, 8, 10, 11. Diadovo (after Czyborra 2001, Taf. 26, 27); 3–6, 9. Pshenichevo (af‑ ter Gotzev 1994, fig. 8:12, 9:4, 6, 8, 10); 12. Ravadinovo (after Gotzev 1994, fig. 9:7).
107ROSITSA HRISTOVA Fig. 17: Jugs, cups, and bowls from the Second phase of the Early Iron Age: 1–2. Jeleznik (drawing by Sungjoo Lee and after Daskalovetal. 2010, fig. 3); 3–5, 8. Ravadinovo (after Shalganova– Got‑ zev 1995, fig. 2:2 and Gotzev 1994, fig. 4:12, 6:4–5); 6, 7, 9. Pshenichevo (after Gotzev 1994, fig. 8:4, 6, 7). The time after the 9 th century shows atendency to richer decoration, which is observed on cups, bowls, kantharoid and amphora -like vessels (Fig. 16–17). The aesthetic effect of stamped and incised motifs was strengthened by awhite filling. Towards the middle of the 8th century BC, anew class of pottery– pithoi appeared, called ‘wide stamp’ decoration. The appearance and development of these pithoi in Southeastern Thrace has been well established (from the mid-8 th century to the 6th century BC) (Georgieva 2003, 170), but unfortunately, all known examples from Southern Thrace are fragmented, which allows no certainty in form identification. Despite the variety of decorative patterns, the motifs can be defined as S -shaped stamps, large round stamps, herringbone decoration. The geographic distribution of this pottery allows for differentiation in three spatial groups– Northeast (the region of Tundzha and Sakar), South (Rhodope Mountains), and Northwest (the region around Plovdiv and south of it; Fig. 18). Such pottery was also found further south in Aegean Thrace and Phrygia. Because there was no direct contact between these areas, the connection was indirect and was accomplished through metal ornaments (Nikov 2002, 19–27).
114 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/2 Bozhinova– Michailov 2009 = Божинова, Е.– Михайлов, Й. 2009: Сондажно проучване на обект при км 6+400-6+500 (Селищен обект от ранната желязна епоха). In: Спасителни археологически проучвания по трасето на АМ „Тракия,“ ЛОТ 5, обходен път на град Карнобат, км 6+400‑6+800. Варна, 79–107. Bozkova, A. 2015: The Pottery of Ancient Thrace. In: J. Valeva– E. Nankov– D. Graninger (eds.): ACompanion to Ancient Thrace. Chichester, 229–242. Bozhkova– Petrova 2010 = Божкова, А.– Петрова, А. 2010: Спасително проучване на Обект 25, ЛОТ 4 по трасето на АМ Тракия край с. Маленово, общ. Стралджа. АОР през 2009 г., 156–158. Bozhkova– Nikov 2010 = Божкова, А.– Ников. К. 2010: Археологическо проучване на комплекс от ями вземлището с. Малко Тръново, община Чирпан– югозападен сектор. Предварителни бележки. In: Югоизточна България II–Iхилядолетие пр. Хр. Варна, 212–220. Bozhkova– Petrova 2011 = Божкова, А.– Петрова. А. 2011: Археологическо проучване на Обект 25, ЛОТ 4, АМ Тракия, край с. Маленово, общ. Стралджа. АОР през 2010 г., 144–145. Bulatovich 2011 = Булатовиħ, Ал. 2011: Карактеристичне керамичке форме на централном Балкану иу северноj Егеjи у позно бронзано доба. Старинар LXI, 121–140. Chichikova 1968 = Чичикова, М. 1968: Керамика от старата желязна епоха вТракия. Археология 4, 15–27. Čičikova, M. 1978: La Thrace à l’époque Homérique et Géométrique. In: E. Akurgal (ed.): Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Classical Archaeology. Ankara, 187–194. Dankova– Belkov– Nikov 1991 = Данкова, Г.– Велков, К.– Ников, К. 1991: Спасителни археологически проучвания на обект „Староселец“ през 1990 г. In: Марица ‑Изток. Археологически проучвания 1. София, 307–340. Daskalov– Trendafilova 2009 = Даскалов, М.– Трендафилова, К. 2009: Сондажно археологическо проучване на обект №33, км 318+400-318+500, ЛОТ 4, АМ Тракия, вземлището на с. Железник, община Карнобат. AOP през 2008 г., 258–260. Daskalovetal. 2010 = Даскалов, М.– Трендафилова, К.– Георгиев, П. 2010: Спасително археологическо проучване на обект №33, км 318+400-318+500, ЛОТ 4, АМ Тракия, вземлището на с. Железник, общ. Карнобат. AOP през 2009 г., 147–149. Detev 1964 = Детев, П. 1964: Колективна находка от глинени съдове вПловдив. Археология 4, 66–70. Detev, P.1968: Traces de la civilisation de Razkopanitza en Transylvanie. Apulum VII/1, 61–90. Dimitrov 1968 = Димитров, Д. 1968: Троя VIIb2 ибалканските тракийски имизийски племена. Археология 4, 1–15. Dimitrova 2009 = Димитрова, Я. 2009: Керамика от късната бронзова иранно желязната епоха от крепостта Лютица, Ивайловградско. In: LAUREA. In honorem Margaritae Vaklinova II. София, 15–32. Dimitrova 2014 = Димитрова, Я. 2014: Керамичен комплекс от късната бронзова иранната желязна епоха от светилището Бабяк. Археология 1–2, 7–27. Donchev– Karakashev 2001 = Дончев, Д.– Каракашев, Хр. 2001: Теми по физическа исоциално‑ ‑икономическа география на България. София. Filov– Velkov– Mikov 1934 = Филов, Б.– Велков, И.– Миков, В. 1934: Надгробните могили при Дуванлий, Пловдивско. София. Georgiev 1991 = Георгиев, М. 1991: Физическа география на България. София. Georgieva 1983 = Георгиева, Р. 1983: Селището от ранножелязната епоха върху селищната могила до с. Дядово (предварителни наблюдения). Expeditio Thracia 5, 105–125. Georgieva 2003 = Георгиева, Р. 2003: Керамиката от ранната желязна епоха вЮгозападна България ифеноменът „Цепина“. Pyraichmes 2, 159–185. Gergova– Iliev 1982 = Гергова, Д.– Илиев, И. 1982: Към въпроса за поселищното развитие врайона на Кабиле иЮгоизточна Тракия през II–Iхил. пр.н.е. In: V. Naydenova– P.Petrov– V. Velkov (eds.): Първи национален симпозиум „Поселищен живот вТракия“. Ямбол, 11–23. Getov 1965 = Гетов, Л. 1965: Могилни погребения при с. Долно Сахране, Старозагорско. Известия на Археологическия институт XXVIII, 203–229.
115ROSITSA HRISTOVA Gotsev, A. 1994: Decoration of the early Iron Age Pottery from Southeast Bulgaria. In: H. Ciugudean– N. Boroffka (eds.): The Early Hallstatt Age (1200–700 B.C.) in Southeastern Europe. Proceedings of the International Symposium from Alba Iulia, 10–12 June, 1993. Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis 1. Alba Iulia, 97–128. Gotsev 2008 = Гоцев, А. 2008: Проучвания на ранножелязната епоха вЮгоизточна България– няколко десетки години по -късно. In: Phosphorion. Studia in honorem Mariae Čičikova. Sofia, 109–113. Gotsev 2010 = Гоцев, А. 2010: Преходът късна бронзова– ранножелязна епоха вЮгоизточна България. In: Югоизточна България през II–Iхилядолетие пр. Хр. Варна, 71–78. Gumă, M. 1995: The end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Early Iron Age in south -western Romania, western Serbia and north -western Bulgaria. Ashort review. Thraco ‑Dacica XVI/1–2, 99–137. Hänsel, B. 1976: Beiträge zür regionalen und chronologischen Gliederung der älteren Hallstattzeit an der unteren Donau. Beiträge zur urund frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer -Kulturraumes 16–17. Bonn. Horejs, B. 2007: Das Prähistorische Olynth. Ausgrabungen in der Toumba Agios Mamas 1994–1996. Die spät‑ bronzezeitliche handgemachte Keramik der Schichten 13 bis 1. Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 21. Rahden/Westf. Horejs, B. 2010: Possibilities and Limitations in Analysing Ceramic Wares. In: B. Horejs– R. Jung– P.Pavúk (eds.): Analysing Pottery. Processing– Classification– Publication. Studia archaeologica et mediaevalia 10. Bratislava, 15–27. Horejs, B. 2017: Zum Alltagsleben der Ada Tepe Goldproduzenten im 15. Jh. v. Chr. Das Fundensemble aus Haus 7 in funktionaler und kontextueller Analyse. Archaeologia Austriaca 101, 205–268. Hristova 2009 = Христова, Р. 2009: Материали от ранната икъсната бронзова епоха при проучването на трасето на АМ „Тракия,“ ЛОТ 5, км 6+400‑6+800. In: Спасителни разкопки по трасето на АМ „Тракия,“ ЛОТ 5, км 6+400-6+800. Варна, 33–49. Hristova 2010 = Христова, Р. 2010: Характеристика на керамиката от късната бронзова епоха от обект при с. Вратица, община Камено. In: Югоизточна България през II–Iхилядолетие пр. Хр. Варна, 38–62. Hristova, R.2011: Characteristic Features of the Bronze Age Pottery from aSite Near the Village of Vratitsa, Municipality of Kameno. Arkeoloji, Anadolu & Avrasya 1–2, 104–137. Ivanova– Todorova 2014 = Иванова, Р.– Тодорова, Н. 2014: Спасителни археологически проучвания на обект от късната бронзова епоха вм. „Запортите Саи“, Чирпанско (някои аспекти на селищните модели вГорна Тракия XV–XII в. пр. Хр.). Studia Archaeologica Universitatis Serdicentis 4/2008. София, 25–87. Kanchev 1984 = Кънчев, М. 1984: Селища инаходки от късната бронзова иранножелязната епоха вНовозагорско. Thracia VI, 134–159. Kanchev 1991 = Кънчев, М. 1991: Некрополи от бронзовата епоха врайона на „Марица -Изток“. In: „Марица ‑Изток“. Археологически проучвания 1. София, 41–82. Kanchev– Kancheva 1990 = Кънчев, М.– Кънчева, Т. 1990: Некропол от късната бронзова епоха, източно от Нова Загора. Археология 4, 8–14. Kancheva -Russeva 1991 = Кънчева -Русева, Т. 1991: Праисторическо селище от късната бронзова иранната желязна епоха „Овчарица‑2“. In: „Марица ‑Изток“. Археологически проучвания 1. София, 71–82. Kancheva–Russeva 2010 = Кънчева -Русева, Т. 2010: Спасителни археологически разкопки на обект 18, ЛОТ 2, АМ „Тракия“, от км 236+850 до км 237+060, с. Загорци, община Нова Загора. AOP през 2009 г., 170–171. Kancheva -Russeva– Koleva 2011 = Кънчева -Русева, Т.– Колева, Д. 2011: Археологически проучвания на обект 18, АМ Тракия, ЛОТ 2, км 236+850-237+060, м. Юрта, с. Загорци, община Нова Загора. AOP през 2010 г., 147–150. Kancheva -Russeva– Leshtakov 2013 = Кънчева -Русева, Т. – Лещаков, Л. 2013: Спасителни археологически проучвания на обект от км 266+420 до км 266+660, ЛОТ 3, АМ „Тракия“, землище на гр. Кермен, община Сливен. AOP през 2012 г., 112–114.
116 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/2 Katincharov 1982 = Катинчаров, Р. 1982: Произход, периодизация ихронология на бронзовата епоха вБългария. In: Thracia Praehistorica. Pulpudeva Suppl. III. Sofia, 132–149. Kitov– Bozhinova 2005 = Китов, Г.– Божинова, Е. 2005: Манчова могила от ранножелязната епоха вдолината на тракийските владетели. In: Земите на България. Люлка на тракийската култура II. София, 115–121. Koychev 1959 = Койчев, Н. 1959: Необнародвани паметници от Новозагорско. Археология 1–2, 92–95. Kuncheva -Russeva, T. 2000: Late Prehistoric Burials in the Area of OvcharitsaII. In: L. Nikolova (ed.): Technology, Style and Society. Contributions to the Innovations between the Alps and Black sea in Prehistory. BAR International Series 854. Oxford, 325–329. Kuzmanov 2008 = Кузманов, М. 2008: Троя итраките. Проучвания на керамичния материал от ранножелязната епоха. In: Phosphorion. Studia in honorem Mariae Čičikova. Sofia, 94–108. Leshtakov 1988 = Лещаков, К. 1988: Основни класификационни принципи за керамиката от ранната исредната бронзова епоха вТракия. Археология 3, 1–13. Leshtakov, K. 2004: The Thracian Settlement at Assara (Constancia) near Simeonovgrad. Известия на Историческия Музей Хасково 2, 23–76. Leshtakov 2007 = Лещаков, К. 2007: Керамика сбелези на прехода от КБЕ към РЖЕ поданни от последните разкопки на Перперикон. Известия на Старозагорския исторически музей 2, 85–99. Leshtakov, K. 2009: The Second Millennium BC in the Northern Aegean and the Adjacent Balkan Lands. Main Dynamics Cultural Interaction. In: Ζ.Ι. Bonias– J.Y. Perreault (eds.): Greeks and Thracians in Coastal and Inland Thrace during the Years and after the Great Colonization. Proceedings of the International Symposium, Thasos, 26–27 September 2008. Thasos, 53–82. Leshtakov 2010 = Лещаков, К. 2010: Спасителни разкопки на обект 18А, м. Бозаджийска кория, землище на с. Чокоба, община Сливен (АМ Тракия– ЛОТ 3 км 270+300-270+500). AOP през 2009 г., 129–131. Leshtakov 2011 = Лещаков, К. 2011: Обект 18А, ЛОТ 3 по трасето на АМ „Тракия“, км 270+300-270+500. Селища от бронзовата инеолитната епоха край с. Чокоба, Сливенско. AOP през 2010 г., 126–129. Leshtakov, K.– Tsirtsoni, Z. 2016: Caesurae in the Bronze Age Chronology of Eastern Bulgaria. In: V. Nikolov– W. Schier (eds.): Der Schwarzmeerraum Vom Neolithikum Bis in die Früheisenzeit (6000–600 v. Chr.). Kulturelle Interferenzen in der Zirkumpontischen Zone und Kontakte mit ihren Nachbargebieten. Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 30. Rahden/Westf., 477–492. Lihardusetal. 2001 = Лихардус, Я.– Фол, А.– Гетов, Л.– Бертемес, Б.– Ехт, Р. –Катинчаров, Р.– Илиев, И. 2001: Изследвания вмикрорегиона на с. Драма (Югоизточна България). Обобщение на основните резултати от българо ‑германските разкопки от 1983 до 1999 г. София. Lichardusetal. 2002 = Lichardus, J.– Echt, R.– Ilija, I.– Christov, Ch.: Die Spätbronzezeit an der unteren Tundža und die ostägäischen Verbindungen in Südostbulgarien. Eurasia Antiqua 8, 135–183. Luci, K. 2007: Dating the Danja Brnjica Culture Based on Metal Find. In: Todorova –Stefanovich– Ivanov eds. 2007, 347–358. Mikov, V. 1971: La Bulgarie l’ âge du bronze. Studia Balcanica 5, 51–61. Mitrevski, D. 1971: The Beginning of the Iron Age in Macedonia. In: Todorova– Stefanovich– Ivanov eds. 2007, 443–450. Nehrizov 2006 = Нехризов, Г. 2006: Глинени печати за украса на керамиката от ранната желязна епоха. Хелис 5, 298–312. Nehrizov 2017 = Нехризов, Г. 2017: Скален комплекс Глухите камъни. In: Българска Археология 2016. Каталог към изложба. София 2017, 21–22. Nekhrizov, G. – Tzvetkova, J. 2018: Contributions to the Periodization and Absolute Chronology of the Early Iron Age in South Thrace. Archaeologia Bulgarica 1, 17–44. Nikov 1994 = Ников, К. 1994: Керамиката от разрушеното селище от ранножелязната епоха вРаднево. In: „Марица ‑Изток“. Археологически проучвания 2, София, 143–150.
117ROSITSA HRISTOVA Nikov, K. 2000: Bird -images on Early Iron Age Pottery from South -Eastern Thrace. In: L. Nikolova (ed.): Technology, Style and Society. Contributions to the Innovations between the Alps and Black sea in Prehistory. BAR International Series 854. Oxford, 303–308. Nikov, K. 2001: Cultural Interactions in the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age. In: I. Panayotovetal. (eds.): Maritsa ‑Iztok, Archaeological Research 5. Sofia, 69–81. Nikov, K. 2002: Stamped Decoration Pithoi in Southern Thrace from the Early Iron Age. Archaeologica Bul‑ garica 1, 19–44. Nikov, K. 2011: The meaning of the regionalism in the Early Iron Age pottery decoration in south Thrace. In: V. Nikolov – K. Bacvarov – H. Popov (eds.): Interdisziplinäre Forschungen zum Kulturerbe auf der Balkanhal‑ binsel. Beiträge des Humboldt -Kollegs Interdisziplinäre Forschungen zum Kulturerbe auf der Balkanhalbinsel, 19–22 November 2009, Sofia, Bulgarien. Sofia, 209–227. Nikov, K. 2016: The origin of the Early Iron Age pottery decoration in Southern Thrace. In: K. Bacvarov– R. Gleser (eds.): Southeast Europe and Anatolia in prehistory. Essays in honor of Vassil Nikolov on his 65th anni‑ versary. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 293. Bonn, 457–464. Nikov– Stoitsov– Yorgova 2010 = Ников, К.– Стоицов, А.– Йоргова, Р. 2010: Спасителни археологически проучвания на обект № 14 ЛОТ 3 по АМ „Тракия“, км 265+500-266+000, вземлището на гр. Кермен, община Сливен. AOP през 2009 г., 131–132. Nikov– Bozhkova in print = Ников, К.– Божкова, А. (in print): Проблеми на керамичните комплекси вТракия впериода 7–6 в пр. Хр. Сивата монохромна керамика инейната поява вкултурната традиция на тракийското общество. Panayotov, I. 1989: Zur Chronologie und Periodisierung der Bronzezeit in den heutigen bulgarischen Gebieten. Thracia 9, 74–103. Panayotov, I. 1995: The Bronze Age in Bulgaria: Studies and Problems. In: Bailey – Panayotov– Alexandrov (eds.) 1995, 243–252. Panayotov, I. 2003 = Панайотов, И.: Проблеми на периодизацията на бронзовата епоха вбългарските земи. In: Сборник впамет на д ‑р Петър Горбанов. Studia Archaeologica, Suppl. I. София, 27–31. Panayotov– Valcheva = Панайотов, И.– Вълчева, Д. 1989: Археологическите култури от късната бронзова епоха вбългарските земи. Векове 18, 1, 5–15. Pavúk, P.2018: Trace, Troy and Anatolia. Troy and its Contacts to the Balkans. In: Alexandrovetal. (eds.) 2018, 266–275. Penchev, P.1982 = Пенчев, П.: Кратка хидрографска характеристика. In: Физическа география. Природни условия иресурси. София. Pollock, S.M. 1983: Style and information. An analysis of Susiana ceramics. Journal of Anthropological Ar‑ chaeology 2, 354–390. Popov, H. 2018: Ada Tepe near Krumovgrad, Eastern Rhodope Mountain. In: Alexandrov еt al. (eds.) 2018, 402–415. Romsauer, P.2003: Πύραυνoι (Pyraunoi). Prenosné piecky apodstavce zdoby bronzovej adoby železnej. Nitra. Rye, O.S. 2002: Pottery Technology. Principles and Reconstruction.4 Manuals on Archaeology 4. Washington. Savatinov 1995 = Саватинов, С.: Сондажни археологически проучвания вместността „Старото селище“ край град Раднево. In: „Марица ‑Изток“. Археологически проучвания 3, 147–169. Shalganova 2003 = Шалганова, Т. 2003: Скъпоценните съдове от бронзовата епоха на Балканския полуостров. In: И. Маразов (ed.): Bино икултура. Монографии МИФ 8. София, 76–96. Shalganova 2005 = Шалганова, Т. 2005: Изкуство иобред на бронзовата епоха. Култура на инкрустираната керамика по Долен Дунав. Монографии МИФ 3. София. Shalganova, T.– Gotsev, A. 1995: Problems of Research on the Early Iron Age. In: Bailey– Panayotov– Alexandrov (eds.) 1995, 327–343. Sinopoli, C. 1991: Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics. New York.
118 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/2 Todorova 1973 = Тодорова, Х. 1973: Тридесет години праисторически проучвания вБългария. Векове 4/5, 84–94. Todorova, H.– Stefanovich, M.– Ivanov, G. eds. 2007: The Struma/Strumon River Valley in Prehistory. Proceedings of the international Symposium ‘Strymon Praehistoricus’ 27.09–01.10.2004. Sofia. Wardle, K.A.– Wardle, D. 2007: Assiros Toumba. Abrief history of the settlement. In: Todorova – Stefanovich– Ivanov (eds.) 2007, 451–479. Zdravkova -Dimitrova, Y. 2007: From Late Bronze to Early Iron Age– Thracian Sanctuaries in the Eastern Rhodopi Mountain– Bulgaria. Anodos, Studies of the Ancient World 6–7, 493–507. Rositsa Hristova Historical Museum of Karnobat Karnobat, BG-8400 4 Dimitar Polyanov Street [email protected]