bozhinova 2012 libre

8/10/2019 Bozhinova 2012 Libre

1/24

ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

SUPPLEMENT39

ANATOLIAN IRON AGES 7The Proceedings of the Seventh Anatolian Iron Ages

Colloquium Held at Edirne, 1924 April 2010

Edited by

Altan ILINGIROGLUand Antonio SAGONA

PEETERSLEUVEN PARIS WALPOLE, MA.

2012


2/24

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ixAltan ILINGIROGLUand Antonio SAGONA

The Eastern Sector at the Fortress of Ayanis: Architecture and Texture in thePillared Hall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Mahmut Bilge BATRK

War and Identity in the Early History of Urartu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Atilla BATMAZ

Thrace Between East and West: The Early Iron Age Cultures in Thrace . . 51Elena BOZHINOVA

A Blacksmiths Workshop at Klazomenai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73Hseyin CEVIZOGLUand nsal YALIN

New Contributions to Urartian Archaeology from the Fortress at Ayanis . . 99Altan ILINGIROGLU(with an appendix by Mirjo SALVINI)

Regional Variations in Iron Age Grooved Pottery in Eastern Anatolia . . . . 113Aylin . ERDEM

The Apadana of Altntepe in the Light of the Second Season of Excavations 131Mehmet KARAOSMANOGLUand Halim KORUCU

The Kingdom of Urartu and Native Cultures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149Kemalettin KROGLU

Archaeometric Investigations of Basaltic Grinding Stones from the Iron AgeSettlements of Udabno, Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Rene KUNZE


3/24

vi CONTENTS

Ritual Pit Complexes in Iron Age Thrace: The Case Study of Svilengrad . . 177Georgi NEKHRIZOVand Julia TZVETKOVA

Urartian Helmets in Reza Abbasi Museum, Iran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211Reza Sabouri NOJEHDEHI

Phrygian Semi-Iconic Idols from Gordion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221Lynn E. ROLLER

Remarks on the East Anatolian Iron Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253Antonio SAGONA

Late Iron Age Pottery From Northwestern Iran: The Evidence from YanikTepe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

Geoffrey D. SUMMERSand Charles A. BURNEY

Bronze Animal Figurines from Gordion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317Maya VASSILEVA


4/24

1 For a review on the different periodisation and chronological schemes, see Tonceva 1980,

pp. 1114; Gergova1986, pp. 1112; Shalganova and Gotzev 1995, pp. 327334.

THRACE BETWEEN EAST AND WEST:THE EARLY IRON AGE CULTURES IN THRACE.

Elena BOZHINOVAPlovdiv Regional Archaeological Museum

Saedinenie Sq. 1Plovdiv 4000BULGARIA

E-mail: [email protected]

According to the literary sources, Thracian tribes occupied the northeastern part ofthe Balkans; namely, the territory of the present state of Bulgaria, the northern part ofGreece, and the European part of Turkey. The available data proves that this regionevolved without any major cultural changes, which allows us to assume a cultural pro-cess without any major disturbances since the Early Bronze Age. The Central Balkan,a natural border that crosses the centre of Bulgaria from west to east, divides thisBalkan region into two main parts north and south. The two areas differ in bothgeographical and cultural aspects and are subordinated to the Carpathian and Aegeanculture centres respectively. The present paper will focus on the south part of this area,which geographically today bears the name Thrace (Trakya in the local languages).

The territory of Thrace comprises regions which are clearly differentiated by theirgeographical characteristics and, in turn, their economical and cultural aspects. Thegreater part of the northern territory is formed by the huge Maritza (Meri, Hebros)and Tundja (Tonzos) valleys, known together as the Upper Thracian Valley (Fig. 1).To the south is the low mountain chain comprised of the Rhodopes, Sakar andStrandja. Further south of the Rhodopes is the region of Aegean Thrace (WesternThrace) and the large plain of Turkish Thrace (Eastern Thrace). Although each ofthese regions has specific characteristics that allow differentiation between separatecultures, there are phenomena that spread over larger areas. These phenomena are ofassistance in correlating the local cultures and distinguishing general trends in the

cultural development of Thrace.The Early Iron Age comprises the period between the eleventh and the sixth centu-

ries BC, according to the conventional chronology for Bulgarian archaeology (Fig. 2).1The beginning of the Iron Age in Thrace is marked to a much greater extent by sig-nificant changes in the local culture than by the introduction of iron technology. It is


5/24


6/24

THEEARLYIRONAGECULTURESINTHRACE 53

9 Stoyanov 2000.

10 Hnsel 1976, pp. 202205. The site of atalka itself provides material that today is recognised as

belonging to at least two periods of inhabitation Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age instead ofone, as Hnsel believed (Borislavov1999, r. 52).

11 Shalganova and Gotzev 1995, p. 330. The term fluted ware is used for the burnished table ware

decorated with flutes, but also with knobs. A synonymous term is channelled ware.12 Hnsel 1976, pp. 2002006; Shalganova and Gotzev 1995; Borislavov 1999.

13 Nehrizov 2005, pp. 169228.

14 Popov 2009.

15 Borislavov 1999, pp. 8386, 9398.

be a peripheral part of Aegean civilisation during the Late Bronze Age, with contactsdirected towards both Central Europe and the Mediterranean but influenced much

more by the Aegean.Within a rather short period, the PZC complex was replaced by a new pottery style.

This change is considered to mark the beginning of a new period, namely the EarlyIron Age, although the first iron artefacts did not appear until at least a century later.In fact, the sites that date to the first centuries of the Iron Age lack metal artefacts ingeneral and the earliest iron objects are most often found out of context. Bronze con-tinued to be used, as shown by European-style artefacts of the Ha AHa B1 periodlike the socket axes, but also artefacts in the Aegean style, such as trunnion axes.9Aninvestigation of all early iron artefacts in Thrace as well as bronze ones at the end ofthe Bronze Age and in the first centuries of the Early Iron Age is still pending; thus

pottery is the most reliable archaeological material for following the chronologicalstages in the cultural development of Thrace and, together with the information fromexcavated grave structures, for distinguishing regional groups.

The initial phase of the Early Iron Age was firstly identified with the group ofincised, decorated pottery named Catalka.10The research that followed proved thatsuch incisions were very few on the ornamented pottery of this first stage. The flutedware proved to be the only pottery decorated in the new style, which led to associatingthis stage instead with a horizon of the fluted ware.11Besides their decoration, theseare also pottery types that are new to the beginning of the Early Iron Age. Few shapesof the previous PZC complex continued with the first stage of the Fluted ware hori-

zon and those which did should be considered as remnant elements. Their presencein this early stage together with the continuous development of both settlements andnecropoleis are the reasons for some researchers to consider this period a transitionalone between Bronze Age and Iron Age.12

The stratigraphy of three sites excavated in the last 10 years allows two stages tobe distinguishedwithin the first Early Iron Age phase,based on the pottery develop-ment (Fluted ware horizons 1 and 2). These sites are Ada Tepe13and Ku Kaya14inthe Eastern Rhodopes, and Semercheto in the Sakar Mountain.15At all of them, the

Late Bronze Age layers with pottery of the PZC complex were succeeded by layers


7/24

54 E. BOZHINOVA

16 The discussion of the decoration of the pottery here mainly concerns the fine table ware. The

decoration of the coarse ware consists basically of relief bands with finger impressions or blade incisionsfor both Bronze Age and Iron Age.

17 Popov 2009, p. 28.

18 Nehrizov 2006.

19 Cicikova 1968, rr. 1619.

20 Hnsel 1976, pp. 113117; Salganova 1994.

21 Becks 2002, pp. 4950.

22 Lazarova 1993.

containing pottery which was undecorated,16 except for a small number of vesselswith fluted decoration and, rarely, incisions (Ada Tepe Ia; Semercheto Early Iron

Age IIII). At least three layers of the Semercheto site, showing a gradual increase inthe occurrence of the fluted decoration, belong to this stage and prove its relativelylong duration. The second stage is represented at all three sites by an increasingamount of fluted decoration and the first appearance of stamped ornaments, althoughthey are still very limited in number (Ada Tepe Ib; Semercheto Early Iron Age IV);these are concentric circles with or without tangents and pseudo-cord motifs. Thecircles are often made with a bone or a stick,17 and differ from the clay stamps forcircles, Ss, pseudo-cords, and other designs that were popular in the later phase.18The second stage should be considered as a transition into the second phase andprobably lasted only a short period of time.

The new pottery style replaced that of the Late Bronze Age within quite a shortperiod within the first Early Iron Age stage and kept being conservative for the entireEarly Iron Age. The prototypes of the new shapes and the fluted decoration are to befound in the Urnfield cultures of the central part of Eastern Europe.19 The fluteddecoration evolved first in the final stages of the Lower Danube Culture with IncrustedPottery in the Ha A1 period, under influences from the Middle and Lower Danube.20Slightly later it became popular over nearly all of Thrace and it is much more likely torepresent a new fashion than a major migration. The reasons could be found in ageneral reversal of the direction of contacts in Thrace from south/southeast to north-west. It looks very probable that Thrace fell strongly under the influence of the cul-

tures from the Carpathian basin, because of their potential to provide sufficient metalsources. This trend may even have strengthened during the time of the general crisisthat hit the Eastern Mediterranean region. A similar trend is marked for the contactsof Troia imports from the East Mediterranean that are numerous in the Troia VIlayers cease in the following layer, Troia VIIb, where they are mainly of northwesternorigin.21

A possible mechanism for spreading the new pottery style in Thrace was the impor-tation of metal vessels; this might also have been the form in which the metal itself wasimported. Four golden bowls found in Bulgaria and of Early Iron Age date are deco-rated in the European style of the fluted ware: one is a find from the Danube island

of Belene;22one is part of a treasure found in Sofia along with a bronze cauldron and


8/24


23 Stanceva 1974.

24 Kisyov 2004, pp. 1215. The find dates, according to Kisyov, to the eighth to seventh century

BC, but all the artefacts could well belong to an earlier period.25 Draganov 2007. The artefact belongs to a private collection with a probable find site in the Pleven

region. Although a recent public discussion cast suspicion on its originality, its style is very close to theother known vessels and even if it is a fake, it could well be an imitation of an existing artefact.

26 Howes Smith 1986.

27 Stanceva 1974, pp. 228232.

28According to Patay, these are cauldrons of type A 2 (Patay 1990, pp. 1821, figs. 12), which has

a form nearly identical to the one of the Bulgarian find.29 See Salganova (2005, pp. 155166) for the discussion about the chronology of the Valcitran

treasure.30 See Guma (1995, pp. 109110, pl. XIII: 823) for the types of the ceramic vessels.

31 Gergova 1987, pp. 3638, 4447; see also Stoyanov (1997, pp. 7480) for the chronological

position of the type.

a clay bowl (Fig. 4);23one was probably a gift, found in an inhumation grave under atumulus (together with fluted pottery and an iron sword of the Naue type);24and the

last probably originates from Central North Bulgaria.25The bowls are decorated withknobs, ribs, cord-imitating lines and circles connected by tangents all motifs whichwere also used in the ceramics (Fig. 3). A date of the eighth to seventh century BC wassuggested for these finds,26 supported by the presence of the cauldron in the Sofiaexample, which appears to be of Anatolian origin.27 Nevertheless, the exaggeratedknobs of the bowls from Belene and Central North Bulgaria could point to an earlierdate. The cauldron from Sofia has a form similar to a group of Hungarian vessels fromthe Ha A2 period.28Even if none of the golden bowls is earlier than the later periodof the second phase, the existence of the same decoration on both metal and ceramicvessels proves that basing ceramics on metal prototypes was one of the mechanisms of

imposing the new style during the Early Iron Age. This phenomenon is not new forThrace. Golden kantharoi and cups are known from the Valchitran treasure, datedback to the very end of the Late Bronze Age;29these vessels are of types also producedin pottery and they appear at a chronological horizon preceding that of fluted ware inthe Central North part of Bulgaria.30While the Valchitran treasure reflects both Euro-pean and Mycenaean connections, the vessels from the Early Iron Age show strongnorthern affinities.

Another European influence can be seen in the appearance of fibulae in Thrace atthe end of the Late Bronze Age. The first types to gain popularity were those of

Aegean origin and, together with the first iron Naue IINenzingen swords, they prove

that contacts with the south were not absolutely interrupted; Thrace kept bringing innew ideas and innovations from the Mediterranean region. But the new fashion offastening clothes with fibulae, established as a typical feature of Thracian culture fromthe beginning of the Iron Age onwards, reflects European influence. The first phase ofthe Early Iron Age was characterised by a small number of fibulae type, which evolvedslowly. The earliest fibulae to be developed locally were made in iron, probably alreadyin the phases second stage, most of them using bronze inlays for decoration.31Most


9/24

56 E. BOZHINOVA

32 Gergova 1987, pp. 4447, pl. 13.

33 Kitov 1993, p. 46; see also Stoyanov (1997, pp. 109128) for a review of the Early Iron Age

burials in Thrace; see Kisyov (2009, pp. 1943) for the burial practices in the Rhodopes region.34 Delev 1984.

fibulae of one of the variants of this type with a catch-plate in the shape of a sand-glass were found exclusively in the Western Rhodopes, which suggests there were

workshops in that region.32Some of the sites that have the longest inhabitation periods are those associated

with metallurgical activities. Some of the high fort settlements or peak sanctuaries(depending on interpretation) were regional centres and their prosperity was probablybased on the exploitation of local ore deposits. These are the settlements that showcontinuity between the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. The high parts of the

Western Rhodopes, widely settled in the Late Bronze Age, continued to be denselyoccupied during the Early Iron Age. The whole area of the Sakar, Strandja and Rho-dopes mountains yield a large number of sites, especially from the later phase of theEarly Iron Age. In general, the settlement pattern is scattered and besides the regional

centres, settlements are short-lived. The temporary nature of inhabitations reflects atranshumant economy, based on stock-breeding with seasonal movements. The dwell-ings architecture is quite meagre and always depends on the resources available locally.Depending on the region, the houses were built either as wattle-and-daub construc-tions or with only crumbled stones and wood. Rarely, sites on high peaks were addi-tionally protected by defensive walls of large stones, built in a megalithic manner (Ku

Kaya, Dragoyna, Aul Kaya).

While the settlement pattern shows continuity with the previous age, the Late

Bronze Age, the appearance of the fluted pottery coincides with new traditions in the

burial rites. The number of burials that date to the first phase of the period is insuf-

ficient to allow regional specifics to be distinguished. However, all available data marknew developments that would be commonly seen and widely accepted during the suc-

ceeding second phase of the period. In all parts of Thrace, inhumation was established

as the main burial ritual; the body was laid in a stretched position, with banded arms

and legs. For the first time in Thrace since the Early Bronze Age (except in the West-

ern Rhodopes), tumuli were piled over one or more graves.33The process of change

seems to have been gradual and in some regions, such as the Maritza and Tundja val-

leys, the new burial custom probably did not appear before the later phases of the

Early Iron Age, or even beyond that. Dolmens, both as construction and place for

burials, are also a novelty of the Early Iron Age.34 Their spread marks the cultural

unity of a large area in southeastern Thrace which covers the low mountain region of

Sakar, Strandja and the Eastern Rhodopes. This areas unity is more apparent in the

later stage of the period, when the same area has the greatest diversity and wealth of

geometric pottery decoration. The Eastern Rhodopes region differs from the others in


10/24


35 Cicikova 1968, pp. 1920; Pare 1998, vol. 2, pp. 406422.

36 Knobbed ware is synonymous with the fluted ware, highlighting another decorative element,which is much less common than the flutes. Knobs and flutes occur on one and the same types ofvessels, often together.

37 Becks et al. 2006, pp. 185187.

38 Hnsel 1976, p. 84. The vessels discussed can be seen in Schmidt 1902, p. 176, No. 5617, fig. II:

20; Blegens shapes C 84 and A105 in Blegen et al. 1958, pp. 165, 174, fig. 218, fig. 265: 32.23,37.1007 and 37.1021, fig. 259: 37.1009.

39 Blegens shape A 107 in Blegen et al. 1958, pp. 165167, fig. 260: 37.1013.

40 Mountjoy 1999, p. 324.

41 Hochstetter 1984, pp. 188194; Jung and Weninger 2004, p. 286.

42Wardle andWardle 2007, pp. 471472.

43 Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1982, p. 255; 1992, pp. 420, 475476.

Mediterranean landscape and rock-cut examples, among which are rock-cut tombsused alongside dolmens for inhumation burials.

It can be presumed that the region evolved peacefully in this period; however, thereare also limited traces of mobility of people from the northwest in the archaeologicalrecord of Thrace. In a cremation grave on the bank of the Maritza River, next to thevillage of Manole, a vessel of a type known as amphora Gava A was used as a burialurn. This type is unfamiliar in Thrace and has no further development; conversely itis typical in the Carpatho-Danubian regions fluted pottery cultures, with a date notlater than the second half of the tenth century BC.35 The burial rite also contrastswith the tradition of inhumation common in the region during both the Late Bronze

Age and the Early Iron Age. It is tantalizing to couple this evidence for movements inthe first centuries of the Iron Age in Thrace with the arrival of newcomers at Troia.

It is the site of Troia which is the most important for pinpointing the chronologicalposition of the Fluted ware horizon and, therefore, the beginning of the Early Iron

Age in Thrace. It is clear today that a new handmade ceramic class of both coarse andknobbed ware appeared in the VIIb2 layers of Troia,36 and this is understood toreflect a considerable influx of new population from Thrace.37The Troian knobbedware finds most parallels among the pottery of the first stage of the Fluted ware hori-zon in Thrace; however, it also shares some elements with the preceding Late Bronze

Age, such as amphorae and kantharoi (following the type names in the Balkan assem-blages38), as well as with the next second stage of the Fluted ware horizon; for exam-ple, the stamped decoration of circles with tangents on small kantharoi.39Troia VII

B2 layers lack any Submycenaean pottery,40thus through Troia, the Fluted ware hori-zon 1 in Thrace should be synchronised with the Aegean LH III C Middle to Lateperiod. Turning to the south, the data from Kastanas confirms this dating; fluted wareappeared there in layer 13 of the KV period, together with LH IIIC pottery. 41Thesituation differs, however, in Assiros where in Phase 4 the ware is found with a Pro-togeometric amphora.42A similar delay in the arrival of fluted ware is to be seen inThassos, where channelled pottery first appeared in the IIB1 period, which has noconnection with Mycenaean pottery.43


11/24

58 E. BOZHINOVA

44 Todorova 1982.

45Juganaru 2005.

46 Getov 1963; Kitov and Bozhinova 2005.

47 Delev 1984.

48 Gergova 1987, pp. 1012.

49 Hnsel 1976, pp. 192213; Gotsev 2008.

50 Domaradzki et al. 1991.

51 Nehrizov 2005, pp. 172173, 212223.

52 Bozhinova 2002.

More problematic is defining the end of the Fluted ware horizon or the initial dateof the second stage. The new stamped-decoration motifs unambiguously bind the

second stage with Aegean Geometric pottery. Considering the presence, though lim-ited, of this type of pottery at Troia VII B2, its first appearance should be datedwithin the Submycenaean period. This stage must be synchronised in general with theProtogeometric period.

Turning to the northeast, the two stages of the first Early Iron Age phase must besynchronised consecutively with Durankulak44and Babadag I.45The site of Duranku-lak has the earliest fluted ware, marking the end of the Coslodgeni culture in thisregion. Babadag I is comparable with Troia VII B 2, but the presence of stampeddecoration places it in a relatively later stage of the horizon. Like in South Thrace, thegeometric decoration developed gradually in the later phases of Babadag II and III.

The next, second Early Iron Age phase ischaracterised by an evolutional develop-ment of all aspects of the culture which impedes distinguishing clearly its beginningand inner periodisation. Tumulus burials became a common practice in some regions;for example, Kazanlak in the Tundja valley.46The way the dolmens were constructed,and therefore the burial rites, became more complex, as did the tumuli established aslocations for family cemeteries.47The revival of the bronze industry after the middle/end of the ninth century BC is one of the characteristics of this phase.48The largenumber of sites and finds are proof of wealth and population increase.

The developed phase of the Early Iron Age is identified with a pottery style knownas the Psenicevo group.49Psenicevo is the name of the first excavated site to have a

high diversity of geometric motifs. The potterys main characteristic is rich decorationimplemented by stamps mainly concentric circles connected with tangents, theS-ornament forming rows of running spirals, and pseudo-cord motifs and inci-sions. All these motifs were often combined with flutes. The pottery types are the basicones and they are often the same as those of the previous Fluted ware horizon.The pottery decoration develops gradually from the simple towards elaborate compo-sitions that are often highly ornamented. It allows three inner stages to be determined(Psenicevo 13), as also confirmed by the stratigraphy at the sites of Malkoto kale nearSozopol (Apolonia Pontica),50and Ada Tepe51and Cala52 in the Eastern Rhodopes.The first stage is represented by the lower levels of Malkoto kale and Ada Tepe I and


12/24


53According to Hnsel (1976, p. 208), it is the phase of Lenovo. Given that the site of Lenovo has

never been excavated, the name did not gain popularity.54 Nikov 2000a; 2000b; 2002.

55 Czyborra 2001, p. 75.

56 Nikov 1999.

is distinguished by geometric decoration made by stamps, incisions and flutes; rarely,there is the combination of different techniques on one vessel. The S-ornament, single

or forming running spirals, appears among the ornamentation but circles with tan-gents are still most prominent. The upper Early Iron Age layers at Malkoto kale and

Ada Tepe II, and the lower layers at Cala and Psenicevo itself belong to the secondstage, which marks the apogee of geometric ornamentation.53 Most used are thestamped motifs, among which the S-ornaments are generally preferred. Combinationsof stamped decoration and flutes are often seen. The spread of some motifs and sophis-ticated compositions allows some regional specifics to be distinguished, although theyare not very evident.54

The rich geometric decoration of the Psenicevo style is a phenomenon common toall of southeast Thrace, where the centre coincides with the region of the dolmens

Sakar, Strandja and the Eastern Rhodopes. It also features in the central part of theMaritza and Tundja valleys to the north and Eastern Thrace to the south.55 Theornate decoration is less seen in the west, and its limit should be placed in the regionof Plovdiv (Philippopolis). In contrast to its gradual beginning, the second phase endsabruptly. Burnished handmade table ware is replaced for quite a short time with agrey wheel-made pottery that is foreign to Thrace and has its traditions in the north-western Anatolian region.56A short period when the two classes of pottery are foundtogether is regarded as the third and last stage of the second Early Iron Age phase, butit could also be considered a transition into the Late Iron Age. In the upper layer ofthe Cala settlement site, the amount of burnished handmade pottery decreases and it

is found together with a limited quantity of grey ware with a probable date of thesixth century BC. In this period the first production centres of grey ware appeared;they are expected in colonies established next to the Aegean and Black seas at the endof the seventh to sixth centuries BC. Grey ware appeared later in the inland regions,as in the case of the Western Rhodopes region, which is distinguished from the otherparts of Thrace in many aspects.

The Western Rhodopes region is characterised by a high mountain landscape suit-able for summer pasture and known since ancient times to be rich in metal sources.The area was occupied by the Bessoi tribes, who were famous for being conservative,savage, good metal-workers and the keepers of the Dionysos sanctuary (Hdt, VII,

111). This description matches well with the material culture of the region. From theLate Bronze Age, the culture exhibits features that continued until the Roman period


13/24

60 E. BOZHINOVA

57 See Kisyov (2009, pp. 1943) for comprehensive information about the Late Bronze AgeEarly

Iron Age burials in the Rhodopes region.58 Hnsel 1976, pp. 220226.

59 Georgieva 2003, pp. 173176.

60 Shopova 1990.

61 Pare 1998, vol. 2, pp. 313317, fig. 9: 18 and 25.

62 Mommsen et al. in print.

63 Grave 1 from tumulus 1, the necropolis of Chepelare (Kisyov 1991, pp. 811, figs. 1314).

64 Damyanov 2003.

65 Gotsev and Bozhinova 2008.

and even later. Information comes generally from necropoleis,57 and because of thespecific nature of the burial rites the available material consists mainly of metal arte-

facts. This is the only region in the whole of Thrace where the deceased were buriedunder tumuli during the Late Bronze Age, and one necropolis continued to be oftenused throughout the entire Iron Age. Cremation in urns was the typical ritual duringthe Late Bronze Age, but this was abruptly replaced by inhumation at the beginningof the Early Iron Age.

Although the ceramic complex of the Western Rhodopes requires further investiga-tion, the available information enables the pottery groups to be revised. A local ceramicgroup called Cepina was suggested for the whole Early Iron Age in the region,58butrecent research proves that Cepina dates to the Late Iron Age or even later.59 Theconfusion was created by the ceramics similarity to Late Bronze Age incised pottery,

both in technique and decorative motifs. The missing link can probably be found insome of the sub-regions. Intriguingly, the most popular crater-shape60 is unknownamong all the other Balkans material; its closest parallels are to be found in northeastItaly in the Protovillanova culture of the eleventhtenth centuries BC.61The potterycommon in the Western Rhodopes follows the general trend of developments inThrace, but with some peculiarities. The local Late Bronze Age pottery is part of thePZC complex and is often decorated in a style similar to the ceramics of Macedonia.62This pottery probably had its longest life in this region, as it is found as grave goodsalong with iron fibulae.63A few complexes yielded channelled ware,64but in generalit didnt gain popularity in this area. The Early Iron Age pottery style is known from

the site of Babyak and is mainly decorated with incised motifs that replaced even thechannels.65Stamps are rare and simple mostly in the form of circles. Limited avail-able material means it is not possible to mark stages in the development of the pot-tery. Wheel-made ware is unknown in Early Iron Age contexts and probably does notappear in this region before the later stages of the Late Iron Age, or even after that.

A high level of diversity and regionalism in adornment types marks the secondEarly Iron Age phase in all regions of Thrace. Most fibulae in South Thrace are of thetypes common in the Aegean region, but some other examples prove there were broadcontacts with the northern regions as well as with Macedonia to the south and as far


14/24


66 Gergova 1987, pp. 1012.

67 Nehrizov 2009.

68 Nikov 2000.

as Phrygia to the east.66The way adornments, mainly fibulae, developed enables threephases to be distinguished. They do not, however, coincide with the stages of pottery

development; the proposed pottery phases appear to have a chronology which is toolate, and recent excavations also suggest an earlier date for some of the fibulae types.67Generally fibulae, like all other Early Iron Age metal artefacts, require a new assess-ment, as a large number of finds have recently come from excavation contexts. Such areview would allow the development of a more precise chronology for these items andwould also assist with defining the chronology of the Early Iron Age stages.

Similarities between the motifs and compositions of the Psenicevodecorations styleand the Aegean Geometric style lead to synchronisation of the two periods. Since thepreceding second stage of the Fluted ware horizon overlaps (partly or entirely) withthe Protogeometric period, the beginning of Psenicevowould coincide with the begin-

ning of the Geometric period, or at least fall within the Early Geometric period. Aswith fibulae, the resemblance between the two styles is much more obvious in thelater stages of their development.68On the other hand, Psenicevois very similar to theOstrov, Basarabi and Babadag groups to the north and should be contemporary withthem. In general, the first stage of Psenicevoshould be synchronised with Ostrov andBabadag II, and the second stage with Basarabi and Babadag III. These pottery stylesmark the geometric koine during the Early Iron Age, a result of restored contactsbetween the Balkans and the Aegean region, as well as the return of Greece and Ana-tolia to a leading role during this period. This influence continued even more stronglyduring the last Early Iron Age stage, with the appearance of grey ware. With the foun-

dation of the first Greek colonies, contacts were accelerated and this led to generalchanges in traditional Thracian culture, and thus to the end of the Early Iron Age.This last stage is synchronous with the end of the Geometric and the Archaic periods(the seventh to sixth century BC) but its more exact chronological position dependson the region and the remoteness of the earliest urban centres.

CONCLUSION

A new period in Thrace, referred to as the Early Iron Age, started with generalchanges in many aspects of the local Late Bronze Age culture: pottery style, burial

rites, and metal types. At the same time, all of the features of this period bear simi-larities to the previous period, supporting the theory of a gradual, though short transi-tion between the two ages. The first phase of the Early Iron Age, called Fluted warehorizon, started with the LH IIIC period and continued through the Protogeometric


15/24

62 E. BOZHINOVA

period, according to Aegean periodisation. The LH IIIC is still the Late Bronze Agein the Aegean, and following the direction of the spread of iron technology from

south to north, it would be more correct to consider this phase a transitional periodthan a real Iron Age. The horizon of the fluted ware is characterised by decreasedcontacts with the Aegean region. Simultaneously Thrace became strongly dependenton the Carpatho-Danubian region because of its potential to provide metal sources.This development is most visible in the new pottery style that appeared throughoutThrace. At this time, limited traces of migration are visible in the archaeologicalrecords, both within Thrace (the cremation burial at Manole) and from Thrace (thesite of Troia), with movement in the direction northwest to southeast.

The real Iron Age starts with the next phase, called Psenicevo, when contacts withthe Aegean were restored and became more evident than ever before. Thrace became

part of the geometric koine, recalling the situation during the Late Bronze Age. TheEarly Iron Age differs in the degree of regionalism visible; it increased in burial ritesand metal (adornment) types, but decreased in the pottery style. Contacts with the

Aegean rose gradually to a level after which they sharply increased, leading to enor-mous changes in the local culture. This change was comparable in range, but not innature, with the reverse movement at the end of the Late Bronze Age. Thus it is rea-sonable to regard the period between the twelfth and sixth centuries in Thrace as aunited historical era, known as an Early Iron Age and characterised by a gradual innerdevelopment and rapid changes at its beginning and its end.

REFERENCES

ALEXANDROV, S.2002 The Late Bronze Age Settlement at Koprivlen, in Koprivlen:Rescue Archaeo-

logical Investigations Along the Gotse Delchev-Drama Road: 19981999, Vol. 1,edited by A. Bozhkova and P. Delev, pp. 6182. Sofia: NOUS.

BECKS, R.2002 Troia VII: The Transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age,

in Identifying Changes: The Transition from Bronze to Iron Ages in Anatoliaand its Neighbouring Regions, edited by B. Fischer, H. Genz, . Jean andK. Kroglu, pp. 4153. Istanbul: Turk Eskicag Bilimleri Enstitusu.

BECKS, R., HNILAP. and PIENIZ

EK-SIKORA, M.2006 Troia in der Frhen Eisenzeit Troia VIIb1-VIIb3, in Troia. Archologieeines Siedlungshgels und seiner Landschaft, edited by M. O. Korfmann,pp. 181188. Mainz am Rhein: Philip von Zabern.

BLEGEN, C. W., BOULTER, C., CASKEY, J. and RAWSON, M.1958 Troy. Settlements VIIa, VIIb and VIII(Troy: Excavations Conducted by the Uni-

versity of Cincinnati, 1932 1938, Vol. 4), pt. 1 (text), pt. 2 (plates). Princeton:University Press.

BORISLAVOV, B.1999 Yuzhna Trakia v Kraya na Bronzovata Nachaloto na Rannata Zhelyazna Epo-

cha/ Southern Thrace in the End of the Bronze the Beginning of the Early IronAge. Unpublished PhD diss. Sofia University.


16/24


BOZHINOVA, E.2002 Keramichniyat Kompleks ot Rannozheliaznata Epoha ot Obekta Chala, s. Kralevo,

Iztochni Rodopi/ Ceramic Complex from the Iron Age Site of Chala, KralevoVillage, Eastern Rhodope Mountain.Unpublished MA diss. Sofia University.CICIKOVA, M.

1968 Keramika ot Starata Zhelyazna Epoha v Trakia/ Early Iron Age Pottery fromThrace,Arheologiya 10, 4: 1527.

1971 Sur la Chronologie du Hallstatt en Thrace, Studia Balcanica5: 7992.1978 La Thrace lpoque Homrique et Gomtrique, in TheProceedings of the

Xth International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Ankara-Izmir 2330/IX/1973,Vol. 1 and 3, edited by E. Akurgal, pp. 187194. Ankara: Turk Tarh Kurumu.

CZYBORRA, I.2001 Early Iron Age in Turkish Thracia and its Relationship with the South-Eastern

European Late Bronze and Early Iron Age. Unpublished PhD diss. Freie Univer-sity of Berlin.

DAMYANOV, D.2003 Das Weltbild der Thraker. Thrakische Hgelgrab-Nekropole bei Ljubtscha,Westliche Rhodopen, Thracia15: 581593.

DELEV, P.1984 Megalithic Thracian Tombs in South-Eastern Bulgaria,Anatolica11: 145.

DOMARADZKI, M., KARAIOTOV, I. ANDGOTZEV, A.1991 Lhabitat du Premier ge du Fer de Malkoto Kal, in Thracia Pontica IV,

edited by M. Lazarov, M. Tatcheva, C. Angelova, and M. Georgiev, pp. 119132. Sofia.

DRAGANOV, V.2007 An Unpublished Gold Bowl from the Collection of the Bobokov Bros. Foun-

dation, Proceedings of the Rousse Regional Museum of History11: 162164.FISCHER, F.

1963 Die Hethitische Keramik von Bogazky. Berlin: Verlag Gebr. Mann.GEORGIEVA, R.

2003 Keramikata ot Rannata Zhelyazna Epoha v Yugozapadna Balgaria i Fenome-nat Tsepina/ Early Iron Age Pottery in Southwestern Bulgaria and theTsepina phenomenon, Pyraichmes2: 159185.

GERGOVA, D.1986 Postizheniya i Problemi v Prouchvaneto na Rannozhelyaznata Epoha v Tra-

kia/ Achievements and Issues of the Research of Early Iron Age in Thrace,Arheologiya 27: 1123.

1987 Frh- und ltereisenzeitlische Fibeln in Bulgarien (Prhistorische BronzefundeXIV Bd. 7). Mnchen: C. H. Becksche Verlagsbuchhandlung.

GETOV, L.

1963 Mogilno Pogrebenie ot Halshtatskata Epoha pri s. D. Sahrane, Starozagorsko/A Hallstatt Mound Burial at Dolno Sahrane Village in Stara Zagora County,Arheologiya 5: 5153.

GOTSEV, A.2008 Prouchvaniya na Rannozhelyaznata Epoha v Yugoiztochna Balgaria Nya-

kolko Desetki Godini Po-kasno/ Southeastern Bulgaria Iron Age Research Several Decades Later, in Phosphorion: Studia in Honorem Mariae Cicikova,editedbyD. Gergova, pp. 109113. Sofia: Prof. Marin Drinov Academic Pub-lishing House.

GOTSEV, A. and BOZHINOVA, E2008 Keramichniyat Kompleks ot Rannozhelyaznata Epoha ot Trakiyskoto Svetil-

ishte pri s. Babyak / Ceramic Complex from the Early Iron Age from the


17/24

64 E. BOZHINOVA

Thracian Sanctuary at Babyak Village, in Trakijskoto Svetilishte pri s. Babyak iNegovata Arheologicheska Sreda / The Thracian Sanctuary Near Babyak and its

Archaeological Environment, edited by M. Tonkova and A. Gotsev. Sofia.GUMA, 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. A ShortReview, Thraco-Dacia16, 12: 99137.

HNSEL, B.1976 Beitrge zur regionalen und chronologischen Gliederung der lteren Hallstattzeit

an der Unteren Donau. (Beitrge zur Ur- und Frhgeschichtlichen Archologiedes Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 1617). Bonn: Habelt.

HEURTLEY, W. A.1939 Prehistoric Macedonia.Cambridge: University Press.

HOCHSTETTER, A.1984 Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshgel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit

Makedoniens, 1975-1979. Die handgemachte Keramik. Text und Tafelteil.(Prhistorische Archologie in Sdosteuropa Bd 3). Berlin: Spiess.HOWESSMITH, P. H. G.

1986 A Study of 9th7thCentury Metal Bowls from Western Asia, Iranica Antiqua21: 188.

HOREJS, B.2007 Das prhistorische Olynth. Ausgrabungen in der Toumba Agios Mamas 1994-

1996. Die sptbronzezeitliche handgemachte Keramik der Schichten 13 bis 1(Prhistorische Archologie in Sdosteuropa Bd 21). Rahden / Westf: VerlagMarie Leidorf.

IVANOV, G.2007a Otnosno Hronologiyata na Nekropolite na Kultura Brnitsa v Tsentralnite

Balkani/ About the Chronology of the Brnica Culture Necropoleis in theCentral Balkans, in PRAE: In Honorem Henrieta Todorova, edited byC. Angelova and M. Stefanovich, pp. 255-256. Sofia: Faber Ltd.

2007b Pogrebalnite Praktiki prez Kasnata Bronzova Epoha v Tsentralnite Balkani / Bur-ial Practices During the Late Bronze Age in the Central Balkan Peninsula.Unpublished PhD diss. Sofia University.

JUGANARU, G.2005 Cultura Babadag, Vol. 1 (Biblioteca Istro-Pontica. Seria Arheologie 7). Con-

stanta: Ex Ponto.JUNG, R. ANDWENINGER, B.

2004 Kastanas and the Chronology of the Aegean Late Bronze and Early Iron Age,in Radiocarbon and Archaeology. Fourth International Symposium, edited byT. Higham, C. B. Ramsey and C. Owen, pp. 209227. Oxford: Oxford Uni-

versity School of Archaeology.KISYOV, K.1991 Kam Vaprosa za Pogrebalniya Obichay prez Rannata Zhelyazna Epoha v

Zapadnite Rodopi/ On the Issue of Burial Rituals of the Early Iron Age inthe Western Rhodope Mountain,Arheologiya 33, 4: 18.

2004 Trakiyskata Kultura v Regiona na Plovdiv i Techenieto na r. Stryama Prez VtorataPolovina na I hil. pr. Hr. / Thracian Culture in Plovdiv Vicinity and Along theStryama River During the Second Half of the First Millennium BCE. Sofia:

Agato.2009 Pogrebalni praktiki v Rodopite (II I hil. pr. Hr.)/ Burial Practices in the

Rhodope Mountain (II I mil. BCE). Plovdiv: Avtospektar.


18/24


KITOV, G.1993 Trakiyskite Mogili/ Thracian Mounds, Thracia10: 3980.

KITOVG. and BOZHINOVA, E.2005 Manchova Mogila ot Rannata Zhelyazna epoha v dolinata na Trakiyskitetsare/ Manchova mound from early Iron Age in the Valley of the ThracianKings, in Zemite na Bulgariya: Lyulka na Trakijskata Kultura/ Bulgaria:A Cradle of Thracian Culture, Vol. 2, edited by G. Kitov and D. Dimitrova,pp. 115121. Sofia.

KOUKOULI-CHRYSANTHAKI, CH.1982 The Late Bronze Age in Eastern Macedonia, in Thracia Praehistorica, Sup-

plementum Pulpudeva 3, pp. 231258. Sofia.1992 Protoistorike Thasos: Ta Nekrotapheia tou Oikismou Kastri. Athens: Tameio

Archaiologikon Poron kai Apallotrioseon.LAZAROVA, S.

1993 Zlaten Sad ot o. Belene (Persina), Loveshka Oblast/ A Golden Vessel from

Belene Island (Persina Site) in Lovech County, Izvestiya na Muzeite ot Severo-zapadna Bulgarya/ Proceedings from the Museums of Northwestern Bulgaria20:261263.

MOMMSEN, H., JUNG, R. and BOZHINOVA, E. Dragojna Eine Spaetbronzezeitliche Hoehensiedlung in den Bulgarischen

Rhodopen mit Importierter Mykenischer Keramik, Athenische Mitteilungen.In print.

MOUNTJOY, P. A.1999 Troia VII Reconsidered, Studia Troica9: 295346.

NEHRIZOV, G.2005 Keramichniyat Kompleks ot Rannata Zhelyazna Epoha v Iztochnite Rodopi /

Ceramic Complex from the Early Iron Age in the Eastern Rhodope Mountain.Unpublished PhD diss. Archaeological Institute with Museum, Sofia.

2006 Glineni Pechati za Ukrasa na Keramikata ot Rannata Zhelyazna Epoha v Tra-kia/ Pottery Decoration Ceramic Bullae from the Early Iron Age in Thrace,in V: Getite: Kultura i Tradicii / Getae: Culture and Traditions(Helis Helis 5),edited by D. Gergova, pp. 298312. Sofia.

2009 Nekropol ot Rannata zhelyazna epoha pri s. Stambolovo, Haskovsko/ EarlyIron Age Necropolis at Stambolovo Village in Haskovo county, in Arheolog-icheski Otkritiya i Razkopki prez 2008 g./Archaeological Survey and Excavationsin 2008, editedbyD. Gergova, rr. 266271. Sofia: Faber.

NIKOV, K.1999 Aeolian Bucchero in Thrace?, Archaeologia Bulgarica 3, 2: 3142.2000a Kulturni Kontakti na Yuzhna Trakia s Egeyskiya Sviyat prez Rannata Zhelyaznata

Epoha po Danni na Keramikata/ Cultural Interactions Between Southern Thrace

and the Aegean World during the Early Iron Age Based on Ceramics Data. Unpub-lished PhD diss. Sofia University.2000b Bird-Images on Early Iron Age Pottery from South-Eastern Thrace, in Tech-

nology, Style and Society. Contributions to the Innovations between the Alps andthe Black Sea in Prehistory(BAR International Series 854), edited by L. Nikolova,pp. 303308. Oxford: Archaeopress.

2002 Stamped Decoration Pithoi in Southern Thrace from the Early Iron Age,Archaeologia Bulgarica6, 1: 1944.

ZDOGAN, M.1987 Talcabayr, a Late Bronze Age Burial Mound in Eastern Thrace, Anatolica

14: 740.


19/24

66 E. BOZHINOVA

PARE, C.1998 Beitrge zum bergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit in Mitteleuropa. Teil I:

Grundzge der Chronologie im stlichen Mitteleuropa (11.8. Jahrhundertv. Chr.)(Jahrbuch des Rmisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums). Mainz.PATAY, P.

1990 Die Bronzegefe in Ungarn (Prhistorische Bronzefunde 10). Mnchen:C. H. Becksche Verlagsbuchhandlung.

POPOV, H.2009 Selishten Obekt Kush kaya. Harakteristiki na Obitavaneto prez Kasnata

Bronzova I Rannata Zhelyazna Epoha/ Occupation Characteristics of theResidential Site Kush kaya During the Late Bronze and the Early Iron Age,Arheologiya 1, 2: 2139.

SALGANOVA, T.1994 Das Auftreten der kannelierten Keramik und der bergang von der Spt-

bronzezeit zur Frheisenzeit in Nordwestbulgarien, in The Early Hallstatt

Period (1200-700 B.C.) in South-Eastern Europe. International Symposium fromAlba Iulia, 1012 June, 1993, edited by H. Ciugudean and N. Boroffka,pp. 185196. Alba Iulia: Muzeul National al Uninii.

1995 The Lower Danube Incrusted Pottery Culture, in Prehistoric Bulgaria, editedby D. Bailey and I. Panayotov, pp. 291306. Madison, Wis.: Prehistory Press.

2005 Izkustvo i Obred na Bronzovata Epoha. Kultura na Inkrustiranata Keramika poDolen Dunav/ Bronze Age Art and Ritual. Inlaid Pottery Culture in the LowerDanube Valley, (MIF 3). Sofia: New Bulgarian University.

SALGANOVA, T. and GOTZEV, A.1995 Problems of Research on the Early Iron Age, in Prehistoric Bulgaria, edited by

D. Bailey and I. Panayotov, pp. 327343. Madison, Wis.: Prehistory Press.SCHMIDT, H.

1902 Heinrich Schliemanns Sammlung Trojanischer Altertmer. Berlin: Georg Reimer.SHOPOVA, A.

1990 Glinen sad sas zakodirana informatsia za besite/ Ceramic vessel holdingencoded information about the Bessi culture, in Trakijska Kultura v Rodopitei Gornite Porechiya na Marica, Mesta, i Struma / Thracian Culture in theRhodope Mountain and the Upper Valleys of Maritsa, Mesta, and Struma, editedby M. Domaradski, pp. 8186. Smolyan.

STANCEVA, M.1974 Une coupe en or de Sofia, Thracia3: 221241.

STOYANOV, T.1997 EarlyIron Age Tumular Necropolis. (Sborianovo 1). Sofia.2000 Kontakti na Severoiztochna Trakia s Anatoliya, Kavkaz i Blizkiya Iztok prez

Rannozhelyaznata epoha predi Gratskata kolonizatsiya / Early Iron Age

Contacts between Northeast Thrace and Anatolia, the Caucasus Region, andthe Near East before the Hellenic Colonisation, Izvestiya na Narodniya MuzejBurgas/ Proceedings of the National Museum in Burgas3: 5061.

TODOROVA, H.1982 Zur sptbronzezeitliche Siedlung auf der Groer Insel bei Durankulak

(Bulgarien), in Beitrge zum bronzezeitlichen Burgenbau in Mitteleuropa:Kulturgeschichtliche und sozialkonomische Grundlagen, Dresden Nitra 1982,pp. 412425. Berlin.

TONCEVA, G.1980 Chronologie du Hallstatt ancien dans la Bulgarie de Nord-Est (Studia Thracica

5). Sofia: Academia Litterarum Bulgarica, Institutum Thracicum.


20/24


WARDLE, K and WARDLE, D.2007 Assiros Toumba. A brief history of the settlement, in The Struma/Strymon

River Valley in Prehistory. In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, Vol. 2, edited byH. Todorova, M. Stefanovich and G. Ivanov, pp. 451479. Sofia.

Fig. 1 Map of Thrace with sites discussed in the text: 1 Ada Tepe; 2 Assiros;3 Babadag; 4 Babyak; 5 Belene; 6 Catalka; 7 Cepina; 8 Cerkovna; 9 Cala;

10 Durankulak; 11 Kastanas; 12 Kazanlak; 13 Koprivlen; 14 Ku kaya;15 Malkoto Kale; 16 Manole; 17 Plovdiv; 18 Psenicevo; 19 - Semercheto;

20 Thassos; 21 Troia; 22 Valchitran; and 23 Zimnicae.


21/24

68 E. BOZHINOVA

Fig.

2

Chronologicalschemesa

ndregionalgroupsproposedforSouthThrace.


22/24


Fig. 3 Ceramic amphora with fluted and knobbed decoration from Asenovetz,South Thrace.

Fig. 4 Golden bowl from Sofia.


23/24

70 E. BOZHINOVA

Fig. 5 Basic pottery forms from the Plovdiv-Zimnicae-Cerkovna complex(the Late Bronze Age), the Fluted ware horizon and the Psenicevo phase

(the Early Iron Age).


24/24


Fig. 6 Periods and regional groups discussed in the article.

bozhinova 2012 libre

Documents