Archaeology Across Frontiers and Borderlands: Fragmentation and Connectivity in the North Aegean and the Central Balkans from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age (Orea) 9783700180296, 3700180292

Citation preview

Stefanos Gimatzidis – Magda Pieniążek – Sila Mangaloğlu-Votruba (Eds.) Archaeology Across Frontiers and Borderlands Fragmentation and Connectivity in the North Aegean and the Central Balkans from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age

Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften Philosophisch-historische Klasse

Oriental and European Archaeology Volume 9 Series Editor: Barbara Horejs

Publications Coordinator: Ulrike Schuh

Stefanos Gimatzidis – Magda Pieniążek – Sila Mangaloğlu-Votruba (Eds.)

Archaeology Across Frontiers and Borderlands Fragmentation and Connectivity in the North Aegean and the Central Balkans from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age

Accepted by the Publication Committee of the Division of Humanities and the Social Sciences of the Austrian Academy of Sciences: Michael Alram, Bert Fragner, Hermann Hunger, Sigrid Jalkotzy-Deger, Brigitte Mazohl, Franz Rainer, Oliver Jens Schmitt, Peter Wiesinger and Waldemar Zacharasiewicz

This publication has undergone the process of anonymous, international peer review. The paper used for this publication was made from chlorite-free bleached cellulose and is aging-resistant and free of acidifying substances.

English language editing: Kelly Gillikin Graphics and layout: María Antonia Negrete Martínez, Angela Schwab Coverdesign: Mario Börner, Angela Schwab

All rights reserved. ISBN: 978-3-7001-8029-6 Copyright © 2018 by Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna Printing: Prime Rate kft., Budapest Printed and bound in the EU https://epub.oeaw.ac.at/8029-6 https://verlag.oeaw.ac.at

Table of Contents Preface by the Series Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Stefanos Gimatzidis – Magda Pieniążek Archaeology Across Frontiers and Borderlands: An Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Stefanos Gimatzidis Claiming the Past, Conquering the Future: Archaeological Narratives in Northern Greece and the Central Balkans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Sıla Mangaloğlu-Votruba Conquering the Past, Claiming the Future: Historical and Archaeological Narratives in Western Anatolia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Rik Vaessen Working in the Margins: Some Reflections on Past, Present and Future Research in Western Anatolia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Philipp W. Stockhammer – Bogdan Athanassov Conceptualising Contact Zones and Contact Spaces: An Archaeological Perspective . . . . 93 Magda Pieniążek Foreign Influences and Indigenous Transformations: The Case of Seals and Jewellery from the Late Bronze Age North Aegean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Göksel Sazcı – Meral Başaran Mutlu Maydos-Kilisetepe: A Bronze Age Settlement on the Border Between Asia and Europe . . 139 Konstantoula Chavela Transformations and Formations Around the Thermaic Gulf in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age: The Evidence of Burial Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Eleni Manakidou Protocorinthian and Corinthian Ceramic Imports in Macedonia: Different People, Different Tastes? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 Eurydice Kefalidou – Ioannis Xydopoulos Strangers in a Strange Land: Two Soldiers’ Graffiti from Ancient Thermi . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 Despoina Tsiafaki Thracians and Greeks in the North Aegean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 Margarit Damyanov First Encounters and Further Developments: Greeks Meeting Thracians on the Western Pontic Coast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

6

Contents

Soultana Maria Valamoti – Evgenia Gkatzogia – Ivanka Hristova – Elena Marinova Wolff Iron Age Cultural Interactions, Plant Subsistence and Land Use in Southeastern Europe Inferred from Archaeobotanical Evidence of Greece and Bulgaria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 Denitsa Nenova The Edge of an Era: Changing Aspects in the Southeast Balkans Towards the End of the 2nd Millennium BC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 Tanya Dzhanfezova The Making of Late Bronze Age Archaeological Cultures in Bulgaria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307 Elena Bozhinova Settlements or Sanctuaries? Interpretational Dilemma Concerning 2nd–1st Millennium BC Sites in Bulgaria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 Hristo Popov – Krasimir Nikov ‘Ada Tepe Late Bronze Age Gold Mine’ Project: Between Borders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359 Maja Gori Bronze Age and the Embedded Macedonian Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391 Tobias Krapf The Late Bronze Age / Early Iron Age Transition in the Korçë Basin (SE-Albania) and the Modern Perception of the Emergence of Illyrian Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411 Mario Gavranović No Group, no People? Archaeological Record and Creation of Groups in the Western Balkans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447

Preface by the Series Editor The 9th volume of the publication series Oriental and European Archaeology, encompasses the outcome of an international and interdisciplinary workshop at the 20th Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists held in Istanbul, Turkey. The workshop took place from the 10th–14th September 2014, and was organised by Stefanos Gimatzidis, Magda Pieniążek and Sila Mangaloğlu-Votruba. With their focus on Archaeology across Frontiers and Borderlands, they shed new light onto a current topic within the context of the 21st century. This volume continues the main aims of the OREA series to publish current debates in the context of new primary data for a broader scientific audience of archaeologists working in Europe, the Near East, Mesopotamia, Anatolia or the Mediterranean. The underlying objective of this volume is a theoretical debate on the archaeology at the crossroads of the Balkans, the Aegean and Anatolia, and its interrelation with social and political life in this historically turbulent region. The focus of the papers is the perception of the past within the local perspectives of modern nation states (migrations and ethnic continuities in the service of modern ethno-geneses, etc.). The main issues discussed are the potential of material culture for establishing definitions of modern and past identities, local and inter-regional connectivity, as well as materiality of things in a dialectic approach of people and objects. The transformations in function or symbolism of objects after re-contextualisation in the past and present, the interaction within alternating historical environments, and cultural entanglements are discussed in several papers. The organisers of the conference have successfully brought together internationally wellknown inter- and transdisciplinary specialists, who have contributed to research questions about cross cultural exchange. The 20 papers within this volume highlight exchange networks as well as foreign influences on subsistence, settlement patterns and migrations from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age between Western Anatolia, the Balkans and wider Europe. Interaction among different societies and cultures, as well as the exchange of goods and ideas, are other important topics of this book. Domestic, cultic and public architecture, artefact groups and burial rites have always been employed in the archaeological process of defining identities; however, these identities were not static but rather underwent constant transformations. This volume will certainly contribute to highlighting new research questions about the transition from the Bronze to the Iron Ages in the Balkans, Aegean and Anatolia. The new generation of researchers working in these regions is creating a new approach and theoretically contextualised debates as demonstrated in this OREA volume. My sincere thanks go to the editors of this volume and the authors of all contributions for sharing their expertise and perspectives about Archaeology Across Frontiers and Borderlands. Financial support has been provided by the OREA Institute of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. Ulrike Schuh was responsible for the editorial work and Kelly Gillikin for the English language editing; the layout was done by Marian Negrete Martínez and Angela Schwab. I warmly thank all of them for their thorough work and engagement.

Barbara Horejs Director of the Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology Vienna, 8 May 2018

ORIENTAL AND EUROPEAN ARCHAEOLOGY Vol. 1

B. Horejs – M. Mehofer (eds.), Western Anatolia before Troy. Proto-Urbanisation in the 4th Millenium BC? Proceedings of the International Symposium held at the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Vienna, Austria, 21–24 November, 2012 (Vienna 2014).

Vol. 2

B. Eder – R. Pruzsinszky (eds.), Policies of Exchange. Political Systems and Modes of Interaction in the Aegean and the Near East in the 2nd Millennium B.C.E. Proceedings of the International Symposium at the University of Freiburg, Institute for Archaeological Studies, 30th May–2nd June, 2012 (Vienna 2015).

Vol. 3

M. Bartelheim – B. Horejs – R. Krauß (eds.), Von Baden bis Troia. Ressourcennutzung, Metallurgie und Wissenstransfer. Eine Jubiläumsschrift für Ernst Pernicka (Rahden/Westf. 2016).

Vol. 4

M. Luciani (ed.), The Archaeology of North Arabia. Oases and Landscapes. Proceedings of the International Congress held at the University of Vienna, 5–8 December, 2013 (Vienna 2016).

Vol. 5

B. Horejs, Çukuriçi Höyük 1. Anatolia and the Aegean from the 7th to the 3rd Millennium BC. With contributions by Ch. Britsch, St. Grasböck, B. Milić, L. Peloschek, M. Röcklinger and Ch. Schwall (Vienna 2017).

Vol. 6

M. Mödlinger, Protecting the Body in War and Combat. Metal Body Armour in Bronze Age Europe (Vienna 2017).

Vol. 7

Ch. Schwall, Çukuriçi Höyük 2. Das 5. und 4. Jahrtausend v. Chr. in Westanatolien und der Ostägäis. Mit einem Beitrag von B. Horejs (Vienna 2018).

Vol. 8

W. Anderson – K. Hopper – A. Robinson (eds.), Landscape Archaeology in Southern Caucasia. Finding Common Ground in Diverse Environments. Proceedings of the Workshop held at 10th ICAANE in Vienna, April 2016 (Vienna 2018).

Archaeology Across Frontiers and Borderlands: An Introduction Stefanos Gimatzidis1 – Magda Pieniążek2 This volume wishes to challenge traditional interpretations in archaeology at the crossroads of the Aegean, Anatolia, and the Balkans. The focus is on the Bronze and Iron Ages, which are periods of significant transformations, such as the emergence of complex societies and the intensification of exchange. One of the most important reasons for dealing with this particular time-space is also the fact that the Bronze Age (especially the Late Bronze Age) and Iron Age used to be conceived as the time of the ethnogenesis of the most well-known ancient ethne in the Balkans and Anatolia. Regional nation-states often look for their origins in these periods of time. This volume further considers, through an interregional perspective, all those social and political interactions that have shaped archaeologies in the study area and which are illustrated by specific case studies regarding the manipulation of the archaeological record. Finally, the aim of this volume is to overcome powerful centre-periphery biases and traditional culture-historical approaches in the interpretation of cultural exchange. Archaeology has been frequently conceptualised as a discipline in the service of the nation with a duty to defend ethnic identity and its continuity, as well as guard and manage cultural heritage as a national commodity.3 Although archaeology has frequently been referenced in ethnic disputes and conflicts in the region, so far the issue has not been raised on an interregional level in a way that would generate an open debate. Instead, a lot of criticism has been addressed against foreign archaeologies, followed by a deconstruction of contested archaeological narratives and a generation of ‘proper’ narratives about significant issues, such as the origins, continuity, and glory of the nation.4 Next to that, a kind of self-critique has already been voiced from several contexts, which was shaped by experiences that were mostly nationally based and did not interact with the Balkan political scene.5 Some of them look like parallel, barely interacting monologues trying to balance between international demands for critique and regional diplomatic affairs; others show a tendency for self-flagellation and overlook the reciprocated effect of national narrative constructions in a wider region.6 There were, however, also studies with a broader view of the supra-regional dimensions of nationalism in Balkan archaeologies that emerged through the needs of the single nation states and developed through the interaction of different archaeological narratives.7 For a long time, Balkan-Anatolian archaeologies have been following parallel, barely intersecting trajectories due to socio-politically contingent reasons. This divide arose as a syndrome of the Cold War, which restricted intercommunication and left no space for interregional coopera-



Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, Austria; stefanos. [email protected]; [email protected]. 2 Institute of Prehistory and Early History, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Germany; magda.pieniazek@ifu. uni-tuebingen.de. 3 Trigger 1984. 4 The treatment of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age matt-painted pottery in Greece and Albania is a representative example (see below). 5 Kotsakis 1998; Hamilakis 2007. 6 See e.g. Plantzos’ papers in Damaskos – Plantzos 2008. 7 Kaiser 1995; Brown 1998; Novakovič 2011; Slapšak 2011; Dzino 2014; Marinov 2015. 1

10

Stefanos Gimatzidis – Magda Pieniążek

tion. Already before the political changes in the early 1990s, retreating Marxism gave room for a rising nationalism that was always present in a more or less disguised form in the socialist Balkan states. The collapse and dismantling of Yugoslavia was followed by a long period of national conflicts and wars that affected the whole territory by re-fuelling old disputes or giving birth to new ones. The ambition of the present volume is to bridge scholarly divides by bringing archaeologists working in the northern Aegean and the Balkan hinterland together and challenge traditional perceptions in regional archaeologies.8 The 20th conference of the European Association of Archaeologists that took place in Istanbul in 2014 offered an excellent opportunity for a first meeting. Most of the colleagues who took part in that meeting deliver their papers in the present volume together with a few others who joined us later. Theoretical Perspectives of Balkan Archaeologies History and archaeology have been recruited to serve purposes of the new nation states that have been emerging in the Balkans during the last two centuries; both disciplines have been often perceived as part of an effective arsenal in regional nationalistic disputes that have shaped the political map of the Balkans. It is argued that regional archaeological narratives cannot be adequately comprehended and evaluated without prior knowledge of the historical conditions that generated them. This is particularly true for a territory well known for its continuous tensions and reluctance for concession that gave its name to political fragmentation (‘Balkanisation’), and finally created so many negative stereotypes about its socio-political and cultural setting that gave birth to the term ‘Balkanism’.9 Regional archaeologies have had a prominent position in the production of those narratives that promote and support the idea of the nation and serve the needs of the state. The planning and implementation of archaeological projects is part of national strategies in the Balkans and Anatolia, and state archaeologists usually operate within nationalist agendas. The sensitivity of archaeological planning to political changes elucidates this interrelation and several papers in this volume present relevant case studies. State archaeologists are perceived as curators of the cultural heritage, but also as guardians of the national identity and integrity. In this sense, the Balkan public is trained to conceive of archaeology as a national commodity that secures national interests as education likewise does.10 The theoretical perspective of Balkan and Anatolian archaeologies has been eclectic. If we may allow any generalisations, we could say that the German archaeological school has asserted a major influence from the beginning of the 20th century onwards in several Balkan countries, especially Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. Classical archaeology has operated, on the one hand, connectively by imposing an idealisation of the Hellenic culture according to Winckelmann’s legacy.11 This made the Aegean a point of reference and adjuster for several developments in regional Balkan archaeologies. Balkan state archaeologies could not dispute internationally-acknowledged notions such as Hellenisation and Romanisation; in some cases they did not wish to, as this was a precondition for their right to share in European identity. On the other hand, the desire for cultural differentiation required the shifting of their focus of research for origins from the classical to earlier ‘protohistoric’ periods dating before the ‘Hellenisation period’, which could accommodate

The entanglement of archaeology with politics, especially its interactions with nationalism, has been extensively debated in several recent studies with a focus on turbulent territories throughout the world: Kohl – Fawcett 1995; Díaz-Andreu – Champion 1996; Silberman – Small 1997; Meskell 1998; Lozny 2001; Galaty – Watkinson 2004; Rowan – Baram 2004; Bernhardsson 2005 (Iraq); Kohl et al. 2007; Oestigaard 2007 (Israel, Palestine); McGuire 2008; Díaz-Andreu 2008; Ríagáin – Popa 2012. 9 Todorova 2009, 3–37. 10 See for example the papers of Stefanos Gimatzidis, Sıla Mangaloğlu-Votruba and Rik Vaessen in this volume. 11 Emden 2004, 47–67. 8



Archaeology Across Frontiers and Borderlands: An Introduction

11

a re-negotiation of their identities. The term protohistory for the Late Bronze and Iron Age in Balkan archaeologies derived from a certain confidence in later textual evidence reporting about the origin of early people such as the Illyrians, Thracians, Dacians, Paeonians, Macedonians, etc. It is very difficult to draw any clear distinction in methods and approaches between classical and pre-/protohistoric archaeology in the Balkans – in some Balkan countries these are not considered as distinct disciplines. However, a common feature is the adherence to the old values of culture-historical methods. By raising claims over the past and appropriating ancient cultures and identities, modern nation-states have been attempting to achieve national homogenisation and even legitimate their claims over territories. This discourse was aligned to culture-historical approaches, which traditionally focused on the search for origins and ethnic identities that consequently contributed to the definition of ethno-cultural groups. Single artefacts or archaeological phenomena were typologically evaluated for the definition of alleged homogenous cultural groups. While the notion of autochthony was evoked to explain cultural (typological) continuities, analogues or parallels were evoked to establish affinities between different groups. Sporadic imports were taken as evidence for contacts and massive appearances of new cultural phenomena were perceived as indications for migrations or demonstrated the paths of cultural diffusion. Such generalisations that resulted from a simplistic objectification of the archaeological record, illustrated in the best cases by statistical analyses and distribution maps, support this perspective. Furthermore, the simplicity of this concept makes it easily consumable by a public that has learned to comprehend the purposes of archaeology in a similar way. It is precisely these biases in Balkan archaeologies that initiated the idea for a meeting of archaeologists working in the north Aegean and the central Balkans. The question that arises is how far artefacts or single archaeological phenomena (e.g. mortuary practice, domestic or public architecture) can contribute to the definition of past identities. Foreign commodities are unavoidably a central focus of this discussion; they are the so-called imports on which the interpretation of contacts, migrations or invasions – depending on the intensity of their appearance – is usually based. In the past, these so-called imports were perceived in certain quarters as static artefacts whose original function, meaning and identity were allegedly not transformed after re-contextualisation and, consequently, they were suggested as evidence for the presence of a foreign people of similar origin. As such, they formed an essential argument in the construction of culture-historical narratives and the main device in the manipulation of the archaeological record. Therefore, one of the desiderata of this volume is a new discussion about the materiality of things and the dialectic with people that can potentially transform their function and symbolism in dynamic historical and cultural contexts. Manipulation of Identities and Predation Paraphrasing Zygmunt Bauman, we can say that the concern of modern archaeology was to construct and maintain identities, while the postmodern concern is certainly to avoid fixation and help reshape and transform identities.12 One objective of archaeology has always been the search for identities and the definition of their materiality (continuities and discontinuities). It has only recently been argued that identities may become predatory since they are defined on the basis of the exclusion/inclusion dialectic. We argue here that the search for certain identities is nothing more than that. According to the definition of Appadurai, ‘predatory identities’ pursue the extinction of others that may be perceived as competitive; they operate as conflicting parts of pairs that exclude possible alternatives and may consequently turn against each other due to the conviction that there is space only for single identities.13 This is an illusion that has been cultivated in social sciences

Bauman 1996, 18. Appadurai 2001, 44–45; Appadurai 2006, 51–52.

12 13

12

Stefanos Gimatzidis – Magda Pieniążek

and overlooks the fact that identity is a fluid, multi-dimensional concept. Humans enact multiple identities, not only within but also beyond the cultural and religious domain that may include class, politics, ethics, gender, kin, etc.14 Moreover, the same humans may indeed share several identities and at the same time enact different ones; these identities can further change depending on human experiences or even blur into one another.15 It is likely that certain threatened cultural, religious and other social identities may let themselves be integrated within a broader concept of identity, such as ethnicity, in order to enjoy the institutionalised protection of the majority. All this makes ethnic identity more predatory than any other. For a long time, national and religious identities were the main pursuit of archaeology. Single artefacts or archaeological phenomena, i.e. burial types, served as key attributes. Identities were in this way rationalised and objectified. The main outcome of type classifications and their spatial distributions was the definition of cultural groups that were subsequently equated with ethnic entities.16 Migration and diffusion were evoked to explain the distribution of these phenomena.17 These approaches in archaeology were certainly aligned with the imperialistic ideology of the major nation-states of that time in Europe. Expansionist policies, exclusion of minorities, or any attempts for the violent assimilation of minorities could find support in archaeological evidence. Included was also the construction of ancestral landscapes that were perceived as sacred national space and formed primary arguments for territorial claims.18 Ethnic Identity and the Search for Origins in the Archaeological Imagination A major focus of European archaeology has been in the past – and in certain quarters, still is – the emergence of ancient ethnic groups (ethnogenesis).19 Although these events were usually imagined to have taken place in the Bronze Age or in the periods immediately following (the so-called protohistoric periods), the departing point for the definition of ancient ethnicities was textual data from significantly later periods. However, evidence for the construction of ethnogenesis narratives was derived mostly from the archaeological record. Ethnic distinctions were thus traced in the heterogeneity of material culture (us and others), and ethnicities were negotiated by means of expansions through migrations, invasions as well as assimilations.20 Despite significant progress in archaeological methods and the denouncement of old-fashioned culture-historical approaches, one of the most popular questions in current archaeology worldwide is still ‘who’, which is mainly a question about ethnic origins, since most other social identities have been sacrificed to the cost of ethnicity.21 Ethnicity can, under certain circumstances and to a certain degree, be traced in cultural material. This is, however, a subject matter and almost unique privilege of historical archaeology and depends every time on successful integration of documentary data and archaeological evidence.22 Even in this case, there are, however, major restrictions since the material markers of ethnic identities are usually scarce and not always indicative of ethnic boundary maintenance due to fluidity in their symbolism, as well as dynamic transformation in the definition of ethnicity through time.23 There is no single answer to the frequently asked question whether ethnic identity is detectable in material culture. Artefacts and

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 14 15

Sen 2006, xv–xvii, 1–39; Meskell 2007, 24–28. Meskell 2001, 188–204. Trigger 2006, 211–313. Jones 1997, 15–26; Trigger 2006, 217–223. Thomas 2001, 170. For an analysis of the development of the concept of ethnogenesis in archaeology see Voss 2008, 33–37. Jones 1997, 106–110; Jones 2007, 45–48. McGuire 1982, 164. McGuire 1982, 161–165. McGuire 1982, 163; Upton 1996, 1–2.

Archaeology Across Frontiers and Borderlands: An Introduction

13

their contexts are always mute in this respect not only because they rarely have this potential, but rather due to the fluidity of the notion of ethnicity that can rapidly change its properties and variably transform even among the members of the same social group. The equation is thus difficult – even under the best conditions for historical archaeology – between artefacts and a dynamic ideology such as ethnicity. Instead of labelling artefacts as ethnic markers and by this way projecting modern perceptions of identity into the past, it is more efficient and methodologically sound to investigate how past groups or individuals constructed their identities.24 Consequently, the definition of ethnicity by means of cultural material in prehistory or in early historical periods is ambiguous. In these cases, rarely can some artefacts be identified as potential markers of ethnicities.25 Despite these unfavourable conditions, the history of archaeology shows that it is indeed inevitable for a discipline that arose parallel to nationalism to avoid addressing the ‘who’-question. The reasons are obvious: apart from human curiosity about the past, this question can serve the causes of the nation-state that may range from the homogenisation of the nation to territorial claims. Claiming the past can prepare the ground for the conqueror of the future. The preferred method was to look as deep into the past as possible for ethnic affinities. It is not incidental that archaeology, being an offspring of modernity and setting itself from the very beginning in the service of the nation-states, used to focus mostly on origins, continuities and discontinuities. Thus, for whom are the origins of a cultural phenomenon more significant if not for the nation-state?26 Even the conflicting concepts ex oriente / septentrione lux were raised in Europe during the 19th and early 20th centuries in specific cultural and political contexts that ranged from the romantic orientalising ideology and religious biases to racist theories.27 The fact that “boundaries between race and ethnicity tend to be blurred, since ethnic groups have a common myth of origin, which relates ethnicity to descent, which again makes it a kindred concept to race”, as Hylland Eriksen has pointed out in his seminal study on ethnicity and nationalism,28 makes archaeology a most necessary accessory for any nationalistic ideology or institution.29 The more ancient the origins, the more legitimate the claims of the nation over a territory. This is the reason for a contest between Albanian and Greek archaeologists over the origin of the matt- painted pottery that was consumed during the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in northwestern Greece (Epirus, west/central Macedonia, Thessaly), Albania and FYR of Macedonia to name only one example. Albanian archaeologists related this pottery to Illyrian tribes and gradually raised its appearance in southern Albania to the beginning of the Late Bronze Age, while Greek archaeologists considered it as the tableware of Dorians or Macedonians (or both). Such discussions are rarely based on any positivist study or systematic research. Balkan archaeologists are well aware about the low objective potential of their discipline, which produces constructs waiting for validation by the public. This conceptualisation of archaeology favours the fabrication of nationalistic narratives, which are welcome by a public that perceives archaeology as a device in the service of the nation and archaeologists as curators of the national heritage. Popularisation of archaeology has a somehow different effect in the Balkans than is experienced elsewhere. The Balkan public is very keen on archaeological news and discoveries; they actively take part in archaeological debate and shape it by putting forward their expectations and desires. Archaeologists are the civil servants who implement these plans. However powerful these traditions may be in the Balkans and especially in their central part that is particularly treated in this volume, there has recently been a lot of progress in archaeological theorising. This is not just the result of external cooperation of Balkan archaeologists with other European and American colleagues – such a view would underestimate the local reflections

26 27 28 29 24 25

Fesler – Franklin 1999, 2–3. Cf. Upton 1996, 5. Trigger 2006, 248–261. Cf. Voutsaki 2002. Hylland Eriksen 2010, 7. Rowlands 2007, 62.

14

Stefanos Gimatzidis – Magda Pieniążek

and present further evidence for Trigger’s definition of imperialist archaeology30 – but rather a self-conscious turn away from the state-driven propaganda. This is clearly shown not only in the minor support that the project Skopje 2014 enjoyed among regional archaeologists in FYR of Macedonia and by the disapproval of the methods recently employed in the Amphipolis project in Greece, but also by the severe critique that several major archaeological projects received in the last two decades in Bulgaria, such as the one close to Shipka. More than that, an equally self-conscious public recently showed their disapproval on the one hand of the project Skopje 2014 – overtly expressed with vandalism during recent demonstrations against the brand new and rather expensive archaising monuments that were erected in the heart of the old Balkan city – and on the other hand to the management of the Amphipolis project in Greece.31 The fact that cooperation among Balkan archaeologists increased during the last decades with projects such as those at Topolnica at the Greek-Bulgarian borders being not any more the exception is certainly a sign of change not only in the perception of the past as a national commodity, but also in archaeological mentality. Transregional Interaction Interaction among different societies and cultures as well as exchange of artefacts and ideas are common phenomena in world history. However, the mode, intensity and duration of interaction depend on several factors that are interwoven in socio-political, ideological and environmental domains. The context of the encounter (‘contact situation’) is crucial for the scale of entanglement.32 Contact may range from sporadic exchange between different cultural entities with minimal impact on their culture to permanent interaction as in the case of colonisation or conquest, when groups of people ‘implant’ their ideology, technology and material culture in their new homeland. Reaction to ‘foreign’ ideas, strategies, technologies and other cultural expressions depends on local socio-cultural and economic backgrounds. It is essential for any appropriation process if comparable objects, ideologies or technologies are already familiar at the moment of contact. Namely, this situation can generate greater impact on the intensity and profoundness of cultural interaction. Therefore, material culture “lies at the heart of social interaction, because people exchange ‘things’ as they interact with each other, peacefully or otherwise”.33 Its significance towards archaeological interpretation is twofold. Firstly, material culture may be the cause as well as the outcome of an interaction. Archaeological objects are the result of multiscale entanglements and can potentially generate new entanglements as soon as they enter new cultural environments. These processes are an outcome of human’s intellectual and sensorial perception of things. Secondly, material culture is the only outcome of these cognitive processes that is preserved, at least in the case of illiterate societies. This means that the most important information on the process of interaction is lost forever, with the exception of rare cases when very well preserved contexts permit reconstruction not only of actions, but also of motivations.34 This has to be considered whenever the materiality of archaeological finds like pottery, swords or jewellery is analysed. Nevertheless, cultural contact is a dynamic process that may generate various transformations, some of them recently labelled as hybridisation, which refers – among others – to objects showing both local and foreign features.35 This term has been criticised mainly because of the implication

32 33 34 35 30 31

Trigger 1984, 363. See the paper of Gimatzidis in this volume. Burke 2009; Van Dommelen – Rowlands 2012, 24. Van Dommelen – Rowlands 2012, 20. ‘Context of practise’, van Dommelen – Rowlands 2012. Bhabha 2007; Burke 2009.

Archaeology Across Frontiers and Borderlands: An Introduction

15

of purity in the notion of hybridity.36 Another problem is that hybridity seems to present itself as something exceptional or extraordinary. Indeed, the first outcome in a contact situation may be a ‘hybrid’ one, but in many cases the effect of such contact was a long-lasting, deep transformation. Therefore, the terms ‘cultural translation’ and ‘appropriation’37 describe better the process whereby the members of society use or imitate foreign objects. The foreign objects are used and culturally translated if people have any application for them according to their needs and if there is any profit. Furthermore, the process of cultural translation can bring intentional or unintentional transformations in meaning, function and, consequently, consumption of foreign objects (trade goods, gifts, booty), as well as in cases of the local production of objects of foreign origin. Needless to say, misunderstandings or misuses38 may be at the bottom of such transformations and constitute integral parts of the process of appropriation. Consequently, one of the most important aspects of cultural interaction is something that we can call, after Ian Hodder, ‘fittingness’.39 Societies interact only if they ‘fit’, that means if there are at least some connecting points, interests, or spheres where interface is possible, desirable, or, at least in some respects, profitable for both sides. The degree of fittingness can affect the intensity of interaction. Cultures that do not fit may decide not to exchange. In such cases, reluctance and rejection can dominate interrelations. The notions of connectivity and materiality were intensively discussed in the last decades,40 however, the issue of conscious rejection of cultural exchange, especially in cases when such exchange could be expected due to, for example, geographical proximity, has not been sufficiently addressed.41 There are several historically recorded cases of neighbouring societies that were so different that any kind of exchange was not possible. A representative example is attested from the so-called Turkmen Steppe, the transitional landscape zone between the central Asiatic dry steppe and mountainous northern Iran.42 After having conquered this territory in the 11th century AD, nomadic Turkmen came in direct contact with the Persian sedentary culture. However, although Persian and Turkmen societies lived next to each other, the differences between them were so significant that assimilation of any kind was rejected. Over the ages, the only interaction was the result of military conflict – usually Turkmen raids on Persian settlements.43 This case shows how cultures and societies living in the same geographical space, but with totally different ideologies, socio-political and economic organisation (‘disparate cultures’)44 will interact differently from cultures sharing at least some common values. Thrace and northwestern Anatolia during the Late Bronze Age are most probably an example of ‘disparate cultures’. There, contact was sporadic and had little impact on the local milieu as testified by only a few Aegean or Anatolian objects found in Turkish Thrace and the area of present-day central and eastern Bulgaria.45 Furthermore, these rare foreign objects were strongly recontextualised in the Balkans.46 On the other hand, most of the north Aegean had intensive and well-documented contacts with areas lying further to the south. This development surely had various cultural reasons, but was also related to the important innovations in the modes of transportation that facilitated transregional maritime communication, specifically the spread of new sailing technology and the employment of new kinds of ships.47 From the very beginning, these

38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 36 37

Stockhammer 2013. Latour 1986; Burke 2009, 55–61; Maran 2013; Stockhammer 2013. Burke 2009, 58. Hodder 2012, 114. Hahn 2014 [2005]; Hodder 2012; Maran – Stockhammer 2012. See Pieniażek in this volume; Stockhammer ‒ Atanassov in this volume. Ehlers 1970. Ehlers 1970, 29–48. Pratt 1993 [1992]. Athanassov et al. 2012, 7‒9; Athanassov – Krauß 2015; Damyanov in this volume. Athanassov – Krauß 2015, 74–75. Guttandin et al. 2011.

16

Stefanos Gimatzidis – Magda Pieniążek

connections resulted in significant cultural transformations. This process was especially intensive in the case of the islands such as Lemnos and Samothrace, where not only exotic Minoan imports appeared, but also sophisticated Minoan administration praxes were implemented locally.48 The interaction resulted in very interesting transformations of material culture, made visible, for example, in locally produced ceramic vessels, which showed both Minoan and north Aegean features.49 The same is true for Trojan pottery, which comprised not only locally manufactured Mycenaean pottery, but also wares taking the form of Mycenaean shapes produced in the local Tan Ware and sometimes even decorated in a Mycenaeanising way. One such vessel, a Tan Ware painted bull rhyton, was found in a shrine context dating to the 13th century BC;50 this shows that appropriation could also be recognised in cult activities and religion. It is clear that in the 2nd millennium the north Aegean and Thrace belonged to different cultural spheres. However, there were a few exceptions to this situation, such as the area of the Gallipoli Peninsula, where true Anatolian-Aegean-Thracian entanglements did happen in the 2nd millennium, as demonstrated with the preliminary evidence from Maydos-Kilisetepe.51 At this site, Anatolian Grey Ware and handmade ‘Balkan type’ pottery were consumed throughout the 2nd millennium, and monumental edifices of northeastern Anatolian style were covered with plaster decorated with motifs characteristic of the handmade Balkan pottery. Therefore, based on current evidence, one can conclude that the Gallipoli Peninsula (and maybe also the adjacent Aegean coast)52 was an area of intensive and very creative Anatolian-Aegean-Balkan cultural translations where very different traditions mixed. However, these cultural traits cannot be seen in the Thracian hinterland.53 At this point, one important issue needs to be addressed. Although we reject the colonial perspective of transcultural contact, we cannot deny the fact that the products of relatively advanced technologies, as well as technologies themselves, tend to move in one direction in time-space. They generally shift from areas with more complex socioeconomic strategies to those with less complex ones. It is more likely that the wheel-made, painted pottery was imported and appropriated to regions where handmade and unpainted pottery was dominantly produced and consumed rather than the other way around, just to name a most common archaeological example.54 On the other hand, not only advanced manufacturing technologies, but also certain skills, fashions, ideologies or resources may have great transformative potential and travelled across the borders. Such was the case of horse-riding coming from the Eurasian steppe or Baltic amber in prehistoric and early historic periods as well as piercing and tattoo-fashion originating in pre-colonial cultures all over the world and introduced in the west by sailors, criminals, punks, etc. Thus, cultural influence is not necessarily exerted by more complex organised societies to societies of less complex political and economic structure or by elites to lower social classes. Disregarding who is a more visible ‘donor’ in the process of cultural exchange, our intention is to follow the postcolonial agenda on studies of material culture as well as beyond the colonial context of centre and periphery that has traditionally treated foreign artefacts – the ‘imports’ – as context-less items attesting to an abstract form of exchange usually called ‘trade’. In this frame-

50 51 52

Matsas 1995; Boulotis 2009. Girella ‒ Pavúk 2015. Rigter ‒ Thumm-Doğrayan 2014; Pieniążek ‒ Aslan 2016. Sazçı in this volume. Kilisetepe is the only excavated site, but the evidence coming from surveys demonstrates that Late Bronze Age Anatolian Grey Ware spread not only on the Gallipoli Peninsula but also along the coast of the Aegean Sea roughly as far as the mouth of Evros-Marica. This also seems to be the limit of the distribution of Late Bronze Age tell settlements in the region (Özdoğan 1994). 53 Özdoğan 2002, 73‒74; Nenova in this volume. 54 This is not to deny the existence of situations when goods travel in the exact opposite direction. The case of Handmade Burnished Wares (so-called ‘Barbarian Ware’) that were introduced in rather small quantities as foreign elements in the local material culture during the final stages of the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in Greece, being one of the best known examples. 48 49

Archaeology Across Frontiers and Borderlands: An Introduction

17

work, special attention will be put on the active role and creativity of the recipients in the course of any kind of transcultural transactions. This active role may express itself in acceptance, selection, appropriation, or rejection of foreign cultural values or items.

Contributions Balkan archaeologies are operating in ideological fields where identities are constantly being negotiated. They are perhaps more socio-politically contingent than any other regional archaeology in Europe – thus, their narratives have to be perceived as constructs of the regional nation-states and their public, fabricated every time under particular historical conditions. The question of multivocality was recently raised in the theoretical debate over archaeology and its objective was as reasonable as the debate over the democratisation of archaeology. By elaborating on nationalism in Balkan archaeologies and discussing contesting phenomena of ethonogeneses in north Greece, Bulgaria, FYR of Macedonia and Albania, Stefanos Gimatzidis argues that multivocality can easily be manipulated to support state ideology. Popularisation of archaeology does not necessarily secure the right of the non-academic public for participation in the archaeological debate and co-authoring archaeological narratives produced by state mechanisms (archaeological services, museums, etc.). Archaeology and history are usually perceived in politically turbulent, ex- or semi-colonial contexts as guardians of national identity, culture and interests; deviations from this rule are not welcome. This may mean that the popularisation of archaeology can simply result in the oppression of academic voices that are not aligned with state ideology. Democratisation of archaeological debate demands, in these cases, a translocal perspective as well as an up-down transformation of the mechanisms that produce history and, accordingly, a re-education of those producing and consuming it. Greek archaeology has been largely shaped – especially in northern Greece – by the long-lasting disputes and conflicts between Greece and its neighbouring Balkan states (Albania, Bulgaria and especially FYR of Macedonia). Curiously enough, the Greek-Turkish political relations had a rather minor effect on it. The conceptualisation of the Aegean (Minoan, Mycenaean, Classical Greek) past on an international level as the cradle of European culture had a significant effect on Turkey’s management of the past, a country that shares a similar material culture on its western coast with Greece, but at the same time holds quite different modern identities. Sıla Mangaloğlu-Votruba analytically discusses this unilateral relation of the Turkish and Greek archaeologies by presenting the shifting archaeological perceptions of and approaches to the past during recent Turkish history. She further illustrates interesting case studies in Turkish education and demonstrates a wide variability – as well as several contradictions – in the perception of this country’s past. She offers an insight on the attempts of Turkey to take its place in world history by means of state historical narrations. A major point in her discussion is the divide and the reasons for it between Aegean and Anatolian archaeologies, as well as the colonial perception of western Anatolian archaeology as peripheral to the celebrated Aegean cultures. Mangaloğlu-Votruba challenges, through analysis of certain case studies (architecture and pottery), migrationist theories for the interpretation of common cultural traits on both sides of the Aegean. She finally makes a plea for the conceptualisation of the Aegean as a connective unit, where interaction between its eastern and western shores only slowed with the appearance of modern states. Rik Vaessen presents a review of western Anatolian archaeologies from a similar perspective and with a similar focus on the marginalisation of western Anatolia in Aegean archaeology, especially during the periods treated in this volume (Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age). Vaessen’s study begins with a review of the critique of the centre-periphery divide since the mid-19th century, when Charles Newton excavated the Mausoleum at Halikarnassos and compared the sculptures of this monument with those of the Parthenon, and continues with the later conceptualisation of Ionia as a centre of the Greek world by David Hogarth. The emergence of the Turkish History Thesis is explained as a reaction to the Greek claims – perhaps soon after the Greek archaeolog-

18

Stefanos Gimatzidis – Magda Pieniążek

ical interference in western Anatolia during the occupation of Smyrna and its hinterland after the Treaty of Sèvres. After a critical review of the most influential narratives constructed during the last century about the Mycenaean presence and Ionian migration in the eastern Aegean and their ideological, political and intellectual background, Vaessen’s focus is through a postcolonial perspective on the rather neglected local factor that has been overshadowed so far by Minoans, Mycenaeans, Hittites and Ionians. He further highlights some interesting new aspects of the regional cultural material, i.e. the early local production of pendant semi-circle skyphoi, and renegotiates the cultural locus of Ionia in the wider Aegean context. Another focus of the volume is the interpretative potential of material culture towards the definition of identities as well as in respect to transcultural interaction. In the framework of this thematic complex, the relations between the ‘North’ and the ‘South’ inevitably come to the fore since they have always fascinated researchers studying the Aegean–Anatolian–Balkan borderland. As noted by Philipp Stockhammer and Bogdan Athanassov, this cultural space makes scholars working there inadvertently “…think of being on the periphery of the neighbouring Aegean Bronze Age ‘civilisations’”. The major aim of their contribution is thus a new glimpse at the region beyond the colonial context of centre and periphery. From the perspective of their own field work in southwest Bulgaria, in the valley of Mesta/Nestos and Struma/Strymon, and in the course of the search for the correct perspective for studying the ‘borderlands’, Stockhammer and Athanassov critically discuss World System Theories, Social Network Theory, Richard White’s concept of ‘middle ground’ as well as Mary Pratt’s ‘contact zone’. Building mainly on the last model, they put forward the notion of ‘contact space’ as the area of especially intensive transcultural encounters. They argue that the cultural situation in such areas is very dynamic ‒ contact spaces (often borderlands) are in a state of permanent flux and reconfiguration. Furthermore, Stockhammer and Athanassov call attention to the fact that the inhabitants of such areas were not passive recipients of ‘foreign’ commodities but creatively engaged with anything that came from abroad. The analysis of intercultural relations begins in the northern Aegean, where transregional contacts, mainly with the south Aegean but also with the eastern Mediterranean and other areas, are well documented for the end of the Middle Bronze Age and the Late Bronze Age. As mentioned above, this phenomenon was discussed extensively in the framework of various pottery studies, but as demonstrated by Magda Pieniążek, comparable developments are also visible in the local production of other kinds of artefacts, such as seals. Local artisans, working most probably in Troy, created new styles depending on the availability of material, skills, and influences from distant areas as well as indigenous preferences. Such processes are also visible in other western Anatolian centres especially during the 14th and 13th centuries BC. In her contribution, Pieniążek addresses various forms of reciprocity between people and ‘foreign’ objects, such as appropriation, imitation, or rejection, and illustrates these cases with the help of north Aegean material. She also discusses the history of these interactions, which took place during the acquisition, owning, and display, and advocates for more focus on one aspect of this process: the ‘release’. Release is best represented in the archaeological record, but has not been sufficiently addressed in the theoretical debate. Based on the archaeological evidence, one has to conclude that Troy may not have been an important place of intercultural encounters between Anatolia and the Balkans, at least not during the Late Bronze Age periods (Troy VI and VIIa phases). The much-discussed Buckelkeramik, which is a Balkan type of pottery, appeared only during the 12th and 11th centuries BC at Troy. The material culture of Troy and the Troad was thoroughly western Anatolian from the 17th to 13th centuries BC. Foreign artefacts arrived from the south Aegean, Cyprus, and the Levant, but not from the Balkans – despite their vicinity in geographical terms. Based on the preliminary results of the new excavations at Maydos-Kilistepe presented by Göksel Sazcı and Meral B. Mutlu, it was instead the Gallipoli Peninsula that functioned as an arena of north Aegean‒northwest Anatolian‒Balkan (Thracian) interaction. Indeed, although so little has been excavated and published so far, what we see through a small window at Maydos-Kilisetepe is a fascinating liminal zone. We can speculate that the Gallipoli Peninsula was a true ‘contact space’ of the Anatolian and Balkan worlds; a space where very different traditions met, transformed and formed new cultures.

Archaeology Across Frontiers and Borderlands: An Introduction

19

The paper on the Early Iron Age burial rites in central Macedonia illustrates the complexities of the issue and its potential for reconstruction of the social structure in a landscape with an exceptional variability in the relevant archaeological record. Constantoula Chavela presents a comparative study of the cemetery and settlement of Toumba Thessaloniki within the settlement and burial context of central Macedonia and offers alternative interpretations for that highly variable burial record. Intra-settlement burials are attributed to ancestors that may have guarded the house, while the gradual appearance of topographically well-defined and organised necropoles is interpreted as a result of changes in social hierarchy and ideology as well as the need for new symbolism. Chavela combines this information with data on the spatial organisation of settlements and other aspects of regional material culture. She speculates that settlements in central Macedonia never developed into city-states – contrary to their development in the south – due to fragmentation in political and social organisation. The issues of exchange and reception of foreign commodities are discussed by Eleni Manakidou on the basis of the alternating distribution and consumption patterns of Protocorinthian and Corinthian pottery in Macedonia. These wares were appreciated in Classical archaeology as a means for a secure chronological correlation between the Greek centre and its native periphery, as well as indicators of an abstract form of archaic ‘trade’; however, they were rarely treated with respect to their colonial or native, non-Greek context. Based on meticulous analysis of the distribution of various types of vessels and their contexts, Manakidou demonstrates how the function of common as well as luxury pottery developed through the course of time, and highlights resemblances in the perception and consumption of this foreign commodity among sites in the south and north Aegean, Italy and other regions. The analysis of two graffiti from the region of Thessaloniki by Euridice Kefalidou and Ioannis Xydopoulos exemplifies the construction of collective memory through translocal perceptions of authority. The two terracotta fragments treated in this paper bear the inscriptions of an undeciphered Late Archaic ‘Esperanto’ – both graffiti contain letters from at least four or five alphabets – as well as incised figures inspired by the image of Persian soldiers. By means of textual evidence, a connection was drawn between these inscribed artefacts and the Persian wars, i.e. the Persian expedition in the region of the Thermaic Gulf. Such eclectic and multi entangled artefacts testify, in the best way, the transcultural potential of conflict and war as well demonstrate how terms such as buffer zone oversimplify the processes of cultural resistance, acculturation and appropriation. Last but not least, this paper offers a good lesson to prehistorians working without any textual evidence at hand that this may be as much a blessing as well as a curse. Despoina Tsiafaki and Margarit Damyanov further address the topic of Late Bronze Age contacts between the Aegean and Thrace, but focus primarily on younger periods. Tsiafaki not only recapitulates the scarce archaeological and literary evidence for relations between the Greek colonists and indigenous population, i.e. the Thracians in the western part of Aegean Thrace, but also addresses ‘the other side of the coin’ that is the perception of Thracians in the south, mainly in Athens during the Archaic and Classical periods. Cultural exchange can be traced in religion, iconography, poetry and other spheres, showing that both sides appropriated one another’s traditions. Thracian mythology, for example, became so widespread in the south Aegean that it is tempting to conclude that the ‘colonised’ managed to shape a significant cultural aspect of the ‘colonisers’. Margarit Damyanov’s focus is the fascinating history of the Greek-Thracian cultural encounters in the western Pontic ‘interface’, the Greek-Thracian contact between colonies and their hinterland during the Iron Age. Damyanov presents an instructive review of the Bulgarian literature on the issue of Greek colonisation along the western Pontic coast and pinpoints certain biases as a reflection of recent political divides between Bulgaria and Greece. After an early period of barely ‘visible’ encounters during the 8th and 7th centuries BC, when occasional Greek artefacts (‘imports’) made their first appearance after a long time in the Thracian hinterland, a new culture emerged as a result of more intense encounters, most probably promoted by ‘mixellenes’. Evidence for this process presents the appropriation of local Thracian cultural features, such as attire ornaments, in colonial contexts and the adaption of Greek technology in the Thracian hinterland.

20

Stefanos Gimatzidis – Magda Pieniążek

The potential of archaeobotanical data as a primary source of information about ancient economy and social relations in the so-called protohistorical and historical periods has only recently been comprehended in regional Balkan archaeologies. The topic of transregional encounters seen from an archaeobotanical perspective is addressed in the paper of Sultana Valamoti, Eugenia Gkatzogia, Ivanka Hristova and Elena Marinova-Wolff, who discuss the impact of the colonisation process and trade on local agrarian production, diet and cuisine habits during the Iron Age in the eastern Balkans. They also demonstrate the variability in the process of adoption and appropriation of ‘foreign’ tastes and culinary customs among sites in the western Mediterranean, the north Aegean and Thrace. By taking us away from single archaeological objects or phenomena, this paper opens alternative trajectories in archaeological interpretation and offers new perspectives in the reconstruction of the past. However fascinating the studies of materiality of ‘foreign’ commodities and ideas as well as transregional relations can be, it should not detract from the studies of identities and indigenous features of local Balkan cultures. Therefore, the contribution of Denitsa Nenova on Thracian culture during the final stages of the Late Bronze Age constitutes a perfect counterbalance to the papers discussed above. Her approach demonstrates the interpretative potential of meticulous analyses of local pottery and other kinds of material culture. On the basis of new evidence, she goes beyond the definition of six cultural groups to explore stylistic exchange networks operating in the Thracian landscape. The necessity of this ‘bottom-up’ research line is additionally exemplified by the contribution of Tanya Dzhanfezova, who pinpoints the weakness of previous constructs of cultural entities in Bulgarian archaeology and their implication in archaeological interpretation. Her focus is on the methodological shortcomings of culture-historical approaches, which, in spite of the dearth of solid chronological and typological evidence, constructed ill-defined cultural groups and subsequently equated them with ethnic groups known by much later literary evidence. Furthermore, this paper is illustrative of the inherent problems in the Bulgarian Late Bronze and Early Iron Age chronology, which suffers not only from the lack of vertical stratigraphies, but also from a shortage of radiocarbon dates. The discussion is thus not only illustrative of the need for radiocarbon dates, but also for the analytical publication of well-stratified settlement pottery contexts, which is one of the objectives of the new project “Bronze Age Gold Road of the Balkans – Ada Tepe Mining: Producers and Consumers” implemented by Barbara Horjes and Reinhard Jung in the Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology at the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna. Elena Bozhinova touches on a very sensitive issue in Bulgarian archaeology with strong implications in northern Greece, where, unfortunately, the issue is more or less ignored. She unmasks misperceptions and misconceptions of the so-called ‘Thracian sanctuaries’ that are widely discussed and interpreted as such in Bulgarian scholarship. Pit complexes and hilltop sites have been some of the most intriguing features of the Thracian landscape of the Late Bronze and mainly Iron Age. These features were related to ritual practices according to the Zeitgeist of the period of Alexander Fol and these interpretations have dominated the archaeological debate in Bulgaria ever since. Bozhinova deconstructs these theories and unveils the secular character of these structures, which are interpreted as settlements. The gold mine of Ada Tepe in the Rhodope Mountains presents an opportunity for Hristo Popov and Krasimir Nikov to discuss academic discrepancies that divide regional Balkan archaeologies. After a concise presentation of one of the most ancient, well-excavated and documented gold mines in the Balkans, the authors illustrate how certain deficiencies in archaeological documentation have biased the conceptualisation of the exchange network between the Aegean and its so-called northern periphery. On the one hand, Ada Tepe offers a deep insight into the regional settlement organisation in the Rhodope Mountains and challenges dominant views in the interpretation of the south Thracian hilltop sites ‒ by supplying clear evidence that supports theses put forward by Bozhinova. On the other hand, it presents the unique opportunity to treat the Aegean-Balkan exchange network not from the dominant viewpoint of the south but from the ‘colonised’ north. Ada Tepe with its settlements that must have housed the labourers of the gold

Archaeology Across Frontiers and Borderlands: An Introduction

21

mine is probably one of the missing links in this network, which may be substantiated in the future by already planned archaeometrical analyses. On this occasion, the authors discuss also other – rather neglected by the current scholarship – resources and commodities of the Balkan hinterland that are either invisible in the archaeological record, such as salt, or have been overlooked in the debate over the supra-regional exchange system, such as copper ores. The last part of the volume is dedicated to the western Balkans where the Macedonian dispute dominates archaeological discourse. Maja Gori re-examines the so-called Armenochori type kantharos by means of new scientific evidence from Sovjan and challenges the well-established cultural groups of Maliq and Armenochori. She presents an overview of the conceptualisation of archaeology in the Balkan countries through its interaction with national ideologies and politics and extends the discussion to the Macedonian dispute by elaborating on the historical socio-political background and addressing Macedonia’s ‘intermediate’ place in supra-regional archaeology. In concluding her focus issue of several ‘cultural groups’ in the southwestern Balkans, she discusses the dilemma of objectivism/positivism in Balkan archaeology – a term that indeed summarises single regional archaeologies that follow different ideological and intellectual trajectories as Gori states, but still refers to the idiosyncratic and ideological link that gave birth to the notions of Balkanism and Balkanisation. The issue of Illyrianism is discussed by Tobias Krapf from an Albanian/Greek perspective. The ‘Illyrians’, which is a construct of ancient Greek and Roman fantasy instead of a well-established identity in the western Balkans, formed the basis for the negotiation of almost every modern national identity in the western Balkans from Slovenia to Albania. The modern Albanian state, particularly after the Second World War, has been especially keen on the construction of a linear linkage between its modern identity and the prehistoric ‘Illyrians’. Krapf discusses the arguments of the post-war regimes of Albania about continuities – after the nationalist turn of the communist regime – on the basis of pottery, especially the Matt-painted Ware, or particularly imposing regional monuments, such as the tumuli and fortified settlements, and juxtaposes new archaeological data from the well-excavated settlement at Sovjan and other recent studies. The western Balkan archaeological perspective is concluded by the illustration of ethno-cultural perceptions in another highly turbulent Balkan territory. Mario Gravranović challenges the dominant approaches in Bosnian archaeology that have been constructing ethno-cultural groups by means of archaeological evidence from burial contexts. Through a modern analysis of burial practices in northern Bosnia – with the archaeological record of Donja Dolina as a departure point – Gravranović deconstructs older culture-historical models that regarded certain artefact categories or archaeological phenomena as expressions of collective identities. He presents new data that illustrate the relation of the material culture of north Bosnia – where there was no prior taxonomy of the archaeological record in cultural groups – with already defined cultural groups in the southeastern Alps and the northwestern Balkans and argues for an archaeological approach free of static cultural groups that would perceive the material culture as an expression of dynamic individual behaviours and complex social relations. Acknowledgements: We owe many thanks to Barbara Horejs, director of the Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, for inviting us to publish this volume in the OREA series of the Austrian Academy of Sciences and offering valuable support all along the process towards publication. In the same sense, we warmly thank the editorial team of the OREA Institute and especially Ulrike Schuh for their manifold engagement. We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their comments that have definitely helped improve our book. Last but not least, we wish to thank the Publication Committee of the Austrian Academy of Sciences for having accepted our manuscript for publication and included it in one of its renowned series. Our meeting in Istanbul was facilitated by the support of an FWF (Stefanos Gimatzidis) and a Marie Curie grant (Magda Pieniążek).

22

Stefanos Gimatzidis – Magda Pieniążek

References Appadurai 2001 A. Appadurai, The globalisation of archaeology and heritage. A discussion with Arjun Appadurai, Journal of Social Archaeology 1, 1, 2001, 35–49. Appadurai 2006 A. Appadurai, Fear of Small Numbers. An Essay on the Geography of Anger (Durham 2006). Athanassov ‒ Krauß 2015 B. Athanassov ‒ R. Krauß, Der Ostbalkanraum zwischen mediterranen Hochkulturen und dem südöstlichen Europa in der Spätbronzezeit, in: G. von Bülow (ed.), Kontaktzone Balkan. Beiträge des internationalen Kolloquiums “Die Donau-Balkan-Region als Kontaktzone zwischen Ost-West und Nord-Süd” vom 16.–18. Mai 2012 in Frankfurt a.M. (Bonn 2015) 63–79. Athanassov et al. 2012 B. Athanassov – R. Krauß – V. Slavčev, A bronze sword of the Aegean-Anatolian type in the museum of Varna, Bulgaria, 26 Mar. 2012, in: B. Horejs – P. Pavúk (eds.), Aegean and Balkan Prehistory. Online (last accessed 16 Oct 2017). Bauman 1996 Z. Bauman, From pilgrim to tourist – or a short history of identity, in: S. Hall – P. du Gay (eds.), Questions of Cultural Identity (London 1996) 18–36. Bernhardsson 2005 M. T. Bernhardsson, Reclaiming a Plundered Past. Archaeology and Nation Building in Modern Iraq (Austin 2005). Bhabha 1994 H. Bhabha, The Location of Culture (London 1994). Boulotis 2009 C. Boulotis, Koukonisi on Lemnos. Reflections on the Minoan and Minoanising evidence, in: C. F. Macdonald – E. Hallager – W. D. Niemeier (eds.), The Minoans in the Central, Eastern and Northern Aegean – New Evidence (Århus 2009) 175–218. Burke 2009 P. Burke, Cultural Hybridity (Cambridge 2009). Brown 1998 K. S. Brown, Contests of heritage and the politics of preservation in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, in: Meskell 1998, 68–86. Damaskos – Plantzos 2008 D. Damaskos – D. Plantzos (eds.), A Singular Antiquity. Archaeology and Hellenic Identity in Twentieth-Century Greece (Athens 2008). Díaz-Andreu 2008 M. Díaz-Andreu (ed.), A World History of Nineteenth-Century Archaeology. Nationalism, Colonialism, and the Past (Oxford 2007). Díaz-Andreu – Champion 1996 M. Díaz-Andreu – T. Champion, Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe (London 1996). Dzino 2014 D. Dzino, Constructing Illyrians. Prehistoric inhabitants of the Balkan Peninsula in early modern and modern perceptions, Balkanistica 27, 2014, 1–39. Ehlers 1970 E. Ehlers, Die Turkmenensteppe in Nordpersien und ihre Umrandung. Eine landeskundliche Skizze, in: Strukturwandlungen in nomadisch-bäuerlichen Lebensraum des Orients, Erdkundliches Wissen. Schriftenfolge für Forschung und Praxis 26, Geographische Zeitschrift Beihefte (Wiesbaden 1970) 1–51.

Archaeology Across Frontiers and Borderlands: An Introduction

23

Emden 2004 C. J. Emden, History, memory, and the invention of antiquity. Notes on the ‘Classical Tradition’, in: C. Emden – D. Midgley (eds.), Cultural Memory and Historical Consciousness in the German-Speaking World Since 1500. Papers from the Conference ‘The Fragile Tradition’, Cambridge 2002, 1 (Bern 2004) 39–67. Fesler – Franklin 1999 G. Fesler – M. Franklin, The exploration of ethnicity and the historical archaeological record, in: G. Fesler – M. Franklin (eds.), Historical Archaeology, Identity Formation, and the Interpretation of Ethnicity (Richmond, Virginia 1999) 1–10. Galaty – Watkinson 2004 M. Galaty – Ch. Watkinson (eds.), Archaeology under Dictatorship (New York 2004). Girella ‒ Pavúk 2015 L. Girella – P. Pavúk, Minoanisation, acculturation, hybridisation. The evidence of the Minoan presence in the North East Aegean between the Middle and Late Bronze Age, in: N. Stampolidis – C. Maner – K. Kopanias (eds.), Nostoi. Indigenous Culture, Migration and Integration in the Aegean Islands and Western Anatolia during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age (Istanbul 2015) 387–420. Guttandin et al. 2011 T. Guttandin ‒ G. Plath ‒ D. Panagiotopoulos ‒ H. Pflug, Inseln der Winde. Die maritime Kultur der bronzezeitlichen Ägäis (Heidelberg 2011). Hahn 2014 [2005] H. P. Hahn, Materielle Kultur. Eine Einführung (Berlin 2014 [2005]). Hamilakis 2007 Y. Hamilakis, The Nation and its Ruins. Antiquity, Archaeology, and National Imagination in Greece (New York 2007). Hodder 2001 I. Hodder (ed.), Archaeological Theory Today (Cambridge 2001). Hodder 2012 I. Hodder, Entangled. An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things (Oxford 2012). Hylland Eriksen 2010 T. Hylland Eriksen, Ethnicity and Nationalism, 4th edition (New York 2010). Insoll 2007 T. Insoll (ed.), The Archaeology of Identities (London, New York 2007). Jones 1997 S. Jones, The Archaeology of Ethnicity. Constructing Identities in the Past and Present (London, New York 1997). Jones 2007 S. Jones, Discourses of identity in the interpretation of the past, in: Insoll 2007, 44–58. Kaiser 1995 T. Kaiser, Archaeology and ideology in southeast Europe, in: Kohl – Fawcett 1995, 99–119. Kohl – Fawcett 1995 P. L. Kohl – C. Fawcett (eds.), Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology (Cambridge 1995). Kohl et al. 2007 P. Kohl – M. Kozelsky – N. Ben Yehuda, Selective Remembrances. Archaeology in the Construction, Commemoration, and Consecration of National Pasts (Chicago 2007). Kotsakis 1998 K. Kotsakis, The past is ours. Images of Greek Macedonia, in: Meskell 1998, 44–67. Latour 1986 B. Latour, The powers of association, in: J. Law (ed.), Power, Action and Belief. A New Sociology of Knowledge? (London, Boston 1986) 264‒280.

24

Stefanos Gimatzidis – Magda Pieniążek

Lozny 2001 L. R. Lozny (ed.), Comparative Archaeologies. A Sociological View of the Science of the Past (New York 2011). Maran 2013 J. Maran, Bright as the sun. The appropriation of amber objects in Mycenaean Greece, in: H. P. Hahn – H. Weiss (eds.), Mobility, Meaning and the Transformations of Things (Oxford 2012) 147–169. Maran – Stockhammer 2012 J. Maran – P. Stockhammer (eds.), Materiality and Social Practice? Transformative Capacities of Intercultural Encounters (Oxford 2012). Marinov 2015 T. Marinov, Ancient Thrace in the modern imagination. Ideological aspects of the construction of Thracian studies in southeastern Europe (Romania, Greece, Bulgaria), in: R. Daskalov – A. Vezenkov (eds.), Entangled Histories of the Balkans. 3. Shared Pasts, Disputed Legacies (Leiden 2015) 10–117. Matsas 1995 D. Matsas, Minoan long-distance trade. A view from the northern Aegean, in: R. Laffineur ‒ W.-D. Niemeier (eds.), Politeia. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age, Aegaeum 12 (Liège 1995) 236‒247. McGuire 1982 R. H. McGuire, The study of ethnicity in historical archaeology, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1, 1982, 159–178. McGuire 2008 R. H. McGuire, Archaeology as Political Action (Berkeley, Los Angeles 2008). Meskell 1998 L. Meskell (ed.), Archaeology under Fire. Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East (London 1998). Meskell 2001 L. Meskell, Archaeologies of identity, in: Hodder 2001, 187–213. Meskell 2007 L. Meskell, Archaeologies of identity, in: Insoll 2007, 23–43. Novakovič 2011 P. Novakovič, Archaeology in the new countries of southeastern Europe. A historical perspective, in: L. R. Lozny (ed.), Comparative Archaeologies. A Sociological View of the Science of the Past (New York 2011) 339–362. Oestigaard 2007 T. Oestigaard, Political Archaeology and Holy Nationalism. Archaeological Battles over the Bible and Land in Israel and Palestine from 1967–2000 (Gothenburg 2007). Özdoğan 1994 M. Özdoğan, The second millennium of the Marmara region. The perspective of a prehistorian on a controversial historical issue, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 43, 1994, 151‒163. Özdoğan 2002 M. Özdoğan, The Bronze Age in Thrace in relation to the emergence of complex societies in Anatolia and in the Aegean, in: Ü. Yalçın (ed.), Anatolian Metal II, Der Anschnitt Beiheft 15 (Bochum 2002) 67‒76. Pieniążek – Aslan 2016 M. Pieniążek – C. Aslan, Heroic past, memory and ritual at Troy, in: E. Alram-Stern – F. Blakolmer – S. Deger-Jalkotzy – R. Laffineur – J. Weilhartner (eds.), Metaphysis. Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze AgeProceedings of the 15th International Aegean Conference, Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Austrian Academy of Sciences and Institute of Classical Archaeology, University of Vienna, 22–25 April 2014, Aegaeum 39 (Leuven 2016) 423–432. Pratt 1993 [1992] M. L. Pratt, Imperial Eyes. Travel Writing and Transculturation (London 1993 [1992]).

Archaeology Across Frontiers and Borderlands: An Introduction

25

Ríagáin – Popa 2012 R. Ó Ríagáin – C. N. Popa, Archaeology and the (De)Construction of National and Supra-National Polities (Cambridge 2012). Rigter ‒ Thumm-Doğrayan 2014 W. Rigter ‒ D. Thumm-Doğrayan, Ein hohlgeformter Stier aus Troia, Studia Troica 14, 2014, 87–99. Rowan – Baram 2004 Y. Rowan – U. Baram, Marketing Heritage. Archaeology and the Consumption of the Past (Walnut Creek 2004). Rowlands 2007 M. Rowlands, The politics of identity in archaeology, in: Insoll 2007, 59–71. Sen 2006 A. Sen, Identity and Violence. The Illusion of Destiny (New York, London 2006). Silberman – Small 1997 N. A. Silberman – D. Small (eds.), The Archaeology of Israel. Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present (Sheffield 1997). Slapšak 2011 S. Slapšak, Entangled histories in south-east Europe, in: G. Klaniczay – M. Werner – O. Gecser (eds.), Multiple Antiquities – Multiple Modernities. Ancient Histories in Nineteenth Century European Cultures (Frankfurt/Main 2011) 407–432. Stockhammer 2013 P. Stockhammer, From hybridity to entanglement, from essentialism to practice, in: W. P. van Pelt (ed.), Archaeology and Cultural Mixture, Archaeological Review from Cambridge 28, 1, 2013, 29–50. Thomas 2001 J. Thomas, Archaeologies of place and landscape, in: Hodder 2001, 165–186. Todorova 2009 M. Todorova, Imagining the Balkans, 2nd rev. edition (New York 2009). Trigger 1984 B. G. Trigger, Alternative archaeologies. Nationalist, colonialist, imperialist, Man New Series 19, 3, 1984, 355–370. Trigger 2006 B. G. Trigger, A History of Archaeological Thought, 2nd edition (Cambridge 2006). Upton 1996 D. Upton, Ethnicity, authenticity, and invented traditions, Historical Archaeology 30, 2, 1996, 1–17. Van Dommelen – Rowlands 2012 P. Van Dommelen – M. Rowlands, Material concerns and colonial encounters, in: Maran ‒ Stockhammer 2012, 795‒1248. Voss 2008 B. Voss, The Archaeology of Ethnogenesis. Race and Sexuality in Colonial San Francisco (Berkeley, Los Angeles 2008). Voutsaki 2002 S. Voutsaki, The ‘Greekness’ of Greek prehistory. An investigation of the debate 1876–1900, Pharos 10, 2002, 105–122.

Claiming the Past, Conquering the Future: Archaeological Narratives in Northern Greece and the Central Balkans Stefanos Gimatzidis1 It is clear that plenty of political institutions, ideological movements and groups – not least in nationalism – were so unprecedented that even historic continuity had to be invented, for example by creating an ancient past beyond effective historical continuity, either by semi-fiction … or by forgery … Hobsbawm 1983, 7 Abstract: Archaeology enjoys an excellent reputation in the social and political lives of the Balkans and Anatolia, where it has been perceived as an efficient tool for the manipulation of public opinion. Cultural heritage is usually taken as hard evidence for the continuity of the nations’ identities and as a commodity that can bring additional revenues. Archaeological narratives are being co-authored by state authorities and the public. Information is being issued by the state and edited further according to the nation’s needs as well as public desires and requests. Nationalism has dramatically shaped methods and approaches and raised dividing walls among regional archaeologies in the Balkans. The main nationalist device in Balkan archaeology has been ethnogenesis, which is the search for formations, origins and continuities of ethnic identity. A locally coined public archaeology has achieved multivocality by means of constant interaction between the state and the public. Archaeological information is released after having been filtered by the state, which welcomes feedback in order to adapt and further process its narrations. However, these have already been pre-defined within national antagonisms and conflicts. A translocal approach is suggested as a means to overcome archaeological regionalism and biases originating in national conflicts. Keywords: multivocality, positivism, hyperrelativism, nationalism, Greece, Balkans, translocality

Theoretical Considerations on Multivocality in Archaeology Archaeology has suffered a prolific crisis over the last decades as a result of certain dichotomies over its epistemic ontology. The discipline originated in post-Enlightenment romanticism, endorsed by a European middle class to serve the rising nation-states.2 Ever since then, archaeology has been receptive to new theoretical trends from other disciplines. An inherent theoretical deficiency was enhanced in this way by means of adaptability, and archaeological thought was promoted with embedded methods and approaches. This is not a handicap, but a practice also shared by other social sciences. It is the form of appropriation that makes the difference. A more recent development in the discipline is certainly the binary opposition of modernism – postmodernism, now dominating theoretical discourse in world archaeology. Both of these terms, which are rather abstract definitions of two equally vaguely-defined eras and do not represent any specific philosophical, sociological, or other movement as such, have been tossed into the archaeological arena over the past decades and are often presented as contesting trends. The simplistic dichotomy of positivism versus relativism, resulting from the encounter between processual and postprocessual archaeological approaches, has been one of the hottest topics in this debate. Issues that were



1



2

Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, Austria; stefanos. [email protected]; [email protected]. Trigger 2006, 97–120, esp. 110–114.

28

Stefanos Gimatzidis

overcome in other disciplines many years ago, e.g. sociology,3 are still harrowing archaeological discourse. Logical positivism that was the banner of New or Processual Archaeology in the Americas during the 1960s and 1970s was already criticised then. Most of the critical voices that have been heard since were labelled as postprocessual. Postprocessual archaeology is not a movement with clearly defined methods and approaches, but has been distinguished for its affinity to postmodern relativism. The almost polemical self-definition of ‘post-’ – which proclaims transcendence and progress – generated disputes in both cases. Critique against epistemological positivism was already raised by scholars, like Bruce Trigger who, however, did not let themselves be labelled as postprocessual and remained equally critical against the new trend.4 This label was taken instead by Ian Hodder – who argued for a free and indiscriminate participation in archaeological interpretation and rejected fears that racist, fascist, etc. theories may benefit from what has been called multivocality in archaeology.5 Voices of different social, political and ideological backgrounds – whether academic or non-academic – and especially subordinate social groups should be encouraged to enter the archaeological debate and balance the dominance of state or other powerful archaeologies. Narrations of every origin and ideology should gain their place in this discourse in a process that has been regarded as democratisation of archaeological debate. This is also often regarded as a means for the discipline of archaeology to survive the current recession it is suffering through popularisation.6 A few years before Hodder’s multivocality was voiced, a fundamental contribution on the interaction of archaeology and socio-political reality by Trigger came forth. He discerned three alternative archaeologies: Nationalist, Colonialist and Imperialist; all of them products of the nation-states during the modern era but also extensively practiced in postmodernity.7 For every alternative, Trigger examined several case studies from all over the world in order to exemplify his more or less generalised classification. A recent volume was dedicated to Trigger by his students and was inspired by his concepts on the social context of archaeology and its potential in providing different interpretations of the past. In it, scholars presented case studies that demonstrated a rather ambiguous function of the multivocality concept in modern sociopolitics:8 multivocality can under certain circumstances have a different effect than expected, which is opposite to the democratisation of archaeological debate, and can instead support the dominant narrative by generating obfuscation.9 In other words, not everybody invoking multivocality really achieves it.10 In his last paper in the very same volume (he passed away while the book was being edited), Trigger regarded postmodernism as a modern expression of romanticism that downplays social diversity and, by doing so, weakens the social resistance against neoliberalism as usually perceived by Marxist economists. Trigger even went so far as to accuse postmodernism of promoting transnational exploitation and practically forming part of a currently dominating neo-conservatist ideology. He further saw in postmodern critique an “out-dated opposition between rationalism and romanticism”.11 Quite interestingly, in the very same volume Hodder maintained that “as professional archaeologists we have a duty to contest interpretations of the past that violate material data – this universal impulse has to develop in dialogue with interested groups and in dialogue with alternative interpretations, but it nevertheless implies a nonlocal component”.12 This

5 6 7 8 9

Bourdieu 1990, esp. 30–65. McGuire 2006, 64, 69. Hodder 1999, 159–161, 173; Joyce 2002, 39–67, 74–75; Hodder – Hutson 2003, 199. Holtorf 2005; Holtorf 2007; cf. Kristiansen 2008. Trigger 1984. Habu et al. 2008. Kim 2008. 10 Pluciennik 1999, 667 sarcastically illustrates a few examples. 11 Trigger 2008, 191–192; cf. McGuire 2006, 69–70. 12 Hodder 2008, 199. 3 4

Claiming the Past, Conquering the Future

29

statement opposes the views that emerged earlier out of Hodder’s own multivocality context and went further to recognise a positivist approach in the contest against nationalism in archaeology by means of objectivity or by engaging ‘real’ archaeological evidence.13 The idea behind archaeology’s postmodern device was that there is not any material record that can function as a subjective reference point. Instead, archaeological evidence is a construct of the present made out of ancient components – which are themselves composed by archaeologists who usually act as sterile and alienated from the object of research observers.14 In this sense, nationalistic archaeology should not be regarded as the “evil force which biases, abuses, and distorts the ‘archaeological record’”, but instead accepted as part of modernity and consumed as such.15 These issues arose out of the obscure limits between hyperrelativism and multivocality. The rather teleological view that the modern and national/nationalistic nature of archaeology has to be accepted as a fact and cannot thus be contested because this is what archaeology is, is the most enthusiastic neoliberal expression of multivocal hyperrelativism. It is true that archaeology was born out of and served nationalist ideology in the past two centuries. However, as Díaz-Andreu and Champion point out, “not only can it now survive without nationalist support, but it can…turn a self-critical eye on its own development …”.16 If we assume that the question about the value of the narratives produced by archaeology is not epistemic, it is and still remains a moral one.17 However, ethics is an equally relative value system changing dramatically in time and space, from one social context to another. The question is if epistemic and ethical relativism can be the counterpart to the truth claimed by dogmatic ideologies. Can we really accept and incorporate every academic or non-academic historical interpretation into the archaeological dialogue after having cleansed it ethically in the name of multivocality or by regarding it as part of the historic dialogue? To make the problem more explicit, can the blowing up of ancient sites such as Nimrud and Palmyra and the destruction of the artefacts exhibited in regional Iraqi museums by Jihadists in 2015 be compared with the destruction of ancient temples or statues by fanatic Christians in the Roman Empire in 384? There is a tendency in recent theoretical debate to confuse multivocality and tolerance with passive reception. Pretensions of the archaeological truth have long served nationalist, imperialist and colonialist purposes. These very same purposes have also profited by relativist multivocality. It has been historically recorded that colonialised or other suppressed voices that were given the opportunity to weave their own history, went on and established new dominant narrations that suppressed other voices in turn.18 Empowering marginalised social groups in the archaeological debate does not necessarily imply its democratisation; it can instead foster totalitarian and nationalist views in a new decentralised context. The present paper focuses on the interaction of archaeology and sociopolitics in the Balkans and particularly in north Greece. It historically examines and critically comments on the manipulation of regional archaeologies and elaborates on specific case studies. Nationalism in Balkan Archaeologies History and archaeology form the canvas on which cultural heritage ideology and policies are set in a long process involving collective memory, sentiment and ideology. Heritage and nationalism have been sharing parallel paths in the imagination of nations and common purposes, which are ethnic homogenisation and coherence and territorial and national continuity. Thus, cultural

15 16 17 18 13 14

Kohl – Fawcett 1995b, 17–18; Kohl 1998, 241–243; Kohl et al. 2007, 21–24. Tilley 2004, 218–221. Cf. Hamilakis 2007, 13. Díaz-Andreu – Champion 1996, 21. Cf. Hodder – Hutson 2003, 200–201; Wylie 2008, 201–204, 210. Kim 2008, 133–134.

30

Stefanos Gimatzidis

heritage is not just a static reflection of the state’s imagination over the past but rather a flexible notion always subject to redefinition depending on the altering requirements of the state, economy, religion or other institutions. What is valuable today for the nation, such as tourism or religion, may not have been so in an earlier period.19 In the last two decades, there were several announcements, some of them very optimistic, that nation-states as we know them from the modern era would not survive globalisation.20 A short look at the recent history of the Balkans or the Near East, to say the least, has contradicted these heralds. Nationalist ideology and religious fundamentalism have re-appeared in this region after the so-called restoration of western-type democracy in eastern Europe. The anxieties of cultural and social integration had an unexpected impact in states that have been trying to overcome their colonial or semi-colonial past during the last two centuries and gain their political sovereignty from the empires, federations or pacts to which they once belonged. It was this very same fear that fuelled political fragmentation – an on-going process in southeastern Europe. Balkanisation is an old term that means exactly this breakup into many small states, which has been triggered by the same agents and performed by the same actors several times over the centuries in the Balkan political scene. Balkanism, on the other hand, is a notion invented by Maria Todorova in her book, ‘Imagining the Balkans’, to refer to the western world’s perception of the Balkans.21 This term incorporates all the negative stereotypes that have been attributed to southeastern Europe, i.e. Europe’s otherness, and are sarcastically illustrated in Gregor von Rezzori’s book.22 Old-fashioned Balkanisation, as we have long known it to mean fragmentation, as well as the twin notions of Balkanism and Orientalism all have their places in Balkan and Anatolian archaeology. Scholarly intercommunication, which was almost non-existent before the nineties due to the Cold War syndrome, is still restricted because of the implementation of archaeological research in the form of national projects. At the same time, the nation-centric approaches in Balkan and Anatolian archaeology are viewed as fossils of another era that survive in the ‘vulgar’ Balkans, further feeding the balkanist narratives. Old-style culture-historical archaeology, which once served nationalist ideologies in Europe, is still the most common approach of state archaeology across the Balkans. With this paradigm, cultural change is usually explained through migrations, archaeological cultures are equated to ancient nations and a very common objective in regional archaeologies is the study of ethnogenesis, be that of Macedonians, Thracians, Illyrians, Hittites, etc., which is analytically examined in the next chapters. In this debate, the past is sanctified and commercialised, while several archaeological finds are treated as modern national emblems that may raise a constantly wooded national morale. Homage is paid to the state curators of the sacred past; some of the latter having been declared national heroes while others still strive to get some of this praise. However, this religious spirit did not prevent state archaeology and its servants in several quarters of the Balkans to perform quick excavations that were more or less reminiscent of the 19th century archaeological enterprises in pharaonic Egypt. The kind of Balkan archaeology we are dealing with has, however, also flourished in several postmodern fields, especially that of relativism. The decent objectives of postprocessual critique on objectivity that released archaeological thought from tricky one-way paths in historical interpretation have usually been misperceived and manipulated for the sake of nationalist history. The blurred boundaries between objectivity and relativism in archaeological theory and the misuse of postpositivism have almost legitimated approaches of the type that ‘anything goes’ in the Balkans.23 All this has prepared the ground for a balkanist archaeology in Todorova’s sense, where

Cf. Appadurai 2001. Kohl et al. 2007, 22. 21 Both this term and the concept of the book, which is a discourse on the usually negative stereotypes of Balkan culture raised by the western World, were coined under the influence of Said’s Orientalism (Todorova 2009, 3–20). 22 von Rezzori 2009. 23 Predictions to the contrary proved to be rather optimistic in the past: Hodder – Hutson 2003, 199. 19 20

Claiming the Past, Conquering the Future

31

the management of the past is filtered through interacting nationalist and populist ideologies and served as mass culture to be consumed by a public that was trained in this way. The Ethnogenesis of Balkan Archaeologies There are few places where archaeology interacts so closely with politics as in the Balkans. The nationalism that rose during the 19th century in southeastern Europe24 and fostered territorial claims by the emerging new nations after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire has since become the principal ideology in historical and archaeological studies. Archaeology was – consciously or not – put to the service of modern state propaganda with the aim of providing evidence for continuity from the remote past to modern nations still under construction. Taking this line would, on the one hand solidify the nation-states, and on the other allow them to raise claims over disputed territories and ‘lost homelands’. Territorial claims could be legitimised through the appropriation of ancient cultures and people. The equating of cultural groupings with ancient nations and migrations, traced on artefact distribution maps, has consequently defined regional archaeology in the Balkans.25 In this context, ethnogenesis has become something of a magical notion in the eastern European archaeological imagination and represents the formation process of ancient nations such as the Illyrians,26 Dardanians,27 Macedonians,28 Paeonians29 and Thracians.30 Through the invention of a linear lineage from these ancient ‘ethne’, the beginnings of the modern nation-state’s formation-process can be placed in the remote and glorious past. The fact that Balkan archaeology has practically missed the processual and postprocessual advances of global archaeology is not incidental, as Bailey has implied in his overview of Bulgarian archaeology. The firm link of archaeology and politics in the Balkans hampered the introduction of any approach that was declaiming objectivity. The processual methods would never fit the requests of a nation-building process or self-validation within the wider context of Balkan national antagonisms.31 This explains the obsession of regional archaeologies with the concept of ‘culture’ and the equation of ‘cultural groups’ with nations32 as well as their persistence on migrationist and diffusionist approaches and the firm belief in the linear development of history. According to the Balkan and partly eastern European archaeological imagination, ethnogenesis – that is, the self-determination of ancient nations – allegedly took place in the so-called proto-historical period, more or less coinciding with the Early Iron Age. Illyrian culture and its brand name were first claimed by the Slavs in the western Balkans as part of their cultural heritage in the 19th century, coinciding with the awakening of Croatian nationalism. The idea was further promoted as part of the nationalistic rhetoric against the collapsing Ottoman Empire by renowned scholars such as Arthur Evans.33 Illyrian studies developed at that time in parallel with the independence struggle of the south Slavs from the Turks – first the Croats and the Slovenes and then the others.34 Following the Greek example, they wished to raise territorial claims after having appropriated the glorious Illyrian past. The notion of Pan-Illyrism,

Anderson 2006, 72–74. On the function of maps as devices of the early modern and colonial period to control land that was perceived as commodity see Carman 2003, 22; cf. Anderson 2006, 170–178. 26 Prendi – Zheku 1983; Garašanin 1988. 27 Srejović 1973. 28 Pabst 2009: Notwithstanding the historical interpretation, Pabst’s papers offer a very detailed and precise insight to several aspects of the material culture in the western Balkans. 29 Petrova 1990/1991. 30 Benac 1984. 31 Bailey 1998. 32 See e.g. Vasić 1973; Garašanin 1984. 33 Wilkes 1992, 5–8. 34 Dzino 2014, 5–9. 24 25

32

Stefanos Gimatzidis

with old roots in European archaeology as well,35 was shaped under these circumstances in the Balkans and served the political establishment of the newly founded nation-states. During the 19th century, Albanian involvement in Balkan geopolitics was minimal and, consequently, neither was there any significant reaction to the Pan-Illyrian claims of the south-Slavs who wanted access to the Adriatic through territories inhabited by Albanians.36 Although the earliest Albanian archaeological research dates to the 19th century, archaeology in modern Albania’s territory was mainly the concern of other countries in the early decades of the 20th century who attempted to expand their political influence in this region shortly before and during the First World War – Austria in the North and Greece in the South of what constitutes Albania today. 37 During the period of the Greek occupation of modern south Albania, a Greek archaeologist, Dimitrios Evaggelidis, was appointed by the Greek state to conduct archaeological research and topographical surveys. One of his objectives was to search for continuity in the habitation sites and subsequently offer evidence for renaming the Slavic, Turkish or Albanian place names with ancient Greek ones that would legitimise Greek claims over the region.38 The Albanian nationalist response to the Greek and Slavic claims over the Epirotan and Illyrian past came with some delay.39 After the Second World War and the establishment of a communist regime, archaeological methods and approaches in Albania were aligned in accordance with the ideology of historical materialism. Despite the delay, the new regime, feeling a lack of national coherence, attempted to gain its own national-historical sovereignty by founding its first Archaeological-Ethnographic Museum in Tirana that would serve the constitution of a modern nation-state.40 Albania has ever since claimed its Illyrian legacy by arguing for a linear continuity between the so-called proto-historical and mediaeval period and a national lineage between ancient Illyrians and mediaeval/modern Albanians (Fig. 1).41 The focus of their research was on the Bronze and Early Iron Age tumuli, thought to form the most convincing evidence for Illyrian expansion and the Albanian concept of Pan-Illyrism.42 Serbian and Greek regional archaeology challenged this, as it supported Albanian territorial claims in Kosovo and Epirus. It would be impossible for someone who does not know the historical background to conceive the rigor in the long debates that followed. A quite representative example is the discussion on the origins of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Matt-painted pottery of south Albania and Epirus – usually called ‘Devoll-pottery’ by the Albanians, and ‘Bouboushti-style’, ‘Dorian’ or even ‘Macedonian’ pottery by the Greeks (see below). Another intriguing issue is the origin of the ancient Epirotans, who are usually regarded by the Albanians as an Illyrian tribe while Greek scholarship claims them for Greeks.43 However, the nationalistic background of the notion of Pan-Illyrism in the western Balkans is more clearly evidenced by the scholarly dispute between Slavs and Albanians over the origin of the Illyrians themselves.44 The ideological shift of Neritan Ceka from the Marxistinspired paper on urbanisation in 198345 to his book ‘The Illyrians to the Albanians’ in 2005 can also be comprehended in this context.46 Regional archaeology in Macedonia has a somehow different story to tell with antagonisms beginning in the turbulent period of the First World War. Long before that, however, Margaritis

37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

Kossinna 1902. Cf. Dzino 2014, 11–15. Wilkes 1992, 10; Davies 2000. Evaggelidis 1913. Tsonos 2009, 79–95. Gjipali 1998, 209–220. Galaty – Watkinson 2004, 8–12. Lahi 2004. Douzougli – Papadopoulos 2010, 1–9. Cf. Wilkes 1992, 11–13; Novakovič 2011, 439–440; Slapšak 2011, 416–420; Dzino 2014, 15–22; on the archaeological conflict over Kosovo see Kaiser 1995, 114–115. 45 Ceka 1983. 46 See Gimatzidis forthcoming; cf. Gori 2012, 77–80. 35 36

Claiming the Past, Conquering the Future

33

Fig. 1   The front-page of a booklet (no author named) sold at the National Archaeological Museum in Tirana

Dimitsas, a Greek historian from Ohrid, conducted systematic topographical and historical studies and published extensive articles and monographs proclaiming the significance of topographical studies in the legitimation of Greek rights over Macedonia.47 Although it was mainly Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia that fuelled the conflict over Macedonia in the first two decades of the 20th century, the ancient heritage of Macedonia was not a real point of dispute until recently. The manipulation of Macedonia’s cultural heritage became more systematic after the Second World War when the Socialist Federal Republic of Macedonia was proclaimed within Yugoslavia and the nation-making process of a new Macedonian nation began in earnest.48 The new nationalistic rhetoric was used to serve, in Greece, predominantly inner socio-political purposes.49 A variety of excavations were opened all over the Greek part of Macedonia, a number of museums were founded and numerous exhibitions were organised worldwide50 without bothering to hide their main objective – the restoration of the ‘historic truth’ that Macedonia was part of the Greek world.51 This was already an issue in ancient literature and modern scholarship. The dissolution of Yugoslavia and the declaration of independence by the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in 1991 caused massive hysteria in northern Greece, putting archaeology in the service of nationalism once again and making it part of daily life.52 Political and archaeological populism persuaded the public that archaeological excavations could unmask the Slavic-speaking fabricators of history and support the Greek claims over Macedonian heritage. Certain excavation sites, such

Dimitsas 1874, ε–ιζ; cf. Gounaris 2010, 30; Peckham 2000, 81–82. Skordos 2012, 51–185. 49 Liakos 1993, 22–30. 50 Ancient Macedonia 1988; Greek Civilisation 1993; Vokotopoulou 1994; Galanakis 2011; Descamps-Lequime 2011. Not all exhibitions on ancient Macedonia were planned with the same agenda, which is particularly true for the last one in the above-mentioned list. 51 Brown 1998; Kotsakis 1998. 52 Hamilakis 2007, 128–134. 47 48

34

Stefanos Gimatzidis

Fig. 2   Excavation of an Early Iron Age tumulus in the region of Dion, Pieria, North Greece (© Greek Ministry of Culture )

as Vergina and Dion, have become national reference points and brand names since the 1980s due to the non-scholarly orientation of their management and in spite of their usually questionable excavation methods (Fig. 2).53 During the recent economic crisis in Greece, refuge was once again sought in archaeology, turning other archaeological sites such as Methone and Amphipolis into nationalistic showpieces. Scholarly reaction within Greece did not prevent large-scale and hasty excavations, even conducted without adequate documentation, giving rise to serious ethical issues about the manipulation of archaeology for inner political purposes. In this context, the concepts of Panhellenism and Hellenisation were once again promoted after a long respite as part of a new Balkan nationalist rhetoric in the recent Methone project (see below).54 The Greek eagerness to claim Macedonian heritage had a counter-effect. Narratives about national continuity and coherence in FYR of Macedonia until the 1990s were constructed on arguments drawn from regional mediaeval and modern histories, rather than antiquity.55 According to these theories, Macedonians were only the ancient people who inhabited the region, which was occupied in the early mediaeval period by Slavic immigrants. The latter were supposed to have appropriated the name and culture of the former after integration.56 The focus of this rhetoric was to prove the existence of a Macedonian national idea in the mediaeval and post-mediaeval periods, that was however rejected by Bulgaria and Greece. The fact that Greece was so keen on claiming the ancient Macedonian heritage resulted soon in archaeo-hysteria in the FYR of Macedonia. The ‘Skopje 2014’ project introduced many neoclassical buildings and monuments of questionable artistic value, such as a triumphal arch and numerous monumental statues of

On the manipulation of the excavations at Vergina and Dion and the making of symbols out of the so-called Verginas’s star or sun see Danford 1995, 163–174. 54 Gimatzidis 2013. 55 The claim over the origin of Bulgarian Tsar Samuel in slavomacedonian scholarship of the 1950s was the result of the nationalistic tensions between the Socialist Federal Republic of Macedonia and Bulgaria (Elefantis 1993, 45); Novakovič 2011, 426. 56 Danford 1995, 46; for a reflection of this idea in school books see Mavrogeni 2008, 279–280. 53

Claiming the Past, Conquering the Future

35

Fig. 3   Bronze equestrian statue of Alexander the Great standing on top of a column in Skopje’s central square and a similarly-sized statue of Philip II erected opposite the square (photo: St. Gimatzidis)

historical persons from antiquity, the mediaeval and modern periods into the old Balkan city (Fig. 3).57 Many of these statues depict historical characters also claimed by Greece and Bulgaria as part of their historical heritage (Alexander the Great, Philipp II, the Byzantine Emperor Justinian, the Bulgarian Tsar Samuel, saints Cyril and Methodius, Gotse Delchev, etc.).58 This project was conceived as an answer to the disputers and aimed to support the idea of Macedonian ethnogenesis and continuity since antiquity.59 It also marked a change in the state policy of the FYR of Macedonia, challenged by Greece’s unyielding cultural policies and fostered by a right-wing government. Political forces of similar ideology have profited a lot from this historical-cultural interstate dispute both in Greece and FYR of Macedonia.60 Recent changes in the political scenes in both countries presented a new opportunity for a more moderate debate on cultural heritage and re-evaluation of previous cultural politics aiming to a solution of the name dispute. ‘Thracian studies’ have certainly earned a very special place in Bulgarian archaeology as concerns the period treated in this paper. Bulgaria, being at the heart of what is known as ancient Thrace, assumed the role of heir to this historical brand name. In this sense, I think that very few connoisseurs would disagree with Douglas Bailey paraphrasing Maria Todorova that, “Bulgarian archaeology itself is an active socio-politics and ideology” and at the same time it “occupies an unrivalled position as justifier and legitimator”.61 Paradoxically, all this happened in the socialist, post-war period. Sometime after Marxism was imposed as the dominant ideology in Bulgarian sciences, a particular kind of nationalism became evident in historical studies during the 1960s and brought significant changes in the discipline’s methods and approaches.62 It was in this period that Thracian culture was officially declared as Bulgarian national heritage. Thracology emerged

59 60 61 62 57 58

Chausidis 2013. On the political use of cultural symbols see Hylland Eriksen 2010, 123–125. Slapšak 2011, 429–431. Cf. Gori 2014. Bailey 1998, 92. Todorova 1992a, 1105–1108.

36

Stefanos Gimatzidis

as a new discipline at that time with Alexander Fol as its guru, who founded the Institute of Thracian Studies in the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. Fol was closely related to the communist leader Todor Zhivkov, who ruled the country for 35 years, and his daughter Lyudmila, who had a special interest in religious mysticism and Orphism.63 The idea of Thracian Orphism was promoted by Fol as a counter-balance to the supremacy of Greek culture. According to the new ideology, the latter owed a great debt to Thracian culture, which had allegedly been discriminated against. This was the context from which a very particular type of nationalism was born. Its effect on recent archaeological interpretation can be detected in the obsession of Bulgarian archaeology to regard the majority of Late Bronze and Early Iron Age high- and lowland sites (hilltops and pit complexes) as Thracian sanctuaries, resulting in the reconstruction of a landscape full of sanctuaries and very few settlements.64 Thracian Orphism was supposed to be the origin of the Greek miracle and, at the same time, a main component of Bulgarian heritage, making Bulgaria an integral part of European Greco-Roman civilisation.65 No matter how irrational this reasoning may have been, it had a significant effect on the management of the past in Bulgaria and Fig. 4   Georgi Kitov showing a golden mask just disbeyond it.66 Archaeological exhibitions that covered in a monumental tomb at Shipka (Novinite travelled all over the world were organised 2009) by the Bulgarian state in order to promote Thracian culture as part of Bulgaria’s heritage in almost the same way and around the same time as Greece organised travelling exhibitions about Alexander the Great and Macedonia.67 A series of international Thracological congresses were also organised in several Balkan and European capitals, similar in concept to conferences on Ancient Macedonia in Thessaloniki. The eagerness for new finds by the public that was also fuelled by regional media – both trained to regard cultural heritage as national heirloom – legitimised large-scale and hasty excavations conducted by renowned personalities in local media and political life (Fig. 4). Turkish and Greek National Archaeologies Balkan nationalism emerged contemporaneously with the decline and final collapse of the Ottoman Empire. However, the rise of nationalism in Greece was neither directly nor closely connected to the rise of Turkish nationalism, promoted by the Young Turks since the beginning of the 20th century: The Grand Greek National narrative was already coined by Paparrigopoulos in the 19th century, who argued for a clear and continuous lineage between modern and ancient Greeks that was then adopted and kept by the Greek state and became the official narrative of national

65 66

Cf. Todorova 1992b, 157. See Bozhinova in this volume. Marinov 2015, 92–93. Orphism tended to blur archaeology and metaphysis also in Greece: a major plan conceived by Eftychia Poulaki Pantermali, an archaeologist working in Pieria, was the construction of a promenade in the shape of Orpheus’ lyre near Leivithra at Mount Olympus, the legendary place of origin of Orpheus, that would be visible from space: http://www.ethnos.gr/politismos/arthro/o_orfeas_ksana_ston_olympo-63369389/ (last accessed 18 May 2017). 67 Gold der Thraker 1979. 63 64

Claiming the Past, Conquering the Future

37

origins.68 Across the Aegean, several different and partly contesting narrations appeared from the dawn of the Turkish nation-state onwards. Some of them were coined under the auspices of Kemal Atatürk and usually taken as the ‘official’ Turkish narratives. Alternatively, there was also Pan-Turkism69 and Anatolianism.70 Recently, an extreme nationalist Turkish approach arose.71 The emergence of the Greek State in the 19th century had only a minor effect on imperial Ottoman self-consciousness, however, the Macedonian struggle and the Balkan and First World wars had a strong impact on the emergence of Turkish nationalism. Although north Greek nationalism – not quite a legitimate term to use in every context – emerged out of the same historical events as the nationalist Young Turk ideology, they barely interacted, especially in archaeology. Nationalism in north Greek archaeology was, and still is, a reflection of the antagonisms between Greek, Slavic – earlier Bulgarian and recently Slav-Macedonian – and, to a lesser extent, Albanian nationalist archaeology. North Greece and the Management of its Past After a period of multinational archaeological investigation in the Macedonian landscape during the 19th and the first three decades of the 20th centuries, the situation changed after the Ottoman Empire’s collapse and the territorial expansion of the then-established nation-states. Archaeological research soon became a national matter in the Balkans and of course in north Greece.72 The reason for this was not only the unwillingness – with very few exceptions – of the foreign Schools of Archaeology based in Athens to look further north than Mount Olympus, but also the eagerness of the modern Greek state to conduct its own research into the newly-acquired and vulnerable lands of Epirus, Macedonia and Thrace. This was not merely a conscious defence-reaction against the perceived imperialist behaviour of foreign archaeological schools based in Athens. It was rather the determination of the Greek state to implement its ethnic-oriented archaeological projects in north Greece.73 The Historical and Socio-Political Background Archaeology was born in the Balkans as well as in other colonised, semi- or crypto-colonised regions at the same time as the nation-state, as the twin offspring of modernity. One of the earlier desires of the Greek nation-state was the construction of a bridge between past and present to substantiate its political claims and provide it with a place among other territorial states in Europe.74 This process was accelerated by rising nationalism in Europe during the 19th century, and found counterparts with the newly formed and founded Balkan nation-states following a similar example after the Balkan Wars. The dismantling of the Ottoman Empire by the nation-states that shared its territories after the Balkan Wars (1912–1913) did not lessen nationalistic tensions in the central and south Balkans. Balkan archaeology has undergone significant transformations since that period, especially since the conflict has shifted from the political to the archaeological sphere. The new Balkan nation-states have, since then, been reinforcing their political legitimacy and territorial claims through the construction of grand continuity narratives, connecting ancient

Paparrigopoulos’ narrative came out as a response to opposite claims of Fallmerayer about the origin of modern Greeks: Skopetea 1999; Voutsaki 2003, 238; Özkırımlı – Sofos 2008, 83–85. 69 Gökalp 2010, 109–116. 70 Özkırımlı – Sofos 2008, 89–101. 71 For a detailed discussion of the whole issue see the next chapter by Sila Votruba in this volume. 72 Hänsel 1989, 9–24. 73 Cf. Kotsakis 1998, 45–49; for the relationship between archaeology and national identity in Greece see Damaskos 2011. 74 Gourgouris 1996, 140–154. 68

38

Stefanos Gimatzidis

and modern identities. The debate over the Thracians in Bulgaria and the conflict over the Illyrian past among the South-Slavs and Albanians began under such circumstances. However, nothing compared to the conflict that already existed over the past of Macedonians in the 20th century between Greece and the Federal Republic of Macedonia that exploded after the dissolution of Yugoslavia.75 As already said, the declaration of independence by the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia under the name of the Republic of Macedonia in the early 1990s, which provoked an unprecedented dispute with Greece on the name issue,76 had a rather significant impact on the management of the past in this region, turning the city of Skopje into an archeo-park and generating a new period of ancestor worship in north Greece. As already argued, the nationalistic rhetoric of the FYR of Macedonia was only partly based on modern representations of ancient Macedonia before the name dispute with Greece, and rather derived its arguments from mediaeval and modern history.77 In Greece, the nationalistic rhetoric has been deriving its arguments from the archaeological exploitation of major ancient Macedonian sites already for many decades. The archaeologies of Albania, Kosovo, Serbia and Bulgaria were equally involved in other local nationalistic conflicts.78 Over the last eight years, Greece has been experiencing an unprecedented crisis initiated by its economic collapse. It is now widely accepted that it was not merely an economic but also a social crisis, threatening the extinction of the current socio-political structure. This crisis as well as other similar situations in the Balkans, such as the ethnic conflicts in Kosovo, FYR of Macedonia and Albania, seem to have revived old western narratives of the uncivilised Balkans.79 The significance of native archaeologies in response to new historical challenges has been a crucial contribution to the formation and transformation of these nation-states. Over the last ten to twenty years, numerous articles and books have been published on the nationalist manipulation of material culture in Greece, mostly by Greek scholars who have studied and/or worked abroad. In these contributions, images such as those from the opening ceremonies of the Olympics in Athens as well as the excavation at Vergina with its central character, Manolis Andronikos, have been repeatedly illustrated and historically and psychologically scrutinised. The validity of these contributions is not questioned here, nor is their beneficial effect on the postcolonial discourse in Greece. Nevertheless, some of these approaches are in some way reminiscent of the few sentences with which Trigger summarises the principles of his third alternative archaeology: “Imperialist or world-orientated archaeology is associated with a small number of states that enjoy or have exerted political dominance over large areas of the world. Archaeologists […] engage in much research in other countries, and play a major role in training students who find employment abroad […]. Through their writings, archaeologists in these countries also exert a disproportionate influence on research throughout the world”.80 Thus, prior to decolonising any native archaeology, a self-decolonisation is suggested by setting the issue in a postcolonial context that should lie outside the representational framework constructed by powerful socio-political agents with influence on ‘weak and barbarous’ countries such as those in the Balkans or Orient. Archaeological Methods and Practices in North Greece Classical archaeology has always been considered the proper field to construct and commercialise Grand National narratives of the glorious (Greek-) Macedonian and Epirotan past. Whichever way one chooses to define classical archaeology,81 one can hardly deny that the discipline has

77 78 79 80 81 75 76

Danford 1995. Roudometof 2002, 27–50. Roudometof 2002, 57–77; Gori 2014, 300–301. Novakovič 2011. Todorova 2009, 116–139. Trigger 1984, 363. See Snodgrass 2012, 13–14.

Claiming the Past, Conquering the Future

39

difficulties when it deals with the ‘periphery’ of the Greek and Roman world, or to be more precise, it feels like a fish out of water. Particularly in north Greece the discipline is essentialist in many ways. It traditionally makes a simplistic distinction between Greeks and natives by reducing the latter to inactive recipients of a higher central or south Aegean culture and by oversimplifying the heterogeneity of their complex social entities and structure. Classical archaeology remains colonialist in north Greece, which is traditionally regarded as a periphery of the classical Greek world. Over time, a relationship was built on an old-fashioned centre-periphery model, according to which the Greek settlers came as civilising missionaries to a land without any prior historical record or even the ability to ever create one.82 For the reconstruction of the north Aegean past there is more textual evidence than in other regions of the Greek ‘periphery’. Since, however, we have no native literary sources for the early historic period, i.e. from the Early Iron Age to the early Classical period, the only voice that can be heard is that of Greek authors.83 Nevertheless, the latter do not present contemporary evidence for the history of the north Aegean prior to the Classical/Hellenistic periods. Moreover, Quellenkritik is usually absent in this colonialist discourse, which considers Greek historiography of the Roman times as more trustworthy evidence for the reconstruction of a social history than any other contemporary archaeological evidence. The latter is often used – or rather abused – and manipulated in order to offer visual proof for some later textual information. Consequently, the indigenous populations are highly discriminated against by practically not being allowed to speak for themselves. Furthermore, classical as well as pre- and protohistoric archaeology in north Greece and in other Balkan countries is dominated by an old-fashioned culture-historical perspective, which is best illustrated in the equation of ‘cultural groups’ with ethnic entities and the interpretation of the distribution of archaeological artefacts as indicators of migration, colonisation, etc.84 The cultural material is easily attributed to one or other local tribe or ethnos, such as the Macedonians, Thracians, Epirotans, Illyrians, etc., on the basis of some usually vague information of later Greek literature. All this makes the archaeology of the region very vulnerable to any kind of manipulation for political or nationalistic purposes. Its deep culture-historical roots and the firm belief that archaeologists are the legitimate defenders of the nation’s legacy85 may account for a very particular and distinct regional archaeology in north Greece, even in comparison to other regions of the same country. Nationalist archaeology in north Greece is often fostered and rewarded by the state. Due to national sensitivity towards the so-called Macedonian problem, the Greek state has been particularly generous with regard to projects related to Macedonian historiography. It is a usual complaint for archaeologists working in south and central Greece that their projects are underfunded in comparison to the North. Moreover, some of the most commemorated Greek archaeologists have all worked in Macedonia, with Manolis Andronikos being the most renowned one. His discoveries – practically still not fully studied and published – in Vergina during the 1970s touched a nationalistic chord in Greece and made him an inspiring example for many local archaeologists. One could easily assume that the discipline enjoyed great profits from this development, but this is not really the case when considering the management of cultural heritage in north Greece. The result of numerous large-scale excavation projects, which have usually been conducted with dubious methods over the past decades, now demonstrates that in many cases the motives were not derived directly from the discipline of archaeology itself, and the objectives were very often

84 85 82 83

Champion 1989, 2–5. Cf. Goody 2007, 13–67. Trigger 2006, 235–241. Since the very beginning of the Greek state, archaeologists and historians have usually been regarded as the persons responsible for establishing and illustrating the direct connection between the modern and the ancient Greeks: Hamilakis 2007, 39–41.

40

Stefanos Gimatzidis

Fig. 5   Excavation at the sanctuary of Isis in Dion (Dion 2009)

related to political and commercial issues or personal quests (Fig. 5). In those cases, only the local tourist industry profited from this kind of archaeology.86 The Greek public is trained to regard cultural heritage as a national legacy or commodity: the more that is being excavated, the better for the nation and its tourist industry.87 Thus, many archaeological projects – not only in north Greece – have turned into large-scale and long-term national missions that enjoy steady and ample financial support, with their leaders already having taken their place in the archaeological pantheon of the nation. Macedonians in the Peloponnese and Panhellenes in Macedonia: Distorting the Past and Suppressing the Present There are numerous case studies in Macedonia that exemplify precisely the points made in the previous chapters. Those illustrated in the following lines highlight specific aspects of regional archaeology, which this paper focuses on, such as the locally coined culture-historical approach and its theoretical context of ethnogenesis during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age – i.e., the encouragement and promotion by the state of nationalist ideology in projects taking place in Macedonia and the impact of this well-established policy in local archaeological narrations. There is a last case study to be presented here concerning a monument at Amphipolis dating to later periods but still discussed as indicative of how multivocality can be abused for the sake of nationalist purposes.

The absence of scientific motivation usually results in poor documentation and vases stacked in narrow depots for decades, loss of indications on contexts, records, etc. (cf. Vitelli – Colwell-Chanthaphonh 2006, 12–15). 87 Cf. Layton – Wallace 2006, 53–57. 86

Claiming the Past, Conquering the Future

41

In a book published a few years ago by a state institution in Thessaloniki on the excavation at Aiani, west Macedonia, its author argues by means of pottery against an allegedly and muchdiscussed Dorian invasion from the North.88 According to the author, the origin of the northwestern Matt-painted pottery from the South demonstrates the Dorian origin of the Macedonians, who could not have invaded Greece in a later phase of prehistory because it seems unthinkable that one Greek tribe (Dorians) would attack another (Achaeans). Instead, the Dorian-Macedonians should have arrived in Greece together with the other Greek tribes at the dawn of Prehistory and initially settled in the South.89 This was one of the most radical views on a much-discussed and contested issue in Greek-Epirotan and Albanian archaeology about the origin of Matt-painted Ware – usually called ‘Devollian’ in Albanian literature (see above). The origin, distribution and consumption of this pottery had already been treated in Albanian and Greek archaeology as evidence for migrations and ethnogenesis for either the Illyrians or the Dorians.90 A similar result regarding the origin of the Macedonians has more recently been retrieved at the north Greek site of Methone.91 A focus of the state-funded Methone project was the excavation of a very deep pit containing a lot of pottery and other artefacts. The most conspicuous finds were a few sherds inscribed in the Euboean alphabet and dating to c. 700 BC. The excavation was conducted by the local department of the Archaeological Service as if it had been a rescue excavation, although this was not the case, and for this reason a bulldozer was engaged. The following study was conducted under the auspices of the ‘Centre for the Greek Language’, a state institute that, according to its statement, “acts as a coordinating, advisory and strategic organ of the Greek Ministry of Education on matters of language education and policy”.92 The conclusion of that study was that Greek colonists were peacefully received by the native population in Methone, who must have been Macedonians (sic), and, consequently, the latter were as Greek as the colonisers. The argumentation that was mostly based on ceramic evidence and pottery distribution maps was obviously constructed by the same ideology as that of Aiani. The authors of the Methone project argue that the variability of the pottery imported from other regions of the Aegean to the small settlement of Methone reflects the immigration into Macedonia of numerous Greeks of different origin (‘Panhellenes’). According to this study, the settlers’ origin is reflected in the origin of the pottery found at the site: Lesbian, Chian, Corinthian, etc. pottery was brought to Methone and respectively consumed by Lesbians, Chians, Corinthians, etc. Even more remarkable was the conclusion that Macedonians were – contra to every archaeological indication and historical knowledge – also a naval people travelling to the far West as their other ‘fellow-Greeks’ in the 8th century BC did.93 The not-always-intentional irrationality of the archaeological methods and approaches applied did not leave much room for appreciation of the historical meaning of those finds; the project was instead perceived as an apparatus of nationalist manipulation.94 The reception of the Methone project by the state authorities further highlights its original purpose. Soon after the conclusion of the study, the event was celebrated because of its national significance and presented to the public in Athens by the Minister of Education, who stated: “The archaeological and linguistic research has proven that the Macedonian language is an ancient Greek dialect. This is a very important conclusion of huge historic and archaeological importance as well as of great national interest. In a period of deep crisis for our country, which is not only financial, but has

90 91 92 93 94 88 89

Karamitrou-Mentesidi 2008, 38. See also Kotsakis 1998, 56, n. 7 and 8. Cf. Prendi 1982, 218; Prendi 1985, 194–197; Vokotopoulou 1985, 143–145. Tzifopoulos 2012. See http://greeklanguage.gr/en/βασικές-αρχές-αποστολή-2/ (last accessed 6 Nov. 2017). Kotsonas in Tzifopoulos 2012, 233–235. Chavela 2013; Gimatzidis 2013. Among all the criticisms that the Methone project received, it was that against the nationalist perspective of the study that most hurt feelings in the culture business and met with complaints. One of these upset reactions was recorded in the Bryn Mawr Classical Review blog http://www.bmcreview. org/2013/01/20130153.html (last accessed 6 Nov. 2017).

42

Stefanos Gimatzidis

other components too, I think that such discoveries have a great significance. When we all believe that a grey cloud is moving above our country, it is very important to derive the self-confidence we all need from our culture, history and language”.95 The project of Methone revived the notion of ethnogenesis in north Greece and attempted to introduce the concept of Panhellenism after the 19th century model of Pan-Illyrism, along with the most recent Pan-Thracism, PanMacedonism, etc.96 A recent excavation at Amphipolis, north Greece, best highlights the manipulation of multivocality to undermine academic debate for the sake of a locally-coined public archaeology. A few years ago, an archaeologist representing the local department of the Archaeological Service at Serres announced to the media the beginning of systematic excavations at a large toumba near Amphipolis in search of the tomb of a member of the royal Macedonian family of Alexander the Great.97 The publicity obviously had two purposes: the first was to convince the public of the national significance of the planned project and the second was to raise money. These appeals successfully convinced the Minister for Macedonia and Thrace who reported in November 2012: “The profit from this discovery is multiple not only for cultural but also for touristic reasons. At the same time it makes archaeological knowledge richer and sends a clear message to everyone who is trying to systematically falsify history, according to which Macedonia was, is and will always be Greek”.98 A project, which would normally demand an interdisciplinary cooperation and a budget that would have taken into consideration the preservation of the finds and the restoration of the mound, was started at Amphipolis with a few volunteers from the nearby villages and the help of a bulldozer. In a very rough political period for the then-conservative Greek government, the find of Amphipolis was evaluated as the best opportunity to relax tensions and redirect public attention from the social crisis, caused by the implementation of strict austerity measures, to the glorious Macedonian past. It was also a good opportunity to rekindle ever-wakeful passions over the expropriation of Macedonian heritage. In a very quiet journalistic period in the middle of August 2014, while everyone in Greece was on vacation, the Prime Minister, who was rapidly losing popularity, visited the site and was photographed in front of the tomb, thereby making the first photos of the impressive monument public (Fig. 6). He declared it a national project, appointed the General Secretary of the Ministry of Culture as a supervisor of the project and further assigned a journalist – sarcastically referred to by the Greek media as “the tomb’s press spokeswoman”. At that time there were only a few individuals who were sceptical of the methods involved in the project and its purposes. The latter were gaining legitimacy by daily suggestions made by numerous academic and non-academic individuals about the identity of the deceased person for whom the tomb was built. The sceptical public became more reserved when the government promised to complete the excavation in a few days and present data on the enigmatic dead during the yearly press conference in mid-September, when the Greek Prime Minister usually presents his financial policy. At that point it became clear that the excavation was planned according to political requests and not an archaeological schedule. An excavation project of a monumental Macedonian tomb, normally demanding several months or years to bring to an end, was ordered to be completed within a few days by the government. During the excavation, several alternating scenarios were woven about the royal personage entombed. Nothing, however, was as exciting as the story fostered by the government and consequently presented by the directing state archaeologists that Alexander the Great himself had been buried in the monument. Every time this story was heard or even implied, the find of Amphipolis

Diamantopoulou 2012. A good moment for Methone and its archaeology is the recent international project with the leading participation of the University of California, Los Angeles (John Papadopoulos and Sarah Morris). 97 An extensive paper on this issue was published in the Greek journal Hotdoc. 77, May 2015. 98 Geniki Grammateia Enimerosis kai Epioinonias 2012, 10–11. 95 96

Claiming the Past, Conquering the Future

43

Fig. 6   The front-page of the Greek journal Hotdoc. with the two sphinxes discovered in the tomb of Amphipolis showing the faces of the Greek Prime Minister, Antonis Samaras, and the local archaeologist in charge of the excavation, Aikaterini Peristeri (reproduction by permission of Kostas Vaxevanis, editor of the journal)

covered the front pages of pro-government papers and the public was taken by enthousiasm. The literary evidence that Alexander the Great died and was buried far from his motherland was overlooked in this new historical representation, which seemed to gain ground and plausibility to suit public demand. This was reminiscent of the state-run Methone project, where a Thracian settlement was declared Macedonian and the Euboean inscriptions were held as evidence for the origin of the Macedonian mother tongue. As in the case of Methone, there was a feeling that anything could be assumed – as long as it aligned with state policy and operated under its auspices. When the first clear signs appeared that the tomb of Amphipolis had already been looted in antiquity, the archaeologists in charge presented explanations to the contrary, ensuring that the royal dead would still be found intact in order to keep the excitement alive.99 There were various reactions to the management of the Amphipolis finds. The fact that a new site had risen to the top of the list of the most important national Macedonian sites, many decades after the spectacular discoveries at Vergina, provoked a response from the state archaeologist in charge of the Vergina excavations. She attempted to recover the top position by presenting her recent spectacular finds from Vergina on social media (Facebook),100 and also connecting them to

The tomb was filled with alluvial deposits interpreted as the architect’s intentional fill to prevent looting – a very unusual practice in Macedonia. 100 To Vima 2014. 99

44

Stefanos Gimatzidis

Alexander the Great.101 This practice was imitated by other archaeologists in Macedonia who presented their finds in the same context of national excitement. This forced the central administration to instantly issue a decree that prevented publication of archaeological finds in social media and demanded prior approval and filtering of any archaeological information by the Ministry of Culture before it was further presented to the public.102 The purpose was not only to avoid further embarrassments after this unprecedented competition in the arena of publicity, but also to redirect public interest in accordance with state planning policy.103 The first and most courageous complaint came from the Greek academic community. Although the critique was actually restricted to the dating issues of the tomb at Amphipolis, it was met by a severe reaction from the archaeologists in charge of the excavation at Amphipolis, who publicly accused the disagreeing colleague of being a servant of foreign interests – a view taken up by pro-governmental media.104 It was only after the conclusion of the excavation that the academic worries became more pronounced, when everybody realised that the excavator did not record, among other artefacts, the context of the human remains found in the tomb. Scholarly wagering on the identity of the deceased was replaced by a severe critique of excavation methods and political abuse of the excavation.105 The non-governmental press has ever since been referring to the excavation of Amphipolis as a fiasco, non-scientific project, reality-show and governmental propaganda, while news about Amphipolis gradually disappeared from even pro-governmental media. There is no sense in going any further into these issues and turning their protagonists into caricatures of Balkan archaeology that may offer legitimacy to the notion of Balkanism in archaeology. The Methone and Amphipolis projects are illustrative manifestations of archaeological manipulation in a crisis period. No matter what the reasons or motivations were, these two stories illustrate how multivocality can work for the sake of governmental propaganda and overshadow minority oppositional views in a national context. The projects’ motto from the very beginning, especially in Amphipolis, was that archaeology should not be sterile and archaeological information should not be the exclusive domain of archaeologists in dark storerooms, but rather that excavation news must be shared directly with the public. According to the members of the project and the government itself, this was the reason a ‘press spokesman’ of the tomb was appointed and local as well as international media camped there to transmit daily information about the excavation’s progress. The ambition of the Amphipolis project was to popularise archaeological information and interpretation. During the excavation, numerous specialists and non-specialists expressed their view about the identity of the deceased person for whom the tomb was erected. The project’s staff perceived all this as not only a legitimation, but also a triumph of multivocality and the opening of the discipline to the public. Although multivocality was very often proclaimed and achieved to a certain degree through the media, in the end, both the academic and non-academic public perceived this kind of popularisation as a means to reduce or minimise criticism and hide political manipulation behind an alleged polyphony in order to restrain complaints. In the cases illustrated above, the historical-archaeological narrative was not initially produced but rather supported by the state. The arguments that were employed to elaborate the significance

On Vergina, which has been the major circus of nationalist archaeology for almost the last four decades in Greece, see: Hamilakis 2007, 125–167. 102 ΥΠΠΟΑ Nr. 317099/182394/08.12.2014. 103 The general director of the Greek ministry of culture, Lina Mendone, who was put in charge of the excavation project at Amphipolis with the local archaeologist, Aikaterini Peristeri, downplayed the finds at Vergina. According to her statement, the problem was not the management of the monuments in Vergina, but rather that Amphipolis was more important since there were more tombs of this kind there than at Vergina: Avgi 2014. 104 Proto Thema 2014. 105 According to a later statement of the General Secretary of the Archaeological Society in Athens, the project was clumsily planned governmental propaganda to distract public attention from non-legitimate austerity measures and failed because of the personal insufficiency on the part of the archaeologists involved: Avgi 2015. 101

Claiming the Past, Conquering the Future

45

of these archaeological projects derive not only from the patriotic agenda, but also the appeal of economic/tourist prospects. State institutions claimed that the protection of the monuments from ‘looting’ or specific national interests were their motivators – behind which often lie political, nationalist and personal agendas. It is populist, not public, archaeology that manipulates multivocality, with its basic features being quick and large-scale excavations, usually conducted by a non-qualified staff employing ambiguous methods. The projects are usually not scientifically orientated. Instead, the desired outcome is usually – apart from the reinforcement of nationalist rhetoric – the foundation of a museum and an archaeological park for touristic purposes. A Plea for Translocality The on-going debate over the postmodern dichotomy of relativism – objectivity in archaeology, which goes hand in hand with the quest for multivocality, demonstrates inherent deficiencies and weaknesses of the discipline in dealing with the complexity of the issue. A distinction between epistemic and judgemental relativism was initially made by other social sciences: “Denying the principle of epistemic relativity inevitably entails embracing some type of epistemological absolutism (which, by a short route, invariably results in some kind of idealism), while the acceptance of judgemental relativism inevitably leads to some or other form of irrationalism”.106 This opposition was soon introduced into the archaeological debate – as many other notions originating in other disciplines107 – presenting alternative trajectories to the comprehension of the discipline’s social background and its interpretive potential.108 Archaeological critique was further enhanced by the introduction of the ‘deficit model’, and ‘multiple perspective model’. The ‘deficit model’ was successfully adapted in archaeological epistemology as an opposition to multivocality. The more or less positivist ‘deficit model’ demands the education of the public according to the guidelines of the discipline and discourages alternative views;109 whereas, the ‘multiple perspective model’ acknowledges public agency and its potential to re-appropriate archaeological information/interpretation.110 This opposition has created a major dilemma for public archaeology, which, according to Neal Ascherson’s definition, operates – among other fields – in the spheres of economic conflict, political struggle, nationalism and state power.111 If this is so, the real dilemma may not be methodological, i.e. between ‘deficit’ and ‘multiple perspective’ models, but ethical. So far in this discussion, many different issues have been addressed which have brought more confusion rather than illumination. Although description is a very relative device in archaeology, one may still argue that the description i.e. of a thin section does not contain any relative values. There are also other fixed points that are not contingent upon variations in social contexts and judgements: we can, for example, be especially sure by means of Neutron Activation Analysis and other archaeometrical methods about the provenance of several categories of Aegean pottery and their date in more or less broad terms.112 In such cases, any claim to the contrary is simply bad archaeology. Although bad archaeology can seek to disguise itself in epistemological ‘perspectivism’, this does not mean that pluralism and extreme relativism foster irrationalism and should be held to account for the decline of the discipline’s epistemological standards. The confusion is due to the fact that multivocality and relativism can take several forms and operate at many different levels, while the relative scales in archaeological interpretation cannot be explicitly defined. Another fact is that

108 109 110 111 112 106 107

Bhaskar 2015, 57. Cf. Trigger 1998. Shanks – Hodder 1995, 18–24. Wynne 1991, 113; Ziman 1991, 101; Pandora – Rader 2008, 353. Merriman 2004, 5–8. Ascherson 2000, 2. Cf. Thomas 2004, 248.

46

Stefanos Gimatzidis

ethics, the main point in this discussion has been underplayed: ethics is an equally relative issue that is not only historically, but also culturally and socially contingent.113 A definition of ethics is much beyond the scope of this paper. Nevertheless, if we conform to the origin of archaeology in the western world and accept this legacy, we may also agree upon some basic values, such as the preservation of archaeological heritage or the right to potentially oppose well-established precepts of identity and religious issues by means of archaeological interpretation, which are some of the most popular topics usually raised in archaeology. If we wish to set some priorities in this discussion, especially in the historically biased cultural context of the Balkans and Anatolia, ethics in archaeology would certainly have to be addressed first. Public archaeology, as it was defined by Ascherson, is dominant in this part of the world.114 Its strategies are defined by very powerful state institutions that filter archaeological information and transmit it through local media to the public. The latter is constantly trained by state archaeologies to regard cultural heritage as a national asset that may also attest to and validate a continuity of identity. The public is very active in this debate by receiving information, processing it and further transforming it. State archaeology is highly adaptable to the needs of its public and receptive to its demands. This means that archaeological narratives are co-edited. The more the public takes part, the more successful state propaganda may be. Multivocality is thus always welcome, even if it objects to state narratives. The success of national archaeological projects does not depend on compliance, but on participation. Archaeology itself is a discipline originating in nationalism; in the Balkans it especially bears a deep-rooted interest in identities and origins.115 In this sense, any public engagement would automatically be perceived as a reinforcement of state propaganda and all those primitive values with which archaeology came into being. Thus, the desideratum in regional Balkan and Anatolian archaeology is not a new form of multivocality, but rather translocality.116 Inter-communication and inter-perception of a shared cultural heritage, following the comprehension of global dynamics’ potential in the formation of cultural and identity strategies, can reshape transnational consciousness, evolved through historical and archaeological narratives on a regional, neoliberal basis. Acknowledgements: I owe many thanks to Peter Delev, Anelia Bozkova, Hristo Popov, Georgi Nekritzov, Julia Tsvetkova from Bulgaria and Alexandra Papazofska, Dragi Mitrevski from FYR of Macedonia for the motivating discussions on the management of the past in the central Balkans. This paper was mostly stimulated by personal experiences at north Greek excavation sites, such as Dion and Vergina, as well as during archaeological events organised by state institutions (exhibitions and conferences on ancient Macedonia), and finally by interaction with the Greek public on issues relating to the perception of the past.

References Ancient Macedonia 1988 Αρχαία Μακεδονία / Ancient Macedonia. Exhibition Catalogue Museum Victoria, Melbourne (Athens 1988). Anderson 2006 B. Anderson, Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, 3rd edition (London, New York 2006).

115 116 113 114

Scarre – Scarre 2006b, 2–4. Ascherson 2000, 1–4; Merriman 2004, 1–5. Cf. Appadurai 2001, 45–47; Appadurai 2006, 51–52. Translocality is a notion recently applied and variously defined in the social sciences. For a review of its definition see Greiner – Sakdapolrak 2013, with a concise description of its application: “Translocal approaches are applied to enhance the understanding of various phenomena related to the production and re-production of social spatial configurations, covering such issues as international and internal migration, identity formation, media-use and knowledge transfer, as well as local development processes”.

Claiming the Past, Conquering the Future

47

Appadurai 2001 A. Appadurai, The globalisation of archaeology and heritage. A Discussion with Arjun Appadurai, Journal of Social Archaeology 1, 1, 2001, 35–49. Appadurai 2006 A. Appadurai, Fear of Small Numbers. An Essay on the Geography of Anger (Durham 2006). Ascherson 2000 N. Ascherson, Editorial, Public Archaeology 1, 1, 2000, 1–4. Avgi 2014 Αγγελική Κοτταρίδη: Είναι ο τάφος ενός εύπορου ανθρώπου, Η Αυγή, 13 Nov. 2014. Online (last accessed 6 Nov. 2017). Avgi 2015 Άτεχνη σκηνοθετημένη ιστορία η Αμφίπολη, Η Αυγή, 12 May 2015. Online (last accessed 6 Nov. 2017). Bailey 1998 D. Bailey, Bulgarian archaeology. Ideology, sociopolitics and the exotic, in: Meskell 1998, 87–110. Benac 1984 A. Benac, Über Probleme in der Erforschung der Ethnogenese der Illyrer und Thraker, in: Peschew et al. 1984, 22–32. Bhaskar 2015 R. Bhaskar, The Possibility of Naturalism. A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences, 4th edition (New York, London 2015). Bourdieu 1990 P. Bourdieu, The Logic of Practice (Cambridge 1990). Brown 1998 K. S. Brown, Contests of heritage and the politics of preservation in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, in: Meskell 1998, 68–86. Carman 2003 J. Carman, Settling on sites. Constraining concepts, in: J. Brück – M. Goodman (eds.), Making Places in the Prehistoric World. Themes in Settlement Archaeology (London 1999) 20–29. Ceka 1983 N. Ceka, Lindja e jetës qytetare tek Ilirët e jugut / La naissance de la vie urbaine chez les Illyriens du Sud, Iliria 2, 1983, 144–192. Champion 1989 T. C. Champion, Introduction, in: T. C. Champion, Centre and Periphery. Comparative Studies in Archaeology (London 1989) 1–21. Chavela 2013 K. Chavela, Review of Mεθώνη Πιερίας I: Επιγραφές, χαράγματα και εμπορικά σύμβολα στη γεωμετρική και αρχαϊκή κεραμική από το “Υπόγειο” της Μεθώνης Πιερίας στη Μακεδονία. By Besios Mathaios, Iannis Z. Tziphopoulos, and Antonis Kotsonas (Υ.Π.Δ.Β.Μ.Θ.). Pp. 560, figs. 328, graphs 6. Center for the Greek Language, Thessaloniki 2012. Price not available. ISBN 978-960-7779-51-9, American Journal of Archaeology, 117, 3, July 2013. DOI: 10.3764/ ajaonline1173.Chavela Chausidis 2013 Н. Чаусидис, Проектот Скопје 2014 – Скици за едно наредно истражување (Skopje 2013). Damaskos 2011 D. Damaskos, Archäologie und nationale Identität im modernen Griechenland. Aspekte und Wechselwirkungen, in: E. Kocziszky (ed.), Ruinen in der Moderne. Archäologie und die Künste (Berlin 2011) 75–87.

48

Stefanos Gimatzidis

Danford 1995 L. M. Danford, The Macedonian Conflict. Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World (Princeton, N.J. 1995). Davies 2000 J. L. Davis, Warriors for the Fatherland. National Consciousness and Archaeology in ‘Barbarian’ Epirus and ‘Verdant’ Ionia, 1912–22, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 13, 1, 76–98. Descamps-Lequime 2011 S. Descamps-Lequime (ed.), Au royaume d’Alexandre le Grand. La Macédoine antique. Exhibition catalogue Musée du Louvre, Paris (Paris 2011). Diamantopoulou 2012 A. Διαμαντοπούλου, Στην εκδήλωση του Κέντρου Ελληνικής Γλώσσας για την παρουσίαση ευρημάτων από τον αρχαιολογικό χώρο της Μεθώνης, 20 Jan. 2012. Online (last accessed 6 Nov. 2017). Díaz-Andreu – Champion 1996 M. Díaz-Andreu – T. Champion, Nationalism and archaeology in Europe. An introduction, in: M. Díaz-Andreu – T. Champion, Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe (London 1996) 1–23. Dimitsas 1874 Μ. Γ. Δήμιτσας, Αρχαία γεωγραφία της Μακεδονίας συνταχθείσα κατά τας αρχαίας πηγάς και τα νεώτερα βοηθήματα. Μέρος δεύτερον. Τοπογραφία (Athens 1874). Dion 2009 Δίον 1970–2009. Τιμητικό λεύκωμα για τον καθηγητή Δημήτρη Παντερμαλή, Διευθυντή των ανασκαφών (Dion 2009). Douzougli – Papadopoulos 2010 A. Douzougli – J. K. Papadopoulos, Liatovouni. A Molossian Cemetery and Settlement in Epirus, Archäologischer Anzeiger 125, 2010, 1–87. Dzino 2014 D. Dzino, Constructing Illyrians. Prehistoric inhabitants of the Balkan Peninsula in early modern and modern perceptions, Balkanistica 27, 2014, 1–39. Elefantis 1993 A. Ελεφαντής, Μακεδονικό. Από την εθνικιστική έξαρση στο περιθώριο, in: Liakos et al. 1993, 31–62. Evaggelidis 1913 ∆. Eυαγγελίδης, Αι αρχαιότητες και τα βυζαντινά μνημεία της βορειοδυτικής Ηπείρου, Νέος Ελληνομνήμων / Neos Ellenomnemon 11, 1913, 278–288, 457–469. Galanakis 2011 I. Galanakis (ed.), Heracles to Alexander the Great. Treasures from the royal capital of Macedon, a Hellenic kingdom in the age of democracy. Exhibition catalogue Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (Oxford 2011). Galaty – Watkinson 2004 M. L. Galaty – Ch. Watkinson, The Practice of archaeology under dictatorship, in: M. Galaty – Ch. Watkinson (eds.), Archaeology Under Dictatorship (New York 2004) 1–17. Garašanin 1984 M. Garašanin, Zur ethnischen Zugehörigkeit der bronzezeitlichen Bevölkerung im serbischen Morava-Gebiet, in: Peschew et al. 1984, 182–185. Garašanin 1988 M. Garašanin, Formation et origines des Illyriens, in: M. Garašanin (ed.), Les Illyriens et les Albanais (Belgrade 1988) 81–144. Geniki Grammateia Enimerosis kai Epioinonias 2012 Γενική Γραμματεία Ενημέρωσης και Επικοινωνίας, Διεύθυνση Πληροφόρησης. Τμήμα Γραφείων Τύπου Εσωτερικού. Επισκόπηση Ημερησίου. Τύπου Θεσσαλονίκης, 15 Nov. 2012. Online (last accessed 6 Nov. 2017).

Claiming the Past, Conquering the Future

49

Gimatzidis 2013 S. Gimatzidis, Review of Giannis Z. Tzifopoulos (ed.), Μεθώνη Πιερίας I: Επιγραφές, χαράγματα και εμπορικά σύμβολα στη γεωμετρική και αρχαϊκή κεραμική από το «Υπόγειο». Thessaloniki: Centre for the Greek Language, 2012. Pp.  560. ISBN 9789607779519, Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2013.01.53. Online (last accessed 6 Nov. 2017). Gimatzidis forthcoming S. Gimatzidis, North Greece and the Central Balkans, in: C. Haselgrove – P. S. Wells – K. Rebay-Salisbury (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the European Iron Age (forthcoming). Gjipali 1998 I. Gjipali, Nga muzeu arkeologjik-etnografik tek muzetë e profilizuar arkeologjik, Iliria 28, 1998, 209–220. Gökalp 2010 Z. Gökalp, What is Turkism?, in: A. Ersoy – M. Górny – V. Kechriotis (eds.), Modernism. The Creation of Nationstates. Discourses of collective identities in Central and Southeastern Europe (1770–1945). Texts and Documents III/1 (Budapest, New York 2010) 109–116. Gold der Thraker 1979 Gold der Thraker. Archäologische Schätze aus Bulgarien. Ausstellungskatalog Hildesheim (Mainz am Rhein 1979). Goody 2007 J. Goody, The Theft of History (Cambridge 2007). Gori 2012 M. Gori, Who are the Illyrians? The use and abuse of archaeology in the construction of national and trans-national identities in the southwestern Balkans, in: C. N. Popa – R. Ó Ríagáin (eds.), Archaeology and the (De)Construction of National and Supra-National Polities, Archaeological Review from Cambridge 27, 2 (Cambridge 2012) 71–84. Gori 2014 M. Gori, Fabricating identity from ancient shards. Memory construction and cultural appropriation in the new Macedonian question, Hungarian Historical Review 3, 2014, 285–311. Gounaris 2010 B. K. Γούναρης, Το μακεδονικό ζήτημα από τον 19ο ως τον 21ο αιώνα. Ιστοριογραφικές προσεγγίσεις (Athens 2010). Gourgouris 1996 S. Gourgouris, Dream Nation. Enlightenment, Colonisation and the Institution of Modern Greece (Stanford 1996). Greek Civilisation 1993 Greek Civilisation. Macedonia, Kingdom of Alexander the Great. Exhibition catalogue Marché Bonsecours, Montreal, (Athens 1993) 129–142. Greiner – Sakdapolrak 2013 C. Greiner – P. Sakdapolrak, Translocality. Concepts, applications and emerging research perspectives, Geography Compass 7, 5, 2013, 373–384. Habu et al. 2008 J. Habu – C. Fawcett – J. M. Matsunaga (eds.), Evaluating Multiple Narratives. Beyond Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist Archaeologies (New York 2008). Hamilakis 2007 Y. Hamilakis, The Nation and its Ruins. Antiquity, Archaeology, and National Imagination in Greece (New York 2007). Hänsel 1989 B. Hänsel, Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshügel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975–1979. Die Grabung und der Baubefund, Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 7 (Berlin 1989). Hobsbawm 1983 E. Hobsbawm, Introduction: inventing tradition, in: E. Hobsbawm – T. Ranger (eds.), The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge 1983) 1–14.

50

Stefanos Gimatzidis

Hodder – Hutson 2003 I. Hodder – S. Hutson, Reading the Past. Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology, 3rd edition (Cambridge 2003). Hodder 1999 I. Hodder, The Archaeological Process. An Introduction (Oxford 1999). Hodder 2008 I. Hodder, Multivocality and social archaeology, in: Habu et al. 2008, 196–200. Holtorf 2005 C. Holtorf, From Stonehenge to Las Vegas. Archaeology as Popular Culture (Walnut Creek 2005). Holtorf 2007 C. Holtorf, Archaeology is a Brand! The Meaning of Archaeology in Popular Culture (Oxford 2007). Hylland Eriksen 2010 T. Hylland Eriksen, Ethnicity and Nationalism, 4th edition (New York 2010). Joyce 2002 R. A. Joyce, The Languages of Archaeology. Dialogue, Narrative, and Writing (Oxford 2002). Kaiser 1995 T. Kaiser, Archaeology and ideology in southeast Europe, in: Kohl – Fawcett 1995a, 99–119. Karamitrou-Mentesidi 2008 Γ. Καραμήτρου-Μεντεσίδη, Η Αιανή και η συμβολή της στη διαμόρφωση της νέας ιστορικής φυσιογνωμίας της Μακεδονίας, Μακεδονική Λαϊκή Βιβλιοθήκη 43 (Thessaloniki 2008). Kim 2008 M. Kim, Multivocality, multifaceted voices, and Korean archaeology, in: Habu et al. 2008, 118–137. Kohl 1998 P. L. Kohl, Nationalism and archaeology. On the constructions of nations and the reconstructions of the remote past, Annual Review of Anthropology 27, 1998, 223–246. Kohl – Fawcett 1995a P. L. Kohl – C. Fawcett (eds.), Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology (Cambridge 1995). Kohl – Fawcett 1995b P. L. Kohl – C. Fawcett, Archaeology in the service of the state. Theoretical considerations, in: Kohl – Fawcett 1995a, 3–18. Kohl et al. 2007 P. Kohl – M. Kozelsky – N. Ben Yehuda, Selective Remembrances. Archaeology in the Construction, Commemoration, and Consecration of National Pasts (Chicago 2007). Kossinna 1902 G. Kossinna, Die indogermanische Frage archäologisch beantwortet, Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 34, 1902, 161–222. Kotsakis 1998 K. Kotsakis, The past is ours. Images of Greek Macedonia, in: Meskell 1998, 44–67. Kristiansen 2008 K. Kristiansen, Should archaeology be in the service of ‘popular culture’? A theoretical and political critique of Cornelius Holtorf’s vision of archaeology, Antiquity 82, 2008, 488–492. Lahi 2004 B. Lahi, Zur Erforschung der Eisenzeit in Albanien, in: A. Lippert (ed.), Die Illyrer. Katalog zu einer Ausstellung von archäologischen Funden der albanischen Eisenzeit (12.–4. Jh. v. Chr.) aus den Sammlungen des Archäologischen Institutes der Albanischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Tirana und des Archäologischen Museums in Durres, Albanien. Sonderausstellung im Museum für Urgeschichte des Landes Niederösterreich, Asparn an der Zaya, vom 3. April bis 30. November 2004 (Haugsdorf 2004) 7–9.

Claiming the Past, Conquering the Future

51

Layton – Wallace 2006 R. Layton – G. Wallace, Is culture a commodity?, in: Scarre – Scarre 2006a, 46–68. Liakos 1993 Α. Λιάκος, Βαλκανική κρίση και εθνικισμός, in: Liakos et al. 1993, 9–30. Liakos et al. 1993 Α. Λιάκος – Α. Ελεφάντης – Α. Μανιτάκης – Δ. Παπαδημητρόπουλος, Ο Ιανός του εθνικισμού και η ελληνική Βαλκανική πολιτική (Athens 1993) Marinov 2015 T. Marinov, Ancient Thrace in the modern imagination. Ideological aspects of the construction of Thracian studies in southeastern Europe (Romania, Greece, Bulgaria), in: R. Daskalov – A. Vezenkov (eds.), Entangled Histories of the Balkans. 3. Shared Pasts, Disputed Legacies (Leiden 2015) 10–117. Mavrogeni 2008 S. Mavrogeni, Macedonian sarissa and Albanian eagle. FYROM’s new school textbooks, in: I. D. Stefanidis – V. Vlasidis – E. Kofos (eds.), Macedonian Identities Through Time. Interdisciplinary Approaches (Athens 2008). McGuire 2006 R. H. McGuire, Marx, Childe, and Trigger, in: R. F. Williamson – M. S. Bisson (eds.), The Archaeology of Bruce Trigger (Montreal 2006) 61–79. Merriman 2004 N. Merriman, Introduction. Diversity and dissonance in public archaeology, in: N. Merriman (ed.), Public Archaeology (London, New York 2004) 1–17. Meskell 1998 L. Meskell (ed.), Archaeology Under Fire. Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East (London 1998). Novakovič 2011 P. Novakovič, Archaeology in the new countries of southeastern Europe. A historical perspective, in: L. R. Lozny (ed.), Comparative Archaeologies. A Sociological View of the Science of the Past (New York 2011) 339–362. Novinite 2009 Bulgaria Archaeologists Restart Work on Thracian Temple near Starosel, Novinite, 29 July 2009. Online (last accessed 6 Nov. 2017). Özkırımlı – Sofos 2008 U. Özkırımlı – S. A. Sofos, Tormented by History. Nationalism in Grece and Turkey (London 2008). Pabst 2009 S. Pabst, Bevölkerungsbewegungen auf der Balkanhalbinsel am Beginn der Früheisenzeit und die Frage der Ethnogenese der Makedonen, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 124, 2009, 1–74. Pandora – Rader 2008 K. Pandora – K. A. Rader, Science in the everyday world, Isis 99, 2, 2008, 350–364. Peckham 2000 R. S. Peckham, Map mania. Nationalism and the politics of place in Greece, 1870–1922, Political Geography 19, 2000, 77–95. Peschew et al. 1984 A. Peschew – D. Popov – K. Jordanov – I. von Bredow (eds.), Dritter internationaler thrakologischer Kongress zu Ehren W. Tomascheks, 2.–6. Juni 1980, Wien (Sofia 1984). Petrova 1990/1991 E. Petrova, Pajonskite pleminja i Pajonskoto kralstvo vo II i I milenium pred n.e / The paeonian tribes and the paeonian kingdom in the second and the first millennium B.C., Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 12, 1990/1991, 9–130.

52

Stefanos Gimatzidis

Pluciennik 1999 M. Pluciennik, Archaeological narratives and other ways of telling, Current Anthropology 40, 1999, 653–678. Prendi 1982 F. Prendi, Die Bronzezeit und der Beginn der Eisenzeit in Albanien, in: B. Hänsel (ed.), Südosteuropa zwischen 1600 und 1000 v. Chr., Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 1 (Berlin 1982) 203–233. Prendi 1985 F. Prendi, Alcune considerazioni sulla ceramica dipinta „devolliana“ della tarda età del Bronzo e del Ferro Antico in Albania, in: Magna Grecia, Epiro e Macedonia, Atti del ventiquattresimo convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia. Taranto, 5–10 Ottobre 1984 (Naples 1985) 181–197. Prendi – Zheku 1983 F. Prendi – K. Zheku, Vazhdimësia etno-kulturore iliro-arbërore ne qytetin e Lisit / Continuité ethnoculturelle illyro-albanaise dans la ville de Lissus, Iliria 13, 1, 1983, 203–208. Proto Thema 2014 Αμφίπολη: Γιατί επιμένει να αμφισβητεί την ελληνικότητα του τάφου η Παλαγγιά, Πρώτο Θέμα, 25 Sept. 2014. Online (last accessed 6 Nov. 2017). Roudometof 2002 V. Roudometof, Collective Memory, National Identity, and Ethnic Conflict. Greece, Bulgaria, and the Macedonian Question (London 2002). Scarre – Scarre 2006a C. Scarre – G. Scarre (eds.), The Ethics of Archaeology. Philosophical Perspectives on Archaeological Practice (Cambridge 2006). Scarre – Scarre 2006b C. Scarre – G. Scarre, Introduction, in: Scarre – Scarre 2006a, 1–12. Shanks – Hodder 1995 M. Shanks – I. Hodder, Processual, postprocessual and interpretive archaeologies, in I. Hodder – M. Shanks – A. Alexandri – V. Buchli – J. Carman – J. Last – G. Lucas (eds.), Interpreting Archaeology. Finding Meaning in the Past (London, New York 1995) 3–29. Skordos 2012 A. Skordos, Griechenlands Makedonische Frage. Bürgerkrieg und Geschichtspolitik im Südosten Europas, 1945–1992 (Göttingen 2012). Skopetea 1999 E. Σκοπετέα, Φαλμεράυρ. Τεχνάσματα του αντίπαλου δέους (Athens 1999). Slapšak 2011 S. Slapšak, Entangled histories in south-east Europe, in: G. Klaniczay – M. Werner – O. Gecser (eds.), Multiple Antiquities – Multiple Modernities. Ancient Histories in Nineteenth Century European Cultures (Frankfurt/Main 2011) 407–432. Snodgrass 2012 A. Snodgrass, What is classical archaeology? Greek archaeology, in: S. E. Alcock – R. Osborne (eds.), Classical Archaeology (Oxford 2012) 13–29. Srejović 1973 D. Srejović, Karagač and the problem of the ethnogenesis of the Dardanians, Balcanica 4, 1973, 39–82. Thomas 2004 J. Thomas, Archaeology and Modernity (London, New York 2004). Tilley 2004 C. Tilley, The Materiality of Stone. Explorations in Landscape Phenomenology (Oxford 2004).

Claiming the Past, Conquering the Future

53

To Vima 2014 Εντυπωσιακά ευρήματα σε ασύλητο τάφο στη Βεργίνα, Το Βήμα, 12 Nov. 2014. Online (last accessed 6 Nov. 2017). Todorova 1992a M. Todorova, Historiography of the countries of eastern Europe: Bulgaria, The American Historical Review 97, 4, 1992, 1105–1117. Todorova 1992b M. Todorova, Improbable maverick or typical conformist? Seven thoughts on the new Bulgaria, in: I. Banac (ed.), Eastern Europe in Revolution (Ithaca 1992) 148–167. Todorova 2009 M. Todorova, Imagining the Balkans, 2nd rev. edition (New York 2009). Trigger 1984 B. G. Trigger, Alternative archaeologies. Nationalist, colonialist, imperialist, Man New Series 19, 3, 1984, 355–370. Trigger 1998 B. G. Trigger, Archaeology and epistemology. Dialoguing across the Darwinian chasm, American Journal of Archaeology 102, 1, 1998, 1–34. Trigger 2006 B. G. Trigger, A History of Archaeological Thought, 2nd edition (Cambridge 2006). Trigger 2008 B. G. Trigger, “Alternative archaeologies” in historical perspective, in: Habu et al. 2008, 187–195. Tsonos 2009 A. Τσώνος, Σκάβοντας στην Αλβανία. Ιστορία και ιδεολογία των αρχαιολογικών ερευνών κατά το 19ο και 20ο αιώνα (Ioannina 2009). Tzifopoulos 2012 Γ. Ζ. Τζιφόπουλος (ed.), Μεθώνη Πιερίας Ι. Επιγραφές, χαράγματα και εμπορικά σύμβολα στη γεωμετρική και αρχαϊκή κεραμική από το ʻΥπόγειοʼ της Μεθώνης Πιερίας στη Μακεδονία (Thessaloniki 2012). Vasić 1973 R. Vasić, The Early Iron Age Cultural Groups in Yugoslavia (Belgrade 1973). Vitelli – Colwell-Chanthaphonh 2006 K. D. Vitelli – C. Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Introduction, in: K. D. Vitelli – C. Colwell-Chanthaphonh (eds.), Archaeological Ethics, 2nd edition (Lanham 2006) 1–15. Vokotopoulou 1985 J. Vokotopoulou, La Macédoine de la Protohistoire à l’époque Archaique, in: Magna Grecia, Epiro e Macedonia, Atti del ventiquattresimo convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia. Taranto, 5–10 Ottobre 1984 (Naples 1985) 133–166. Vokotopoulou 1994 J. Vokotopoulou (ed.), Makedonen – die Griechen des Nordens. Exhibition catalogue Landesmuseum Hannover (Athens 1994). von Rezzori 2009 G. von Rezzori, Maghrebinische Geschichten, 44th edition (Hamburg 2009). Voutsaki 2003 S. Voutsaki, Archaeology and the construction of the past in nineteenth century Greece, in: H. Hokwerda (ed.), Constructions of Greek Past. Identity and Historical Consciousness from Antiquity to the Present (Groningen 2003) 231–255. Wilkes 1992 J. Wilkes, The Illyrians (Oxford 1992).

54

Stefanos Gimatzidis

Wylie 2008 A. Wylie, The integrity of narratives. Deliberative practice, pluralism, and multivocality, in: Habu et al. 2008, 201–212. Wynne 1991 B. Wynne, Knowledges in context, Science, Technology and Human Values 16, 1, 1991, 111–121. Ziman 1991 J. Ziman, Public understanding of science, Science, Technology and Human Values 16, 1, 1991, 99–105.

Conquering the Past, Claiming the Future: Historical and Archaeological Narratives in Western Anatolia Sıla Mangaloğlu-Votruba1 Abstract: While reconstructing ancient cultures within the confines of contemporary society, we often struggle to acknowledge the distinctions between the two. Modern political borders have biased this debate by creating artificial limitations for research. Although this maybe the case for many regions of the world, it is especially pertinent for the Turkish-Greek border. This paper aims to scrutinise the current perceptions of geographic and temporal fragmentation of western Anatolia. It places the causes behind this fragmentation into perspective by examining Turkey’s history of identity and education, followed by a brief focus on the region’s Late Bronze-Iron Age archaeology as a case study. Keywords: Western Anatolia, identity, education, fragmentation, Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages

Turkey’s History of Identity Identities today, whatever their determinants may be, are largely created within politically defined borders. During the formation of nation-states and national identities, archaeological heritage and research have become one of the most potent tools for establishing ethno-racial links between the land and its people, with the primary logic that the earliest identified inhabitants would be its rightful owners.2 The idea of uncovering a certain material culture and linking it to the contemporary inhabitants, without questioning or considering the collective identity of past cultures, was the main interpretational concept in early archaeological projects. Therefore, the borders of nation states had a profound influence on archaeological research. Due to its geopolitical situation, Turkey does not merely lie between the eastern and western traditions but, depending on contemporary government policies, is constantly shifting from one to the other. When we put this sentiment in a broader context, one can see the everlasting struggle of Orient and Occident within Turkey, as well as with its neighbours. During the transformation from the multi-ethnic Ottoman Empire into a modern nation-state, in order to create ‘homogeneous’ nations on both sides of the Aegean, the Greek and Turkish governments chose religion as the separating/uniting factor, or rather, as the main determinant for identity, as is clear from the Lausanne negotiations and the population exchange that occurred between Turkey and Greece in 1923.3 However, with the foundation of the Turkish Republic later that year, religion was discarded and, instead, Turkish nationalism and Kemalism became the main determinants for unity.4 Anatolia was home to ethnically heterogeneous Muslim – as well as non-Muslim – groups who spoke distinct languages.5 In order to create a homogenous nation, language became the most important tool, hence the ‘Citizen, speak Turkish’ campaigns in the 1930s that aimed to create a homogenous nation through language, rather than religion.6 This shift from religion towards a secular nationhood intended to bypass the Islamic Ottoman History, and

3 4 5 6 1 2

Department of Archaeology and History of Art, Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey; [email protected]. Kohl – Fawcett 1995, 3; Jones – Graves-Brown 1996, 4; Jones 1997; Ergin 2010; Gür 2011, 14–15. İçduygu – Kaygusuz 2004, 40; Yeğen 2004, 57. Redford – Ergin 2010b, 4. Çagaptay 2002, 258; Çagaptay 2004, 86–87; Erimtan 2008, 148. Çagaptay 2002, 259–260; Çagaptay 2004; Atakuman 2008, 217; Özkırımlı – Sofos 2008, 167.

56

Sıla Mangaloğlu-Votruba

look for alternative ancestors.7 Despite these diverse ethnic groups, in order to create a monolithic nation, a theory known as the Turkish History Thesis (THT) was proposed. According to the THT, which postulates a Turco-centric view of world history, the Turks, a white, ‘brachycephalic’ race, had their homeland in Central Asia, where the origins of all human civilisations are to be found, and they were the first people to develop both language and civilisation before they migrated westwards and established all the major cultures in the Near East, including Sumerian, Egyptian and Hittite.8 The thesis also claimed that Turks had created the Aegean civilisation and were the founders of the cultures of Troia, Crete, Lydia and Ionia, and they also laid the foundations of the Roman Empire through the Etruscans, who were of Anatolian origin – i.e. the Turks.9 The thesis claimed that the Turks settled in Anatolia as autochthon groups and have made it their home for the last 7000 years, thereby legitimising the Turks as the earliest residents of the land.10 The THT perceived the Hittites as the oldest Turkish culture in Anatolia. With the aim of proving these claims, excavations were conducted in Anatolia focusing on the pre-classical sites, especially the Hittite time period.11 For the other side of the Aegean, it has been taken for granted that the national Greek identity, as we know it today, existed before the formation of a Greek State.12 Moreover, it has been assumed by both Greek and non-Greek Classical archaeologists that this identity could be detected in ancient material culture, and it could be proven that past inhabitants of these regions had shared a ‘Greek’ national consciousness in the modern sense.13 The Greek military agenda shaping the nationalistic archaeological projects immediately after occupying southern Albania (1912–13) and western Turkey (1920–22) exemplifies this ideology.14 The THT, by establishing itself within the territorially-defined borders of the Turkish Republic, differed from a number of other dogmas which were flourishing in order to resist the irredentist ideologies and imperialist powers during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, such as Pan-Turkism and Pan-Islamism. Among these was a new ideology called Anatolianism, in which scrutiny of Pan-Turkism, Ottomanism and Pan-Islamism created its basic principles.15 Anatolianism, like the THT, differed from these others by framing its view within the borders of the Turkish Republic, with the principle that nationalism should derive from the ‘homeland’ of Anatolia16. Therefore, despite differing nuances, the THT and the historiography of Anatolianism followed a similar path.17 In this sense, it seems that Anatolianism could easily match with the official ideology – the THT. However, this was prevented due to Anatolianism’s warm approach towards Islam, recognising it as one of the main pillars of Anatolian culture, as well as Anatolianists’ disagreement with the population exchange, resulting in non-Anatolian people coming into Anatolia from former Ottoman lands.18 Even then, it did not prevent several important figures with a known Anatolianist approach, such as Remzi Oğuz Arık and Hamit Zübeyir Koşay, from holding prominent positions in archaeology projects and museum establishments in the 1930s.19

9 7 8

12 13 14 10 11

17 15 16

18 19



Redford – Ergin 2010b, 4. İnan et al. 1930; İnan et al. 1931, 8–10. İnan et al. 1931, 10–12. İnan et al. 1930, 61–62; İnan et al. 1931, 8. Erciyas 2005, 183; Atakuman 2008, 224–225. Kitromilides 1989. Davis 2000, 77; Davis 2003; see also Hall 1997, 17–67. Davis 2000; Dikkaya 2009, 123–124. See also Mac Sweeney 2012, for the Turkish-Greek dispute over territorial claims in Anatolia based on politically-charged narratives, supplemented by archaeological research. Atabay 2002, 515. Atabay 2002, 527. Deren 2002, 536. Especially one of the branches of Anatolianism, known as the Blue Anatolianism, emphasised an Anatolian identity through ancient cultures such as the Hittites and Ionians. See Atabay 2002, 531–532; Deren 2002, 539–540. Deren 2002, 535, 539; Atabay 2002, 531; Özkırımlı – Sofos 2008, 134–135. Gür 2011, 19.

Conquering the Past, Claiming the Future

57

The ideas of the THT were presented at the first and second Turkish History Congress in 1932 and 1937, respectively,20 with two aims: Firstly, it emphasised that the Turks had been living in this geography for thousands of years and are the predecessors of its past cultures – backing these ideas with archaeological research – and, secondly, it aimed to focus on a different past other than the Ottoman one. By doing so, it intentionally diminished the role of Islam in Turkish culture and established a connection between ancient Anatolian civilisations and modern Turkey.21 During the 1930s, under the influence of the THT, banks and businesses started to take ancient culture names, such as Etibank and Sümerbank.22 One of the most prominent symbols of the THT, the so-called ‘Eti’23 sun disc found in the Alacahöyük excavations in 1935, was chosen as the emblem of Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi (the Faculty of Language and History-Geography), founded in the same year. The faculty later became part of Ankara University, whose emblem was also chosen to be the sun disc. Although the thesis was not supported by the international community, and was eventually dismissed in the 1940s, the names of these ancient cultures continued to be used, such as in the popular districts of ‘Etiler’ (the Hitties) and ‘Akatlar’ (the Akkadians), in Istanbul. The sun disc emblem also continued to be used commercially, for instance in Maltepe cigarettes and the Eti biscuit company in the 1960s.24 The sun disc became the symbol of the municipality of Ankara in 1961 as well as the symbol of the Ministry of Tourism at the time of its foundation in 1973.25 By the time these later developments occurred, the sun disc had lost its relation with the THT and it became a much broader symbol for attachment to Atatürk’s reforms, the most prominent being secularism.26 Education The establishment of academic departments such as Archaeology, Hittitology, Sumerology and Ancient Greek had surely been inspired from early Republican ideology and, especially, Anatolianism27. However, neither the rhetoric of the THT with its aims nor Anatolianism was ever fully reflected in Turkish high school education and, moreover, especially from the 1980s, the Turco-Islamist approach became the norm in Turkish history text books up to the present day.28 The proportion of ancient Anatolian civilisations content in high school Turkish history books is minimal. Even though over the years the governments in Turkey advertise ancient Anatolian civilisations in order to attract tourists, the students of the Turkish Republic, especially the ones in secondary education, are being deprived of this knowledge. According to Recep Yıldırım, who investigated the nature of Anatolian Civilisations as portrayed in history books, ancient world history had a 32% share in first grade high school books until the 1990s. However, since 1993, after a regulation change, this percentage was dropped to 7–8%, with Anatolian civilisations accounting for merely 4%.29 According to the general narrative in Turkish education, the history

22 23 20 21

26 24 25

29 27 28

See Tanyeri-Erdemir 2006, 382–388; Atakuman 2008, 220–228. Ersanlı 2003, 14; Erimtan 2008, 143; Durak 2014, 252. Goode 2007, 51–52; Erimtan 2008, 142. Shaw 2007, 164, fig. 5.1. The word ‘Eti’, a Turkish alternative to ‘Hittite’, is actually misleading, as the sun discs belong to the earlier ‘Hatti’ culture. Shaw 2007, 166. Shaw 2007, 166, 183. Shaw 2007, 183. The symbol of Ankara changed to be a mosque with minarets, Atakule (a tower) and stars in 1995 by the head of the Ankara Municipality. Erciyas 2005, 187. Durak 2014, 257. Yıldırım 1998, 170–171. Moreover, the problem is not only this tiny percentage, but also the mistakes covering these time periods; see Yıldırım 1998, 171 for details. Also see Copeaux 1998a, 84, table, for the percentages of ‘Classical antiquity’, ‘Ancient Turks’ and ‘Arabian Islam’ content in history books from 1930’s until the 1990’s.

58

Sıla Mangaloğlu-Votruba

of the Turks starts with the Battle of Manzikert, the Seljuk invasion of Anatolia.30 This creates a perception for students that the ancient Anatolian civilisations are peripheral to Turkish history. In the first volume of the most popular history textbook used in the last 30 years in Turkey, ancient civilisations in and around Turkey from 2000 BC to the 11th century AD – a total of 3000 years of Mediterranean history – is reduced to a discussion spanning 45 pages out of 283 in total.31 The second volume nearly exclusively covers Ottoman history and heavily favours Turco-Islamic history, whereas Byzantine history appears on merely two pages.32 This indicates that the Byzantine past is the most disregarded part of Anatolian history in high school textbooks in Turkey, which is hardly surprising if one considers that, both in Greek and Turkish education, the most prominent ‘other’ refers to each other.33 It is also worth mentioning in this context the negative image of Byzantium in the public’s eye, as mirrored in the popular Battal Gazi film series where a semi-historical/semi-legendary character Battal Gazi, an eighth/ ninth-century Arab frontier warrior, heroically fights against Byzantium.34 However, it is not only the Byzantine time period, anything related to the ‘Greeks’ is often overlooked in Turkish history books. For instance, the Ionians in Turkish education are especially emphasised as being ‘Anatolian’ and, in connection to this idea, it is claimed that the Greek civilisation has taken many of its cultural traits from Anatolians;35 this can be seen as an influence inherited from the Turkish History Thesis, as well as Anatolianism. History education in Greece, on the other hand, is considered to be ethno- as well as Euro-centric.36 In Greek history books, there are three points that are emphasised indicating the main character of the Greek nation: uninterrupted continuation from the ancient era, ability to preserve the fundamental cultural attributes, and a great cultural homogeneity.37 Although since 1974, the term ‘nation’ no longer appears in reference to the pre-modern period, the term ‘Hellenism’ is used systematically, providing a perception of an uninterrupted cultural continuity through time.38 According to a survey on school teachers in Greece, Greekness derives from ancient Greek culture and language; modern Greek civilisation owns its existence mainly to ancient Greece and, to a lesser degree, Byzantium and western Europe.39 Those who participated in the survey emphasised the ‘Mediterranean’, ‘Balkan’, ‘European’ and lastly the ‘Eastern Mediterranean’ identities and believe that the Greeks are closely related to the Europeans, however, by ‘Europeans’ they specifically mean the Italians, as they find themselves quite distant from other Europeans, such as the Germans, and they reject any kind of similarities with ‘non-European Mediterranean nations’.40 Rejecting any similarity with ‘non-European Mediterranean nations’ is intriguing, as this mentality goes hand in hand with ‘Greek civilisation’ being accepted as the roots of European civilisation, embedded in the existence of the European identity. Yet, Greeks finding themselves distant from northern European nations, such as the Germans, is also worth noting as this demonstrates that ‘Europe’, as we know it, is a relatively new concept. As Jones and Greaves-Brown have noted, the collective identity of Europe today has little to do with the past, as we know, for instance, that

See Copeaux 1998a, 158–180. Although some text book writers emphasise that Anatolia was overrun by the Turks long before the Battle of Manzikert, via the Huns for instance (see Durak 2014, 259), they still do not claim any affiliation between the Turks and the peoples of the ancient Anatolian civilisations. 31 Durak 2014, 257. 32 See Durak 2014, 258. He also notes that this book’s Byzantine history in two pages is the longest among textbooks that were written since the 1980s. 33 Stathis 1998, 125; Copeaux 1998a, 284–289; Millas 2002, 194; Dikkaya 2009, 117–118, 131. 34 See Kitapçı-Bayrı 2013, regarding a detailed examination on Battal Gazi film series. 35 Millas 1991, 29; Millas 1998, 255–256; Copeaux 1998a, 279–281; Copeaux 1998b, 80. 36 Frangoudaki 1998, 97. 37 Frangoudaki 1998, 101. 38 Frangoudaki 1998, 102. 39 Kouzelis 1998, 107. 40 Kouzelis 1998, 108. 30

Conquering the Past, Claiming the Future

59

the ancient Greeks (‘Hellenes’) clearly distanced themselves from ‘Barbarians’ and that the Classical world evolved around the Mediterranean, not within today’s European borders.41 A good example of this is the Minoan civilisation, which is credited with having ‘European characterisation’ or being labelled as the ‘first European civilisation’ despite the fact that outside of the Aegean its closest ties lie with the eastern Mediterranean,42 the majority of them today being ‘non-European Mediterranean nations.’ While European Union enlargement, as well as globalisation generally, is taking place on the world stage, nationalistic identities exist side by side with these movements, being especially palpable in the Balkans and the Near East.43 Having said that, globalisation itself may very well be creating emphasis on the land, tradition, history and the emergence of local identities44 and, on a grander scale, one of its consequences is the creation of two major blocks in the world: East versus West. Along with globalisation, European countries increasingly emphasise their ‘European identity’ and Greece has a firm place in it, especially regarding its characterisation as the ‘foundation of European Civilisation’. On the other hand, Turkey almost always has the identity of ‘the other’ from the European point of view, especially with its expansionist Ottoman heritage and conflicts between Greece and the colonialist European powers in the past. Within this line, it can be said that Turkey and Greece have become the crystallised notions of the Orient and Occident. Formations such as the European Union actually created an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ consequence for those outside of the Union, especially for Turkey. Along this line, when one considers Greece as being the foundation of Western Civilisation, it consequently represents the Occident more than any other nation. Turkey, being the ‘adversary’ of Greece, at the fringe of the European Union, with its Ottoman heritage, in this case represents the Orient. Therefore, the Greek-Turkish struggle can also be framed within the Orient versus Occident context. History of Fragmentation in Western Anatolia In the last three decades, western Anatolia’s prehistoric past beyond its ‘classical heritage’ has been intensively investigated. A small number of Mycenaean finds discovered alongside the local material, especially found on the coastal settlements, sparked a discussion regarding the nature of these finds and whether it indicated possible Mycenaean settlements or colonisation on the western Anatolian coast. Geographically sharing both the Aegean and the Anatolian peninsula, the region of western Anatolia acts as a liminal zone (Fig. 1). However, the current political borders affect our perception of the past and often promote attribution of western Anatolia as ‘Anatolian’, at the expense of its ‘Aegeanness’.45 The eastern Aegean islands and western Anatolian coast, for instance, have been geographically and culturally closer to each other throughout history.46 During both historic and prehistoric periods, until the political separation of the last century, any cultural distinction between the inhabitants of at least the near coastal islands and western Anatolia seems non-existent. In this regard, the modern border separating the islands from the mainland is highly novel and radical. The island of Lesbos within this context is an excellent case study. Despite being geographically and culturally closer to Anatolia than the rest of the Greek realm from as early as the Early Bronze Age, and even subsequent to ‘the arrival of the Aeolian Greeks’, researchers were

43 44

Jones – Graves-Brown 1996, 10. See the same publication, pp. 9–12 for a detailed discussion on this issue. See Hamilakis – Momigliano 2006. See also Stritch 2006, for the case of Cyprus. See Meskell 1998, 2–3, 8. Kadıoğlu 1996, 189–190; Hamilakis 2010, 224. Far-right groups achieving political power in Europe and elsewhere recently is a good example of this. 45 Greaves 2007, 3; Greaves 2010a. 46 See for instance, Mountjoy 1998, for the Late Bronze Age. 41 42

60

Sıla Mangaloğlu-Votruba

Fig. 1   Satellite map of the Aegean (credit: J. Descloitres, MODIS Rapid Response Team, NASA/GSFC)

influenced by the contemporary political circumstance, and as a result, they fell to the perception of Hellenocentric bias, denying its strong connections with mainland Anatolia.47 Indeed, there is almost a globally-accepted synonym between the words ‘Greek’ and ‘the Aegean’. Perhaps as a reaction to this, in one of the 1st grade high school Turkish History books, which was prepared in 1993 as a ‘new edition’, the term ‘Aegean Sea’ was avoided and instead the term ‘Sea of the Islands’ was used in the ancient civilisations section.48 Özkırımlı and Sofos explained this phenomenon efficiently with the following sentences: “For Greek and Turkish nationalists, there is a quintessentially and unmistakably Greek or Turkish terrain or land that is non-negotiable, inalienable. In the case of Greece, we would argue that today it is the Aegean and its islands that have come to occupy the position of an indispensable, uniquely Greek territory in the nationalist imagination. In many ways, the Aegean has been conceptualised as an area that has always been central in the Hellenic world, yet also as a border area, a gateway that has born the brunt of invasions and migrations, but has remained steadfastly Greek, just as Constantinople has served as the imaginary centre of Hellenism in more millenarian traditions of Greek nationalism”.49 Concerning the Bronze Age, western Anatolia, which constitutes the eastern side of the Aegean with its Minoan and Mycenaean finds, is often perceived as a periphery of the ‘Aegean’ or, without those finds, ‘Anatolian’, i.e. ‘non-Aegean’. Even within important recent publications,

See Spencer 1995, esp. 269–272 and footnotes. Yıldırım 1998, 171. 49 Özkırımlı – Sofos 2008, 144. 47 48

Conquering the Past, Claiming the Future

61

one can see the fragmentation of western Anatolia in relation to the Aegean region as a whole.50 For instance, in ‘The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean’51, there are Early, Middle and Late Bronze Age sections where Mainland Greece, Crete, and the Cyclades are discussed. However, ‘western Anatolia’ is excluded. Moving on in the book, there is a ‘Specific sites and regions’ section where certain sites under the sub-titles of ‘Crete’, ‘Mainland Greece’, ‘Cyclades, Dodecanese and Saronic Islands’ are expounded. However, ‘Western Anatolia and ‘Troy’ appear under the title of ‘Wider Mediterranean’, together with the Cape Gelidonya and Uluburun Shipwrecks, Cyprus, Egypt, Levant, and the western Mediterranean. While each section is excellently written by prominent scholars, the book was arranged in a format in which western Anatolia does not even appear to be part of the Aegean. Therefore, the terms ‘Aegean’ and ‘Anatolian’ do not simply present geographical or ‘nationalist’ divisions, but also a deep divide between Aegean and Anatolian archaeologies, which is certainly among the causes of this scholarly fragmentation. Western Anatolia, from the Aegean perspective, is often overlooked merely as a ‘periphery’ of the Aegean cultures.52 This is due to the fact that research motivation for prehistoric excavations in the region were initially linked to the Homeric traditions, ancient Greek narratives and foundation myths; and most of the arguments today are still heavily related to these, since there is a tendency to attach excessive importance to known ‘events’, particularly for the Bronze Age Aegean.53 Furthermore, the Minoan and Mycenaean cultures have been extensively studied and are easy to recognise compared to the local western Anatolian material culture, since study of the latter, being in its infancy, prevents distinction among its indigenous cultures. When western Anatolia is examined together with the rest of Anatolia, it is almost invariably discussed from the ‘Hittite perspective’, or treated as a peripheral region between Hatti and Ahhiyawa.54 As a result, the western Anatolian narratives constantly shift from one to the other. In Turkish historiography, Greek and Hittite civilisations were already the most pronounced cultures in Anatolia because of their claimed connection to the contemporary Greek and Turkish nations by a local nationalistic discourse.55 In this regard, Mycenaean material culture found its place in coastal western Anatolia as the ‘antagonist’ of the contemporary Hittites. Not surprisingly, the debate quickly turned into the Mycenaean versus Hittite presence in western Anatolia, i.e. a monolithic approach regarding western Anatolia’s past,56 drawing a parallel line to the contemporary nationalistic policies. The scholarly tradition deriving first from the ideas of the THT, and subsequently from Anatolianism, can be considered as the reason for the emphasis of the Hittite presence in western Anatolia over the Greeks or the Mycenaeans.57 Along this line, it can be said that the Hittites are still the crystallised version of the current Anatolian inhabitants, i.e. Turkish people and the Mycenaeans are the crystallised version of the contemporary Greeks, hence the reason for this monolithic approach to the region. In addition to the geographical, there is also a temporal fragmentation of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages in western Anatolia, deriving mainly from Ionian migration myths and creating a further misperception on today’s scholarship. The Ionian Migration concept – as well as the Aeolian Migration for that matter58 – by creating an artificial division in perceiving the cultures of the region, prevents the material culture of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages to be investi-

52 53 54 50 51

57 58 55 56

See also Greaves 2007, 3. Cline 2010. See also Greaves 2007 for a summary on this topic. Snodgrass 1985; Greaves 2007, 8; Greaves 2010a; Greaves 2010b, 11–12, 38. I.e. Niemeier 1999; Cline 2008. Recent meticulous work on the material culture of the region however is finally overturning this misconception. See for instance, Pavúk 2015. Erciyas 2005, 183; Ergin 2010, 25–26. See also Sherratt 2010, 11; Greaves 2010a on this topic. See Erciyas 2005, 186–187; Ergin 2010, 27–28. See Rose 2008 and Parker 2008 regarding this issue.

62

Sıla Mangaloğlu-Votruba

gated consistently, and affects the scholarly approach towards the material evidence of the region. There are certain elements in material culture seen in Early Iron Age western Anatolia, labelled specifically as ‘Greek’, ‘Ionian’, and ‘Aeolian’, while their possible background and development within the region itself is often neglected. Curvilinear buildings,59 in this regard, are good examples for this.60 Although they became popular during the Protogeometric period, they are known from the Aegean as early as the Late Neolithic period.61 They have been intensely used from the Early Bronze Age and were especially prominent during the Middle Bronze Age. However, they do not disappear during the Late Bronze Age, nor are they re-invented during the Protogeometric period.62 Curvilinear structures from the Protogeometric period are widespread in the Aegean and there is no evidence that the tradition was transferred to western Anatolia from Mainland Greece. Rather, there are predecessors of Protogeometric curvilinear structures at many western Anatolian sites. For instance, several examples are already known from the Middle Bronze Age levels of Liman Tepe/Klazomenai and another from its late Late Bronze Age levels.63 Similarly, the Protogeometric examples from the same site might well be a continuation of this already existent tradition.64 Protogeometric curvilinear houses at Phokaia and Miletus have Late Bronze Age predecessors as well.65 Since both sides of the Aegean have contemporary Protogeometric curvilinear structures and predecessors, then it would be a reasonable assumption that their appearance is due to continuous maritime interaction with each other – a far cry from the migration of a specific group of people. Pottery is another example of material culture whose interpretation can be biased. For instance, the Grey Ware tradition of northwest Anatolia (including ‘northern Ionia’), as seen during the Protogeometric period, shows continuity from the 2nd millennium BC Grey Ware tradition, which was present through the Archaic period. However, they have been interpreted as the production of specifically Aeolian settlers by several scholars in the past, even labelled as ‘Aeolian Ware’.66 Rather, the Grey Ware tradition in western Anatolia shows a gradual internal development, with pottery shapes, fabrics and clay sources more or less following Late Bronze Age traditions.67 There are some ‘non-local’ pottery forms that were also produced in Grey Ware; examples of this phenomenon are known from the coastal western Anatolian settlements in the Late Bronze Age, where some of the Mycenaean forms, for instance, were produced in Grey Ware.68 The same phenomenon continues into the Protogeometric period with newly appearing forms.69 The Grey Ware tradition is so strong in the region that – while certain non-local pottery forms were readily adopted from the Bronze Age onwards, mostly due to their particular function such as the practicality of the vessel – they were still produced in Grey Ware, indicating the strength of this

In general, I employ the term ‘curvilinear’ rather than ‘apsidal’ or ‘oval’, since many of them are only partially excavated. 60 I.e. Herda 2009, 83–85. 61 Mazarakis-Ainian 1989, 269. 62 See Mazarakis-Ainian 1989 for the Late Bronze Age Aegean examples. 63 See Mangaloğlu-Votruba 2015, 656–657, and the footnote 47 for the full bibliography. 64 For the bibliography of the Protogeometric examples see Mangaloğlu-Votruba 2015, 657, footnote 47, and Ersoy 2007, 152, pl. 18.2. 65 See Özyiğit 2004, 443; Özyiğit 2005, 44 for Phokaia; Schiering 1959/60, Beilage 3; Mazarakis-Ainian 1989, 282, fig. 16 for Miletus. 66 Akurgal 1997, 14, 19–20; Lamb 1932, 1; Bayne 2000, 211–212, 266–267; Hertel 2007, 104–106, 116–120; Hertel 2008, 187–193. 67 See Pavúk 2010, for the Grey Wares of the 2nd millennium BC. For Troy see Aslan 2009a; Aslan 2009b; Aslan et al. 2014; Aslan – Hnila 2015; for Lemnos see Danile 2012; Danile 2015. Also see Akurgal et al. 2002; Kerschner 2006, for archaeometric analysis from a number of sites from western Anatolia yielding results of the same clay sources being used from the 2nd millennium BC into the Archaic period, even until the Roman Imperial times. 68 See for instance Günel 1999, 410, 412–413, pl. 166.1–2, pl. 131, pl. 168–170; Mountjoy 1999a, 288–289, fig. 13, 118–119; Mountjoy 1999b, 306–307, fig. 3.13, 330. 69 Aslan 2009b, 148, fig. 17.6; Aslan – Hnila 2015, 198–199, fig. 14–17. 59

Conquering the Past, Claiming the Future

63

tradition throughout centuries. Correspondingly, Grey Ware also had an overseas market and was exported during the Late Bronze Age as well as later time periods.70 Despite the fact that the virtual non-interaction between the western Anatolian coast with the rest of the Aegean is a phenomenon that is artificial and merely a century old, the Ionian and Aeolian Migration myths almost draw a parallel picture in a misleading way, as if the two sides of the Aegean were different units in the past, as today (Greek versus Turkish), and the Western Anatolian coast was a ‘foreign’ destination for the migrants. For instance, in Pausanias’ Description of Greece it is written, “The cities of Klazomenae and Phocaea were not inhabited before the Ionians came to Asia” [7.3.8.], which contradicts the archaeological evidence since the Aegean, including western Anatolia, was “an ever-changing network of social, political and economic interaction spheres where exchange and mobility were essential to life”71 from as early as the Neolithic period.72 It is not peculiar to the Aegean region that coastal sites are more prone to change than inland areas due to their overseas contacts, therefore, they adapt to changes and new trends much faster than inland societies. However, this phenomenon may be even more prominent in the Aegean region, where sea and land are formed like puzzle pieces. Due to constant interaction for thousands of years prior to the Protogeometric period, there is commonality in the Aegean and any innovation from architecture to pottery might spread rapidly from any direction. Ultimately, the migration theories based on the material evidence cannot produce a clear argument for a region that was already part of a long-standing network. Conclusions As demonstrated in this paper, from nationalistic government policies and biased education systems, to concepts of Turkish and European identity and the interpretation of ancient written sources, there are many factors that have paved the path to this scholarly, geographical, as well as temporal fragmentation of western Anatolia. Consequently, there are numerous and varying perspectives that must be taken into consideration for constructing this fragmentation. As recent research and excavations are increasing our knowledge of its indigenous cultures, and new perspectives are evolving regarding its past, there is great hope that this fragmented time period and geography will finally be re-constructed with wholly scholarly method. However, the scholarly level is only one side of the coin, and the last link on the chain of the whole system. Current educational systems and government policies emphasise the profit of tourism derived from ancient remains, rather than the knowledge gained from past societies. Unless these change for the better, the improvement will remain on the scholarly level, not on a public scale, which creates a perpetuating cycle. Therefore, it is important to improve contemporary policies and the education system to be independent of nationalistic-related motivations for the sake of comprehension of the past, present and the future. Postscript: After the submission of this paper, a largely complementary article on the topic of Ionian Migration appeared, and needs to be acknowledged here.73

72 73 70

71

Heuck-Allen 1990; Heuck-Allen 1994; Kerschner 2006, 123, fig. 10; Mommsen – Pavúk 2007; Fankaltin – Tal 2010. Berg 2007, 403. Çilingiroğlu 2010; Çilingiroğlu – Çakırlar 2013. Mac Sweeney 2017.

64

Sıla Mangaloğlu-Votruba

References Akurgal 1997 E. Akurgal, Eski İzmir I. Yerleşme Katları ve Athena Tapınağı (Ankara 1997). Akurgal et al. 2002 M. Akurgal – M. Kerschner – H. Mommsen, Töpferzentren der Ostägäis. Archäometrische und archäologische Untersuchungen zur mykenischen, geometrischen und archaischen Keramik aus Fundorten in Westkleinasien (Vienna 2002). Aslan 2009a C. C. Aslan, Gray ware at Troy in the Protogeometric through Archaic periods, in: P. Dupont – V. Lungu (eds.), Pontic Grey Wares. International Conference, Bucarest-Costantza, September 30th – October 3rd 2008, Pontica 42 Suppl. 1, (Costantza 2009) 267–283. Aslan 2009b C. C. Aslan, End or the beginning? The Late Bronze Age to Iron Age ransformation at Troia, in: C. Bachhuber – R. G. Roberts (eds.), Forces of Transformation. The End of the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean. Proceedings of an International Symposium held at St. John’s College, University of Oxford, 25‒26 March 2006 (Oxford 2009) 144‒151. Aslan et al. 2014 C. Aslan – L. Kealhofer – P. Grave, The Early Iron Age at Troy reconsidered, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 33, 3, 2014, 275–312. Aslan – Hnila 2015 C. C. Aslan – P. Hnila, Migration and integration at Troy from the end of the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age, in: Stampolidis et al. 2015, 185–209. Atabay 2002 M. Atabay, Anadoluculuk, in: Bora – Gültekingil 2002, 515–532. Atakuman 2008 Ç. Atakuman, Cradle or crucible. Anatolia and archaeology in the early years of the Turkish Republic (1923‒1938), Journal of Social Archaeology 8, 2008, 214–235. Bayne 2000 N. Bayne, The Grey Wares of North-West Anatolia in the Middle and Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age and their Relation to the Early Greek Settlements, Asia Minor Studien 37 (Bonn 2000). Berg 2007 I. Berg, Aegean Bronze Age seascapes. A case study in maritime movement, contact and interaction, in: A. Antoniadou – A. Pace (eds.), Mediterranean Crossroads (Athens 2007) 387–415. Berktay – Tuncer 1998 A. Berktay – H. C. Tuncer (eds.), Tarih Eğitimi ve Tarihte “Öteki” Sorunu. 2. Uluslararası Tarih Kongresi 8–10 Haziran 1995, Istanbul (Istanbul 1998). Bora – M. Gültekingil 2002 T. Bora – M. Gültekingil (eds.), Modern Türkiye’de Siyasi Düşünce, Vol. 4 Milliyetçilik (Istanbul 2002). Çagaptay 2002 S. Çagaptay, Otuzlarda Türk Milliyetçiliğinde Irk, Dil ve Etnisite, in: Bora – Gültekingil 2002, 245–262. Çagaptay 2004 S. Çagaptay, Race, assimilation and Kemalism. Turkish nationalism and the minorities in the 1930s, Middle Eastern Studies 40, 3, 2004, 86–101. Çilingiroğlu 2010 Ç. Çilingiroğlu, The appearance of Impressed pottery in the Neolithic Aegean and its implications for maritime networks in the Eastern Mediterranean, Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji 13, 2010, 9–22.

Conquering the Past, Claiming the Future

65

Çilingiroğlu – Çakırlar 2013 Ç. Çilingiroğlu – C. Çakırlar, Towards configuring the Neolithisation of Aegean Turkey, Documenta Praehistorica XL, 2013, 21–29. Cline 2008 E. Cline, Troy as a “contested periphery”. Archaeological perspectives on cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary interactions concerning Bonze-Age Anatolia, in: B. J. Collins – M. R. Bachvarova – I. C. Rutherford (eds.), Anatolian Interfaces. Hittites, Greeks and their Neighbours. Proceedings of an International Conference on Cross-cultural Interaction, September 17‒19, 2004, Emory University, Atlanta, GA (Oxford 2008) 11–19. Cline 2010 E. Cline (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (New York, Oxford 2010). Cobet et al. 2007 J. Cobet – V. von Graeve – W.-D. Niemeier – K. Zimmerman (eds.), Frühes Ionien. Eine Bestandsaufnahme. Panionion-Symposion Güzalçamlı 26. September – 1. Oktober 1999, Milesische Forschungen 5 (Mainz am Rhein 2007). Copeaux 1998a E. Copeaux, Tarih Ders Kitaplarında (1931–1993) Türk Tarih Tezinden Türk-İslam Sentezine (Istanbul 1998). Copeaux 1998b E. Copeaux, Türk kimlik söyleminin topografyası ve kronografyası, in: Berktay – Tuncer 1998, 70–84. Danile 2012 L. Danile, Local productions and imports at Hephaestia (Lemnos) from Early Iron Age to the Archaic period, in: Μ. Τιβέριος – Β. Μισαηλίδου-Δεσποτίδου – Ε. Μανακίδου – Ά. Αρβανιτάκη / M. Tiverios – V. Misailidou-Despotidou – E. Manakidou – A. Arvanitaki (eds.), H κεραμική της αρχαϊκής εποχής στο Βόρειο Αιγαίο και την περιφέρειά του (700–480 π.Χ.) / Archaic Pottery of the Northern Aegean and its Periphery (700–480 BC), Proceedings of the Archaeological Meeting Thessaloniki 19–22 May (Thessaloniki 2012) 79–90. Danile 2015 L. Danile, The Indigenous culture of Hephaestia (Lemnos) at the beginning of the Iron Age. Ancient sources, mythical tradition, and archaeological data, in: Stampolidis et al. 2015, 461–497. Davis 2000 J. L. Davis, Warriors for the fatherland. National consciousness and archaeology in ‘Barbarian’ Epirus and ‘Verdant’ Ionia, 1912–22, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 13, 1, 2000, 76–98. Davis 2003 J. L. Davis, A foreign school of archaeology and the politics of archaeological practice: Anatolia, 1922, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 16, 2, 2003, 145–172. Deren 2002 S. Deren, Türk Siyasal Düşüncesinde Anadolu İmgesi, in: Bora – Gültekingil 2002, 533–540. Dikkaya 2009 F. Dikkaya, National archaeologies and conflicting identities. Examples from Greece, Cyprus and Turkey, Ancient Near Eastern Studies 46, 2009, 117–137. Durak 2014 K. Durak, The representation of Byzantine history in high school textbooks in Turkey, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 38, 2, 2014, 245–264. Erciyas 2005 D. B. Erciyas, Ethnic identity and archaeology in the Black Sea region of Turkey, Antiquity 79, 2005, 179–190. Ergin 2010 M. Ergin, Archaeology and the perception of Greek, Roman and Byzantine eras in early Republican Turkey, in: Redford – Ergin 2010, 13–33. Erimtan 2008 C. Erimtan, Hittites, Ottomans and Turks. Ağaoğlu Ahmed Bey and the Kemalist construction of Turkish nationhood in Anatolia, Anatolian Studies 58, 2008, 141–171.

66

Sıla Mangaloğlu-Votruba

Ersanlı 2003 B. Ersanlı, İktidar ve Tarih. Türkiye’de “Resmi Tarih” Tezinin Oluşumu (1929‒1937) (Istanbul 2003). Ersoy 2007 Y. Ersoy, Notes on the history and archaeology of early Clazomenae, in: Cobet et al. 2007, 149–178. Fankaltin – Tal 2010 A. Fankaltin – O. Tal, Reassessing the date of the beginning of the grey series of transport amphorae from Lesbos, Babesch 85, 2010, 1–12. Frangoudaki 1998 A. Frangoudaki, Tarih Ders Kitaplarında Ulusal “Ben” ve Ulusal “Öteki”, in: Berktay – Tuncer 1998, 97‒105. Goode 2007 J. F. Goode, Negotiating for the Past. Archaeology, Nationalism, and Diplomacy in the Middle East, 1919‒1941 (Austin 2007). Greaves 2007 A. M. Greaves, Trans-Anatolia. Examining Turkey as a bridge between east and west, Anatolian Studies 57, 2007, 1–15. Greaves 2010a A. M. Greaves, Western Anatolia, in: Cline 2010, 877‒889. Greaves 2010b A. M. Greaves, The Land of Ionia. Society and Economy in the Archaic Period (Chichester, Malden, MA 2010). Günel 1999 S. Günel, Panaztepe II. MÖ. 2. Bine Tarihlendirilen Panaztepe Seramiğinin Batı Anadolu ve Ege Arkeolojisindeki Yeri ve Önemi (Ankara 1999). Gür 2011 A. Gür, Political Excavations of the Anatolian Past. Nationalism and Archaeology in Turkey , May 2011. Online (last accessed 1 March 2017). Hall 1997 J. M. Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity (Cambridge 1997). Hamilakis 2010 Y. Hamilakis, We are all Middle Easterners now. Globalization, immanence, archaeology, in: R. Boytner – L. S. Dodd – B. J. Parker (eds.), Controlling the Past, Owning the Future (Tuscon 2010) 217–229. Hamilakis – Momigliano 2006 Y. Hamialkis – N. Momigliano, Archaeology and European modernity. Stories from the borders, Creta Antica 7, 2006, 25–35. Herda 2009 A. Herda, Karkiša-Karien und die sogenannte Ionische Migration, in: F. Rumscheid (ed.), Die Karer und die Anderen. Internationales Kolloquium an der Freien Universität Berlin 13. bis 15. Oktober 2005 (Bonn 2009) 27–108. Hertel 2007 D. Hertel, Der aiolische Siedlungsraum (Aiolis) am Übergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit, in: Cobet et al. 2007, 97–122. Hertel 2008 D. Hertel, Das frühe Ilion. Die Besiedlung Troias durch die Griechen (1020–650/625 v. Chr.) (Munich 2008). Heuck-Allen 1990 S. Heuck-Allen, Northwest Anatolian Grey Wares in the Late Bronze Age. Analysis and Distribution in the Eastern Mediterranean (PhD Diss., Brown University, Providence, RI 1990). Heuck-Allen 1994 S. Heuck-Allen, Trojan Grey ware at Tel Miqne-Ekron, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 293, 1994, 39–51.

Conquering the Past, Claiming the Future

67

İçduygu– Kaygusuz 2004 A. İçduygu – Ö. Kaygusuz, The politics of citizenship by drawing borders. Foreign policy and the construction of national citizenship identity in Turkey, Middle Eastern Studies 40, 6, 2004, 26–50. İnan et al. 1930 A. İnan – M. Tevfik – S. Rifat – A. Yusuf – R. Galip – H. Cemil – S. Maksudi – Ş. Günaltay, Türk Tarihinin Ana Hatları (İstanbul 1930). İnan et al. 1931 A. İnan – M. Tevfik – S. Rifat – A. Yusuf – R. Galip – H. Cemil – S. Maksudi – Ş. Günaltay, Türk Tarihinin Ana Hatları. Methal Kısmı (Istanbul 1931). Jones – Graves-Brown 1996 S. Jones – P. Graves-Brown, Introduction. Archaeology and cultural identity in Europe, in: P. Graves-Brown – S. Jones – C. Gamble (eds.), Cultural Identity and Archaeology. The Construction of European Communities (London 1996) 1–24. Kadıoğlu 1996 A. Kadıoğlu, The paradox of Turkish nationalism and the construction of official identity, Middle Eastern Studies 32, 2, 1996, 177–193. Kerschner 2006 M. Kerschner, On the provenance of Aiolian pottery, in: A. Villing – U. Schlotzhauer (eds.), Naukratis. Greek Diversity in Egypt. Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean (London 2006) 109–126. Kitapçı-Bayrı 2013 B. Kitapçı-Bayrı, Contemporary perception of Byzantium in Turkish cinema. The cross-examination of Battal Gazi films with the Battalname, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 37, 1, 2013, 81–91. Kitromilides 1989 P. M. Kitromilides, ‘Imagined Communities’ and the origins of the national question in the Balkans, European History Quarterly 19, 1989, 149–194. Kohl – Fawcett 1995 P. L. Kohl – C. Fawcett, Archaeology in the service of the state. Theoretical considerations, in: P. L. Kohl – C. Fawcett (eds.), Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology (Cambridge 1995) 3–18. Kouzelis 1998 G. Kouzelis, Ulusal Kimliğin Yapısı. Yunan Eğitim Sisteminde Öğretmenlerin Ulusal “Ben” ve Ulusal “Öteki”ni Temsilleri, in: Berktay – Tuncer 1998, 106–112. Lamb 1932 W. Lamb, Grey wares from Lesbos, Journal of Hellenic Studies 52, 1, 1932, 1–12. Mac Sweeney 2012 N. Mac Sweeney, A land without autochthones. Anatolian archaeology in the early twentieth century, in: M. Seymour – C. Glatz – A. Fletcher – R. Matthews – S. Simpson – J. Tubb (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 12–16 April 2010, British Museum and UCL, London (Wiesbaden 2012) 63–72. Mac Sweeney 2017 N. Mac Sweeney, Separating fact from fiction in the Ionian Migration, Hesperia 86, 3, 2017, 379–421. Mangaloğlu-Votruba 2015 S. Mangaloğlu-Votruba, Liman Tepe during the Late Bronze Age, in: Stampolidis et al. 2015, 647–668. Mazarakis-Ainian 1989 A. Mazarakis-Ainian, Late Bronze Age apsidal and oval buildings in Greece and adjacent areas, Annual of the British School at Athens 84, 1989, 269–288. Meskell 1998 L. Meskell, Introduction. Archaeology Matters, in: L. Meskell (ed.), Archaeology under Fire. Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East (London 1998) 1–12.

68

Sıla Mangaloğlu-Votruba

Millas 1991 H. Millas, History textbooks in Greece and Turkey, History Workshop Journal 31, 1991, 21–33. Millas 1998 H. Millas, Türk Ders Kitaplarında “Yunanlılar”. Bütünleştirici Bir Yaklaşım, in: Berktay – Tuncer 1998, 254–265. Millas 2002 H. Millas, Türk Kimliği ve ‘Öteki’ (Yunan), in: Bora – Gültekingil 2002, 193–201. Mommsen – Pavúk 2007 H. Mommsen – P. Pavúk, Provenance of the Grey and Tan wares from Troia, Cyprus and the Levant, Studia Troica 17, 2007, 25–41. Mountjoy 1998 P. A. Mountjoy, The east Aegean – west Anatolian interface in the Late Bronze Age. Mycenaeans and the Kingdom of Ahhiyawa, Anatolian Studies 48, 1998, 33–67. Mountjoy 1999a P. A. Mountjoy, The Destruction of Troia VIh, Studia Troica 9, 1999, 253–293. Mountjoy 1999b P. A. Mountjoy, Troia VII reconsidered, Studia Troica 9, 1999, 295–346. Niemeier 1999 W.-D. Niemeier, Mycenaeans and Hittites in war in western Asia Minor, in: R. Laffineur (ed.), Polemos. Le Contexte Guerrier en Égée à l’âge du Bronze. Actes de la 7e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Université de Liège, 14–17 avril 1998, Aegaeum 19, 1 (Liège 1999) 141–155. Özbaran 1998 S. Özbaran, Türkiye’de Tarih Eğitimi ve Ders Kitapları Üstüne Düşünceler, in: Berktay – Tuncer 1998, 61–69. Özkırımlı – Sofos 2008 U. Özkırımlı – S. A. Sofos, Tormented by History. Nationalism in Greece and Turkey (London 2008). Özyiğit 2004 Ö. Özyiğit, 2002 Yılı Phokaia Kazı Çalışmaları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 25, 1/2003, 2004, 441–452. Özyiğit 2005 Ö. Özyiğit, 2003 Yılı Phokaia Kazı Çalışmaları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 26, 2/2004, 2005, 43–50. Parker 2008 H. N. Parker, The Linguistic Case for the Aiolian Migration Reconsidered, Hesperia 77, 2008, 431–64. Pavúk 2010 P. Pavúk, Minyan or not. The second millennium Grey Ware in western Anatolia and its relation to Mainland Greece, in : A. Philippa-Touchais – G. Touchais – S. Voutsaki – J. Wright (eds.), Mesohelladika. The Greek Mainland in the Middle Bronze Age, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique Suppl. 52 (Athens 2010) 931–943. Pavúk 2015 P. Pavúk, Between the Aegeans and the Hittites. Western Anatolia in the 2nd millennium BC, in: Stampolidis et al. 2015, 81–113. Redford – Ergin 2010a S. Redford – N. Ergin (eds.), Perceptions of the Past in the Turkish Republic. Classical and Byzantine Periods, Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 31 (Leuven 2010). Redford – Ergin 2010b S. Redford – N. Ergin, Introduction, in: Redford – Ergin 2010a, 1–9. Rose 2008 C. B. Rose, Separating fact from fiction in the Aiolian migration, Hesperia 77, 2008, 399–430.

Conquering the Past, Claiming the Future

69

Schiering 1959/60 W. Schiering, Südabschnitt, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 9/10, 1959/60, 4–30. Shaw 2007 W. Shaw, The rise of the Hittite sun. A deconstruction of western civilization from the margin, in: P. L. Kohl – M. Kozelsky – N. Ben-Yehuda (eds.), Selective Remembrances. Archaeology in the Construction, Commemoration, and Consecration of National Pasts (Chicago 2007) 163–188. Sherratt 2010 S. Sherratt, The Trojan War. History or Bricolage? Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 53, 2, 2010, 1–18. Snodgrass 1985 A. M. Snodgrass, The new archaeology and the classical archaeologist, American Journal of Archaeology 89, 1, 1985, 31–37. Spencer 1995 N. Spencer, Early Lesbos between east and west. A ‘Grey Area’ of Aegean Archaeology, Annual of the British School at Athens 90, 1995, 269–306. Stampolidis et al. 2015 N. Ch. Stampolidis – Ç. Maner – K. Kopanias (eds.), Nostoi. Indigenous Culture, Migration and Integration in the Aegean Islands and Western Anatolia During the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages (Istanbul 2015). Stathis 1998 P. Stathis, Yunan [ve Türk] Tarih Ders Kitaplarında “Ben” ve “Öteki” İmgeleri, in: Berktay – Tuncer 1998, 125–133. Stritch 2006 D. Stritch, Archaeological tourism as a signpost to national identity. Raising Aphrodite in Cyprus, in: I. Russel (ed.), Images, Representations and Heritage. Moving Beyond Modern Approaches to Archaeology (New York 2006) 43–60. Tanyeri-Erdemir 2006 T. Tanyeri-Erdemir, Archaeology as a source of national pride in the early years of the Turkish Republic, Journal of Field Archaeology 31, 2006, 381–393. Yeğen 2004 M. Yeğen, Citizenship and ethnicity in Turkey, Middle Eastern Studies 40, 6, 2004, 51–66. Yıldırım 1998 R. Yıldırım, Tarih Ders Kitaplarında Anadolu Uygarlıkları, in: S. Özbaran (ed.), Tarih Öğretimi ve Ders Kitapları (İzmir 1998) 169–174.

Working in the Margins: Some Reflections on Past, Present and Future Research in Western Anatolia Rik Vaessen1 Abstract: Archaeological research in western Anatolia dates back to the mid-19th century (and arguably earlier) with the start of the excavations by Charles Newton at Halikarnassos (Bodrum) in 1855. Over the past one-and-a-half centuries, archaeological narratives of western Anatolia have shifted back and forth. These shifts, however, have often had less to do with major advances in archaeological discovery than with changes in general intellectual currents brought about by contemporary political, economic and social preoccupations. This includes recent movements in postcolonial theory and the anthropology of cultural contact that have had a significant impact on archaeology. Although this movement has been an important step ahead, the fact that every scholar operates within discipline-specific cultures-of-practice means that we cannot dismiss past scholarship as simply redundant. This paper, therefore, presents a review of archaeological narratives of Late Bronze and Early Iron Age western Anatolia and places them in their contemporary intellectual, political, economic and social context. Keywords: western Anatolia, Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age, current research

Working in western Anatolia one often feels like revelling in the margins of greater civilisations. This does, however, not have to be a bad thing. In fact, it actually provides us with the unique opportunity to expand our potential to make sense of the past beyond the narrow constraints placed upon us by traditional interpretative frameworks and the assumptions they carry.2 In order to fully exploit this potential, we will need to have a clear sense of the frameworks in which previous scholarship has operated and how these have come into being. Indeed, the writing of history has never been and will never be a straight line from darkness to illumination. Every scholar operates within discipline-specific cultures of practice that can determine how we approach specific questions and what proof we accept in answering those questions.3 This makes it dangerous to dismiss past scholarship as simply redundant when it does not pose the same questions that we are currently asking. Against this backdrop, this contribution offers a critical review of archaeological research in and portrayal of western Anatolia since the mid-19th century, with a main focus on British scholarship. Through this evaluation, it is aimed not only to highlight shifts in the portrayal of western Anatolia over the past 150 years, but also to put these shifts into their contemporary intellectual, political, economic and social context. Subsequently, we will discuss potential problems with current interpretative models and offer some thoughts as to the avenues we may want to explore in the future. Early British Endeavours in Coastal Western Anatolia “The expedition which forms the subject of the present work was sent out by Her Majesty’s Government in the first instance with the special object of removing from the Castle of Bodrum, in Asia Minor, certain sculptures, which had formed part of the Tomb of Mausolus at Halicarnassus”.4

3 4 1 2

Mesdagstraat 133, 6415 TD Heerlen, Netherlands; [email protected]. Sherratt 2011. Greaves 2010a, 28‒36; also Davis 2003. Newton 1862, 1.

72

Rik Vaessen

These are the introductory words with which Charles Newton begins his account of his travels to coastal western Anatolia and his excavations between 1855 and 1857 at the Mausoleum at Halikarnassos (Bodrum). His work at Bodrum, and subsequently at Knidos and Didyma, cannot be seen outside its wider context. During the first half of the 18th century, Rome formed the key point of reference in the thought and writing of British intellectuals, but in the course of the 18th century, both Athens and Carthage became alternative models of empire to Rome as they were based on sea and commerce rather than land conquest, which was considered more appropriate to the British experience of empire-building.5 This process was further enhanced by the use of Rome as a model in Napoleonic France, which made Athens even more relevant to Britain in the early 19th century.6 The growing interest in Greece during the late 18th and early 19th centuries stimulated an increasing number of explorers to travel to Greek lands, particularly after Napoleon’s military occupation of Rome in 1796 had brought the age of the European Grand Tour to a sudden end.7 As part of their journey, many also visited the western Anatolian shores, including Bodrum. As Newton notes: “[S]canty and occasional notices of ancient sculpture in the walls of the castle at Bodrum furnished by some of these earlier travellers gradually excited the curiosity of Europe, [and] it was generally believed that hese reliefs formed part of the external frieze of the Mausoleum [which was considered one of the seven world wonders in Hellenistic times], and it was thought, not without reason, that in them, as in the marbles of the Parthenon, would be found the characteristics of a great school of sculpture. [Consequently], a wish was generally expressed among archaeologists and students of art in England, that these reliefs might be rescued from their perilous and obscure situation at Budrum, and brought back to England”.8 There are two intriguing points to this quote. First, there is the comparison of the Halikarnassos reliefs with the marbles of the Parthenon – that is, the Elgin Marbles. Second, there is the notion that the reliefs needed rescuing from obscure lands (i.e. the Ottoman Empire). As for the first, in addition to a shift from Rome to Greece in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the middle of the 19th century saw an explosion of interest in race and increased use of related terminology in discourse about politics, art, culture, and science. This was, as Debby Challis argues, in part related to attitudes in colonial rule, the abolition of slavery, and the precarious position of indigenous peoples in settler colonies. At the same time, it was influenced by fears about the impact of racial mixing and social class in Britain itself and anxiety about patterns of immigration into and migration from Britain.9 In this context, the idealisation of the human body in Greek art, as defined by Johann Winckelmann in the second half of the 18th century, stimulated the growing notion that physical beauty and racial perfection was found among the ancient Greeks.10 This, in turn, resulted in the development of the so-called “Great Chain of Art”, a “[s]trong Hellenocentric and value-laden chronology prominent in the mid-19th century that was linked to a positivist reading of social development in which art was assumed to be characteristic of a particular state of cultural development in a fixed idea of civilisation”.11 At the top of this “Great Chain of Art” stood the Parthenon sculptures. Against this background, Newton makes the intriguing observation that “[i]f we view [the sculptures from the Mausoleum] without recourse to the works of Phidias [they have a] distinc-

Vlassopoulos 2010, 38‒42. With respect to Athens in this context, see Turner 1981, 187‒263; Demetriou 1996; Liddel 2008. 6 Challis 2010, 100. 7 Note that members of the Society of Dilettanti (established in 1732) already carried out expeditions to Greece since the mid-18th century. For a history of the Society and its expeditions, see Kelly 2010. 8 Newton 1862, 80. 9 Challis 2010, 95. 10 Challis 2010, 96‒100. 11 Challis 2008, 41 5



Working in the Margins

73

tive excellence”.12 Through this statement, Newton effectively argues, as Debby Challis rightly notes, that, if the sculptures from the Parthenon were unknown and therefore did not did not represent the prime example of artistic excellence, then the sculptures from the Mausoleum could themselves be fixed standards of excellence in the “Great Chain of Art”.13 By extent, this would mean that essentially the Halikarnassos reliefs were to be considered emblems of the origins of European civilisation and reinforcers of a European and British identity. However, within the context of the growing anti-Orientalist feelings in Britain as well as elsewhere in Europe,14 particularly after the Greek War of Independence (1822–1830), the location of these emblems of Western history and identity in Ottoman lands, arguably, gave rise to the belief that “[v]estiges of Grecian art and civilization” should not only be traced “[a]midst modern barbarians and desolation”, as William Martin Leake puts it, but should, as the quote by Newton makes clear, also be rescued from their perilous position and brought back to Britain to be given proper care and display.15 Newton’s conviction that the sculptures from the Mausoleum at Halikarnassos could have formed the pinnacles of Greek artistic excellence had the sculptures from the Parthenon been unknown implies that he considered coastal western Anatolia as much more than merely a marginal region in the Greek world. This sentiment was further reinforced by David Hogarth who, in one of his lectures before the University of London in 1909, states that “[e]ven in the face of the discoveries at Sparta, it may be said without hesitation that the Greeks of western Asia Minor produced the first full bloom of what we call pure Hellenism, that is, a Greek civilisation come to full consciousness of itself, and destined to attain the highest possibilities of the Greek genius”.16 Similarly, he states that everyone knows that “[i]t was in Ionia that the alphabet took the final shape in which the Greeks were to carry it about the civilized world”.17 Through these statements, Hogarth portrays coastal western Anatolia – Ionia in particular – as the centre of ancient Greek and, by extent, Western civilisation. As such, he firmly separates coastal western Anatolia from the Anatolian (e.g. Eastern) civilisations in both past and present. Much like Newton, Hogarth’s perception of Ionia seems to be fuelled largely by anti-Orientalist sentiments. For instance, in his journal in which he describes his travels through Ottoman Turkey, he characterises the Ottoman Empire as “[t]he Sick Man” and “the Oriental” as probably being happiest “[u]nder a mildly ‘corrupt’ and ‘oppressive’ Government”.18 Similarly, he shows little regard for the ancient Anatolian cultures, including the Hittites and the Persians, which were all ‘eastern’ – that is, inferior – rulers.19 The tone of the debate was, however, soon to change.

14 15 16

Newton 1862, 255. Challis 2008, 66. On German Orientalism in the age of the German empire, see Marchand 2009. Leake 1824, iii. Hogarth 1909, 7. This view is in some ways already foreshadowed by H. R. Hall (1901). Much like many of his contemporaries, most prominently Tsountas, Hall considered the Mycenaean world as the first Greek culture that was brought to an end by the invasion of the barbarian and iron-bearing Dorians. However, in western Anatolia Mycenaean culture lingered on. With the gradual introduction of iron into coastal western Anatolia from mainland Greece in the 8th century BC, Hall argues, so too did the Mycenaean artistic influence gradually find its way back to Greece from Ionia. 17 Hogarth 1909, 7‒8. Already in 1795, the German philologist Friedrich August Wolf had made a similar argument (Wolf 1985 [1795], 82‒85). Wolf’s views were, however, rejected by Karl Otfried Müller in his book on the Dorians (Müller 1824). For Müller, the Ionians formed the polar opposite of the Dorians, which he credited as the only true Greeks, in basically every aspect (cf. Hall 1997, 8). 18 Hogarth 1896, 90, 95. 19 Hogarth 1896, 205. 12 13

74

Rik Vaessen

British Archaeologists and the 1920–1923 Turmoil On 10 August 1920 the Allied Forces (excluding the United States) and the Ottoman Empire signed the Treaty of Sèvres, which explicitly recognised Greek claims on the province of Aydin. However, because Greece could not claim autochthony in the region, almost immediately excavations at Klazomenai and Ephesos were launched by the Archaeological Society of Athens with the chief goal of investigating “[G]reek civilisation whence of old it first arose” by “[w]arriors who continue the work of their forefathers”.20 Emphasis was particularly placed on finding archaeological evidence for the tradition of the Ionian migration, which early and prehistoric date was, as Naoíse Mac Sweeney points out, seen as a legitimating factor for Greek presence in the region.21 In particular, the excavations by G. Oikonomos at Klazomenai had a significant impact as they provided proof for early Greek occupation of Anatolia and the Ionian migration in the form of “[s] herds of vessels from the most ancient epoch” that covered the whole of the site.22 In response to these Greek claims on the landscape, a Turkish archaeological tradition emerged which sought to establish their own antique claim to the territory.23 In the Turkish History Thesis, which basically served to set out a particular understanding of “Turkishness” that favoured “[a] discourse of an ethnically united nation”,24 presenting a picture of Turks moving westward from central Asia in regular waves for thousands of years, thereby civilising the rest of world in the process. Turning to Anatolia more specifically, the Thesis explicitly states that throughout history Anatolia was inhabited by Turks, who, in the past, were known with names such as Hittite and other comparable ones.25 At the same time, while emphasising the Hittites as a rival to and a more ancient civilisation than that of the Greeks, it was not possible for Turkish scholars to completely ignore ancient Greece given the efforts of the Turkish Republic to establish cultural and historical superiority in European eyes.26 The solution to this dilemma was found partly in providing the Turks a common origin with Europeans in central Asia, and partly, as Ergin explains, “[i]n arguing that founders of other civilisations all migrated from or passed through Anatolia, resulting in an archaeological heritage that is richer than the original centre of each civilisation”.27 Against this background, for instance, Ekrem Akurgal (1911–2002) traced the origins of Greek art to the Near East and the (neo-) Hittite Empire, in particular.28 In establishing Greek claims on the western Anatolian landscape, the Greek ‘warrior-archaeologists’ working at Ephesos and Klazomenai were accompanied by archaeologists operating from the foreign schools in Athens in order to ‘protect’ the European cultural heritage that was believed to have been neglected by the Turks.29 The French School of Archaeology at Athens, for instance, sponsored excavations at Notion, whereas the American School of Classical Studies at Athens started excavations at Kolophon and the American Society for the Excavation of Sardis excavated Sardis. Their activities, Jack Davis argues, “[w]ould have telegraphed to the world their acceptance of the sovereignty of Greece in this region and its right to control the cultural resources of the lands it occupied”.30 It is interesting, however, that whereas British archaeologists had been

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 20 21

Dragatsis 1921, 14; see full quote in Davis 2000, 86. Mac Sweeney 2012, 65‒66. Oikonomos 1921, 63, quoted by Mac Sweeney 2012, 66. Mac Sweeney 2012, 66. Atakuman 2008, 217. Erimtan 2008, 143. Ergin 2010, 26. Ergin 2010, 26‒27. Akurgal 1961, 1968. Davis 2000, 83‒87; Davis 2003. Davis 2000, 88; 2003, 160. Note, however, that the decision to (re)start excavations at Kolophon and Sardis was also to a large extent influenced by, on the one hand, the desire of the Fogg and Metropolitan Museums to add antiquities to their collections and, on the other, the doubts about the securities of the finds in Turkey, particularly after the Sardis Excavation House was ransacked by supporters of Atatürk (Davis 2003, 152‒154).

Working in the Margins

75

much present in western Anatolia prior to the First World War, they are notably absent during the 1920–1923 turmoil. The reason for this may have been that Hogarth had become the Keeper of the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford in 1909 and had left western Anatolia. Moreover, during the 1920s, the British School at Athens was more preoccupied with its work at Mycenae, Knossos, Sparta and in Macedonia.31 It is only in 1948 that British archaeologists return to western Anatolia with the start of the Anglo-Turkish excavations at Smyrna-Bayraklı under the joined direction of Ekrem Akurgal and John M. Cook.32 This refrainment of British scholarship from Greek and Turkish nationalist claims on ancient western Anatolia extends beyond the notable absence of British archaeologists in western Anatolia. For instance, John Garstang, in his book The Hittite Empire, does not deal with the question of whether the Hittites were Aryans or Caucasians.33 Furthermore, the so-called Ahhiyawa Question, introduced by the Swiss scholar Emil Forrer in 1924 and heavily discussed particularly among mostly German-speaking scholars, does not seem to have resonated to a great extent among British scholars.34 In fact, it took until 1960 before they entered the debate with George Huxley’s book Achaeans and Hittites.35 Even the Ionian migration does not appear to have attracted much attention by British scholars.36 Instead, British archaeologists seem to have been more occupied with questions of the origins of the Greeks in light of the incorporation of Macedonia into the Greek state in 1913. For instance, in his book Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria, Stanley Casson states that “[w]hether Macedonians spoke Greek and were of Hellenic stock is a secondary problem which I cannot pretend to solve. For myself, I prefer to give the question a new form by asking whether there is any evidence to show that the Macedonians were not of the same common stock as the Hellenes of recorded history”.37 In line with this statement, Macedonia was claimed to be the ancestral, Bronze Age homeland of the legendary Dorians,38 even though it was “[o]nly upon leaving that homeland [that] the Dorians shed their crude, pastoral habits and achieve[d] distinction”.39 The Ionian Migration The general neglect of western Anatolia in British scholarship in the years after the end of the First World War changed immediately after the Second World War. First, Robert M. Cook published an article in 1946 in which he opens with the following lines: “A generation or so back scholars [such as Hogarth] were disposed to find in Asiatic Greece the origins of most of Hellenic culture and art: and though Panionismus is no longer as openly professed, belief in it is at least implicit in many more recent works. The purpose of this paper is

British (and French) excavations in Macedonia had started in the military trenches and the reconnaissance trips of the Entente in World War I (Casson 1918/1919; Fotiadis 2001, 117‒119). 32 Cook 1958/1959; Akurgal 1983; Cook – Nicholls 1998. 33 Garstang 1929. 34 Simply stated, the Ahhiyawa-question is about “[w]hether the term ‘Ahhiyawa’ (and the earlier version ‘Ahhiya’), as found in nearly thirty Hittite texts from the time of Tudhaliya I/II and Arnuwanda I in the late-fifteenth-early fourteenth century B.C.E. to that of Tudhalya IV and Suppiluliuma II in the thirteenth century B.C.E., was a reference to the Bronze Age Mycenaeans” (Beckmann et al. 2011, 1). For an overview of the early Ahhiyawa-debate, see Bryce 1989; Niemeier 1998; Beckmann et al. 2011, 1‒3. 35 Huxley 1960. 36 Interestingly, British archaeologists carried out excavations at Thermi and Antissa on Lesbos (Lamb – Hutchison 1930; Lamb – Brock 1930/1931; Lamb 1930/1931; Lamb 1931/1932; Lamb 1936) and at Kato Phana on Chios (Lamb 1934/1935). These excavations provided clear evidence for Late Bronze Age and/or Early Iron Age activity, but this did not seem to have generated any particular excitement. 37 Casson 1926, ix. 38 E.g. Casson 1921; Heurtley 1926/1927. Also, Skeat 1934. 39 Fotiadis 2001, 121, referring to Casson 1921, 217. For further discussions on the implication of the portrayal of Macedonia as the ‘Other’ of southern Greece, see Kotsakis 1998; Fotiadis 2001. 31

76

Rik Vaessen

to examine, so far as the evidence permits, the justice of the claim that Ionia was in the eighth and seventh centuries B.C. the infants’ school of Hellas”.40 His tentative conclusion was that there was not enough evidence to say definitely whether in the 8th and 7th centuries BC the Ionians were generally the pioneers of Greek progress, but that, based on the present evidence, it was at least as probable that they were not. A similar suggestion was also made by George Hanfmann, who later was to excavate at Sardis, by arguing that, although the generally-held view maintained that during the ‘Dark Ages’ the Greek communities in western Anatolia were relatively civilised and continental Greece a backward region, it appeared that during the Submycenaean and early Geometric ages the Greeks in western Anatolia did not differ much in their material culture from their ‘Iron Age’ Carian and Phrygian neighbours.41 These conclusions raised questions as to the level of cultural continuity between the Mycenaean era in coastal western Anatolia and the Ionian culture of the 8th and 7th centuries BC. In a footnote, Hanfmann notes that historians had frequently assumed that a Mycenaean phase preceded the alleged Ionian migration of the 11th century BC, at least in the major Greek cities along the western Anatolian coast.42 He particularly refers to the British historian J.B. Bury, who in his History of Greece states that “[w]hatever befell the Mycenaean civilisation in the mother country […] it continued without a break in the new Greece beyond the seas and developed into that luxurious Ionian civilisation which meets us some centuries later, when we come into the clearer light of recorded history”.43 Hanfmann challenges this notion by noting first that, except for the Troad, there was only sporadic evidence for Mycenaean trade and settlement in western Anatolia, concluding that “[I] am inclined to conclude that before the Dark Ages the Mycenaeans had only isolated settlements in Ionia, trading posts surrounded by a host of native tribes, whom the Greeks called Carians and Pelasgians”.44 Subsequently, he notes a gap in the archaeological evidence for Greek presence in the region until a late phase of Greek Geometric and points out the striking resemblance of this archaeological situation with the absence of Greek settlement in western Anatolia in the Homeric Catalogue of Ships.45 These observations led him to suggest that the first Greek colonists only arrived in the region in the 9th century BC, where they slowly drove out and subdued the Anatolians, eventually leading to the capture of those cities, which are traditionally known as the Ionian Dodecapolis, in the course of the 8th century BC.46 In a subsequent article published in 1953, Hanfmann developed this argument further in light of Vincent Desborough’s then-recent monograph on Protogeometric pottery,47 in which small quantities of Protogeometric sherds from Samos, Chios and Miletos were mentioned, as well as the new evidence from Old Smyrna where some Protogeometric pottery was found in the earliest levels of the site.48 Hanfmann interpreted these small quantities of Protogeometric pottery as evidence for a longer process in which at first only a few pots travelled from the Greek mainland to the west coast of Anatolia. These pots were then followed by traders who started to settle in small groups and slowly took over the native settlements. In the 9th century BC, with the introduction of Early Geometric pottery,49 more substantial groups arrived. It was, according to Hanfmann, this arrival of more substantial numbers of people, who also produced Greek pottery locally, which

42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 40 41

Cook 1946, 67. Hanfmann 1945, 580. Hanfmann 1948, 137, fn. 7. Bury 1900, 52. Hanfmann 1948, 145. Hanfmann 1948, 146‒148. Hanfmann 1948, 155. For a similar date, see also Jongkees 1948. Desborough 1952. Cook 1952, 104‒106, fig. 9b. Interestingly, current scholars, particularly those working in north Ionia, often find it hard to recognise Early and Middle Geometric pottery comparable to that from Athens as the pottery tends to remain very ‘Protogeometriclooking’‒ that is, the continuing use of sets of concentric (semi-) circles as a decorative motif.

Working in the Margins

77

could be equated with the coming of the Ionians.50 However, during the 1950s, the excavations at Ephesos and Miletos uncovered an increasing number of Greek Protogeometric sherds.51 Although he had initially been very cautious about interpreting the small quantities of Protogeometric pottery in western Anatolia, the increasing evidence and the apparent stylistic links that these sherds showed with Attica convinced Desborough that not only re-occupation started at Miletos after a short break in the 12th century BC, but also that this re-occupation was a result of the Ionian migration. Consequently, the Ionian migration was to be dated not in the 9th century BC but in the 11th century BC.52 It is interesting to speculate to what extent Desborough may have been influenced by John Boardman, who published an article in 1959 in which he made the argument that a small group of cups found at Al Mina must have been produced not just by Greek settlers, as Wooley had already suggested,53 but specifically by Euboean potters living at Al Mina.54 By making this argument, Boardman directly implied that the Greeks, and the Euboeans in particular, had founded a colony at Al Mina that was not mentioned in the literary traditions. Although this view has been heavily criticised, the notion that pottery indicates the presence of Greeks, even if this was not mentioned in literary sources, would have made it easy for Desborough to apply a similar approach to sites like Miletos, where Greek pottery has been found and for which the textual sources explicitly mention a Greek foundation. It should be noted that Desborough does not refer to Boardman’s paper, but he does mention him in his preface. However, whatever the case may be, the most important point is that Desborough’s interpretation of the appearance of Protogeometric-style pottery in the mid-11th century BC as direct evidence for the arrival of the Ionians was quickly accepted by scholars like Huxley, J. M. Cook and Emlyn-Jones and has remained the generally-accepted view until very recently.55 The Mycenaeans in Western Anatolia Desborough’s conviction that the appearance of Protogeometric-style pottery in coastal western Anatolia signals the start of a new era has not only influenced subsequent research on the Early Iron Age Aegean, but has indirectly (and probably unconsciously) also framed archaeological research in western Anatolia in general. As also argued by Sıla Mangaloğlu-Votruba in this volume, this approach essentially created a temporal divide between an Anatolian Bronze Age and a Greek Iron Age as well as a geographical divide between Anatolia on the one hand and the Aegean on the other.56 This geographical divide does not only run along the borders of the modern nation states of Greece and Turkey, but also implies that coastal western Anatolia can be considered neither fully Aegean nor fully Anatolian. It is interesting that these divides and the associated ambivalent status of coastal western Anatolia immediately recall the nationalist-informed debates in the 1920s (discussed above) in which the region was essentially portrayed as “a land without autochthones”,57 and suggests that these had a wider impact than we may have expected based on the general neglect of western Anatolia in British scholarship during the 1920s and 1930s. At the same time, the establishment of the start of the Greek era at the beginning of the Early Iron Age

Hanfmann 1953. Weickert 1957, 121‒125, pl. 36; Weickert 1959/1960, 52‒53, pls. 51‒52; with Desborough 1964, 163; cf. Lemos 2002, 212; Krumme 2003; Lemos 2007, 718‒719; Krumme 2015. 52 Desborough 1964, 254. 53 Woolley 1938, 15‒16. 54 Boardman 1959. 55 Huxley 1966, 23‒25; Cook 1975; Emlyn-Jones 1980, 12, 14; more recently, see Kerschner 2006; Vanschoonwinkel 2006; Niemeier 2007; Herda 2013. 56 Mangaloğlu-Votruba, this volume. 57 Mac Sweeney 2012. 50 51

78

Rik Vaessen

automatically raised questions as to the nature of Mycenaean-Hittite contacts and Mycenaean enterprise in western Anatolia during the ‘Anatolian’ Late Bronze Age against the backdrop of the Mycenaean finds that had increasingly been turning up in excavations.58 An important contribution to this issue was made by James Mellaart in an article published in 1968 in which he warned not to exaggerate the Mycenaean trade with Anatolia.59 He notes that, although contact with Mycenaean Greece is amply attested by pottery at Hissarlik/Troy, Miletos, Halikarnassos, Ephesos and Klazomenai, inland Mycenaean pottery is rare and recognisable Mycenaean objects other than pottery are almost unknown. Moreover, he points out that the main ‘Hittite’ military route to the west led not to the central Aegean in the region of Izmir, but to the southern shore of the Sea of Marmara, implying that the Hittites were trying to secure control of the age-old trade route that led via the Dardanelles to Europe and not the one that led to Greece and Crete. A similar view, albeit from a more Aegean perspective, was expressed by Chris Mee ten years later.60 Based on a comprehensive review of the evidence for Minoan and Mycenaean trade with the settlements in western Anatolia, Mee suggests that Minoan and Mycenaean contacts with the northern and central parts of coastal western Anatolia were largely sporadic, though with a possible emporion at Klazomenai, but that in the southern part Minoans and Mycenaeans settled at sites like Miletos and Iasos. At the same time, Mee points at the fact that only a single Mycenaean sherd had been uncovered at Beycesultan, one of the pre-eminent sites of western Anatolia, and notes that this can be seen as “[a] sober comment on the extent of Aegean-Anatolian connections in the Late Bronze Age”.61 Mee’s arguments for a Mycenaean presence in western Anatolia were further strengthened in 1981 when at the general meeting of the American Institute of Archaeology H. G. Güterbock, M. J. Mellink, and E. Vermeule established a likely validity of both the equation of the term ‘Ahhiyawa’ (and the earlier version ‘Ahhiya’) and Mycenaean Greece and the equation between Miletos and the Hittite ‘Millawanda’.62 The combination of these two assertions is crucial for the subsequent interpretation of western Anatolia, particularly in light of the so-called ‘Tawagalawa Letter’.63 This letter was probably written by the Hittite king Hattusili III to the king of Ahhiyawa and urged the latter to exercise some control over insurrectionists who were operating within the Hittites’ western subject territories, using Millawanda as their base. The implication of this letter is that Millawanda was at this time subject territory of the Ahhiyawan king, under the immediate control of a local vassal ruler.64 Consequently, if the Hittite Ahhiyawa refers to Mycenaean Greece and Millawanda is indeed Miletos, it would mean that Millawanda/Miletos was a Mycenaean stronghold in western Anatolia. This equation between Ahhiyawa and Mycenaean Greece was further reinforced in 1998 by David Hawkins, who conclusively argued that there is no room for Ahhiyawa on the Anatolian mainland.65 In the same year, Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier published an article in which he eliminated all the suggested locations for Ahhiyawa except for mainland Greece.66 A number of problems need, however, to be highlighted in relation to this Ahhiyawa-debate. The first one is that the direct association between archaeology and textual references has resulted in disproportionate attention to Mycenaean-Hittite relations, even though only about 30 tablets in the Hittite archives refer to Ahhiyawa, suggesting that, as Alan Greaves points out, “[w]herever

See Cook 1959/1960; Cook – Blackman 1964/1965; and the ‘Archaeology in Asia Minor’ reports by Machteld Mellink in American Journal of Archaeology as of 1956. 59 Mellaart 1968. 60 Mee 1978. 61 Mee 1978, 149. 62 Güterbock 1983; Mellink 1983; Vermeule 1983. 63 Beckmann et al. 2011, 101‒122. 64 Bryce 1989, 7; see also Hawkins 1998. 65 Hawkins 1998; though see Steiner 2007. 66 Niemeier 1998. 58

Working in the Margins

79

Ahhiyawa was, its dealings with the Hittite state were peripheral to the latter party”.67 Furthermore, Sue Sherratt has strongly argued that we cannot simply equate the Ahhiyawa of the Hittite texts with what we now call ‘Mycenaeans’.68 She notes that the ‘Mycenaeans’ are a modern concept – invented in the late 19th century – that was rapidly elevated into a widespread ‘civilisation’ covering most of the area of historical Greece (including Crete) and that of the modern Greek nation state.69 In addition to this, she points out that there is no evidence to think that the Mycenaeans thought of themselves as a collective unity, either politically or in any other way, despite their shared pottery styles and tomb types.70 But perhaps the most important objection Sherratt makes is that we cannot just draw a line down the west coast of Anatolia and see a block of ‘Mycenaeans’/Ahhiyawans on one side and Anatolians on the other.71 Indeed, such a binary opposite completely ignores the agency of local populations in the formation of their own material culture. Alan Greaves has, therefore, suggested that, “[a] more appropriate objective for research might be to better understand the indigenous cultures of western Anatolia and to locate their dealings with the Aegean and Hittite cultures within local contexts”.72 Highlighting the Local: Recent Perspectives on Western Anatolia In the last two decades, marginal areas, peripheral zones and borders and the agency of their inhabitants have witnessed a sharp increase in archaeological interest, mainly under the influence of new movements in postcolonial theory.73 This movement has also had a significant impact in western Anatolia and the most important advances have been made in the study of the Middle Bronze Age. Following the ground-breaking article by Cyprian Broodbank on ‘Minoanisation’,74 for instance, Nicoletta Momigliano has recently re-evaluated the evidence for Minoans at Iasos and argued that there is evidence for the presence of ‘Minoans’ (denoting a wider cultural, non-ethnic meaning) at Iasos, primarily in the person of potters and architects. At the same time, she also notes that there is no evidence to suggest that the ‘Minoans’ from Iasos were ‘Minoan Cretans’ rather than ‘Minoans’ from Miletos, Trianda, Seraglio or some other places.75 Similarly, Amy Raymond has problematised the alleged Minoan presence at Miletos by arguing that, although there is evidence for Aegean ideas at work at the site, there is no proof for the importation of Cretan Minoans; in fact, direct contacts between Crete and Miletos appear to have been limited.76 Finally, Luca Girella and Peter Pavúk have explained Minoanisation processes in the northeast Aegean in terms of hybridisation, by which they mean that in this area Minoanisation implied not only the adoption and imitation of certain aspects of the Minoan material culture, but also the active selection and adaptation of such innovations and their following incorporation into the local landscape.77 Similar developments can also be observed for the Late Bronze Age. For instance, Naoíse Mac Sweeney has argued that Late Bronze Age Beycesultan cannot be described by its degree of ‘Hittiteness’ or ‘Arzawaness’, but should be understood as independent and necessarily pulled

Greaves 2010b, 885; also, Mac Sweeney 2011, 67. Sherratt 2010, 10‒11. 69 Sherratt 2010, 10. 70 Contra Kelder 2010. Compare also the modern history of Minoan culture and the myth of Minoan archaeology, Hamilakis 2002; Karadimas – Momigliano 2004; Papadopoulos 2005; Momigliano 2006; Sherratt 2009. 71 Sherratt 2010, 11. 72 Greaves 2010b, 885. 73 See Knapp – Van Dommelen 2010; Van Dommelen 2011; Van Dommelen – Rowlands 2012. This volume is a good example of this shift as well. 74 Broodbank 2004. 75 Momigliano 2009; also Momigliano 2012. 76 Raymond 2005; Raymond 2007. 77 Girella – Pavúk 2015. 67 68

80

Rik Vaessen

to one or the other side.78 She argues that, during the Late Bronze Age, the inhabitants of Beycesultan appear to be unwilling to incorporate elements that could be recognised as either Hittite or Arzawan and instead opted for local Upper Maeander connections during both feasting and cult events. This implies, according to Mac Sweeney, that local identity and local traditions were considered more important than the relationships with either the Hittites or other Arzawan groups. An interesting contrast to this apparent unwillingness to incorporate non-local elements can be found in the southeast Aegean. Traditionally, archaeological narratives have focused on the possible presence of Mycenaean settlers in the region. However, Jacob Eerbeek has recently suggested that we focus not on whether or not there were Mycenaean settlers in the south-eastern Aegean during the Late Bronze Age, but on the different ways Mycenaean material culture was used to express group identities in the archaeological (burial) record. Subsequently, he applies a ‘neo culture-historical’ approach to analyse the burial assemblages from the southeast Aegean, showing that, rather than actual ‘Mycenaeans’ (i.e. people originating from the Greek mainland), we find different local groups using ‘Mycenaean’ as a medium to express different types of material identities and cultural connections.79 These studies already show strong local variations in the ways in which individual communities understood the world in which they were living. These variations become even clearer in the Archaic period. For example, Jan-Paul Crielaard points out that in the sphere of religion and cult, the 8th and 7th centuries BC show a proliferation of sanctuaries that housed local cults.80 In a similar way, it is interesting that in 6th century BC inscriptions, graffiti and dipinti found in the Greek sanctuaries at Naukratis in the Egyptian Delta, people from Chios, Phokaia, Klazomenai, Teos, Mytilene and Rhodes identify themselves by their name and their polis, suggesting that polis-identity was particularly salient.81 This observation also corresponds well with a more general trend in the Greek world82 and a recent study by Naoíse Mac Sweeney on the foundation myths in Archaic and Classical Ionia in which she not only shows the variety of ways in which Ionian communities constructed their pasts, but also highlights that Ionian communities, and Greek communities more generally, identified themselves not along ethnic lines but as inhabitants of a particular city.83 Finally, Alan Greaves has made an important contribution in highlighting not only the extent to which Greek texts of the Classical and later periods have informed the narratives of classical archaeology of Archaic period, but also that there is an often ignored yet persisting and undeniable ‘Anatolian’ aspect to the local material culture in Archaic Ionia in the form of, for instance, ‘Phrygian’-style rock-cut cult installations in the nearby territories and urban peripheries of the key sites of Ephesos, Priene, Erythrai, Miletos, Phokaia and elsewhere.84 All these studies emphasise the intrinsic complexity of the western Anatolia-East Aegean interface and the agency of local communities in incorporating – or indeed rejecting – non-local (material) elements. This is an important move away from our traditional understanding of western Anatolia as a marginal and culturally passive region that merely functioned as a bridge between the Aegean and central Anatolia.85 However, an important problem is that – although the models shift focus to the agency of local communities in the formation of material culture – Aegean features, pottery in particular, are still often considered of special interest and assigned a specific social or cultural significance.86 This implies that such elements are by definition intrusive

80 81 82 83 84 85 86 78 79

Mac Sweeney 2010, 22; see also Mac Sweeney 2011. Eerbeek 2015. Crielaard 2009, 63‒71. Crielaard 2009, 43, with further references. Vlassopoulos 2013. Mac Sweeney 2013; for a similar argument, see also Crielaard 2009, 46‒51. Greaves 2010a, 193‒197; Greaves 2011, 508‒509; Greaves 2013. For a discussion on the concept of the bridge as a metaphor, see Greaves 2007. See, for instance, Günel 2010 and Eerbeek 2015. Also Greaves’ focus on ‘Anatolian’ elements, though illuminating, runs the risk of diametrically opposing material features that are considered of Aegean and Anatolian origins.

Working in the Margins

81

elements in an essentially ‘Anatolian’ environment. Such a perspective leaves intact an implied Aegeo-Anatolian divide and ignores that various styles and forms of material culture are practically always found together, suggesting that they functioned as a coherent whole in everyday practice. It is therefore crucial to take into consideration that, as Diamantis Panagiotopoulos has recently pointed out, “[d]etermining whether, for instance, a stylistic element can be interpreted as ‘foreign’ is, in principle, a matter of archaeological classification and not of ancient social practice”.87 Indeed, non-local elements are not necessarily perceived as foreign and incompatible with local practices. In fact, they may be incorporated because they actually fit in or cohere with existing local practices and structures.88 In this light, probably our biggest challenge for the future is to not just highlight local agency but also to look closer at the range of practical causes or mechanisms that may lay behind the incorporation of (seemingly) non-local elements. In other words, does material transformation necessarily mean cultural change? Into the Future An important threshold for the development of any new interpretative model for the cultural dynamics in Late Bronze and Early Iron Age western Anatolia is an absence of published contextual and quantitative data.89 Over the past decade or so, a range of preliminary reports has appeared which already provide invaluable information, but to date, comprehensive publications of all the archaeological remains presently excavated at a particular site are still completely lacking. This lack of published information does not need to prevent us, however, from thinking about alternative models. As already noted, an important point to consider is to what extent material change and the incorporation of non-local elements was part of wider (cultural) transformations, or if it was perhaps simply a matter of substituting for local elements in practices that otherwise remained the same. This observation is most pertinent for the final years of the 2nd millennium BC. At the beginning of the Early Iron Age, we see a shift in material culture, most clearly in ceramics, from a predominantly ‘Anatolian’ to a predominantly ‘Aegean’ (e.g. Protogeometric) character. Traditionally, this shift is considered a radical break with the past that could only have been brought on by a radical event that caused people to adopt a drastically different way of life. This event is found in the literary traditions of the Ionian migration.90 Recently, however, scholars have not only questioned the documentary validity of these literary traditions,91 but have also raised questions as to whether the material transformations at the beginning of the Early Iron Age can really be considered a radical break with the past. As a result, some scholars have pushed the date of the Ionian migration back in time,92 whereas others have rejected the migration theory altogether and have suggested that during the Early Iron Age the western coast of Anatolia and the Aegean were part of the same cultural continuum.93 A major problem with the current debate, however, is that it does not move beyond observing patterns in the archaeological record and explaining them by means of rather vague yet supposedly forceful (social) concepts, such as migration and acculturation or cultural hybridity and mobility – as if these were complete and sufficient explanations in themselves both for their own existence and for the archaeological phenomena for which they are held to account. However, no attempt is made to build up from the ground an understanding of the mechanisms that stimulated the material transformations and investigate to what extent these are associated with fundamen-

89 90 91 92 93 87 88

Panagiotopoulos 2012, 52. See Hodder 2012, chapter 6 on the notion of ‘fittingness’. Cf. Vaessen 2016. On the historical context of this situation, see Greaves 2010a, 22‒26. Recently, Kerschner 2006; Vanschoonwinkel 2006; Herda 2013. Cobet 2007; Crielaard 2009; Mac Sweeney 2013. Lemos 2007. Crielaard 2009.

82

Rik Vaessen

tal changes in social practice. Granted, such attempts are hampered by the absence of published contextual and quantitative data, although it is potentially interesting that a re-evaluation of the materials from old excavations and new stratified data from the new excavations at Klazomenai (excavated in 2015) suggest that the material transformation at the beginning of the Early Iron Age was less radical than previously thought.94 Until the data from Klazomenai are fully analysed and published, however, it would be worthwhile to offer some more general thoughts. It is, for instance, noteworthy that some aspects of the ceramic production process carry more complex and difficult to learn techniques and information than others. A good example of this is the forming technique – given the long apprenticeship needed to learn the wheel.95 By contrast, aspects, such as decoration, are more easily copied. Unfortunately, we have, as yet, no information about clay paste preparation or shaping techniques, but there are indications that they do not show significant breaks.96 Consequently, we may want to ask what may have influenced potters and consumers to adopt a different way of treating pots. In this respect, the substantial number of so-called pendant semi-circle skyphoi dating to the 10th and 9th centuries BC found at Klazomenai is an interesting case.97 Traditionally, this type of vessel is portrayed as an Euboean invention.98 However, recent research in central Macedonia indicates that this type of vessel appears at the same time (or even earlier) in this region and was also particularly popular.99 For the west coast of Anatolia, it has recently been suggested that Klazomenai may have been an important production centre for this type of vessel.100 One of the key characteristics of the pendant semi-circle skyphos is that in terms of shape and decoration it appears to evoke similar metal objects. Could it, therefore, be that this type of vessel, as well as perhaps the Protogeometric style more generally, developed simultaneously over a larger area on the back of an intense metal trade in the northern Aegean?101 This is in itself already an intriguing question, but in respect to Klazomenai it needs to be added that this development may need to be set against a potential shifting position of the site within wider trade and communication networks in the wake of wider developments in Mediterranean and western Anatolian trade networks towards the end of the Bronze Age.102 The advantage of this scenario is that it offers an explanation for ceramic change that situates local agency within wider patterns of movement without making any superfluous assumptions about social change or creating a binary divide between local and non-local. In addition, it high-

In 2014, a new research project was initiated by the author, in collaboration with Y. E. Ersoy, at the site of Klazomenai to comprehensively study and publish all the Early Iron Age remains from the site that have been excavated regularly since 1998. This re-evaluation is further accompanied by new excavations to clarify stratigraphy and add additional data. 95 Roux – Corbetta 1989. 96 It is, however, interesting that based on a macroscopic analysis of wares found at Ephesos, spanning a period of over one thousand years from the Late Bronze Age to the Hellenistic period (including the Protogeometric and Geometric periods), Michael Kerschner (2005) has found that the fabric is remarkably homogeneous throughout, indicating that the same clay beds were used and the clay processed consistently in the same way throughout that time. A similar picture is now also emerging at Klazomenai. Furthermore, Neutron Activation Analysis on pottery from Miletos shows that the same clay resources were used in the Late Bronze Age and Archaic period (Akurgal et al. 2002). 97 Ersoy 2007; for a comparison of the numbers at Klazomenai with other sites on the Anatolian coast, see Kerschner 2014. 98 Kearsley 1989; Popham 1994; Lemos 1998; Lemos 2002. 99 Gimatzidis 2011, 959‒960; Papadopoulos 1996, 152. 100 Kerschner 2014, 117; preliminary observations made as part of a new research project at Klazomenai that aims to analyse the Early Iron Age remains from the site seem to confirm this suggestion. 101 This may also explain the popularity of the pendant semi-circle skyphos in the Eastern Mediterranean (Sherratt 1999, 181). Similarly, the existence of an intense metal trade may perhaps also explain the development of a regional standardisation of a specific type of north Aegean transport amphora (so-called Group 1 amphorae; see Catling 1998) in the 11th century (Vaessen 2014a, 171‒177). 102 Vaessen 2014b; Vaessen forthcoming. 94

Working in the Margins

83

lights the contribution of western Anatolian communities to the material and cultural dynamics in the Aegean. At the same time, it is important not to lose sight that each community occupies a different position within wider webs of human and material mobility. This means that the ways in which individual communities make use of their (shifting) connections and encounters with others to bring together and combine materials, objects, knowledge, information and inspiration can be (slightly) different in each case, resulting in local variations. Consequently, rather than going for all-embracing (processual) explanatory models, an important step forward would be to build up from the ground a picture of local variations and how these tie in with one another to form wider (material) patterns. In particular, the ‘small worlds’ concept, as put forward by Momigliano for the Middle Bronze Age in the southeast Aegean and by Tartaron for the Latmian Gulf would be of interest in this respect as it potentially allows us to link together local, regional and supra-regional dynamics, whether by zooming out from the local to the supra-regional perspective or by zooming in from the wider picture to the specific site.103 This, in turn, would help not only to highlight the region’s internal cultural dynamics, but also its dealings with the wider Aegean and Anatolian worlds, without falling back on preconceived binary divides. Conclusion As we have seen, archaeological narratives of western Anatolia have shifted back and forth over the past one-and-a-half centuries. In most cases, however, these shifts have had less to do with major advances in archaeological discovery than with changes in general intellectual currents brought about by contemporary political, economic and social preoccupations. The image of coastal western Anatolia as painted by Newton and Hogarth was heavily influenced by anti-Orientalist sentiments coupled with a strong Hellenocentric perspective that portrayed ancient Athens as a historical model for the British Empire in the 19th century. Against this backdrop, coastal western Anatolia came to be considered not merely a periphery of the ancient Greek world, but rather the centre of Greek civilisation. In the 1920s, however, the use of cultural heritage by both Greece and Turkey in the legitimation of territorial claims on western Anatolia turned the region into a contested zone in which ideas of migration, civilisation, and conquest were used to construct ownership of the land. In these struggles, French and American archaeologists played an important role by employing archaeological activities at a number of sites. Intriguing, however, is that British archaeologists are notably absent in the region in terms of both actual archaeological endeavours and in the scholarly debates concerning the origins of the Turks and the Ahhiyawa debate started in 1924. Even the historicity of the Ionian migration does not seem to have attracted much attention. Instead, British archaeologists, such as Heurtley and Casson, were particularly active in Macedonia and played an important role in the establishment of the region as the Late Bronze Age homeland of the legendary Dorians. British scholars entered debates again immediately after the Second World War, first with an article by Robert M. Cook published in 1946 in which he questioned the notion that Ionia was in the 8th and 7th centuries BC the “infant school of Hellas”, and then with the start of the Anglo-Turkish excavations at Smyrna-Bayraklı under the joint direction of Ekrem Akurgal and John M. Cook in 1948. Both had an important impact on archaeological discourse. Robert M. Cook’s tentative conclusion that the Ionians may not have been the pioneers of Greek progress raised questions as to the level of continuity between the Mycenaean era in the region and the Ionian culture of the 8th and 7th centuries BC. Initially, scholars like George Hanfmann suggested that there was a gap in the archaeological evidence for a Greek presence in the region until the 9th century BC. However, the excavations by J.M. Cook at Smyrna-Bayraklı and those by German archaeologists at Miletos turned up increasing numbers of Protogeometric pottery. Although he

Momigliano 2009; Momigliano 2012; Tartaron 2013. See also Vaessen 2017.

103

84

Rik Vaessen

had initially been cautious, both the increasing evidence and the apparent stylistic links that these sherds showed with Attica convinced Vincent Desborough that the Ionian migration must have taken place not in the 9th but in the 11th century BC. The interesting point about the academic debates in the first two decades after the Second World War is that, unlike previous debates, the shifts in perception came forth out of advances in archaeological discovery. At the same time, as also pointed out by Mangaloğlu-Votruba elsewhere in this volume, it also generated a temporal divide between an Anatolian Bronze Age and a Greek Iron Age and reinforced a geo-political divide between the Anatolian and Aegean worlds. The temporal divide generated a renewed interest in the nature of Mycenaean (and Minoan) trade with and settlement in western Anatolia. In particular, Chris Mee was instrumental in this by providing for the first time a systematic overview of the relevant archaeological evidence. He also suggested based on the archaeological evidence that Mycenaeans had settled at Miletos. This notion was subsequently further reinforced by the assertion in the 1980s and 1990s that the elusive kingdom of Ahhiyawa should be located in the Aegean and is probably to be equated with one or more of the Mycenaean kingdoms. The importance of this equation is that the so-called ‘Tawagalawa Letter’ implies that Millawanda, equated with Miletos, was a subject territory of the Ahhiyawan king. If indeed Ahhiyawa could be equated with one of the Mycenaean kingdoms, this would mean that Miletos formed a Mycenaean stronghold in western Anatolia. The Ahhiyawa debate and the search for the Mycenaeans in western Anatolia has a number of problems, but perhaps the most important one is that the binary opposite between Mycenaeans/Ahhiyawans on one side and the Anatolians on the other completely ignores the agency of the local population in the formation of their own material culture. In response, and under the influence of advances in postcolonial theory, scholars have recently started to highlight the agency of local communities in the incorporation and adaptation of Aegean elements. This is, without doubt, a crucial step forward. However, an important remaining problem is that, although emphasis is shifted towards local agency, Aegean elements continue to be considered essentially intrusive elements in a local ‘Anatolian’ environment. We may, therefore, need to go one step further. At present we tend to explain the incorporation of (seemingly) non-local elements in social terms – that is, as an active manipulation of material culture by local people in the formation and expression of certain forms of identity. The implication of looking at material culture in this way is that the social is a separate, non-tangible realm that exists prior to or detached from matter, and that material culture is merely a passive recipient of social intention. However, is, for instance, the use of an imported Mycenaean pot really an active social act or would it be possible that the pot merely substitutes a local one in practices that otherwise remained the same? A similar question can be asked for the seemingly rapid transformation of material culture (mostly ceramics) at the beginning of the Early Iron Age from a predominantly ‘Anatolian’ to a predominantly ‘Aegean’ character: does this shift really represent structural changes in the activities that involved material culture or is it merely a visual transformation that was brought on by other factors? These questions automatically provide a hint as to where we may want to find the answer – that is, not in the first place in the formal characterisation of the objects, but in the very practices in which they were made and used. Unfortunately, the current lack of published contextual and quantitative data prevents detailed analyses on a local level. An alternative avenue to explore would be to look more closely at the position of individual sites within wider webs of movement. Whatever approach one prefers, however, the crucial point is that ‘marginal’ zones are peripheral often not so much because of ancient reality but because of modern preconceptions that are influenced by contemporary reality. Consequently, we will have to be fully aware of the frameworks within which previous scholarship has operated and in which we operate ourselves, and subsequently use this awareness in developing alternative perspectives on the past. I hope that this paper will contribute to this awareness and that it may be a useful point of departure in further breaking down the divides that have long characterised Aegean and Anatolian archaeology.

Working in the Margins

85

Acknowledgments: This paper finds its roots in one of the chapters of my doctoral thesis, but the rest stands on its own. As my doctoral supervisor, I would like to thank Sue Sherratt for her support and extremely useful feedback over the years. I am also grateful to Jack Davis for sending me his papers on the work of American archaeologists at Kolophon and Sardis during the early 1920s. Gratitude should also be extended to the editors of this volume for inviting me to participate in the EAA session in Istanbul from which this volume is the result and allowing me to publish this paper in this volume. In many ways, the present paper is very different from the one I presented in Istanbul, but the basic premise that if we are to re-evaluate the culturally passive status of liminal regions we should not only look at the distant past, but also at the more recent history of modern research which has remained the same. I am sure that not all of my concerns and suggestions will be shared by everyone, but I hope that together with the other contributions in this volume it will stimulate further discussion about the cultural dynamics in the past as well as the contemporary intellectual frameworks that have influenced us in our understanding of western Anatolia and other liminal regions in the past.

References Akurgal 1961 E. Akurgal, Die Kunst Anatoliens von Homer bis Alexander (Berlin 1961). Akurgal 1968 E. Akurgal, The Birth of Greek Art. The Mediterranean and the Near East (London 1968). Akurgal 1983 E. Akurgal. Alt-Smyrna I. Wohnschichten und Athenatempel (Ankara 1983). Akurgal et al. 2002 M. Akurgal – M. Kerschner – H. Mommsen – W.-D. Niemeier (eds.), Töpferzentren der Ostägäis. Archäometrische und archäologische Untersuchungen zur mykenischen, geometrischen and archaischen Keramik aus Fundorten in Westkleinasien (Vienna 2002). Atakuman 2008 Ç. Atakuman, Cradle or crucible. Anatolia and archaeology in the early years of the Turkish Republic (1923‒1938), Journal of Social Archaeology 8, 2008, 214‒235. Beckmann et al. 2011 G. M. Beckman – T. Bryce – E. H. Cline, The Ahhiyawa Texts (Atlanta 2011). Boardman 1959 J. Boardman, Greek potters at Al Mina?, Anatolian Studies 9, 1959, 163‒169. Broodbank 2004 C. Broodbank, Minoanisation, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 50, 2004, 46‒91. Bryce 1989 T. Bryce, The nature of Mycenaean involvement in western Anatolia, Historia 38, 1989, 1‒21. Bury 1900 J. B. Bury, A History of Greece to the Death of Alexander the Great. Vol. I (London 1900). Casson 1918/1919 S. Casson, Macedonia: note, Annual of the British School at Athens 23, 1918/1919, 60‒63. Casson 1921 S. Casson, The Dorian invasion reviewed in the light of some new evidence, Antiquaries Journal 1, 1921, 199‒221. Casson 1926 S. Casson, Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria. Their Relations to Greece from the Earliest Times down to the Time of Philip Son of Amyntas (Oxford 1926). Catling 1998 R. W. V. Catling, The typology of the Protogeometric and Subprotogeometric pottery from Troia and its Aegean context, Studia Troica 8, 1998, 151‒187.

86

Rik Vaessen

Challis 2008 D. Challis, From the Harpy Tomb to the Wonders of Ephesus. British Archaeologists in the Ottoman Empire 1840‒1880 (London 2008). Challis 2010 D. Challis, ‘The ablest race’. The ancient Greeks in Victorian racial theory, in: M. Bradley (ed.), Classics and Imperialism in the British Empire (Oxford 2010) 94‒120. Cobet 2007 J. Cobet, Das alte Ionien in der Geschichtsschreibung, in: Cobet et al. 2007, 727‒741. Cobet et al. 2007. J. Cobet – V. von Graeve – W.-D. Niemeier – K. Zimmerman (eds.), Frühes Ionien. Eine Bestandsaufnahme. Panionion-Symposion Güzalçamlı 26.S eptember ‒ 1. Oktober 1999, Milesische Forschungen 5 (Mainz am Rhein 2007). Cook 1946 R. M. Cook, Ionia and Greece in the eighth and seventh centuries B.C., Journal of Hellenic Studies 66, 1946, 67‒98. Cook 1952 J. M. Cook, Archaeology in Greece, 1951, Journal of Hellenic Studies 72, 1952, 92‒112. Cook 1958/1959 J. M. Cook, Old Smyrna, 1948‒1951, Annual of the British School at Athens 53/54, 1958/1959, 1‒34. Cook 1959/1960 J. M. Cook, Greek archaeology in Asia Minor, Archaeological Reports 6, 1959/1960, 27‒57. Cook 1975 J. M. Cook 1975, Greek settlement in the eastern Aegean and Asia Minor, Cambridge Ancient History 3, 2, 1975, 773‒804. Cook – Blackman 1964/1965 J. M. Cook – D. J. Blackman, Greek archaeology in Asia Minor, Archaeological Reports 11, 1964/1965, 32‒62. Cook ‒ Nicholls 1998 J. M. Cook – R. V. Nicholls, Old Smyrna Excavations. The Temples of Athena (London 1998). Crielaard 2009 J. P. Crielaard, The Ionians in the Archaic period. Shifting identities in a changing world, in: A. M. J. Derks – N. G. A. M. Roymans (eds.), Ethnic Constructs in Antiquity. The Role of Power and Tradition (Amsterdam 2009) 37‒84. Davis 2000 J. L. Davis, Warriors for the fatherland. National consciousness and archaeology in ‘Barbarian’ Epirus and ‘Verdant’ Ionia, 1912‒22. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 13, 1, 2000, 76‒98. Davis 2003 J. L. Davis, A foreign school of archaeology and the politics of archaeological practice: Anatolia, 1922, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 16, 2, 2003, 145‒172. Demetriou 1996 K. Demetriou, In defence of the British constitution. Theoretical implications of the debate over Athenian democracy in Britain, 1770‒1850, History of Political Thought 17, 1996, 280‒297. Desborough 1952 V. R. d’A. Desborough, Protogeometric Pottery (Oxford 1952). Desborough 1964 V. R. d’A. Desborough, The Last Mycenaeans and their Successors. An Archaeological Survey c.1200‒c.1000 B.C. (Oxford 1964). Dragatsis 1921 Ι. X. Δραγάτσης, Εκθεσις των πεπραγμένων της εταιρείας κατά τό έτος 1921, Πρακτικά της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 76, 1921, 1‒21.

Working in the Margins

87

Eerbeek 2015 J. Eerbeek, The ‘Mycenaeans’ in the southeast Aegean revisited. A neo-cultural historical re-evaluation of the ceramic evidence, in: Stampolidis et al. 2015, 289‒310. Emlyn-Jones 1980 C. J. Emlyn-Jones, The Ionians and Hellenism. A Study of the Cultural Achievement of the Early Greek Inhabitants of Asia Minor (London 1980). Ergin 2010 N. Ergin, Archaeology and the perception of Greek, Roman and Byzantine eras in early Republican Turkey, in: S. Redford – N. Ergin (eds.), Perceptions of the Past in the Turkish Republic. Classical and Byzantine Periods, Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 31 (Leuven 2010) 13‒36. Erimtan 2008 C. Erimtan, Hittites, Ottomans and Turks. Ağaoğlu Ahmed Bey and the Kemalist construction of Turkish nationhood in Anatolia, Anatolian Studies 58, 2008, 141–171. Ersoy 2007 Y. E. Ersoy, Notes on the history and archaeology of early Clazomenae, in: Cobet et al. 2007, 149‒178. Fotiadis 2001 M. Fotiadis, Imaging Macedonia in prehistory, ca. 1900‒1930, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 14, 2001, 115‒135. Garstang 1929 J. Garstang, The Hittite Empire. Being a Survey of the History, Geography and Monuments of Hittite Asia Minor and Syria (London 1929). Gimatzidis 2011 S. Gimatzidis, The northwestern Aegean in the Early Iron Age, in: A. Mazarakis Ainian (ed.), The “Dark Ages” Revisited. Acts of an International Symposium in Memory of William D.E. Coulson, University of Thessaly, Volos, 14‒17 June 2007 (Volos 2011) 959‒970. Girella – Pavúk 2015 L. Girella – P. Pavúk, Minoanisation, acculturation, hybridisation. The evidence of the Minoan presence in the NE Aegean between Middle and Late Bronze Age, in: Stampolidis et al. 2015, 387‒420. Greaves 2007 A. M. Greaves, Trans-Anatolia. Examining Turkey as a bridge between east and west. Anatolian Studies 57, 2007, 1‒15. Greaves 2010a A. M. Greaves, The land of Ionia. Society and Economy in the Archaic Period (Chichester, Malden, MA 2010). Greaves 2010b A. M. Greaves, Western Anatolia, in: E. H. Cline (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (Oxford 2010), 877‒889. Greaves 2011 A. M. Greaves, The Greeks in western Anatolia, in: S. R. Steadman – G. McMahon (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia (Oxford 2011) 500‒514. Greaves 2013 A. M. Greaves, Divine things. The ivories from the Artemision and the Luwian identity at Ephesos, in: Mounton et al. 2013, 507‒542. Günel 2010 S. Günel, Mycenaean cultural impact on the Çine (Marsyas) plain, southwest Anatolia. The evidence from Çine-Tepecik, Anatolian Studies 60, 2010, 25‒49. Güterbock 1983 H. G. Güterbock, The Hittites and the Aegean World: Part 1. The Ahhiyawa problem reconsidered. American Journal of Archaeology 87, 1983, 133‒138. Hall 1901 H. R. Hall, The Oldest Civilization of Greece. Studies of the Mycenaean Age (London 1901).

88

Rik Vaessen

Hall 1997 J. M. Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity (Cambridge 1997). Hamilakis 2002 Y. Hamilakis, What future for the Minoan past?, in: Y. Hamilakis (ed.), Labyrinth Revisited. Rethinking ‘Minoan’ Archaeology (Oxford 2002) 2‒28. Hanfmann 1945 G. M. A. Hanfmann, Horsemen from Sardis, American Journal of Archaeology 49, 1945, 570‒581. Hanfmann 1948 G. M. A. Hanfmann, Archaeology in Homeric Asia Minor, American Journal of Archaeology 52, 1948, 135‒155. Hanfmann 1953 G. M. A. Hanfmann, Ionia, leader or follower?, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 61, 1953, 1‒37. Hawkins 1998 J. D. Hawkins, Tarkasnawa King of Mira. ‘Tarkondemos’, Bogazköy Sealings and Karabel, Anatolian Studies 48, 1998, 1‒31. Herda 2013 A. Herda, Greek (and our) views on the Karians, in: Mounton et al. 2013, 421‒506. Heurtley 1926/1927 W. A. Heurtley, A prehistoric site in western Macedonia and the Dorian invasion, Annual of the British School at Athens 28, 1926/1927, 159‒194. Hodder 2012 I. Hodder, Entangled. An Archaeology of the Relationships Between Humans and Things (Oxford 2012). Hogarth 1896 D. G. Hogarth, The Wandering Scholar in the Levant (London 1896). Hogarth 1909 D. G. Hogarth, Ionia and the East. Six Lectures Delivered Before the University of London (Oxford 1909). Huxley 1960 G. L. Huxley, Achaeans and Hittites (Oxford 1960). Huxley 1966 G. L. Huxley, The Early Ionians (London 1966). Jongkees 1948 J. H. Jongkees, The date of the Ionian migration, in: C. G. Volgraff (ed.), Studia varia Carolo Guilielmo Vollgraff a discipulis oblate (Amsterdam 1948) 71‒77. Karadimas – Momigliano 2004 N. Karadimas – N. Momigliano, On the term ‘Minoan’ before Evans’s work in Crete (1894), Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 46, 2004, 243‒258. Kearsley 1989 R. A. Kearsley, The Pendant Semi-Circle Skyphos. A Study of its Development and Chronology and an Examination of its Evidence for Euboean Activity at Al Mina (London 1989). Kelder 2010 J. M. Kelder, The Kingdom of Mycenae. A Great Kingdom in the Late Bronze Age Aegean (Bethesda 2010). Kelly 2010 J. M. Kelly, The Society of Dilettanti. Archaeology and Identity in the British Enlightenment (New Haven, London 2010). Kerschner 2005 M. Kerschner, Appendix: a new provenance group of pottery produced at Ephesos, contribution in: L. Badre ‒ M.-C. Boileau ‒ R. Jung ‒ H. Mommsen, The provenance of Aegean- and Syrian-type pottery found at Tell Kazel (Syria), Ägypten und Levante / Egypt and the Levant 15, 2005, 36‒37.

Working in the Margins

89

Kerschner 2006 M. Kerschner, Die ionische Wanderung im Lichte neuer archäologischer Forschungen in Ephesos, in: E. Olshausen – H. Sonnabend (eds.), “Troianer sind wir gewesen” ‒ Migrationen in der antiken Welt. Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur Historischen Geographie des Altertums 8, 2002 (Stuttgart 2006) 364‒382. Kerschner 2014 M. Kerschner, Euboean imports to the eastern Aegean and eastern Aegean production of pottery in the Euboean style. New evidence from Neutron Activation Analysis, in: M. Kerschner – I. S. Lemos (eds.), Archaeometric Analyses of Euboean and Euboean Related Pottery. New Results and their Interpretations. Proceedings of the Round Table Conference held at the Austrian Archaeological Institute in Athens (Vienna 2014) 109‒140. Knapp – Van Dommelen 2010 A. B. Knapp – P. van Dommelen (eds.), Material Connections in the Ancient Mediterranean. Mobility, Materiality and Identity (London 2010). Kotsakis 1998 K. Kotsakis, The past is ours. Images of Greek Macedonia, in: L. Meskell (ed.), Archaeology under Fire. Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East (London 1998) 44‒67. Krumme 2003 M. Krumme, Geometrische Keramik aus Milet, in: B. Schmaltz – M. Söldner (eds.), Griechische Keramik im kulturellen Kontext Akten des Internationalen Vasen-Symposions in Kiel vom 24. bis 28.9.2001 veranstaltet durch das Archäologische Institut der Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel (Kiel 2003) 244‒245. Krumme 2015 M. Krumme, Geometric Miletos, in: Stampolidis et al. 2015, 581‒592. Lamb 1930/1931 W. Lamb, Antissa, Annual of the British School at Athens 31, 1930/1931, 166‒178. Lamb 1931/1932 W. Lamb, Antissa, Annual of the British School at Athens 32, 1931/1932, 41‒67. Lamb 1934/1935 W. Lamb, Excavations at Kato Phana in Chios, Annual of the British School at Athens 35, 1934/1935, 138‒164. Lamb 1936 W. Lamb, Excavations at Thermi in Lesbos (Cambridge 1936). Lamb – Brock 1930/1931 W. Lamb – J. K. Brock, Excavations at Thermi, Annual of the British School at Athens 31, 1930/1931, 148‒165. Lamb – Hutchinson 1930 W. Lamb – R. W. Hutchinson, Excavations at Thermi in Lesbos, Annual of the British School at Athens 30, 1930, 1‒52. Leake 1824 W. M. Leake, Journal of a Tour in Asia Minor with Comparative Remarks on the Ancient and Modern Geography of that Country (London 1824). Lemos 1998 I. S. Lemos, Euboea and its Aegean koine, in: M. Bats – B. d’Agostino (eds.), Euboica. L’Eubea e la presenza Euboica in Chalcidica e in Occidente. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Napoli, 13‒16 Novembre 1996 (Naples 1998) 45‒58. Lemos 2002 I. S. Lemos, The Protogeometric Aegean. The Archaeology of the Late Eleventh and Tenth Centuries BC (Oxford 2002). Lemos 2007 I. S. Lemos, The migrations to the west coast of Asia Minor. Tradition and archaeology, in: Cobet et al. 2007, 713‒727. Liddel 2008 P. Liddel, European colonialist perspectives on Athenian power. Before and after the epigraphic explosion, in: J. T. Ma – N. Papazarkadas – R. Parker (eds.), Interpreting the Athenian Empire (Bristol 2008) 13‒42.

90

Rik Vaessen

Mac Sweeney 2010 N. Mac Sweeney, Hittites and Arzawans. A view from western Anatolia, Anatolian Studies 60, 2010, 7‒24. Mac Sweeney 2011 N. Mac Sweeney, Community Identity and Archaeology. Dynamic Communities at Aphrodisias and Beycesultan (Ann Arbor 2011). Mac Sweeney 2012 N. Mac Sweeney, A land without autochthones. Anatolian archaeology in the early twentieth century, in: M. Seymour – C. Glatz – A. Fletcher – R. Matthews – S. Simpson – J. Tubb (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient New East, 12‒16 April 2010, British Museum and UCL, London (Wiesbaden 2012) 63‒72. Mac Sweeney 2013 N. Mac Sweeney, Foundation Myths and Politics in Ancient Ionia (Cambridge 2013). Maran – Stockhammer 2012 J. Maran – P. W. Stockhammer (eds.), Materiality and Social Practice. Transformative Capacities of Intercultural Encounters (Oxford 2012). Marchand 2009 S. L. Marchand, German Orientalism in the Age of Empire. Religion, Race, and Scholarship (New York 2009). Mee 1978 C. Mee, Aegean trade and settlement in Anatolia in the second millennium B.C., Anatolian Studies 28, 1978, 121‒156. Mellaart 1968 J. Mellaart, Anatolian trade with Europe and Anatolian geography and cultural provinces in the Late Bronze Age, Anatolian Studies 18, 1968, 187‒202. Mellink 1983 M. Mellink, Part 2. Archaeological comments on Ahhiyawa-Achaians in western Anatolia, American Journal of Archaeology 87, 1983, 138‒141. Momigliano 2006 N. Momigliano, Sir Arthur Evans, Greek myths and the Minoans, in: P. Darque – M. Fotiadis – O. Polychronopoulou (eds.), Mythos. La préhistoire égéenne du XIXe au XXIe siècle après J.-C. Actes de la table ronde internationale d’Athène (21‒23 Novembre 2002) (Athens 2006) 73‒80. Momigliano 2009 N. Momigliano, Minoans at Iasos?, in: C. F. MacDonald – E. Hallager – W.-D. Niemeier (eds.), The Minoans in the Central, Eastern and Northern Aegean. New Evidence. Acts of a Minoan Seminar 22‒23 January 2005 in Collaboration with the Danish Institute at Athens and the German Archaeological Institute at Athens (Athens 2009) 121‒140. Momigliano 2012 N. Momigliano, Bronze Age Carian Iasos. Structures and Finds from the Area of the Roman Agora (c. 3000‒1500 BC) (Rome 2012). Mounton et al. 2013 A. Mounton – I. Rutherford – I. Yakubovich (eds.), Luwian Identities. Culture, Language and Religion between Anatolia and the Aegean (Leiden 2013). Müller 1824 K. O. Müller, Die Dorier. Vier Bücher (Breslau 1824). Newton 1862 C. T. Newton, A History of Discoveries at Halicarnassus, Cnidus and Branchidae (London 1862). Niemeier 1998 W.-D. Niemeier, The Mycenaeans in western Anatolia and the problems of the origins of the sea peoples, in: S. Gitin – A. Mazar – E. Stern (eds.), Mediterranean Peoples in Transition. Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE. In Honour of Professor Trude Dothan (Symposium Jerusalem, 3‒7 April 1995) (Jerusalem 1998) 17‒65.

Working in the Margins

91

Niemeier 2007 W.-D. Niemeier, Westkleinasien und Ägäis von den Anfängen bis zur Ionischen Wanderung. Topographie, Geschichte und Beziehungen nach dem archäologischen Befund und den hethitischen Quellen, in: Cobet et al. 2007, 37‒96. Oikonomos 1921 G. Oikonomos, Ανασκαφαί εν Κλαζομεναίς, Πρακτικά της εν Aθήναις Aρχαιολογικής Eταιρείας 76, 1921, 63‒74. Panagiotopoulos 2012 D. Panagiotopoulos, Encountering the foreign. (De-)constructing alterity in the archaeologies of the Bronze Age Mediterranean, in: Maran – Stockhammer 2012, 51‒60. Papadopoulos 1996 J. K. Papadopoulos, Euboians in Macedonia? A closer look, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 15, 1996, 151‒181. Papadopoulos 2005 J. K. Papadopoulos, Inventing the Minoans. Archaeology, modernity and the quest for European identity, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 18, 2005, 87‒149. Popham 1994 M. R. Popham, Precolonization. Early Greek contacts with the east, in: G. R. Tsetskhladze – F. De Angelis (eds.), The Archaeology of Greek Colonization. Essays Dedicated to Sir John Boardman (Oxford 1994) 11‒34. Raymond 2005 A. Raymond, Importing culture at Miletus. Minoans and Anatolians at Middle Bronze Age Miletus, in: R. Laffineur – E. Greco (eds.), Emporia. Aegaeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference / 10e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14‒18 April 2004, Aegaeum 25 (Liège 2005) 185‒191. Raymond 2007 A. Raymond, Minoanization at Miletus. The Middle Bronze Age ceramics, in: P. P. Betancourt – M. C. Nelson (eds.), Krinoi kai Limenes. Studies in Honor of Joseph and Maria Shaw (Philadelphia 2007) 221‒229. Roux – Corbetta 1989 V. Roux – D. Corbetta, The Potter’s Wheel. Craft Specialization and Technical Competence (New Delhi 1989). Sherratt 1999 E. S. Sherratt, E pur si muove. Pots markets and values in the second millennium Mediterranean, in: J. P. Crielaard – V. Stissi – G. J. Van Wijngaarden (eds.), The Complex Past of Pottery. Production, Circulation and Consumption of Mycenaean and Greek Pottery (Sixteenth to Early Fifth Centuries BC). Proceedings of the ARCHON International Conference, held in Amsterdam, 8‒9 November 1996 (Amsterdam 1999) 163‒211. Sherratt 2009 E. S. Sherratt, Representations of Knossos and Minoan Crete in the British, American and Continental press, 1900‒c.1930, Creta Antiqua 10, 2009, 619‒649. Sherratt 2010 E. S. Sherratt, The Trojan War: history or bricolage? Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 53, 2, 2010, 1‒18. Sherratt 2011 E. S. Sherratt, Between theory, texts and archaeology. Working with the shadows, in: K. Duistermaat – I. Regulski (eds.), Intercultural Contacts in the Ancient Mediterranean. Proceedings of the International Conference at the Netherlands-Flemish Institute in Cairo, 25th to 29th October 2008 (Leuven 2011) 3‒30. Skeat 1934 T. Skeat, The Dorians in Archaeology (London 1934). Stampolidis et al. 2015 N. Ch. Stampolidis – Ç. Maner – K. Kopanias (eds.), Nostoi. Indigenous Culture, Migration and Integration in the Aegean Islands and Western Anatolia During the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age (Istanbul 2015). Steiner 2007 G. Steiner, The case of Wiluša and Ahhiyawa, Biliotheca Orientalis 64, 2007, 590‒612.

92

Rik Vaessen

Tartaron 2013 T. F. Tartaron, Maritime Networks in the Mycenaean World (Cambridge 2013). Turner 1981 F. M. Turner, The Greek Heritage in Victorian Britain (New Haven, London 1981). Vaessen 2014a R. A. Vaessen, Cultural Dynamics in Ionia at the End of the Second Millennium BCE. New Archaeological Perspectives and Prospects (PhD Diss., University of Sheffield, Sheffield 2014). Vaessen 2014b R. A. Vaessen, Ceramic developments in coastal Western Anatolia at the dawn of the Early Iron Age, in: Y. Galanakis – T. C. Wilkinson – J. Bennet (eds.), Αθύρματα. Critical Essays on the Archaeology of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honour of E. Susan Sherratt (Oxford 2014) 223‒232. Vaessen 2016 R. Vaessen, Cosmopolitanism, communality and the appropriation of Mycenaean pottery in western Anatolia, Anatolian Studies 66, 2016, 43‒65. Vaessen 2017 R. Vaessen, Western Anatolia and the Aegean during the Late Bronze Age. A view from the Gulf of Izmir, in: K. Żebrowska ‒ A. Ulanowska ‒ K. Lewartowski (eds.), Sympozjum Egejskie. Papers in Aegean Archaeology 1 (Warsaw 2017) 67‒78. Vaessen forthcoming R. A. Vaessen, Routes and roads in western Anatolia and the eastern Aegean at the end of the second millennium BC, in: L. Vandeput – M. Massa (eds.), Pathways of Communication. Routes and Roads in Anatolia from Prehistory to Seljuk Times (forthcoming). Van Dommelen 2011 P. van Dommelen (ed.), Postcolonial Archaeologies, World Archaeology 43, 2011. Van Dommelen – Rowlands 2012 P. van Dommelen – M. Rowlands, Material concerns and colonial encounters, in: J. Maran – P. W. Stockhammer (eds.), Materiality and Social Practice. Transformative Capacities of Intercultural Encounters (Oxford 2012) 20‒31. Vanschoonwinkel 2006 J. Vanschoonwinkel, Greek migrations to Aegean Anatolia in the Early Dark Age, in: G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Greek Colonisation. An Account of Greek Colonies and other Settlements Overseas (Leiden 2006) 115‒141. Vermeule 1983 E. T. Vermeule, Reponse to Hans Güterbock, American Journal of Archaeology 87, 1983, 141‒143. Vlassopoulos 2010 K. Vlassopoulos, Imperial encounters. Discourses on empire and the uses of ancient history during the eighteenth century, in: M. Bradley (ed.), Classics and Imperialism in the British Empire (Oxford 2010) 28‒53. Vlassopoulos 2013 K. Vlassopoulos, Greeks and Barbarians (Cambridge 2013). Weickert 1957 C. Weickert, Die Ausgrabungen am Athena-Tempel in Milet 1955, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 7, 1957, 102‒132. Weickert 1959/1960 C. Weickert, Die Ausgrabung beim Athena-Tempel in Milet 1957, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 9/10, 1959/1960, 1‒96. Wolf 1985 [1795] F. A. Wolf, Prolegomena to Homer. Translated with introduction and notes by Anthony Grafton, Glenn W. Most and James E. G. Zetzel (Princeton 1985). Woolley 1938 L. Woolley, Excavations at Al Mina, Sueidia. I. The archaeological report, Journal of Hellenic Studies 58, 1938, 1‒30.

Conceptualising Contact Zones and Contact Spaces: An Archaeological Perspective Philipp W. Stockhammer1 – Bogdan Athanassov2 Abstract: Our excavations in the southwestern Bulgarian mountains required that we should characterise the different settlements and spaces we have studied. In order to achieve a new understanding of the spaces we study, we argue that the concept of space in world-systems perspectives is not compatible with a performative notion of space and does not do justice to the agency and practices of individual actors. Also Social Network Analysis still needs modifications in order to integrate notions of absence and resistance. In order to enhance our understanding of intercultural contact, we discuss Marie Louise Pratt’s ‘contact zone’, Richard White’s ‘middle ground’ and Homi Bhabha’s ‘third space’. Building on this, we conceptualise the “contact space” as a dynamic, fluid space produced by actors in the context of encounters and develop a methodological approach on how to identify and classify the reactions to otherness in such contact spaces in the archaeological record. In order to create a new methodological basis for the understanding of contact spaces in archaeology, we concentrate on social practices associated with cultural encounters, but at the same time also reflect upon the spatial dimensions of contact. Keywords: World-Systems Perspective, Social Networks Analysis, Middle Ground, Contact Zone, Contact Space

Introduction When we began archaeological fieldwork in the valleys of Struma/Strymon and Mesta/Nestos in southwestern Bulgaria in 2012, we inevitably began to think about being on the ‘periphery’ of the neighbouring Aegean Bronze Age ‘civilisations’. A major task in the study of the Bronze and Iron Ages in this area is the identification of Aegean influences and local responses without reducing the inhabitants of this region to being passive recipients of innovations and luxuries from the south. We set out to understand the inhabitants of the Struma and Mesta valleys as active agents who engaged creatively within a foreign network. Moreover, it is tempting to define these river valleys surrounded by mountains as specific ‘geographical entities’ – similar to other delimited geographical areas, such as islands – and then subsequently equate them with discrete ‘cultural entities’. However, mountains and rivers do not inevitably form borders and divide or connect assumed distinct cultural groups. Borders emerge as social phenomena reflecting processes of community building, often in relation to juxtaposition to other groups and to what is currently considered to be foreign and distinct.3 Moreover, topographic obstacles – common in the Balkans – might be one of the factors that encouraged movement and increased interactions. Our excavations – first at the Late Bronze Age site of Kresna in the valley of Struma north of Sandanski in 2012 and since then at the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age site of Bresto in the upper Mesta region – required that we should characterise the different settlements and spaces



1



2 3

Institut für Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie und Provinzialrömische Archäologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany; [email protected] and Max Planck Institute for the Science of the Human History, Jena, Germany. Department for Archaeology and Archaeometry Lab, New Bulgarian University, Sofia, Bulgaria; [email protected]. Cf. already Simmel 2006 [1908]; Febvre 1973.

94

Philipp W. Stockhammer – Bogdan Athanassov

which linked them.4 In this particular case, world-systems perspectives have not provided significant insights – beyond the ability to call these valleys ‘peripheral’ and to assume that they were part of some network of contacts that linked the broader region of the Aegean and the Balkans. In the discussion that follows, we seek a new understanding of the spaces of cultural encounters at the places we study; especially at the sites of Bresto and Kresna, but also at the other archaeological sites in the valleys of Struma and Mesta. We begin with a discussion of the applicability of world-systems theory and centre-and-periphery perspectives as well as network approaches, which have recently gained in popularity. We argue that the concept of space in world-systems perspectives is not compatible with a performative notion of space and does not do justice to the agency and practices of individual actors. Social Network Analysis has contributed much to overcome the rather inflexible world-systems perspective, but we argue that it still needs modifications in order to integrate notions of absence and resistance. In order to enhance our understanding of intercultural contact, we then discuss concepts of spaces in the field of postcolonial studies, namely Marie Louise Pratt’s ‘contact zone’, Richard White’s ‘middle ground’ and Homi Bhabha’s ‘third space’. Building on this, we conceptualise the ‘contact space’ as a dynamic, fluid space produced by actors in the context of encounters and develop a methodological approach on how to identify and classify the reactions to otherness in such contact spaces in the archaeological record. In order to create a new methodological basis for the understanding of contact spaces in archaeology, we concentrate on social practices associated with cultural encounters, but at the same time also reflect upon the spatial dimensions of contact. Thereby, centrality could be released from the limitations of world-systems narratives so that it can emerge in contact spaces where intensive information is exchanged and knowledge produced. World-Systems Perspectives Despite the considerable variety and popularity5 of centre-and-periphery-models and worldsystems perspectives in archaeology, almost all of the versions and modifications of Immanuel Wallerstein’s theory share a similar concept of space. An example concerning a ‘classical’ area and time period is provided by John Bintliff, who used the world-systems perspective and dependency theory, among other models, in order to explain cycles of development and decline in prehistoric and historic Greece. The centre of his map (Fig. 1) is covered by a circular core, which dominates over the peripheries in the surrounding regions.6 Bintliff assumed that with time the peripheries became more and more dependent on the advanced core states, either as a consequence of economic exchange involving manufactured items and luxury goods in return for primary products or through ties of tribute as part of the military domination of the peripheries by the core.7 Buffer zones located between the core and the peripheries are the places where ‘native societies’ are being strongly transformed through contact while also acting as agents of change on

4



5



6



7

For a map of the area and the location of Bresto see Athanassov et al. 2012, fig. 1. First results of our fieldwork have been published in Athanassov et al. 2012. In 2002, Gil Stein noted that the world-systems perspective and acculturation models as well as their various variants have been the most widely used frameworks for the analysis of interregional interaction in both historic and prehistoric complex societies (Stein 2002, 905). He refers to Thomas Hall and Christopher Chase-Dunn (1993) who list over 100 books and journal articles applying some variant of world system modes to the archaeological record. In 2013, Anthony Harding accounts for the fact that most of the papers and books applying world-systems theory to archaeology have enthusiastically espoused it, while extensive critiques have been much fewer (Harding 2013, 378). Already in 2001, Christoph Kümmel presented a comprehensive critique of centre-periphery-models in archaeology. He noted that the discussions about the usefulness of the model had not reached any final conclusion (Kümmel 2001, 14–15; for more recent critical discussion of the model cf. Maran 2011; Kienlin 2015). Bintliff 1997, 19. Bintliff 1997, 19.

Conceptualising Contact Zones and Contact Spaces

95

the peripheries (Fig. 1–2).8 Their prototype can be found in Wallerstein’s semi-peripheries, which are introduced for the description of important “middle trading groups”.9 Andrew Sherratt called them gateway communities and pointed out the Phoenicians as a good example.10 Following Bintliff, interactions may result in major socio-political changes in the periphery, often towards more complex power structures. In the end, peripheral areas might be able to turn the system and to dominate the core and buffer zones.11 In these models, space is divided into homogenous monolithic entities – a centre, peripheries and intermediate buffer zones (Fig. 1–2). It remains open as to why landscapes like IonFig. 1   Core and peripheries in Ancient Greece as shown by ian Greece, Euboea, Magna Graecia or J. Bintliff (1997, fig. 12) other places where intensive interaction and important technical, social, political and other innovations happened are left out of Bintliff’s model (Fig. 1). We do not argue for the complete abandonment of terms like ‘core’, ‘centre’, ‘periphery, etc., even if we do agree with Gil Stein’s warning that already the use of these terms structures the discourse in a problematic way as it takes certain political and economic relations as a precondition.12 These notions become even more controversial when they are understood as part of a ‘system’ whose structure, organisation and interconnecting mechanisms often remain vaguely defined and unclear.13 The initial enthusiasm for the application of Wallerstein’s theory in archaeology is understandable because it helped archaeology move away from the overestimation of environmentally related factors – typical of neo-evolutionary approaches to the study of change. Andrew Sherratt and others successfully applied world-systems perspectives to overcome simple functionalist approaches – especially with regard to interaction and exchange among societies at different levels of social organisation.14 Sherratt was especially attracted by the idea of finding specific structural relationships between different parts of Eurasia. He was aware of the intellectual influences under which Wallerstein created his world-systems theory15 and set himself the ambitious goal to “adapt the term to the large scale core/periphery systems that began in the Near East and Egypt and spread along the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean to create the states and empires of the ancient world – in essence, to the urban oecumene and its supply areas”16. Sherratt’s core is not homogenous and consists of spatially discrete core areas of varying importance. These again had direct effects on the surrounding areas that rather suddenly moved into, and out of, peripheral status. Since it was difficult to set vast parts of later prehistoric Europe in direct relationship to



8 9

12 13 14 15 16 10 11

Bintliff 1997, 18. Wallerstein 2011 [1974], 101–202, 349. Sherratt 1993, 5. Bintliff 1997, 18. Stein 2002, 904. For a review of further examples see Harding 2013, 385. Kohl 1987, 1; Kümmel 2001, 6. For the intellectual background of Wallerstein’s model cf. Kümmel 2001, 17–18. Sherratt 1993, 4.

96

Philipp W. Stockhammer – Bogdan Athanassov

Fig. 2   Core-periphery/world-systems diagram as shown by J. Bintliff (1997, fig. 11)

the oriental and M ­ editerranean urban centres, he modified Wallerstein’s world-systems perspective and introduced Jane Schneider’s notion of the ‘margin’.17 ‘Margin’ designates areas beyond the peripheries, where ideas and technologies could spread without creating inter-dependences.18 Sherratt did not answer the question as to why these margins should be a part of the world-systems if they are not part of the dynamics in and between the centres and the peripheries. Although he rightly acknowledged that peripheries could also play an active role and re-interpret features from the cores,19 the spatial dimension of Sherratt’s centre-and-periphery model remained rather schematic, as he understood space as a series of belts, which, however, “cannot be simply read off from the geography, even though it has an underlying geographical logic”.20

19 20 17 18

Schneider 1977. Sherratt 1993, 5. Sherratt 1993, 15. Sherratt 1993, 3.

Conceptualising Contact Zones and Contact Spaces

97

World-systems perspectives have been critically analysed from countless viewpoints.21 With regard to our focus on spatial dimensions of human interaction, we want to concentrate on the discussion of the notion of space in these models. Already in 1987, Philipp Kohl remarked, “the Bronze Age world system consisted, in fact, of overlapping systems that constantly shifted and modified their boundaries due to unpredictable historical events, technological changes, or the formation and dissolution of larger political units and alliances”.22 Carl Knappett emphasised that the world-systems perspective replaced earlier, simpler notions of space as a physical container (typical of New Archaeology) with a more complex model, which only replaced the single container-like space of earlier studies with two new containers (i.e. centre and periphery).23 Chase-Dunn and Hall24 have tried to overcome this problem by defining multiple cores.25 In Knappett’s view, most scholars applying a world-systems perspective only vaguely define both kinds of space as well as the borders between them. A very obvious deficiency is that areas labelled as peripheries are viewed as the home of passive groups lacking agency or capacity to act in pursuit of their own goals of interest,26 even if authors tried to solve this problem by acknowledging an active role of the periphery in trade or military interactions.27 They are a priori assumed to possess a natural desire to adopt objects and innovations from the centre(s).28 The flow of influences is understood as unidirectional and the economic, political, military and ideological domination of the core states as absolute, extending across all social and cultural arenas. Change in peripheries occurs as a result from overemphasised interregional interaction, while the transformative importance of internal social, political and economic processes is not taken into account enough.29 Change in the assumed peripheries is often described as ‘acculturation’30 without acknowledging the creative potential of the processes of appropriation.31 Following Stein, one has to overcome the notion of stable asymmetrical interactions and fixed essentialist categories like ‘colonisers’ and ‘colonised’. One should rather emphasise the multidimensionality and processuality of identities as well as social relations.32 Therefore, heterogeneities and dynamics of social formations and conflicting social strategies due to actors’ competing interests have to be acknowledged.33 In the end, the basic assumption behind most world-systems perspectives supposes the existence of only two actors: the ‘centre’ as an active one and the ‘periphery’ as a more or less passive actor. We would like to propose a perspective that focuses on individual actors and social practices and takes their respective networks and life-worlds into account. Such an approach has most prominently been proposed by John Law34 and Bruno Latour35 and has already been conceptualised for and successfully applied in archaeology.36 However, the notion of the space where these

For comprehensive critical evaluations cf. Stein 1998; Stein 1999; Kümmel 2001; Stein 2002; Maran 2007; Knappett 2011; Maran 2011; Kienlin 2015. One major criticism is the neo-evolutionist thinking behind world-systems perspectives, the focus on institutions rather than on individual actors and their social practices and the disregard for mutual transformative processes of translation and appropriation. 22 Kohl 1987, 27; cf. also Harding 2013, 381. 23 Knappett 2011, 124. 24 Chase-Dunn – Hall 1997. 25 Cf. Bell 2006, 10. 26 Dietler 1998, 299–301; Stein 2002, 905. 27 Chase-Dunn – Hall 1997. 28 Stein 2002, 905. 29 Stein 2002, 903. 30 Stein 2002, 905; cf. e.g. Bintliff’s map on Fig. 2. 31 Stockhammer 2012a; Stockhammer 2012b; for attempts to re-conceptualise ‘acculturation’ cf. Meyer 2008; Hofmann 2014. 32 Stein 2002, 907. 33 Stein 2002, 905. 34 Law 1986; Law 1992. 35 Latour 1986; Latour 2007. 36 Maran 2011; Maran – Stockhammer 2012; Stockhammer 2012a; Stockhammer 2012b. 21

98

Philipp W. Stockhammer – Bogdan Athanassov

processes take place has not sufficiently been discussed, although space has become a major topic in anthropology as well as archaeology as a consequence of the ‘spatial turn’37 – especially with regard to the construction of space through a performative act38 and the context dependency of the perception of space.39 One of the main arguments set out here is that the shift of the perspective in the archaeological discussions from containers (spatial, social, etc.) and zones to individual local agencies, networks, practices and processes will lead to a new understanding of the spatial dimensions of intercultural interaction. Spaces and places are not linked in a unidirectional manner. On the contrary, the same place can be relevant for the constitution of several and different kinds of spaces.40 In this context, the selection of and the movement between scales of analysis is most relevant. The selection of the unit of analytical scale (household, settlement, micro-region, etc.), the movement from one scale to another and the subsequent interconnection of analytical scales significantly determine the possible results.41 Social Networks Analysis in Archaeology The critical debate of the fixed relationship between a particular place (e.g. a particular geographical region, area, etc.) and a particular space (produced by human action at a particular place) has led to a growing interest in network analysis in archaeology. Social networks analysis (SNA) seemed to solve the problem of the co-existence of spaces by merging a single place or area from an intrinsic link to a particular kind of space. Merging entities and replacing them with nodes and links between the nodes opened up the possibility to overcome oversimplified associations of certain places with centrality or marginality. SNA helps to describe and better visualise complex spatial connectedness and interaction42 by introducing a greater analytical flexibility in the definition of entities. ‘Nodes’ – the smallest units of the formal analysis – can represent individuals, households, settlements or even large areas.43 They are connected by ‘links’ which may be physical structures, such as roads and railways, or relational ties, such as friendship, kinship, etc.44 As a consequence, an emphasis is placed on an individual actor’s social practices and the links that are created by these practices. In order to bridge the gap between quantitative analysis in space and actor-centred qualitative analysis on a micro scale, Knappett recommends a middle path between physical and social determinism.45 He emphasises the potential of network approaches for bridging the gap between microsociology, which examines the interaction of individuals, and macrosociology, which studies the interaction of groups and institutions.46

39 40 41 42 37 38

43



46 44 45

E.g. Crang – Thrift 2000; Döring 2010; Knappett 2011; Hofmann 2014/2015. Löw 2001; Maran 2006. Maran 2012. Meyer – Hansen 2013; Lévy 2014. Jiménez 2005. The underlying principle of this method was set up in the 1930s when the sociogram was invented and triggered the measurement of interpersonal relations in small groups (Brughmans 2013, 632). Knappett also treats objects as nodes in human-object-networks as he considers them important enough actors in social interaction (Knappett 2011, 98, 149–172). The active role of objects in these networks has sometimes been termed ‘agency’ (Knappett 2005, 22–23) although the term ‘effectancy’ seems more appropriate in order not to give up the difference between humans and things and nevertheless to emphasise that things have an effect, but do not act between humans and things (Stockhammer 2015a; Stockhammer 2015b). Knappett 2011, 18. Knappett 2011, 125. Knappett 2011, 57; Knappett’s line of thought, which aims at integrating different scales, goes back to one of the earliest examples for the use of networks in archaeology published by Cynthia Irwin-Williams (1977). In her analysis of prehistoric trade, she describes three ‘points of view’ for exchange networks: a ‘global view’, considering the whole network; a ‘zonal view’ on only part of the network, defined in geographical, cultural or other terms; and an ‘anchored view’, focusing on the position and immediate neighbours of a point (person) in the network (Irwin-Williams 1977; cf. Brughmans 2013, 634).

Conceptualising Contact Zones and Contact Spaces

99

Although at first glance this approach seems quite formal, it has the potential to provide novel insights – at least compared to centre-periphery perspectives – because every position is a function of the access of information and connectedness of an actor and not the result of a position predefined by archaeologists in a two-dimensional space.47 Another important tenet of SNA is that a central position is not automatically associated with an eminent status position of the individual marked by the node.48 A less-central node may have a more powerful position, because the fewer links are key bridges between subgroups in the network.49 Weak networks are the ones with few ‘cutpoints’ or nodes that constitute the only connection between other nodes because the group will be vulnerable to dissolution if one of those cutpoints is removed. On the contrary, firm networks have abundant ties between nodes and numerous alternatives pathways, and are more able to withstand shocks to the system.50 Beyond the spatial dislocation of centrality, which means that actors (nodes) can possess central positions in different – if at first glance peripheral – locations, a considerable advantage of SNA follows from the fact that a node (person, household or settlement) can be central with respect to one criterion (like economic production, for example) and at the same time peripheral with respect to other attributes (religious importance, innovative potential, etc.). Centrality is always a relative feature of an actor. It is a result of human practice that exceeds the realm of economy as in world-systems and not a consequence of pre-existing spatial realities. It is noteworthy that the participation within various and intersecting economic, social, religious, cultural, political, etc. networks can provide opportunities for individual action, but could also restrict and constrain the individual.51 However, it is important to emphasise that most archaeological studies of connectivity underestimate the aspect of rejection of contact and interaction. In our view, one should look for actors who seem to be outside the network or who got lost within the network over time. At first glance, this contradicts the logic of SNA, which tries to identify key nodes (human actors) in a network. If we assume that complexity usually arises in open and evolving networks,52 it follows that actors who are exposed to the information flowing through a network – but whom we do not define as nodes – become equally important for the analysis, especially if we can assume that they intentionally refused to become part of a network. By rejecting some kind of structured participation within the network, they weakened it and therefore influenced its development. From an analytical perspective, they are nevertheless nodes, as their existence influenced the practices and worldviews of other actors. Bruno Latour correctly understands them as actors, or actants, within his Actor-Network-Theory,53 but does not provide us with a methodological basis with which to conceptualise the influence of these actors, who have an effect, but do not act – and, therefore, possess an ‘effectancy’ rather than an ‘agency’.54 Knappett rightly emphasised that even the absence of an actor (e.g. an object) can serve as a node, as it has the power to influence the network.55 SNA in archaeology enables us to better describe and understand different kinds of contacts and allows for a much more precise examination of centrality, while helping us to overcome container-like spatial entities such as the radial centre-and-periphery model. Centrality is – in contrast to world-systems – not a function of spatial belonging to a place, considered to be a core, but a consequence of participation with various and intersecting networks.

49 50 51 52 53 54 55 47 48

Brughmans 2013, 636. Brughmans 2013, 638. Knappett 2011, 42. Blake 2014, 79. Brughmans 2013, 633. Brughmans 2013, 625. Latour 2007. Stockhammer 2015a; Stockhammer 2015b. Knappett 2011, 10; Knappett 2013.

100

Philipp W. Stockhammer – Bogdan Athanassov

Network approaches have been criticised for being too formal and static.56 Beyond this justified assessment, further problems of SNA are the re-connection of node-related spaces with places and the acknowledgement of absence and resistance. In our view, postcolonial studies dealing with interaction can supplement SNA with a more refined perspective on and understanding of practices of contact, especially with regard to notions of transformation and rejection. Mary Pratt’s ‘Contact Zone’ In the humanities, the discourse about intercultural encounters in its spatial dimension is linked with the notion of the ‘contact zone’, which has enjoyed much popularity for the last two decades.57 This interdisciplinary popularity may also be due to the easy literal reading of the term, as ‘contact zone’ consists of two different nouns, namely ‘contact’ and ‘zone’, which are both easily understood at first glance: ‘contact’ points to human interaction and ‘zone’ to its spatial relation. Therefore, ‘contact zone’ refers to some kind of interaction at a particular place. This seemingly obvious literal understanding has led to the problem that an explicit definition has often seemed to be unnecessary, especially when people of different disciplines have used ‘contact zone in their discussions. This is exactly the point where the problem starts and why this very concept calls for further reflections on its definition and epistemological potential if we wish to appropriate it for archaeology. The most prominent definition of ‘contact zone’ in the humanities is based on a short article and subsequent monograph by Marie Louise Pratt. In 1991, she published “Arts of the Contact Zone” and in the subsequent year (1992) Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation.58 She defines ‘contact zones’ as “social spaces where disparate cultures meet, clash, and grapple with each other, often in highly asymmetrical relations of domination and subordination – like colonialism, slavery, or their aftermaths”.59 As a consequence, her definition of ‘contact zones’ is based on two underlying concepts, i.e. ‘social space’ and the transformative power of colonial encounters. With the noun ‘contact’ she aims to underline “the interactive, improvisational dimensions of colonial encounters”60 as the basis of ‘transculturation’. Pratt’s understanding of ‘contact’ is very much influenced by the notion of ‘contact language’ in linguistics, where it refers to an improvised language that develops among speakers of different tongues who need to communicate with each other consistently, usually in the context of trade.61 Due to her background in linguistics, Pratt is interested in the spoken and written consequences of contact. She has worked with travel accounts from (European) seafarers, conquerors, captives or diplomats, and also sheds light on intercultural sexual alliances and marriages62 – since contact zones are not only produced in situations of conquest and war, although the asymmetrical character of the encounters remains crucial for her. She also focuses on bilingualism, pidginisation and dialogue, which create the basis of what she designates as ‘transculturation’, thereby following Ferdinando Ortiz’s nomenclature.63

Sheller 2004. This is not the place to cover the large body of literature in many different disciplines that have followed and discussed Pratt’s influential writings (e.g. Clifford 1997; Schorch 2013 with further literature). Critical voices have pointed out that she represented the meeting cultures as too compact or put too much emphasis on texts and narratives. Christoph Ulf (2014) chose ‘contact zone’ as an overarching term under which very different kinds of places and spaces were subsumed. 58 Pratt 1991; Pratt 2008 [1992]. 59 Pratt 2008 [1992], 7; almost identical: Pratt 1991, 1. 60 Pratt 2008 [1992], 8. 61 Pratt 2008 [1992], 8. 62 Pratt 2008 [1992], 84–106 63 Ortiz 1995 [1947]. 56 57

Conceptualising Contact Zones and Contact Spaces

101

Pratt states clearly: “Transculturation is a phenomenon of the contact zone”.64 It is the key feature for its distinction. The textual sources evaluated by Pratt share a common feature – that in all of them the action takes place on the margins of the influence of colonial powers. That is why Pratt states that ‘contact zone’ in her discussion is often synonymous with ‘colonial frontier’. But while the latter term is grounded within a European expansionist perspective (the frontier is a frontier only with respect to Europe), “‘contact zone’ shifts the center of gravity and the point of view”.65 In contrast to ‘contact’, the noun ‘zone’ is simply defined as ‘social space’66 and there is hardly any other information about her understanding of ‘space’, other than that ‘contact zone’ designates “the space in which peoples geographically and historically separated come into contact with each other and establish on-going relations”.67 Pratt does not recognise this ‘social space’ as a permanent attribute of a particular geographical space, as the use of the word ‘zone’ might suppose. Frontier and contact zones are produced in the description and are created by factors ranging from the people who have made contact, up to the audiences of their texts. The social nature of Pratt’s contact zone is probably the reason why she concentrates on narratives and texts and not on physical or geographical characteristics of the contact zone. Pratt’s frontiers are not linear boundaries separating people, but liminal mosaics where different people meet.68 The question John Adams asks in his 1747 preface to Ulloa’s Voyage to South America, “What idea can we form of a Turkey carpet, if we look only at the border, or it may be, at the selvage?”69, underlines her understanding of space and frontiers. Travellers with various motivations and background left the 18th century ‘carpet’s border’ and crossed existing frontiers. They followed rivers or turned towards continental interiors as opposed to known, maritime routes already well controlled by maritime powers. As a consequence, they met different people and a new contact zone was brought into being. The concept is extremely dynamic, since the next interaction of another traveller created yet another contact space. We largely agree with Pratt’s dynamic understanding of the contact zone, as it focuses on its momentary state and on its shifting perception by past actors and/or present-day scholars. This adaptability fits well with the necessity to shift units and sales of analysis70 and to apply multisited approaches in the sense of George Marcus’ multi-sited ethnography,71 which integrates the study of very different spaces and places in the analyses of a certain social phenomenon. However, we would like to appropriate her model in three different aspects: First, we would like to speak of ‘contact spaces’ instead of ‘contact zones’. Pratt’s notion does not refer to a unified belt-like space, as the word ‘zone’ might suppose, but to a momentary social space where social interaction happens.72 This interaction leads to phenomena that Pratt terms ‘transcultural’73 or which we would call ‘entangled’ (in the sense of Stockhammer 2012a; Stockhammer 2012b). However, Pratt does not seem to be interested in the link between her fluid spaces and particular places. In her concept, this link remains open and place does not seem to be an important category. Secondly, we would emphasise that Pratt’s ‘disparate cultures’, which meet and constitute the contact zone at this very moment,74 are nothing more than entities created during the scholarly

66 67 68 69 70 71 72

Pratt 2008 [1992], 7; almost identical: Pratt 1991, 2. Pratt 2008 [1992], 8. Pratt 1991, 1; Pratt 2008 [1992], 7. Pratt 2008 [1992], 8. Blake 2004, 240. Pratt 2008 [1992], 23. Jiménez 2005. Marcus 1995. This is not the place to review the conceptualisation of ‘space’, which has been a most vivid issue not only since the proclamation of the spatial turn (for an overview cf. Crang – Thrift 2000; Günzel 2010; Knappett 2011; Hofmann 2014/2015). 73 In the sense of Ortiz 1995 [1947]. 74 Pratt 2008 [1992], 7. 64 65

102

Philipp W. Stockhammer – Bogdan Athanassov

analysis. Especially in (early) modern colonial situations, the definition of such disparate entities seems most natural, but we should not forget that even in these contexts the perception and definition of entities is nevertheless a heuristic step in the analysis and not the acknowledgement of existing entities. Although Pratt chose Ortiz’s notion of ‘transculturation’, her understanding of intercultural admixture seems to be rooted in the biological understanding of terms like hybridisation and not related to our own understanding of ‘transculturality’.75 Following Ortiz, ‘transculturation’ denotes a process of transformation that unfolds through extended contacts and relationships between cultures.76 Transcultural Studies took this as a starting point, but have gone beyond this understanding by emphasising that there are no ‘pure’ or discrete cultures, but all social phenomena defined by us as cultures are the result of transcultural entanglements which again also have a long history and must not be linked with modernity only. We follow this transcultural approach in order to overcome a notion of culture defined as ethnically bounded and contained within a territorial frame, i.e. the traditional, container-like understanding of culture.77 We argue that cultures are invariably constituted by interaction, entanglement and reconfiguration. Cultures are, therefore, processes in continuous reconfiguration due to intercultural contact. Processes of identity formation and stabilisations of cultural norms are also important features of a contact space, as entanglement and persistency are in a dialectic relationship with each other. By no means should the whole world be understood as a ‘contact space’, even if different people and groups constantly encounter almost everywhere. However, such a broad understanding would deprive the concept of its epistemological value. It has to be applied in a precise and careful manner in the context of the analysis of specific historical situations. As a consequence of our discussion, we would like to rephrase Pratt’s definition of the contact zone as follows: contact spaces are social spaces produced instantaneously where human actors meet, perceive and constitute otherness, clash and grapple with each other.78 Pratt emphasises that not every encounter in a contact zone has an aggressive character, as she points out interracial love and marriages and peaceful experiences of herborisers and other travellers. In his theory of the middle ground, Richard White goes further and defines a space where intercultural encounters are pursued by force and violence, but nevertheless lead to persuasion, coexistence and finally the creation of new socio-political organisations situated beyond official central (imperial) control. Richard White’s Middle Ground In the same year as Pratt’s Imperial Eyes, Richard White published his monograph, The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lake Region, 1650–181579 White created his concept of the ‘middle ground’ in order to overcome simplified notions of acculturation in his analysis of the encounter of European settlers and local native populations in North America: “The middle ground is the place in between: in between cultures, peoples, and in between empires and the non-state world of villages.”80 Following White’s argument, the “middle ground grew according to the need of people to find a means, other than force, to gain the cooperation or consent

Pratt’s understanding of ‘transculturation’ seems to be influenced by her background in linguistics and Mikhail Bakhtin’s (1981; cf. Ackermann 2012) notion of ‘organic hybridity’ – i.e. the biological understanding of hybridity – which still dominates in Linguistics (Sanchez-Stockhammer 2012). 76 Ortiz 1995 [1947]. 77 Eibach et al. 2012; Juneja – Falser 2013; Flüchter – Schöttli 2015. 78 Pratt 2008 [1992], 7; One could add that an important aspect of ‘contact’ is the contact between humans and things (e.g. Hahn 2005; Knappett 2005; Miller 2010; Stockhammer – Hahn 2015). However, this goes beyond the scope of this article. 79 White 1991. 80 White 2011, x. 75

Conceptualising Contact Zones and Contact Spaces

103

of foreigners”.81 Taking White literally, the middle ground was not produced – instead, it is the analytical denomination of a particular place in which the actors “operated on the middle ground” or “in the middle ground”.82 Contrary to some take-overs of the concept for archaeology,83 the middle ground should not be understood as a demilitarised zone. White insists that it is also not simply about a compromise between two collaborating parties (a phenomenon widely recognised before him), but about the process of mediation.84 Therefore, one must not underrate the violent character of the middle ground and also not overemphasise the act of persuasion, as the notion of misunderstanding is crucial for White.85 An important prerequisite for the creation of a middle ground is a rough balance of power, or the inability on both sides to exert enough power to force the other side to change. As a consequence, the alliance rests on constant war-and-peace-making. Another crucial feature is the mutual need or desire for the possessions of the other side.86 Following White, the middle ground emerged as an alliance in the Upper Country of French Canada because “whites could neither dictate to Indians, nor ignore them”.87 Thereby, a new system of meeting and exchange was created.88 One of the reasons for the popularity of White’s ideas is that he neither sees mediation in the Upper Country as a French invention and imposition, nor as an Indian diplomatic strategy of compromise in order to survive. For him, it was the emergence of a new hybrid world, where creative misunderstandings were capitalised.89 Another reason for the popularity of the ‘middle ground’ is that it has turned to a powerful trope providing “one of the best articulations of the practice of new cultural production in cross-social and cross-political contexts”90 – similar to Pratt’s contact zones.91 For our discussion, it is relevant that, in White’s case, the actors of the imperial powers and the native villagers constitute equal partners during the encounters – neither falling in the limitations of world-systems perspectives nor ignoring the imperial agency. While the middle ground or contact space is liminal in respect to the different actors who encounter each other, it can nevertheless acquire aspects of centrality. The mutual interest of e.g. trading powers and allies in their endeavour to get along with each other (linguistically, culturally, economically) generates previously unseen flows of information and knowledge. Even if White’s notion refers to a particular case of a contact space, his emphasis on the importance of the performative practice of communication and the making of meaning form an important contribution to the study of intercultural interaction.92

83 84 85 86 87 88 89

White 2011, 52. White 2011, 52. Malkin 2011; Antonaccio 2013. White 2011, xii. White 2006, 10; White 2011, xiii. White 2006, 10. White 2011, xxvi; cf. Deloria 2006, 16. White 2011, xxvi. White 2011, xxi; The emphasis of misunderstandings as an important path of communication (White 2006, 13; White 2011, xiii, xx, xxi, xxiv) reminds one of Bruno Latour’s (1986) – and subsequently – Joseph Maran’s (2011, 283) notion of ‘lost in translation’, who stress that only the transformation of meaning through translation made foreign practices, objects and ideas accessible to the local context. 90 Deloria 2006, 16. 91 In his analysis of colonial encounters in Iron Age France, Michael Dietler (2010, 13) refers to both Pratt and White, but prefers the term ‘contact zone’. 92 The concept of the ‘middle ground’ has rarely been introduced into historical or archaeological analyses. Most prominently is the work of Irad Malkin, who uses ‘middle ground’ in a less conceptual but rather broad metaphorical way for places which he chose as a focus of historical analysis (e.g. Malkin 1998; Malkin 2001). Christoph Ulf (2014) understands the ‘middle ground’ as a particular category of a contact zone (not in the sense of Pratt, but rather the general communis opinio). In his view, the ‘middle ground’ might be a useful analytical concept if it is used in White’s narrow definition, instead of a rather metaphorical way. 81 82

104

Philipp W. Stockhammer – Bogdan Athanassov

Homi Bhabha’s Third Space Whereas, Pratt uses the word ‘transculturation’, she does not use the word ‘hybridity’ a single time in these two publications, although her understanding of the phenomena and dynamics in the contact zone read almost identical to what Homi Bhabha only three years later called ‘hybridity’ in his seminal monograph, ‘The Location of Culture’.93 In 1994, the first edition of Bhabha’s The Location of Culture appeared and can be considered as a milestone in postcolonial studies. Until now, this work has dominated the postcolonial understanding of key terms like ‘hybridity’ and ‘third space’. It is most interesting that Bhabha himself defines ‘hybridity’ as a particular space, e.g. by using a stairwell as a metaphor for the description of ‘hybridity’: “The stairwell as liminal space, in-between the designations of identity, becomes the process of symbolic interaction, the connective tissue that constructs the difference between upper and lower, black and white. The hither and thither of the stairwell, the temporal movement and passage that it allows, prevents identities at either end of it from settling into primordial polarities. This interstitial passage between fixed identifications opens up the possibility of a cultural hybridity that entertains difference without an assumed or imposed hierarchy”.94 For Bhabha, the metaphor of the space is crucial for defining and understanding the hybrid. Hybridity is ‘in-between’; it is a ‘third space’. Bhabha’s ‘hybridity’ is inseparably connected with space – it is a space in itself, a “hybrid cultural space”95: “It is in this hybrid gap … that the colonial subject takes place, its subaltern position inscribed in that space of interaction”.96 It is most interesting to see that Bhabha develops a spatial concept that, described as the space of colonial encounters and struggles, power asymmetries and subaltern dynamics, reads so similar to what Pratt defines as a contact zone. Bhabha refers neither to Pratt’s nor White’s publications a single time and also does not use the terms ‘contact zone’ or ‘middle ground’ in his book. Also ‘transculturation does not appear in his text. As a consequence, between 1991 and 1994 three seminal works of postcolonial studies were published, one of which (Pratt) defines ‘contact zone’ as the space of the ‘transcultural’ or ‘hybrid’ and another (Bhabha) defines ‘hybrid’ as a space.97 Without closer examination of both works, we are running the risk of a vicious circle – especially if Bhabha and Pratt are quoted together when referring to colonial encounters and their results with relation to space. In order to escape, we should understand ‘contact zone’ and ‘hybridity’ as two sides of the same coin: phenomena of cultural hybridisation cannot exist without some kind of space and, at the same time, a ‘contact zone’ or ‘contact space’ is the very space where cultural hybridisation takes place. We have already remarked that by speaking of ‘disparate cultures’ Pratt carries the risk of introducing the problematic notion of monolithic, distinct cultures through the back door. This stands in contrast to the transcultural approach which forms the basis of our thinking. A very similar problem concerns Bhabha’s ‘hybridity’, which carries the risk of re-introducing the problematic notion of ‘purity’, as both concepts are inseparably connected with each other.98 However, as it takes ‘two to tango’ we have to live with the problem that our understanding of cultures has to bridge essentialism and entanglement as well as hybridity calls for purity.99 We have to admit that in order to define a contact space, we have to first define at least two other entities – whose definition is, again, artificial to a certain degree.100 Therefore, we define closed, spatially segregated

95 96 97 98 99

Bhabha 2007 [1994]. Bhabha 2007 [1994], 4. Bhabha 2007 [1994], 7. Bhabha 2007 [1994], 58–59. White neither uses the word ‘hybridity’ nor ‘transculturation/transculturality’. Stockhammer 2012c, 1–2. Stockhammer 2013. 100 We are aware of the fact that our categorisations are influenced by our life-world – especially in its material dimensions – as the objects, landscapes, etc., which surround us, restrict and structure our thinking through their perception (Colloredo-Mansfeld 2003). Thinking, acting and perceiving are intrinsically linked with each other (Frers 2009, 188; Stockhammer 2015b) and in this line of thought our categorisations are never completely arbitrary. 93 94

Conceptualising Contact Zones and Contact Spaces

105

entities in order to analyse contacts between these entities in what we designate as “contact space” in a second step. From an epistemological point of view, the ‘contact space’ is what falls between the analytical categories defined by us.101 One could call it the double bias of the ‘contact space’: it is ‘in-between’ our categories – similar to the hybrid; it comprises myriad features that are left unclassified; it is the accidental remaining social space that does not fit into the more or less arbitrarily classified space. As our categories are never all-inclusive, we should not wonder that there are always remaining spaces that cannot be attributed to a certain type of class. Something always remains outside. It is important to be aware of these analytical steps as they determine the results of our analysis. We believe the concept may be helpful if it is applied in a reflective manner and connected with a targeted methodology. Similar to ‘hybridity’, ‘contact space’ must not be used in a metaphorical way. Of course, basically everywhere could be a contact space. However, for our research, only situations or places characterised by a particular intensity of human contact are relevant. The danger is not inherent in the term, but in its unreflective use. Archaeological Appropriation of the Contact Space Modifying Pratt, we have defined contact spaces as instantaneously produced social spaces where human actors meet, perceive and constitute otherness, clash, and grapple with each other. However, we now have to transform this rather abstract definition into a heuristically useful methodological approach for archaeology. In our view, this deduction of a methodology from the conceptual level has to start again with the understanding of ‘contact’, which means nothing more than some kind of encounter of at least two different entities. All current approaches in the cultural and social sciences immediately identify this encounter as the starting point for further dynamic processes. For many archaeologists – especially when applying a world-systems perspective – contact is defined by, and always leads to, the appearance of objects, practices, ideologies, etc. from different – often distant – regions. This is due to archaeologists’ epistemological ability to identify intercultural contact, which relies on three prerequisites: first, the definition of ‘archaeological cultures’, whose definition is always related to spatial phenomena;102 secondly, the perception of differences in the archaeological record in the sense that something is found and/or documented which differs from the general evidence at a certain place or area; and which, thirdly, can be linked to archaeological evidence from different places and/or archaeological ‘cultures’, where those objects seem to be the norm rather than the exception. Therefore, when archaeologists speak of cultural contact, they refer e.g. to Bronze Age Aegean pottery found at the Southern Levant or Spain or Mediterranean dishes found in Early Iron Age Celtic contexts north of the Alps. As we have argued above, Pratt, White, Bhabha and most other scholars from the cultural and social sciences – especially if sympathising with postcolonial studies – commonly understand ‘contact space’ as the field of transculturation, hybridity, translation, misunderstandings and entanglement and, therefore, as an ‘appropriation space’, where the transformative dynamics of cultural encounter have their greatest power. These scholars emphasise the creative potential, strategies of appropriation and power asymmetries in these spaces. For them, contact spaces are marked by entangled objects and practices and, therefore, are marked again by the existence of materialised remainders of the contact.103 To sum up, archaeology identifies contact and concludes sameness, while most other disciplines identify contact and conclude difference. Both kinds of approaches are linked by the fact

Stockhammer 2013. Hofmann 2015. 103 Even if textual evidence is chosen as the basis of analysis, it is nevertheless the materiality of the object that carries the writing, whose preservation through time is the crucial prerequisite for every analysis (cf. Hilgert 2010; Hilgert 2014). 101 102

106

Philipp W. Stockhammer – Bogdan Athanassov

that they base their argument on what they identify as a (possible) material remnant of contact, i.e. the product of a process of relational and material entanglement.104 However, it is also possible that an encounter has no obvious material consequences. Nevertheless, it is still an encounter. This kind of encounter, the encounter without obvious material consequences, is most difficult to understand, as the other remains absent in the record and the degree of intentionality of the absence of the foreign can differ widely – from a lack of interest or an accidental overlooking of the other up to its intentional rejection. Depending on the degree of intentionality, the ignorance or rejection of the foreign has the potential to unfold most important transformative power within a society. In the following, we want to understand all kinds of encounters without consequences as ‘ignorance/rejection’ – irrespective of its motivation – and must not be confused with the absence of encounters. Therefore, if we take ‘contact’ literally, we have to include the three different dimensions of ‘contact’ in our analysis, i.e. acceptance, appropriation and ignorance/rejection.105 If we take a transcultural approach seriously, we have to acknowledge that the default mode of human existence is not isolation, but contact and interconnectedness, accepting that the degree of such interaction was lower in prehistory due to lower population density and greater difficulty in traversing significant distances. Acceptance and appropriation of the other are the rule rather than the exception. Therefore, it is most important to ask why certain kinds of objects, practices etc. did not find respective interest – especially if there are good arguments for the existence of cultural bounds and/or intense intercultural connectivity. Why did the inhabitants of a particular settlement use foreign pottery while those in the contemporary settlement of similar size nearby did not? Why do we find foreign architecture only at one site, whereas the degree of connectivity and the accessibility of raw materials would have allowed other sites nearby to construct their buildings and fortifications in a similar way? In many cases, some vaguely-defined elite has been taken as an argument – an elite, whose existence was mostly postulated on the basis of these very foreign elements. The lack of material evidence for contact can nevertheless indicate a most vivid contact space, which is obscured to our archaeological eye due to the fact that there are no material remnants of it, because encountering the other resulted in its rejection. It is difficult to speak about types of contact that left no direct material evidence.106 However, intentional rejection may leave traces in the archaeological record – albeit indirectly; a possible hint for rejection of otherness could be an increasing emphasis of what is perceived as typically local and associated with processes of homogenisation. Constancy and continuity of cultural elements and the invention of traditions could further result from practices of rejection. Summary We are convinced that the concept of the ‘contact space’ has substantial analytical potential. However, it must be used in a reflective way. Every contact zone is an arbitrary and artificial construct – as are all cultural and transcultural entities defined in the course of our analysis. Therefore, we define ‘contact space’ as instantaneously produced social spaces where human actors meet, perceive and constitute otherness, clash, and grapple with each other. Moreover, we have to take all three possible and different results of contact into consideration: acceptance, appropriation and ignorance/rejection are three basic cultural practices which result from intercultural contact as part of the contact space which is constituted by the moment of encounter and stabilised by the respective practices which are triggered by the encounter. Each of these can go hand in hand

Stockhammer 2012a. Burke 2000, 28–34 defines ‘acceptance’, ‘rejection’ and ‘segregation’ as the three possible reactions in context of cultural encounter. His ‘acceptance’ comprises our ‘acceptance’ as well as ‘appropriation’, which differentiation is especially important if one wants to understand the particularities of the archaeologists’ approach. 106 Nevertheless, an anthropology/archaeology of absence (Bille et al. 2010) can be a fruitful approach. 104 105

Conceptualising Contact Zones and Contact Spaces

107

with each other, e.g. by accepting some foreign aspects while at the very same moment rejecting others. Studying cultural encounters at a predefined place always has to acknowledge all three cultural practices. The first two can be identified in the archaeological record quite easily and acceptance and appropriation can be differentiated when a contextual and practice-related approach is applied. The identification of ignorance/rejection is more difficult and requests the study of processes of homogenisation, essentialisation and traditionalisation. This analytical toolbox will provide the basis for our further study of the archaeological evidence at Bresto in order to achieve novel insights into the spaces and their production. Acknowledgements: We would like to thank those people and institutions that have made our fieldwork in Bresto possible in the last years. Philipp W. Stockhammer’s research has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research innovation programme (ERC-2015-StG 678901-FoodTransforms) as part of his ongoing ERC Starting Grant project “FoodTransforms: Transformations of Food in the Eastern Mediterranean Late Bronze Age”. From 2012–2015, his fieldwork in Bulgaria was also financed by the Institute of Prehistory, Early History and Near Eastern Archaeology, the Heidelberg Center for Transcultural Studies and the Cluster of Excellence “Asia and Europe in a Global Context”, all three at Heidelberg University. The American Research Centre in Sofia and America for Bulgaria Foundation (Project B. Athanassov, J. Gorczyk, N. Russell) enabled our fieldwork in 2013 and 2014. The Bulgarian Ministry of Culture kindly supported us in 2015. Last but not least, we would like to thank our wonderful fieldwork teams of the ongoing excavations since 2012, the Municipality of Razlog and the local community in Banya. We also would like to thank Magda Pieniążek and Stefanos Gimatzidis for their invitation to contribute to the volume, Kerstin Hofmann for a most helpful discussion of a previous version of our article and Carol Bell for important critical remarks as well as having a critical look at our English. Finally, we thank Stefanie Eisenmann for taking over the copy editing of our manuscript.

References Ackermann 2012 A. Ackermann, Cultural hybridity. Between metaphor and empiricism, in: Stockhammer 2012d, 5–25. Antonaccio 2013 C. Antonaccio, Networking the middle ground? The Greek diaspora, tenth to fifth century BC, Archaeological Review from Cambridge 28, 1, 2013, 237–251. Athanassov et al. 2012 B. Athanassov – I. Kulov – P. W. Stockhammer, Siedlungen der späten Bronze- und frühen Eisenzeit in Südwestbulgarien. Vorbericht zu den deutsch-bulgarischen Forschungen 2012 im Struma- und Mestatal, Eurasia Antiqua 18, 2012, 113–152. Bakhtin 1981 M. Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination. Four Essays (Austin 1981). Bell 2006 C. Bell, The Evolution of Long Distance Trading Relationships across the LBA/Iron Age Transition on the Northern Levantine Coast. Crisis, Continuity and Change, British Archaeological Reports International Series 1574 (Oxford 2006). Bhabha 2007 [1994] H. K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture (London, New York 2007 [1994]). Bille et al. 2010 M. Bille – F. Hastrup – T. Flohr Sørensen (eds.), An Anthropology of Absence. Materializations of Transcendence and Loss (New York 2010). Bintliff 1997 J. Bintliff, Regional survey, demography and the rise of complex societies in the ancient Aegean. Core periphery, NeoMarxism, and other interpretive models, Journal of Field Archaeology 24, 1, 1997, 1–38. Blake 2004 E. Blake, Space, Spatiality, and Archaeology, in: L. Meskell – R. W. Preucel (eds.), A Companion to Social Archaeology (Malden, Oxford, Carlton 2004) 230–254.

108

Philipp W. Stockhammer – Bogdan Athanassov

Blake 2014 E. Blake, Social Networks and Regional Identity in Bronze Age Italy (New York 2014). Brughmans 2013 T. Brughmans, Thinking through networks. A review of formal network methods in archaeology, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 20, 2013, 623–662. Burke 2000 P. Burke, Kultureller Austausch (Frankfurt a. M. 2000). Chase-Dunn – Hall 1997 C. Chase-Dunn – T. Hall, Rise and Demise. Comparing World-Systems (Boulder 1997). Clifford 1997 J. Clifford, Routes. Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century (Cambridge, London 1997). Colloredo-Mansfeld 2003 R. Colloredo-Mansfeld, Consuming Andean televisions, Journal of Material Culture 8, 3, 2003, 273–284. Crang – Thrift 2000 M. Crang – N. Thrift (eds.), Thinking Space (London, New York 2000). Deloria 2006 P. J. Deloria, What is the middle ground, anyway?, The William and Mary Quarterly 63, 1, 2006, 15–22. Dietler 1998 M. Dietler, Consumption, agency, and cultural entanglement. Theoretical implications of a Mediterranean colonial encounter, in: J. G. Cusick (ed.), Studies in Culture Contact. Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology (Carbondale 1998) 288–315. Dietler 2010 M. Dietler, Archaeologies of Colonialism. Consumption, Entanglement, and Violence in Ancient Mediterranean France (Berkley 2010). Döring 2010 J. Döring, Spatial turn, in: Günzel 2010, 90–99. Eibach et al. 2012 J. Eibach – C. Opitz-Belakhal – M. Juneja, Kultur, Kulturtransfer und Grenzüberschreitungen. Joachim Eibach und Claudia Opitz im Gespräch mit Monica Juneja, Zeitenblicke 11, 1, November 7, 2002. Online (last accessed 1 Aug. 2015). Febvre 1973 L. Febvre, Frontière. The word and the concept, in: P. Burke (ed.), A New Kind of History from the Writings of Febvre (London 1973) 208–218. Flüchter – Schöttli 2015 A. Flüchter – J. Schöttli, Introduction, in: A. Flüchter – J. Schöttli (eds.), The Dynamics of Transculturality. Concepts and Institutions in Motion, Transcultural Research. Heidelberg Studies on Asia and Europe in a Global Context (Berlin, Heidelberg 2015) 1–23. Frers 2009 L. Frers, Herausfordernde Materialitäten. Gegenstände, Methoden, Konzepte, Berichte zur deutschen Landeskunde 83, 2, 2009, 177–191. Günzel 2010 S. Günzel (ed.), Raum. Ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch (Stuttgart 2010). Hahn 2005 H. P. Hahn, Materielle Kultur. Eine Einführung (Berlin 2005).

Conceptualising Contact Zones and Contact Spaces

109

Hall – Chase-Dunn 1993 T. Hall – C. Chase-Dunn, The world-systems perspective and archaeology. Forward into the past, Journal of Archaeological Research 1, 2, 1993, 121–143. Harding 2013 A. Harding, World systems, cores and peripheries in prehistoric Europe, European Journal of Archaeology 16, 2013, 378–400. Hilgert 2010 M. Hilgert, ‚Text-Anthropologie‘. Die Erforschung von Materialität und Präsenz des Geschriebenen als hermeneutische Strategie, in: M. Hilgert (ed.), Altorientalistik im 21. Jahrhundert. Selbstverständnis, Herausforderungen, Ziele, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 142 (Berlin 2010) 85–124. Hilgert 2014 M. Hilgert, Praxeologisch perspektivierte Artefaktanalysen des Geschriebenen. Zum heuristischen Potential der materialen Textkulturforschung, in: F. Elias – A. Franz – U. W. Weiser – H. Murmann (eds.), Praxeologie. Beiträge zur interdisziplinären Reichweite praxistheoretischer Ansätze in den Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften, Materiale Textkulturen 3 (Berlin 2014) 149–164. Hofmann 2014 K. P. Hofmann, Akkulturation und die Konstituierung von Identitäten. Einige theoretische Überlegungen anhand des Fallbeispiels der hogbacks, in: K. P. Hofmann – H. Kamp – M. Wemhoff (eds.), Die Wikinger und das Fränkische Reich. Identitäten zwischen Konfrontation und Annäherung, MittelalterStudien 29 (Paderborn 2014) 21–50. Hofmann 2014/2015 K. P. Hofmann, (Post)Moderne Raumkonzepte und die Erforschung des Altertums, Geographia Antiqua 23–24, Geografia e storia: antico e moderno, Geographie und Geschichte: antik und modern, Humboldt Kolleg, Perugia, 19.–21. Settembre 2013 (Perugia 2014/2015) 25–42. Hofmann 2015 K. P. Hofmann, Fundverbreitungen, archäologische Grenzziehungen und Identitätsräume. Zum methodologischen Territorialismus der Bronzezeitforschung, in: A. Jockenhövel – U. Dietz (eds.), 50 Jahre Prähistorische Bronzefunde. Bilanz und Perspektiven. Beiträge zum internationalen Kolloquium am 24.–26. September 2014 in Mainz, Prähistorische Bronzefunde XX (Stuttgart 2015) 14. Irwin-Williams 1977 C. Irwin-Williams, A Network Model for the Analysis of Prehistoric Trade, in: T. K. Earle – J. E. Ericson (eds.), Exchange Systems in Prehistory (London, New York 1977) 141–151. Jiménez 2005 A. C. Jiménez, Changing scales and the scales of change. Ethnography and political economy in Antofagasta, Chile, Critique of Anthropology 25, 2, 2005, 157–176. Juneja – Falser 2013 M. Juneja – M. Falser, Kulturerbe – Denkmalpflege: transkulturell. Eine Einleitung, in: M. Falser – M. Juneja (eds.), Kulturerbe und Denkmalpflege transkulturell. Grenzgänge zwischen Theorie und Praxis (Bielefeld 2013) 17–34. Kienlin 2015 T. L. Kienlin, All heroes in their armour bright and shining? Comments on the Bronze Age ‘other’, in: T. L. Kienlin (ed.), Fremdheit – Perspektiven auf das Andere. Kölner Beiträge zu Archäologie und Kulturwissenschaften 1, Uni­ versitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 264 (Bonn 2015) 153–193. Knappett 2005 C. Knappett, Thinking through Material Culture. An Interdisciplinary Perspective (Philadelphia PA 2005). Knappett 2011 C. Knappett, An Archaeology of Interaction. Network Perspectives on Material Culture and Society (Oxford 2011). Knappett 2013 C. Knappett, Imprints as punctuations of material itineraries, in: H. P. Hahn – H. Weiss (eds.), Mobility, Meaning and Transformations of Things (Oxford 2013) 37–49.

110

Philipp W. Stockhammer – Bogdan Athanassov

Kohl 1987 P. Kohl, The use and abuse of world systems theory. The case of the pristine West Asian state, Advances in Archaeological Methods and Theory 11, 1987, 1–35. Kümmel 2001 C. Kümmel, Frühe Weltsysteme. Zentrum und Peripherie-Modelle in der Archäologie, Tübinger Texte. Materialien zur Ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie 4 (Rahden/Westf. 2001). Latour 1986 B. Latour, The powers of association, in: Law 1986, 264–280. Latour 2007 B. Latour, Eine neue Soziologie für eine neue Gesellschaft. Einführung in die Akteur-Netzwerk-Theorie (Frankfurt a. M. 2007). Law 1986 J. Law (ed.), Power, Action and Belief. A New Sociology of Knowledge? Sociological Review Monograph 32 (London, Boston, Henley 1986). Law 1992 J. Law, Notes on the theory of the actor-network. Ordering, strategy and heterogeneity, Systems Practice 5, 1992, 379–393. Lévy 2014 J. Lévy, Inhabiting, in: R. Lee – N. Castree – R. Kitchin – V. Lawson – A. Paasi – C. Philo – S. Radcliffe – S. M. Roberts – C. W. J. Withers (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Human Geography 1 (Los Angeles 2014) 45–68. Löw 2001 M. Löw, Raumsoziologie (Frankfurt a. M. 2001). Malkin 1998 I. Malkin, The middle ground. Philoktetes in Italy, Kernos 11, 1998, 131–141. Malkin 2001 I. Malkin, Greek ambiguities. Between “Ancient Hellas” and “Barbarian Epirus”, in: I. Malkin (ed.), Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity (Cambridge MA, London 2001) 187–212. Malkin 2011 I. Malkin, A Small Greek World. Networks in the Ancient Mediterranean. Greeks Overseas (Oxford 2011). Maran 2006 J. Maran, Mycenaean citadels as performative space, in: J. Maran – C. Juwig – H. Schwengel – U. Thaler (eds.), Constructing Power. Architecture, Ideology and Social Practice (Hamburg, Münster 2006) 75–88. Maran 2007 J. Maran, Sea-borne Contacts between the Aegean, the Balkans and the Central Mediterranean in the 3rd Millennium BC. The Unfolding of the Mediterranean World, in: I. Galanaki – H. Tomas – Y. Galanakis – R. Laffineur (eds.), Between the Aegean and Baltic Seas. Prehistory across Borders. Proceedings of the International Conference “Bronze and Early Iron Age Interconnections and Contemporary Developments between the Aegean and the Regions of the Balkan Peninsula, Central and Northern Europe”, University of Zagreb, 11–14 April 2005, Aegaeum 27 (Liège, Austin 2007) 3–21. Maran 2011 J. Maran, Lost in translation. The emergence of Mycenaean culture as a phenomenon of glocalisation, in: T. C. Wilkinson – S. Sherratt – J. Bennet (eds.), Interweaving Worlds. Systemic Interactions in Eurasia, 7th to the 1st Millennia BC. Papers from a Conference in Memory of Professor Andrew Sherratt (Oxford 2011) 282–294. Maran 2012 J. Maran, One World is not enough. The transformative potential of intercultural exchange in prehistoric societies, in: Stockhammer 2012d, 59–66. Maran – Stockhammer 2012 J. Maran – P. Stockhammer (eds.), Materiality and Social Practice. Transformative Capacities of Intercultural Encounters (Oxford, Oakville CT 2012).

Conceptualising Contact Zones and Contact Spaces

111

Marcus 1995 G. E. Marcus, Ethnography in/of the world system. The emergence of multi-sited ethnography, Annual Review of Anthropology 24, 1995, 95–117. Meyer 2008 M. Meyer, Mardorf 23, Lkr. Marburg-Biedenkopf. Archäologische Studien zur Besiedlung des deutschen Mittelgebirgsraumes in den Jahrhunderten um Christi Geburt, Berliner Archäologische Forschungen 5 (Rahden/Westf. 2005). Meyer – Hansen 2013 M. Meyer – S. Hansen (eds.), Parallele Raumkonzepte, Topoi. Berlin Studies of the Ancient World 16 (Berlin 2013). Miller 2010 D. Miller, Stuff (Cambridge, Malden 2010). Ortiz 1995 [1947] F. Ortiz, Cuban Counterpoint. Tobacco and Sugar (Durham 1995 [1947]). Pratt 1991 M. L. Pratt, Arts of the Contact Zone, Profession 91, 1991, 33‒40. Pratt 2008 [1992] M. L. Pratt, Imperial Eyes. Travel Writing and Transculturation (London 2008 [1992]). Sanchez-Stockhammer 2012 C. Sanchez-Stockhammer, Hybridization in language, in: Stockhammer 2012d, 133–157. Schneider 1977 J. Schneider, Was there a pre-capitalist world-system?, Peasant Studies 6, 1977, 20–29. Schorch 2013 P. Schorch, Contact zones, third spaces, and the act of interpretation, Museum and Society 11, 1, 2013, 68–81. Sheller 2004 M. Sheller, Mobile publics. Beyond the network perspective, Society and Space 22, 2004, 39–52. Sherratt 1993 A. Sherratt, What would a Bronze Age system look like? Relations between temperate Europe and the Mediterranean in later prehistory, Journal of European Archaeology 1, 2, 1993, 1–58. Simmel 2006 [1908] G. Simmel, Der Raum und die räumlichen Ordnungen der Gesellschaft [1908], in: M. Eigmüller – G.Vobruba (eds.), Grenzsoziologie. Die politische Strukturierung des Raumes (Wiesbaden 2006) 15–23. Stein 1998 G. J. Stein, World systems theory and alternative modes of interaction in the archaeology of culture contact, in: J.  G.  Cusick (ed.), Studies in Culture Contact. Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology (Carbondale 1998) 220–225. Stein 1999 G. J. Stein, Rethinking world-systems. Power, distance and diasporas in the dynamics of interregional interaction, in: N. Kardulias (ed.), World-Systems Theory in Practice. Leadership, Production, and Exchange (New York 1999) 153–177. Stein 2002 G. J. Stein, From passive periphery to active agents. Emerging perspectives in the archaeology of interregional interaction, American Anthropologist 104, 3, 2002, 903–916. Stockhammer 2012a P. W. Stockhammer, Conceptualizing cultural hybridization in archaeology, in: Stockhammer 2012d, 43–58. Stockhammer 2012b P. W. Stockhammer, Performing the practice turn in archaeology, Transcultural Studies 1, 2012, 7–42.

112

Philipp W. Stockhammer – Bogdan Athanassov

Stockhammer 2012c P. W. Stockhammer, Questioning hybridity, in: Stockhammer 2012d, 1–3. Stockhammer 2012d P. W. Stockhammer (ed.), Conceptualizing Cultural Hybridization. A Transdisciplinary Approach. Papers of the Conference, Heidelberg, 21–22 September 2009, Transcultural Research. Heidelberg Studies on Asia and Europe in a Global Context (Berlin, Heidelberg 2012). Stockhammer 2013 P. W. Stockhammer, From hybridity to entanglement, from essentialism to practice, in: P. van Pelt (ed.), Archaeology and Cultural Mixture, Archaeological Review from Cambridge 28, 1, 2013) 11–28. Stockhammer 2015a P. W. Stockhammer, Lost in things. An archaeologist’s perspective on the epistemological potential of objects, in: S. Böschen – J. Gläser – C. Schubert (eds.), Material Objects as a Challenge to Empirical Research, Nature and Culture 10, 3, 2015) 269–283. Stockhammer 2015b P. W. Stockhammer, Archäologie und Materialität, in: Stockhammer – Hahn 2015, 25–40. Stockhammer – Hahn 2015 P. W. Stockhammer – H. P. Hahn (eds.), Lost in Things. Fragen an die Welt des Materiellen, Tübinger Archäologische Taschenbücher 12 (Münster 2015). Ulf 2014 C. Ulf, Eine Typologie von kulturellen Kontaktzonen („Fernverhältnisse“ – Middle Grounds – dichte Kontaktzonen), oder Rethinking Cultural Contacts auf dem Prüfstand, in: R. Rollinger – K. Schnegg (eds.), Kulturkontakte in antiken Welten. Vom Denkmodell zum Fallbeispiel. Proceedings des internationalen Kolloquiums aus Anlass des 60. Geburtstages von Christoph Ulf, Innsbruck, 26–30 January 2009 (Leuven 2014) 469–504. Wallerstein 2011 [1974] I. Wallerstein, The Modern World System I. Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century (Berkeley 2011 [1974]). White 1991 R. White, The Middle Ground. Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lake Region, 1650–1815 (Cambridge 1991). White 2006 R. White, Creative misunderstandings and new understandings, The William and Mary Quarterly 63, 1, 2006, 9–14. White 2011 R. White, The Middle Ground. Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lake Region, 1650–1815. Twentieth Anniversary Edition with a new preface by the Author (Cambridge 2011).

Foreign Influences and Indigenous Transformations: The Case of Seals and Jewellery from the Late Bronze Age North Aegean Magda Pieniążek1 Abstract: This paper addresses the cultural translation of some exotica – selected valuable objects that were brought from the south Aegean or even more distant areas to Troy, Beşik-Tepe and Greek Macedonia mainly during the Late Bronze Age. The discussion will focus on jewellery and seals made of carnelian, steatite and bone. Such foreign goods, often labelled as imports, are usually objects with complicated histories. These histories began with acquisition, then went through various forms of ownership and display, and finally ended with release, all while simultaneously undergoing a process of domestication and ‘de-exotification’. Release, especially an intentional release such as in the case of burial goods, treasures and cult deposits, is discussed comprehensively since these are the best-documented cases of interaction between things and people in the area of the north Aegean. Also discussed is the phenomenon of copying as a complicated procedure of appropriation, as well as the case of rejection of ornaments and symbolism. Keywords: materiality, cultural translation, object biography, carnelian, seals, Troy, Beşik-Tepe, Agios Dimitrios

Introduction The nature of interaction between people and things, the meaning of things, and the transformation of those meanings through time and space have been addressed by many archaeologists and ethnologists in the last decade,2 most recently also in volumes dedicated to various issues from the eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean Bronze Age.3 How the meaning of an object changes while crossing cultural borders depends on many variables, such as local tradition, social structure, the presence or absence of objects of comparable function, the contact situation, and the mode of transportation. At the beginning of this process, the imports usually deserve to be called exotica – they are alien and, consequently, highly visible.4 Over the course of time they may be appropriated, transformed or imitated and therefore integrated into the local culture.5 Whether they ever reached “the stage of complete ‘domestication’”6 is another question, since it is clear that some of these non-local goods retained a certain degree of exoticness throughout their use life. The intensity of contact and the context of interaction are both crucial in the process.7 The contact could be a result of an occasional exchange of goods or down-the-line exchange in which the objects travel via many inter-stations without any ‘instruction for use’. Consequently, the possibility that the function of the object may change is very high.8 The whole process advances

Institute of Prehistory and Early History, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Germany; magda.pieniazek@ifu. uni-tuebingen.de. 2 E.g. Hodder 2012; Hahn 2014. 3 Maran – Stockhammer 2012; Stockhammer 2012; Hahn – Weiss 2013. 4 Panagiotopoulos 2012. 5 Hahn 2014, 99‒107. 6 Panagiotopoulos 2012, 53. 7 Van Dommelen – Rowlands 2012. 8 As in the case of the cuirassier helmet found in the Kongo, which was discussed by Manfred Eggert regarding the Hallstatt-time ‘southern’ imports (Eggert 1991, 15; Eggert 2012, 358‒361). 1

114

Magda Pieniążek

much differently when objects travel between cultures that are in direct contact and have a comparable socio-political structure, and when objects travel with people whose duty it is to explain their function and value (envoys, ambassadors, merchants). More infrequent are situations when people using foreign goods arrive with them, stay and demonstrate how to use them, as in cases of conquest or migration.9 In fact, only in the last case is the possibility high that the meaning of things will stick to the object, at least during the first phase of contact. In contrast, merchants can deliberately falsify the function or significance of trade goods – for example they may exaggerate, add invented histories or provenances, etc.10 The case of conquest can be complicated since the use of some parts of material culture can be restricted in various ways. Additionally, while studying the context of interaction we should not forget that objects can trigger various reactions; consequently, they are ‘translated’11 into local culture in different ways. It is reasonable to expect that things having a primarily utilitarian function (weapons, seals) would be appropriated differently than cultic figurines or personal adornments. It depends also on the local background of the interface: the presence or absence of similar or comparable objects may influence the process of appropriation in a considerable way. The same is true in relation to the availability of the material. Materials also have certain properties and meanings12 and, consequently, different potential ‒ i.e. different ‘performance characteristics.’13 Therefore, the manufacture of an exotic object of local, non-exotic (or exotic but different) material may have extensive consequences for the process of cultural translation.14 Discussions on interactions between people and things have focused predominantly on three aspects: acquisition, owning and display where the appropriation (domestication, traditionalisation) was the end station.15 I would like to postulate that archaeologists should give special attention to another manifestation of this interaction, namely ‘release’. As demonstrated by scholars studying object biographies, the artefact history begins with the ‘birth’ (production, acquisition) and ends with the ‘death’ (when the object goes out of circulation in one way or another).16 Furthermore, the ‘death’ of things is not just the process of discarding them, as demonstrated in various studies.17 As will be shown below, the ‘dying’ of an object – that is, the way it was released – can be connected with various performances of high social, political or other value and can even form one of the most prominent parts of its history. Unfortunately, only a very small percentage of finds that archaeologists study were ‘frozen in action’ during acquisition, owning or display in a way that would give us direct and clear hints for the reconstruction of past activities.18 This contribution focuses on valuable artefacts, such as jewellery, weapons or seals, which are usually called small finds in archaeological jargon. The depositional processes related to these objects have never been the subject of systematic research.19

Cf. Van Dommelen – Rowlands 2012, 24. Panagiotopoulos 2012, 54‒55. Cf. Maran 2013. Raff 2008; Weismantel ‒ Meskell 2014. Schiffer ‒ Skibo 1997; Schiffer et al. 2001, 731. Latour 1986, 266‒269; Maran 2013, 161. Hahn 2012; Hahn 2014. See Joy 2015 for discussion and further literature. Recently for example Hodder 2012, 40‒63. Certainly, important aspects of owning and display can often be guessed from various archaeological data. Unfortunately, ‘sealed’ contexts illustrating owning and display are preserved only in rare cases, such as when sites experienced sudden destruction and inventories were buried under debris (so called ‘Pompeii premise’, cf. Schiffer 1985). The best example of a sealed case of ‘acquisition’ in the Eastern Mediterranean area is the Uluburun shipwreck, although even in this case the original situation is disturbed (not all elements of the cargo are preserved, Pulak 2005). 19 Widely known studies on formation processes such as by M. Schiffer (1987) focus mainly on depositional processes of pottery or flint and bone tools, which are hardly comparable with artefacts discussed in this contribution. Cf. also Stockhammer 2013; Stockhammer 2015, but his studies are also dedicated mainly to pottery, which ‘behaves’ in different ways from the valuable and usually durable objects such as seals or jewellery. I do not want to say that 9



11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 10

Foreign Influences and Indigenous Transformations

115

One can assume that large numbers of such finds that we discover today in various settlement layers were accidently lost. Comparable, if not even larger, amounts of objects come from contexts representing intentional forms of giving away of things, such as burial goods, cult deposits, and treasures. In contrast, discharging is probably the least common type of release in the case of valuable small finds. Furthermore, it is not surprising that personal adornments made of less precious materials, such as bronze, simple glass beads, smaller weapons like arrow-heads,20 tend to be more frequently found in common settlement contexts whereas objects made of precious metals, semi-precious stones or prestige weapons, which were carefully curated, tend to appear only in special places. Acquisition The most obvious form of acquisition is trade and other kinds of exchange. This study is devoted to the north Aegean in the Late Bronze Age, which was an area dominated by hierarchically organised societies whose structure, however, was less formalised than Near Eastern or south Aegean civilisations. The objects that will be discussed in this contribution are mostly luxuries or other kinds of prestige goods. It is reasonable to expect that they were largely acquired in the course of elite-sponsored exchange as items of maritime trade and as diplomatic gifts.21 Another form of acquisition of valuable foreign goods is local production.22 Objects that are difficult to access but desired can be imitated or copied. In this process, two main actors were involved: the recipient (e.g. the principal) and the artisan. The principal assigns the task according to his own expectations, aims and possibilities. He may want the artisan to produce an exact imitation, a fake of the exotic object, which should act as an original or he may want exact copies without wanting them to ‘pretend’ to be true foreign objects. The principal can instruct the craftsperson to create a similar item, but not necessarily identical with the original, simultaneously allowing the craftsperson to make some crucial decisions on his own.23 Production is a complicated, multifaceted process in which various people involved make decisions in relation to skills, tools, materials, expectations connected with the intended product and socio-cultural environment.24 In the case of manufacturing ‘foreign’ objects, two aspects come to the fore. The immediate relationship between the artisan and the material is very important in this process.25 The artisan has to make certain decisions in relation to the kind of material and the object intended to be produced.26 The finished object is the result of those choices, which can lead to significant consequences in a situation when a specific material is not available. The decision to use a different material in the process of copying results in weakening the connection between the original, the foreign object and its local production. The availability of technology and skills of the artisan is another aspect that should be taken under consideration. The artisan must not only select the material, but also the appropriate strategies in the work process. The lack of required ‘know-how’ can have weighty outcomes. The artist can refuse to produce an object if he thinks that it would not be possible to make a copy of desirable quality using available tools



20 21

24 22 23



25 26

the pottery could not be very valuable, but, generally speaking, it was much more fragile and the possibility of recycling and reuse limited; consequently, it was much more often the matter of discharge as, for example, jewellery. As seen from the perspective of the Late Bronze Age in the Aegean. It is especially true in respect to the Troad (Pieniążek et al. in press). The situation in Macedonia may have been different (cf. below). Cf. Brysbaert – Vetters 2013, 178, 199–205. Cf. Hodder 2012, 123. Dobres 2010; Brysbaert – Vetters 2013, 178–179. Cf. also Schiffer ‒ Skibo 1997. The last contribution focuses again on pottery, but it contains a useful and thorough discussion of how various causal factors affect the process of production and result in an artefact of given properties. Hahn 2012, 9–10. Cf. Hodder 2012, 57.

116

Magda Pieniążek

and techniques. Or, the artisan can decide to imitate the technology and try to achieve the same, or a similar, result. Consequently, in the last case, the task ends in the creation of a new artefact, inspired by the original import but having some new features. These new features themselves can be either a completely new invention or can in turn be rooted in the local traditions. Owning and Display Owning and display – in other words, the consumption of foreign goods – is a multifaceted issue. It is not only related to the exoticness of the objects but, as already mentioned above, it also depends on the primary function. Weapons, stone vessels or seals can potentially fulfil both symbolic and practical purposes, whereas personal adornments or votive figurines can only have symbolic meanings, e.g. in cult or as prestige bearers. Additionally, these meanings can evolve over the course of time.27 Foreign goods undoubtedly possessed a very high “degree of visibility”,28 however, more sophisticated objects of local production could be as visible as imports if sufficiently exposed and advertised. In both cases, it is relevant marketing and exhibition that make this kind of material culture meaningful. The reasons why it was important to obtain and possess exotica and other kinds of prestige goods in the social life and politics of early stratified societies, such as the Late Bronze Age Aegean, has been studied during the last decades by many scholars, so that it is not necessary to repeat this discussion.29 In short, the need for owning and display of foreign luxury objects was connected with the aspirations of nascent as well as established elites who wanted to reinforce their outstanding social roles, renown and power. The best example of this phenomenon in the Aegean are the Mycenaean elite graves, where in some cases single burials were equipped with hundreds or even thousands of luxury and/or exotic objects. These grave goods were probably also displayed during the funeral ceremony. Release The history of the interaction of people and things begins, as was explained above, with the acquisition and goes through various manifestations of owning and display to end in releasing. Only intentional kinds of release will be discussed here; unintentional release (when objects were simply lost) is not relevant for the purpose of the study. It is important to realise that especially valuable things, such as jewellery made of precious metals or semi-precious stones, were curated with extreme care. Simultaneously, these kinds of artefacts were very durable, almost indestructible. If they ‘managed’ to break, during production or in an accident, we can suspect that they were never thrown away but recycled. Metals were repaired or re-melted, semi-precious stones or ivory were re-cut.30 Therefore, these kinds of objects are seldom found in random contexts. In Troy, for example, the majority of luxury and exotic objects were found in a single cultic context (with the exception of a few known settlement burials). The case of less valuable and/or more fragile finds may be different, since items such as broken glass beads could not be repaired and may have been discarded more frequently. Treasures, burial gifts, cult deposits and exchange are all examples of intentional giving away. They also differ considerably from one another mainly due to the different intentions behind decisions about separation from things, as well as due to the duration of this separation.

On Late Bronze Age Cyprus, for example, the context of foreign goods changed over the course of time, which indicates that the function of certain objects evolved in the process of their “domestication” (Knapp 2012, 34). 28 Panagiotopoulos 2012. 29 Helms 1981; Wright 1995; Voutsaki 1999; Burns 2010; Brysbaert – Vetters 2013, 175–178. 30 For examples of re-cutting amethyst beads, see Phillips 2012. Also the debitage of valuable objects was most probably reused if possible. In Alalakh, for example, where carnelian beads were produced locally, I could observe that even small drilling cores of a diameter of 0.3 mm were used for the production of tiny beads (Pieniążek in press). 27

Foreign Influences and Indigenous Transformations

117

Votive gifts in shrines, temples and other cultic places as well as exchange goods were objects that were very likely released with the intention that it was ultimate. Items dedicated for trade or other kinds of exchange are difficult to trace in the archaeological record; they show up as the foreign goods in the area of destination. In contrast, the cultic deposits are a rare but very valuable source of information in respect to the release of exotica. The deposit of cultic votives was also a kind of exchange, but, in this case, it was an exchange with the supernatural, in fact a kind of transaction.31 The value of the votive was proportional not only to the wealth and social standing of the dedicant, but also to the expected reward that should come from the other world. Treasures can demonstrate either eternal or temporal release. Some treasures are, in fact, votive gifts and therefore belong to the category described above,32 but others were intermittent caches. A good example of the second type could be some of the Early Bronze Age Trojan treasures, such as treasures A and L,33 which consist, in large part, of broken and semi-finished objects, as well as ingots.34 Many, if not all of them, must have come from the workshops and were either in the process of production or put aside in order to be repaired or recycled. The case of burials is also complicated. We used to think that the burial goods remained by the buried person forever, if not later looted by robbers. However, there are exceptions, like in the case of Minoan and Mycenaean burial rites, where it was a normal practice that the gifts were collected at a certain point in time after the funeral.35 Whether the objects were used for other burials or inherited and reused in daily life by the relatives of the dead, is usually impossible to say.36 As demonstrated above, the meaning of foreign things is the result of interactions and negotiations of various actors – traders, principals, artisans, and recipients – that were manifested in the course of acquisition, owning, display and release. In the text that follows, I will discuss these interactions and meanings based on some examples from the Late Bronze Age north Aegean. Foreign Goods in Time and Space Late Bronze Age foreign objects found in north Aegean contexts constitute a relatively small but very interesting group of finds including: stone vessels, seals, jewellery made of semi-precious stones and metals, weapons, and artefacts made of ivory and amber. We can suspect that most of these objects must have come to the region through elite-sponsored exchange. Unfortunately, the finds are usually known from preliminary reports, old excavations or they were found in settlement contexts of little interpretative potential. Some more informative examples will be discussed below. Troy was undoubtedly one of the most important players in the region. The site was explored very intensively over the course of the last 150 years, so it is not surprising that most of the imports found in the north Aegean are known from this site. The central part of Troy’s Late Bronze Age citadel is not preserved, but the finds coming from the monumental edifices situated at the edge of the citadel confirm that Troy’s elites participated in far-reaching interregional exchange. Especially the assemblage of building VI G (Troy VI Late, c. LH IIIA) stands out in this respect. Various valuable objects were found there, among others: ostrich egg shells, artefacts made of carnelian, glass, ivory and other materials as well as fragments of Mycenaean pottery and one sherd from a Cypriot bowl.37 Most of these items were found in various fills probably dating to Troy VI Late. The VI G edifice has a simple megaron-like shape and was, in fact, one of the

33 34 35 36 37 31 32

Osborne 2004. See Dietrich 2014 for discussion and further literature. For various possible functions of the Trojan treasures (caches, burials, scatter finds) see Easton 2014, 79‒89. Treister 1996. This is true not only in the case of gold but also for objects made of semi-precious stones. Cavanagh ‒ Mee 1998; Hughes-Brock 1999, 277. For reuse of some ceramic vessels from earlier tombs cf. Stockhammer 2007, 302‒310. Blegen et al. 1953, 255‒266.

118

Magda Pieniążek

smallest and most modest of Troy VI Late buildings in the citadel. It has no extraordinary features beyond the fact that it had a small rear chamber, an additional side-entrance leading towards the fortification wall and a huge flat stone lying in the centre on the floor level (c. 1 x 1.4m diameter).38 The stone was interpreted as a base for a column. We cannot say anything more specific about the function of this building. More contextual information can be read from the assemblage found during Manfred Korfmann’s work in one area directly outside the fortification wall and gate VI U. These are votive deposits from the shrine located in one of the rooms of the so-called Terrace House (Troy VIIa, c. LH IIIB).39 In the case of funeral contexts in the Troad, the situation is better but not satisfactory. A Late Bronze Age elite cemetery has not yet been discovered at Troy. The lower town cemetery with cremation urns excavated by Carl Blegen did not yield many grave goods, however, one of the burials was relatively rich. It was equipped with ivory and faience beads, an ivory box or comb, the ivory or bone head of a composite pin and a melted small object made of gold.40 Another source of information is the cemetery at Beşik-Tepe.41 It is located c. 8km to the southwest of Troy on the Aegean coast and the area in its direct vicinity must have functioned as the Aegean port of Troy.42 No special installations regarding a harbour construction were discovered there, but this was the closest suitable bay.43 Koukonisi on Lemnos is the only other north Aegean site from which many luxury or exotic finds have been reported. This settlement also may have been a regional centre of considerable importance in the area of the north Aegean islands. Unfortunately, little information about the contexts of the fascinating objects found there has been published.44 However, the presence of a fragment of an obsidian shell vase, probably in the form of a Dolium-shell, speaks for itself.45 Such vessels, produced during the Neopalatial period on Crete, were very rare objects. Peter Warren lists seven examples in his monograph about Minoan stone vessels, but only two of them, from Palaikastro and Agia Triada, were made of obsidian, the others are of soft stones: alabaster and serpentine.46 Koukonisi also demonstrates local manufacture of luxury objects: the piece of worked rock crystal published by Boulotis can be, in my opinion, safely interpreted as a rough-out of a bead.47 The presence of marble drilling cores indicates the production of stone objects such as sword pommels or marble vessels.48 Another important site is Mikro Vouni on Samothrace. This tell settlement yielded many significant finds and is known for its collection of seals and sealings dating to the Middle Bronze Age.49 Unfortunately, Mikro Vouni is also largely unpublished. The next site that will play an important role in future research is Maydos-Kilisetepe on the Gallipoli Peninsula. The excavations of this

Blegen et al. 1953, 257‒259. Becks et al. 2006; Pieniążek – Aslan 2016. 40 The grave goods were briefly listed by Blegen et al. 1953, 369–391 and published with very poor quality photos so that it was not possible to gain a true impression of these objects. I had the opportunity to re-study most of them in November 2012 in the Archaeological Museum in Istanbul. The new publication of these objects is in preparation. 41 Basedow 2000. 42 Pieniążek et al. in press. 43 Kayan 2014, fig. 2, 8. Ilhan Kayan doubts that this bay could have been used as a harbour (Kayan 2014, 704) because his research demonstrated that it was smaller during the Late Bronze Age than previously thought (Krönneck 2003, 202‒205, fig. 37). However, even if the bay was less deeply cut into the land it was still suitable as a shelter for Late Bronze Age ships, which could either have been anchored in water or landed on the sand beach (cf. Guttandin et al. 2011, 132‒136). 44 Boulotis 2009. 45 Boulotis 2009, 195, fig. 20b. 46 Warren 1969, 91, fig. 497‒499. 47 Boulotis 2009, fig. 20c. 48 Boulotis 2009, fig. 20a‒b. The diameter of the cores (c. 1.2‒1.4cm) would perfectly fit for a central perforation of a typical sword pommel. However, bigger objects could also be hollowed out in the technology called ‘honeycombing’, where many small drillings were done first, and the bridges between them removed later (Evely 1993, 185). 49 Matsas 1991; Matsas 1995. 38 39

Foreign Influences and Indigenous Transformations

119

tell began in 2010 and brought to light astonishing results: monumental megaron-like buildings, fortifications in the style of Troy VI Late and valuable imports, such as a serpentine Minoan lid.50 In contrast to the Troad and the north Aegean islands, Greek Macedonia has been studied extensively – dozens of settlements and cemeteries have been excavated there – but, again, the small finds from only a few of them are published.51 Additionally, we have to recognise a very asymmetric state of research: from west Macedonia, almost exclusively cemeteries are known, while settlements have been investigated in central Macedonia.52 Whereas west Macedonian graveyards date to various Late Bronze Age phases and the preliminary dating is usually given very broadly, the settlements are multi-layered tell sites, but it is the LH IIIC (and younger) levels that have been excavated most extensively. Unlike Troy or Koukonisi, with the present state of research it seems that the most exotic Late Bronze Age Macedonian finds cannot be associated with a powerful centre or any kind of central place. One of the most striking finds is a cruciform sword from Aiani-Leivadia – a Late Bronze Age cemetery located in west Macedonia on the shore of the river Aliakmon.53 This sword is decorated with two rows of spiral decoration running on both sides of the rib. As already mentioned by Reinhard Jung,54 the sword must have been produced in one of the palace workshops and can therefore be safely interpreted as an import from the south Aegean. The sword was discovered lying on an S-shaped concentration of bronze objects belonging most probably to a belt: four bigger bosses decorated with concentric circles or spirals, two appliqués in the shape of a double axe, ten rivets with big flat heads and some small rivets.55 The sword and the belt were accompanied with other objects: four arrowheads, one large pin with a hat-shaped head, a spearhead with a flame-shaped blade and some pottery. No doubt, this grave was a prominent ‘warrior burial’. So little is known about the other graves from the cemetery and the context of other valuable objects found there, such as glass, faience and carnelian beads,56 as well as about the settlements in this part of west Macedonia that interpreting the meaning of these finds is difficult.57 A large concentration of various valuable objects showing connections to the south (or central) Aegean and also important relationships with other areas comes from two cemeteries located at the foot of Mount Olympus, in the vicinity of the village Agios Dimitrios: Spathes and Tou Lakkou t’Ambeli (mainly LH IIIB).58 First of all, the cist graves from Spathes contained many important finds: weapons, faience and glass beads – amongst which are relief glass beads – and, of special interest, steatite seals of the Mainland Popular Group.59 The cemetery is situated at the altitude of c. 1100m, on a very steep slope in the direct vicinity of an important mountain passage in the Olympus Range. One of the most important communication routes connecting Thessaly with Macedonia goes through this passage so that it is very likely that the finds are related somehow to this special location. Brigitte Eder has postulated60 that the objects of true Mycenaean character

Sazcı 2013; Sazcı in this volume. The monograph of William Heurtley from 1939 on objects from his excavations on various sites in Macedonia and of Alix Hochstetter from 1987 on the objects from Kastanas are the only complete publications of the small finds. The others are known from preliminary publications such as catalogue entries and excavation reports. 52 Andreou et al. 1996. 53 Karamitrou-Mentessidi 2008, 74; 94; figs. 137‒138; exhibited in the Archaeological Museum in Aiani, case 17/4. 54 Jung 2005, 53. 55 Based on the drawings and information texts provided by the museum. 56 Also exhibited in the same museum. 57 The warrior from Aiani might have been a mercenary who came back from the south Aegean, a Mycenaean officer visiting the neighbouring areas, or a representative of the local elite. 58 Poulaki-Pantermali 2013, 52‒62. According to this recent, but still very preliminary publication, the time frame of the cemetery is given as dating from the 14th to 13th and probably until the beginning of the 12th century BC (Poulaki-Pantermali 2013, 53). 59 Poulaki-Pantermali 2013, 58. 60 Eder 2007, 40. Andreou et al. (1996, 574) have suggested a similar possibility: “Did, for example, the graves belong to military personnel, dispatched by one of Thessaly’s chiefs to guard a crossover into his territory?” 50 51

120

Magda Pieniążek

found in the area of Agios Dimitrios, like relief beads and especially steatite seals, could testify to the extent of Mycenaean culture and bureaucracy. This would imply that the passage marked a kind of border between Mycenaean Thessaly and areas to the north of it. The presence of a large amount of amber speaks against a Mycenaean identity of the buried persons. The exact number is not given, but I counted c. 280 beads probably found in five concentrations (necklaces?) in various graves.61 Generally speaking, amber first arrived in northern Greece as late as the LH IIIB and IIIC periods.62 Amber beads from Agios Dimitrios, however, do not represent the same kinds of beads that spread through the Mycenaean world during the LH IIIB or IIIC periods.63 The Agios Dimitrios beads are mostly asymmetric, roughly shaped types, and very characteristic are big pebbles unknown in the south Aegean repertoire, in contrary simple globular beads are rare. Allumiere and Tiryns types are not represented at all. In my opinion, the grave goods from Agios Dimitrios are related to the importance of the passage for the trading route connecting the Mycenaean area and the Balkans. The people buried there might have been involved in trade themselves, for example as transhumant traders,64 or they might simply have profited from the control over the passage in a more or less peaceful way.65 Also in this case, the fact that the cemeteries have not been fully published makes any further speculation about the meaning of the particular objects rather difficult.66 This very brief summary of imports in the north Aegean demonstrates that these objects were frequently found in contexts related to two kinds of release: burial and votive. In the text that follows, I will look more closely at some cases and discuss the meaning they may have had within north Aegean society during the Late Bronze Age. Carnelian Beads Carnelian beads appeared in the north Aegean in the Early Bronze Age, roughly simultaneously as in the entire Aegean world.67 However, in the neighbouring areas (east Anatolia, Cyprus and the Balkans), this material seems to have been known since thousands of years earlier.68 Nevertheless, during the Early Bronze Age, carnelian was deposited with other very valuable objects. In the Trojan treasures, carnelian was found with high quality jewellery made of gold, axes made of jade and lapis-lazuli or various items made of rock crystal.69 Additionally, two early carnelian beads were found in settlement contexts at Troy. One of them was deposited in a vessel that must have originally stood on an altar in the cult building of Troy III, which was a megaron-shaped edifice located next to a gate leading to the citadel.70 This bead was unfinished,71 thus we can suspect that

Some are exhibited in the Archaeological Museum in Dion, some are published (Poulaki-Pantermali 1988, 137, cat. no. 86; 2014, 61‒62). 62 Czebreszuk 2011. 63 Harding ‒ Hughes-Brock 1974. 64 Involvement of various nomadic and semi-nomadic populations in trade is a well-known phenomenon, and must be taken into consideration for a site located as high in the mountains as Agios Dimitrios. For the importance of trade as one of the part-time activities of transhumant Vlachs living in mountainous areas of northern Greece cf. e.g. Wace ‒ Thompson 1972 [1914]. 65 Cf. Andreou et al. 1996, 574. History knows many examples of situations where people profit from living in the vicinity of crucial points on trading routes, such as mountain passages, road narrows, river rapids, and river fords (Pieniążek 2010, 148‒150). 66 We know that most of the steatite seals were found in four out of 34 graves (nos. 8, 21, 26, 30) in Agios Dimitrios-Spathes, but we do not know where other important finds came from, for example the glass relief beads, amber beads or weapons. Theoretically, there can be different chronological distribution patterns. 67 Ludvik et al. 2015; Pieniążek 2016. 68 Ludvik et al. 2015, 2. 69 Tolstikov ‒ Treister 1996. 70 Sazcı 2001, 385, fig. 430. 71 Ludvik et al. 2015, 7‒9, figs. 4a; 5a. 61

Foreign Influences and Indigenous Transformations

121

Fig. 1   Late Bronze Age carnelian beads from Beşik-Tepe, grave no. 68 (Troy archive Tübingen, photo: M. Pieniążek)

it was a votive gift directly from the lapidary workshop.72 Therefore, it is clear that carnelian was highly valued during the Early Bronze Age. It was also worked locally and offered as a votive gift in the local cult at Troy. In the south Aegean, carnelian beads were also used as burial goods, as in the case of Zygouries in the Peloponnese (EH II–III).73 The acme of the consumption of carnelian in the Aegean was the turn of the Middle and Late Bronze Age when hundreds of seals were produced in Minoan centres of the Neopalatial era.74 The second peak of its popularity was the LH IIIA‒B period (c. 14th‒13th century).75 During this time, carnelian beads became abundant in funerary contexts, but most of them were very small and roughly finished. One has the impression that their quantity became more important than their quality. Therefore, at the same time when carnelian beads reached a broader spectrum of the society, they also lost part of their exoticness. By this time, this stone coming originally from the Indus Valley, Egypt or other distant areas must have been largely integrated with the local, Aegean culture and appeared also in non-elite burials.76 It must be highlighted that this development is characteristic only for carnelian; none of the other semi-precious stones shows a comparable pattern of distribution (increase in quantity, decrease in quality), not even rock crystal, which must have been easier to access. Considerable quantities of carnelian beads also reached the Troad, as visible in the equipment of graves from Beşik-Tepe (Fig. 1). Some beads are also known from the lower town cemetery at Troy and the shrine mentioned above77 as well as from Aiani and Rymnio in Macedonia.78 It is remarkable that smaller amounts of carnelian were also deposited in graves

Pieniążek ‒ Aslan 2016. Blegen 1928, 43–55; Konstantinidi 2001, 55. 74 CMS Arachne lists more than 800 carnelian seals, the majority are of lentoid or amygdaloid shape < http://arachne. uni-koeln.de/browser/index.php?view[layout]=siegel> (last accessed 4 Jan. 2016) . If, however, they were produced locally from raw carnelian, or if imported ready-made beads were engraved in the south Aegean is a matter of debate (Krzyszkowska 2005, 122; Phillips 2009, 16). 75 Eder 2014, 4; Pieniążek 2016. 76 It reminds one of the use of agate and carnelian beads in north Africa, by the Tuareg among others (Hahn 2014, 104; Spittler 2002). Although imported from very distant areas, the beads became one of the most characteristic elements of local personal adornments, at least during recent centuries. One aspect is especially interesting: despite the fact that the beads came from Gujarat in India or from (or via) Idar-Oberstein in Germany, the Tuareg claim the beads are from Mecca (Spittler 2002, 51). 77 Ludvik et al. 2015; Pieniążek ‒ Aslan 2016. 78 They are not published, but are exhibited in the Archaeological Museum in Aiani. 72 73

122

Magda Pieniążek

Fig. 2   Late Bronze Age carnelian seal from Troy (Troy archive Tübingen, photo: M. Pieniążek)

with otherwise modest equipment, without any other imports, not even Mycenaean pottery.79 One small bead even was included in burial urn no. 18 in the lower town cemetery.80 Carnelian, as well as other gemstones, was undoubtedly valued for its unquestionable aesthetic properties as well as durability. However, in the case of this red stone it is tempting to see its popularity also in relation with the burial rites. Perhaps the wide abundance of small carnelian beads was connected with the meaning of the red colour ‒ the colour of blood, similar to the case of ochre in various prehistoric cultures.81 Carnelian Seal Seals made of semi-precious stone were among the most prestigious objects within Minoan and Mycenaean culture. Their value was the total of various aspects: high exoticness of the material, time and other resources invested in their manufacture (carnelian and other quartzes were the hardest materials known82), high aesthetic quality of the decoration, and socio-political function in the administration. A carnelian seal found in a cult deposit directly above the ruins of the shrine in the South Room of the Terrace House in Troy is the only one from the north Aegean that came from a Late Bronze Age context (Fig. 2).83 It was executed in the cut style, which means it was produced during the LM IB‒II period, around the 17th‒15th century BC, most probably in Crete.84 The motif ‒ a wild goat – is widespread in this group of seals. However, the find context of the seal dates to the first half of the 12th century BC. It was associated with other valuable votive gifts – mostly jewellery – and belonged to the third phase of cultic activity, postdating the destruction of the shrine around 1200/1190 BC.85 The votives belonging to this phase were located directly

Such as pithoi no. 23, 25 or 33 in Beşik-Tepe. Basedow 2000, 23‒33 (two beads from pithos 33 are described as Quartzperlen but in fact they are pale variants of red chalcedony). 80 The urn itself was a fragment of a jar in Coarse Ware, probably already broken when used as a funeral container (Blegen et al. 1953, 374). 81 Cf. various contributions in Meller et al. 2013, especially Blakolmer 2013 in respect to the Bronze Age Aegean. 82 Ludvik et al. 2014. 83 One carnelian seal was found in a Hellenistic layer in Dion (CMS V Suppl. 3 no. 165) and an agate seal in an EIA grave in Hephaisteia on Lemnos (CMS V, Suppl. 1B no. 34). 84 Krzyszkowska 2005, 201‒202. 85 Pieniążek ‒ Aslan 2016, 423‒428, pls. 123‒125d. The first two phases date to the 13th century BC. 79

Foreign Influences and Indigenous Transformations

123

above and between the stone rubble from the destruction of the walls. We assume that the area retained its cultic function at least until the 12th century BC,86 even after the destruction. The seal is in a very good state of preservation. Its surface is not absolutely smooth, but this is because it was not perfectly polished after grinding. Definitively, no scratches or chips are visible that would be younger than the incised decoration on one of the surfaces. Microscopic analysis has demonstrated that the interior and the edge of the drilling channel as well as the surface in its vicinity lack any traces of microwear.87 It would be tempting to try to reconstruct the biography of this object88 and say how it travelled from Crete to Troy, but only a few hints are at our disposal towards such a reconstruction. The state of preservation suggests that the seal was not intensively used, e.g. for sealing in the course of everyday administrative practice.89 Therefore, it seems more probable that the seal was curated and kept in a safe place over most of the 400 years between the production and the deposition. It is difficult to say how and when it arrived to Troy. One possibility would be sometime around the end of LH I period via Samothrace or Lemnos in the course of intensive contacts between these islands and Minoan Crete in the Neopalatial period. It could have arrived via southern Greece together with the earliest Mycenaean pottery reaching Troy in LH II (Troy VI Middle). Alternatively, it could have been kept somewhere far from Troy and arrived at Troy any time during the Late Bronze Age.90 Vase-shaped Pendants Four vase-shaped91 pendants from the Early Iron Age cemetery located directly to the south of Mount Olympus are true exceptions within north Aegean material culture.92 They were found together with ten (or more93) roughly spherical beads. They were made of a rare kind of semi-precious stone, a variation of chalcedony: sardonyx. Strictly speaking, some of these beads are made of white, opaque chalcedony, some of red carnelian, but most are of banded white and red chalcedony. It looks as if they were made from one piece of mineral with white and red bands and nuances. Their context is published in a cursory way and any further details are not known. Vase-shaped pendants are usually made of carnelian. They originated from the area of the eastern Mediterranean, most likely from Egypt or Palestine, and date primarily to the Late Bronze Age.94 Only a few have been found in the Aegean, interestingly mostly in LH IIIC contexts: thirteen in Perati,95 some on Rhodes, Crete, Naxos and in Messenia.96 The circumstances of the appearance of the sardonyx beads in the north Aegean are probably impossible to reveal, but they surely travelled from Egypt or Palestine to south Macedonia via many inter-stations. They may have been

88 89 86 87



90



91



92



93



94



95



96

And later during the Iron Age, Pieniążek ‒ Aslan 2016, 428‒431. Ludvik et al. 2015. Cf. Joy 2015. Sealing praxis has not been recorded at Late Bronze Age Troy but the seal could have theoretically been used in this function in the south Aegean before it travelled north. Long circulation of seals is a well-known phenomenon within the Late Bronze Age Aegean, cf. Krzyszkowska 2005, 274‒310. There is great terminological chaos related to the name of these pendants, they received various labels deriving from different kinds of flowers and other plants (lotus, pomegranate, opium-poppy, etc., Ludvik et al. 2014, 148). Therefore, I decided to use ’vase-shaped’ as the most neutral term. Poulaki-Pantermali 2013, 72, fig. ‘a’ on page 73. Probably from Petra, but no details concerning exact position and date of the carnelian beads are published. Poulaki-Pantermali also published a second ‘necklace’ of very similar beads (Poulaki-Pantermali 2013, fig. ‘b’ on page 73), however, it is not mentioned if they were found together with vase-shaped pendants or not. Misch-Brandl 2008, 53‒56; Musche 1992, 188, pl. 65, 3; Hughes-Brock 1995, 115; Hughes-Brock 1999, 280; Phillips 2009; Matarese et al. 2015, 127–128; 140–144. Iakovides 1970, 305‒307. In tomb no. 75 they were found together with two scarabs, which underscores their Egyptian provenance. Benzi 1992, 204; Effinger 1996, 174, 230‒231; Hughes-Brock 1999, 280, fig. 2 (top); Matarese et al. 2015, 127–128. Some were even found during the recent excavations in Hattusa, Ludvik et al. 2014, 148.

124

Magda Pieniążek

Fig. 3   Steatite lentoid seal from Beşik-Tepe (Troy archive Tübingen and courtesy of the CMS Heidelberg)

inherited and curated over generations before deposition with the buried dead. One can suspect that these kinds of objects must have been true exotica: curiosities that had little impact on the local culture. The distance from the place of origin was so far and the possibility that they travelled with the ‘instruction of use’ so remote that the primary meaning or symbolism connected with these items was probably lost along the way. Seals Made of Steatite and Bone Based on the present state of research, seals appeared in the north Aegean in significant quantities twice during the Bronze Age: at Mikro Vouni on Samothrace during the Middle Bronze Age97 and close to the end of the Late Bronze Age, roughly during the LH IIIB phase, in west Macedonia and the Troad. I will focus on the last two cases. More than 18 steatite seals of the Mainland Popular Group were found in cemeteries near Agios Dimitrios, which were already mentioned above.98 Five objects came to light at Beşik-Tepe in graves that date to LH A2‒B1.99 One broken seal made of steatite was found at Troy in an LH IIIB context, and one more made of bone came from an unclear surface context at Troy.100 According to Maureen Basedow, the oldest graves of the cemetery at Beşik-Tepe are two built chamber tombs, which were also the only monumental graves (no. 15-West and 85).101 Graves with richer burial goods – like numerous carnelian (Fig. 1), glass beads, bronze objects and Mycenaean pottery – tend to plot in two areas of the cemetery. One concentration is more or less in the middle (graves no. 68, 89, 93). The second one is smaller and, in this case, graves (no. 15-East and 21) were situated in the direct vicinity of the built chamber tomb 15-West. As was already noted by Basedow,102 it is logical to assume that the people buried here wanted to highlight their relationship to an important ancestor of the local community of Beşik-Tepe interred in the monumental tomb 15-West. It is important to note that pithos grave 21 is extraordinarily and richly equipped and contains the burials of four children; it is also where hundreds of beads made of various materials have been found. The best quality Beşik-Tepe seal, the only one that was made not of bone but of steatite (Fig. 3), came from the pithos grave with two adults (15-East), located

Matsas 1991; Matsas 1995. CMS V Suppl. IA no. 348‒365. Some more seals were found there and will be published by E. Tsangaraki (personal communication September 2014). 99 Pini 1992; Basedow 2000, 132‒134, 145‒150, pl. 92. 100 Pieniążek in preparation; Zidarow in preparation. 101 Basedow 2000, 45‒48, pl. 3. 102 Basedow 2000, 157. 97 98

Foreign Influences and Indigenous Transformations

125

Fig. 4   Bone lentoid seal from Beşik-Tepe (Troy archive Tübingen and courtesy of the CMS Heidelberg)

directly above the built chamber tomb 15-West. It is reasonable to suspect that this tomb as well as younger graves situated in its direct vicinity belonged to representatives of the local elite. Especially remarkable is another grave, pithos no. 58, where three other seals were discovered.103 It is one of the richer, if not the richest, grave of the entire cemetery.104 It was located on the edge of the burial area, does not seem to be related to any of the built chamber tombs and gives the impression of being isolated. Considering the numerous foreign and valuable goods, this could be a good candidate for the grave of a foreigner – for example, a merchant and his family. However, the grave also contained locally manufactured objects.105 All three seals from grave 58 are made of bone (or horn106); two of them are lentoid, one is rectangular (Fig. 4). Ingo Pini and Aurelia Dickers suggested that they could be local variants of the Mainland Popular Group.107 Among the lentoid seals, one fits indeed very well in the repertoire of Mycenaean steatite seals, both in respect to its dimensions and iconography.108 It is c. 2cm in diameter and the main motif is a running quadruped (a horse?) surrounded with a kind of branch motif. Similar compositions are known from many south Aegean seals,109 although none of them show exactly the same combination of elements. Another seal made of bone that also fits very well in the repertoire of the Mainland Popular Group was found in Troy, albeit in unclear circumstances.110 This

Basedow 2000, 28. It contained two skeletons (an adult man and woman) as well as the cremation of a third individual. Among the grave goods were many valuable objects, some of them with non-local provenance. Three of a total number of four gold objects were found here, among which was one very elegant bead decorated with a scale pattern created by tiny soldered wire. The grave also contained 21 carnelian beads. Of interest are the bone artefacts. In addition to the seals, there is one fragment of an object decorated with basket-pattern, almost surely an ivory comb. A comb with exactly this kind of decoration was found during the excavations of Schliemann at Troy (Götze 1902, 399, fig. 389; Basedow 2000, 143‒144, pl. 100, 58.7). Similar combs incised with a basket-pattern and a rosette are known from LH IIIA‒B graves in the Argolid (Buchholz 1984/85, 131‒132, fig. 40c). According to Buchholz, these kinds of ‘rosette-combs’ were Mycenaean products. A comb with comparable decoration is also known from Bakla Tepe on the west Anatolian coast (Erkanal – Özkan 1999, 112, fig. 14.). 105 Local objects include ceramic vessels, the three bone seals mentioned above and two spindle whorls made of clay (Basedow 2000, 28). 106 Basedow 2000, 132–134. 107 CMS V Suppl. IB nos. 474‒478; Pini 1992; Dickers 2001, cat. no. 396, Abb. 9, 9. 108 CMS V, Suppl. 1B no. 475. 109 See for example Dickers 2001: Poros-Pronnoi (cat. no. 190, fig. 5, 12), Korakou (cat. no. 135, fig. 8, 9), Athens Olympieion (cat. no. 43, fig. 8, 10), Monodendri-Stenosia (cat. no. 150, fig. 9, 10) and other (figs. 22‒33, pls. 3‒15). 110 A0.558. It was found in the area of Troy (in the vicinity of the citadel wall of Troy VI Late/VIIa) by a local tourist guide during the excavations of M. Korfmann. Objects made of bone coming from the recent excavations will be presented by P. Zidarov (Zidarov in preparation). 103 104

126

Magda Pieniążek

Fig. 5   Bone cylindrical seal from Troy (Troy archive, Korfmann 2001, fig. 10)

one has a much simpler decoration: four circles each with a dot in the middle. Various kinds of circle motifs, which could be executed very easily with a tubular drill, were popular among Aegean seals.111 Two circles appear on the steatite seal from Beşik-Tepe, which will be discussed below. A second lentoid bone seal from Beşik-Tepe112 is similar to the first one; its central motif is also a quadruped surrounded by a kind of branch motif. However, this one is considerably smaller, it is only 1.6 x 1.3cm in dimension, and less carefully executed. The most distant from the Mainland Popular Group is, however, the third seal from the same grave.113 The central figure is a schematic quadruped and some notches might have been indicating a branch motif. The decoration is on both sides, the other side is more poorly preserved, but it must have been a quadruped as well. The most important difference is the fact that it is rectangular, a shape not represented among the Mainland Popular Group seals, and it is very small: only 1 x 1.1cm. The fourth seal made of bone from Beşik-Tepe114 has no decoration at all. It is either partly damaged or unfinished. This one is also very small – only c. 1cm in diameter. It comes from grave 88, which was either poor or poorly preserved; its only other grave good was a tiny disc-shaped bead also made of bone. Another bone seal was found by Blegen in Troy in the area of a VI Late street, in a context dating to VI Late or VIIa.115 It is a short cylinder of 1.8cm diameter and 0.8cm thickness. It has decoration on both sides; according to Blegen one side carries a representation of a rosette or animal surrounded with animals, the other side two antithetic birds (eagles?).116 One remarkable bone seal was found during the excavations of Korfmann, but in an unclear context (Fig. 5).117 Approximately one quarter of this seal is missing, but, beyond this, it is well preserved. It is also a short cylinder, but its narrow side is slightly concave, with a groove running around it, which is a typical feature of Anatolian seals. The seal is decorated with small, triangle-shaped incisions resembling cuneiform signs. On one side they are arranged in four not entirely symmetrical

Dickers 2001, 51–53. Two seals decorated with four circles with a central point are known from Ägina (cat. nos. 25–26, pl. 27, 3–4) and Athens-Acropolis (cat. no. 39, pl. 27, 5). 112 CMS V, Suppl. 1B no. 476. 113 CMS V, Suppl. 1B no. 477a‒b. 114 CMS V, Suppl. 1B no. 478. 115 Blegen et al. 1953, 218–219, cat. no. 37-761, fig. 301. 116 Unfortunately, Blegen did not include the drawing of the seal, and the published photo is of poor quality, so that it is not possible to gain any independent opinion on the iconography of this seal. 117 A5/6.14. It was found during the cleaning of the surface in the area between Megaron A and Megaron B of Troy VI Late, Korfmann 2001, 10, fig. 10. 111

Foreign Influences and Indigenous Transformations

127

Fig. 6   Bronze cylindrical seal from Troy with Luwian hieroglyphics and pseudo-cuneiform signs around the edge (Troy archive Tübingen)

circles,118 on the other side they are not arranged in any clear pattern. Interestingly, the seal has two perforations: one vertical perforation and one horizontal. The horizontal perforation was most probably done first, and the vertical central perforation was undertaken later.119 From Troy and Beşik-Tepe there are also seals made of steatite belonging, undoubtedly, to the Mainland Popular Group. One, already mentioned above, was found in grave 15-East (Fig. 3), which was situated above the Built Chamber Tomb 15-West in Beşik-Tepe. The seal was lying below the chin of the deceased. The decoration was created by a schematic bukranion in the lower part, and two double-circles with a dot in the middle separated with a triangle in the upper part, all surrounded with a branch motif.120 This was the only outstanding object in this grave. The second steatite seal was found in Troy during the recent excavations.121 It is broken and the motifs cannot be reconstructed. Additionally, Troy yielded the carnelian seal mentioned above and a cylindrical hieroglyphic Luwian seal made of bronze (Fig. 6).122 The last one carried hieroglyphs on both sides, indicating the name of a scribe and his wife; the edge of the seal was encircled with triangle-shaped incisions ‒ pseudo-cuneiform signs. To sum up, the seals from Troy and Beşik-Tepe comprise a very heterogeneous collection. There are seals coming from the south Aegean (carnelian seal and steatite seals) and from Anatolia (bronze seal). Three seals are manufactured in the style and shape of the Mainland Popular Group but are made of bone, which was not used for the production of this group of seals in the

It is also possible that the signs may have originally been arranged in a spiral. The first drilling was probably immediately unsuccessful. I have not had the opportunity to study this object in the original, but based on the available photos it looks like the edges of the horizontal drilling in the area where it was broken are polished. In contrast, the edges of the later, vertical drilling are sharp. Additionally, the vertical drilling cuts the decoration of the seal on both sides, which means it was not intentional but a later repair. It is possible that the seal broke during this second drilling. 120 Pini 1992, 158. The composition makes an impression of a mask with circles as eyes, a triangle as a nose and a bukranion as a mouth. 121 The seal (z7.707) was found in the fill in the main room of the Terrace House. The fill dates to VIIa Late. 122 Jablonka 2007. 118 119

128

Magda Pieniążek

Fig. 7   Steatite seal from Liman Tepe (images courtesy of the CMS Heidelberg)

south Aegean. One bone seal has decoration executed in the style of the Mainland Popular Group but in an unusual shape: it is rectangular and, additionally, it is carved on both sides. Two short cylindrical seals made of bone are also carved on both sides, which is a characteristic feature of Anatolian cylindrical seals. Additionally, one of them carries Anatolian pseudo-cuneiform signs. Pseudo-cuneiform signs running around the edge of the seal appear on Hittite seals of princes and officers123 such as the bronze cylinder seal from Troy.124 The mixture of Anatolian and Aegean elements is visible not only in the glyptic known from Troy and Beşik-Tepe, but also from other western Anatolian sites. Both in the cemetery of Panaztepe and in the settlement of Liman Tepe, seals made of steatite have been found, which fit perfectly in respect to their shape in the Mainland Popular Group, but are decorated with motifs that derive, in my opinion, from cuneiform (or pseudo-cuneiform) signs (Fig. 7).125 Pini was undecided whether the bone seals from Beşik-Tepe were Mycenaean imports or if they were produced locally.126 In my opinion, bone seals were most probably manufactured at Troy. The following arguments speak for such an interpretation: bone was not used for the production of seals of the Mainland Popular Group in other areas and the dimensions, as well as shape of some of the Beşik-Tepe seals, were unusual. Additionally, there were also some fine iconographic peculiarities distinguishing these seals from the representatives of the Mycenaean Mainland Popular Group.127 Therefore, the pattern of use of seals of the so-called Mainland Popular Group in Troy is remarkably different from the situation in west Macedonia. The Trojans not only possessed south Aegean seals, they also produced them locally, using material that was available at hand and transforming the Aegean and Anatolian traditions according to their own preferences. The same is true in the case of the seals from Liman Tepe and Panaztepe, however, there are some important differences between these central west Anatolian seals and northwest Anatolian seals. The seals from Liman Tepe and Panaztepe differ from the Greek Mainland Popular Group only in terms of their iconography. The shape, dimensions and main rules of iconography of the Mainland Popu-

Herbordt 2010. I thank S. Herbordt for discussing with me the issue of pseudo-cuneiform signs and sending me her publication. The seal from Troy seems to have no Anatolian parallels. 124 Hawkins – Easton 1996; Jablonka 2007. 125 For example CMS V Suppl. 3, no. 460 (Liman Tepe) or no. 461 and 462 (Panaztepe); Erkanal-Öktü 2000. It is especially obvious in the case of no. 461 (Fig. 7), because some signs from the decoration are not just triangle-shaped but their base is concave in a manner characteristic for cuneiform signs. 126 Pini 1992, 161. 127 Pini 1992, 161. 123

Foreign Influences and Indigenous Transformations

129

lar Group are very standardised.128 Apart from cuneiform-similar signs covering the surface, the overall appearance of the seals from Liman Tepe and Panaztepe conforms to Mycenaean glyptic. In contrast, in the case of Troy and Beşik-Tepe, it is apparent that in most cases the artisans producing the bone seals did not intend to make exact copies of the south Aegean specimens. The reason why soft stone was used in central west Anatolian workshops but not in the north can be simply due to the availability of material.129 Yet this pragmatic reason probably had far-reaching consequences. It is possible that once the specialists from Troy decided to manufacture seals from a different substance, they felt disentangled from the necessity to follow any conventions of production. Even if they tried to create as close an imitation as possible, the copy would always significantly differ from the original ‒ the seals were white (bone, Fig. 4) instead of being black (steatite, Fig. 3). By using a common and well-known material, the objects were at least partly ‘de-exotified’. Consequently, it seems that such a prosaic thing like the accessibility of material could promote the development of indigenous features and styles. It is difficult to determine the function of these seals. Very puzzling is the fact that the seals of the Mainland Popular Group were only rarely used for sealing, whereas simultaneously older seals (heirlooms) made of gold or semi-precious stones retained such a function even during LH IIIB.130 It has been suggested that the seals of the Mainland Popular Group could have been used as signs identifying status or rank, especially in peripheral areas of Mycenaean culture.131 The find context of the seals in Beşik-Tepe may suggest a similar function within the Late Bronze Age society in the Troad, as they were found in more prominent tombs 132 Therefore, not only pottery133 but also other Mycenaean objects were locally produced in the Troad. Beyond the seals, local production also included other small finds. For example, the bone button from grave 15-West134 in Beşik-Tepe is clearly a local version of steatite buttons that were very popular during the LH IIIA‒B periods in the south Aegean.135 The clay beads from graves 21 and 32136 must be an imitation of faience grooved biconical beads that were popular in the entire eastern Mediterranean and a few examples were also found at Troy and Beşik-Tepe.137 Spacer Beads At the end I would like to address the issue of the rejection of certain objects and symbols. It is, of course, difficult to discuss categories of finds that are missing in the archaeological record. Our picture of the past is always fragmentary. However, at least in the case of Troy, which was excavated so extensively and for so many years, one can make an attempt. As I have already presented elsewhere,138 one non-appearance in the repertoire of jewellery is especially striking: no pieces of Mycenaean relief beads have been found in either the LBA strata in Troy or in the cemetery of Beşik-Tepe ‒ none made of gold, nor any made of glass. Simultaneously, many other kinds

Dickers 2001. Indeed only a few objects made of steatite have been found in Troy. 130 Krzyszkowska 2005, 275. During LH IIIB, gold signet rings and seals made of semi-precious stone were most probably not produced anymore but were still used for sealing (as testified by numerous impressions), whereas Mainland Popular Group seals were produced in numbers but only rarely used as seals (or the impressions are for some reason not preserved). 131 Dickers 2001; Krzyszkowska 2005, 274‒275; Eder 2007. 132 The seals from Panaztepe and Liman Tepe are known only from preliminary publications, however, it seems that, at least in the case of Panaztepe, most of the seals were found in the richest category of tombs: small tholoi, Erkanal-Öktü 2000, 69. 133 For locally produced and imported Mycenaean pottery at Troy see Mountjoy, for example Mountjoy 2006. 134 Basedow 2000, pl. 100.1.15-West.18f. 135 Pieniążek 2015, 842. 136 Basedow 2000, pl. 86.3.21.6k; pl. 88.4.32.7. 137 Cf. Basedow 2000, pl. 88.1.93.8e‒f; Ingram 2005, 38‒42. figs. 2.11‒12; Pieniążek 2015, 875, fig. 2. 138 Pieniążek 2015.

128 129

130

Magda Pieniążek

of beads did reach the Troad in considerable quantities. A possible explanation could be that the Trojans were, for some reason, not interested in this kind of personal adornment. As pointed out by Helen Hugh-Brock,139 and recently also by Brigitte Eder,140 many motifs common among relief beads can have important symbolic implications. Relief beads were not export goods since they are rarely found outside the core Mycenaean area. Instead, they were markers of style, ideology and other aspects of south Aegean Late Bronze Age culture that may have been unfamiliar to people living outside this region, like in the case of sites at the northeastern edge of the Aegean, at Beşik-Tepe and Troy. It is also important to add that at the same time, simple spacer beads made of faience were found in grave no. 21 at Beşik-Tepe.141 Additionally, simple spacer beads constructed of three parallel ribbed tubes were even produced at Troy.142 Therefore, the idea of using spacer beads was adopted, but the Mycenaean figural motifs and their symbolism were rejected.143 The case of rejections has not been sufficiently addressed in archaeological discussions; the focus of studies has usually been placed on adoptions, influences, appropriation, etc.144 In fact, however, rejections are just as interesting and important. The case of Wessex-style amber spacer beads that appeared in the Shaft Graves period in southern Greece can be suggested as an excellent example of rejection. These were very characteristic objects: rectangular or trapeze-shaped plaques with complicated horizontal and/or diagonal perforations. Amber was present in large quantities in the Aegean during LH I‒II and in smaller quantities in younger periods throughout the Late Bronze Age.145 Amber spacer beads continued to be used after the Shaft Grave period in west and central Europe, although their shape evolved.146 As was mentioned above, glass and gold relief spacer beads decorated with Aegean motifs became widespread in Mycenaean Greece. In contrast, Wessex-style amber spacer beads vanished quite quickly from the Aegean world after the LH II period and nothing similar was ever manufactured locally from other materials. Wessex-style beads simply did not take root in Mycenaean culture. Conclusions Some of the foreign goods discussed in this paper were exotica without counterparts in the local culture. Some were local products influenced or rather only inspired by items coming from distant areas. In the last case, the degree of change ranges from exact copies made in local material to objects of modified shape, decoration and material. Last but not least, some objects circulating in the Aegean were probably deliberately ignored. All this demonstrates how local north Aegean societies were not passive recipients of foreign goods, styles and strategies. Things that were useful or attractive were appropriated or transformed according to local preferences, while others were rejected. Undoubtedly, interregional trade and other forms of exchange were important factors that shaped north Aegean culture. However, not all goods were available as well as not all theoretically available goods were wanted. There was selection, as exemplified with the spacer beads.

141 142 139 140

143



146 144 145

Hughes-Brock 1999. Eder 2014, 5‒10. Basedow 2000, 135, pl. 86, 21.7. They must have been made of metal, most probably gold as clearly indicated by the presence of the pouring channel in the mould found by Blegen in a VIIa (LH IIIB) stratum (Blegen et al. 1958, 124, pl. 220, cat. no. 37.389b (top, right). Mycenaean relief beads are flat plaques with figural decoration on one side. They were made of glass, gold or faience in moulds. Many of them (but not all) are spacer beads with two channels for stringing (Nightingale 2008, 67‒72, figs. 4.4‒4.6). Simple spacer beads have no relief decoration. Cf. Stockhammer – Athanassov in this volume. Harding ‒ Hughes-Brock 1974, 155‒157; Maran 2004. Throughout Br B‒C, Gerloff 1993.

Foreign Influences and Indigenous Transformations

131

As was noted above, most of the case studies discussed in this contribution represent the stage of ‘release’ in the history of the usage of archaeological artefacts. Therefore, they do not tell us much about their function during their ‘lifetime’ before the deposition. We know that some of them had important social meaning that accompanied the dead who had held a prominent position in the society – this was the case with the bone and steatite seals found at Beşik-Tepe. The carnelian seal was most probably curated and cherished until the time of crisis and turbulence came upon the inhabitants of Troy after 1200 BC, and the owner decided to exchange this valuable object for benefits from the supernatural. Furthermore, we cannot rule out that in the course of the Bronze Age, especially in the 14th‒13th century BC, carnelian received special meaning in Aegean funeral rites and the concept of the afterlife. Therefore, it is possible that in the case of some of the finds discussed, above all for the small carnelian beads, the release was the actual purpose – their meaning may have been mainly related to their function in the process of jettisoning (be it temporary or not). Additionally, carnelian is one of best examples of ‘de-exotification’ of a material that was originally very rare and alien, but became, in the course of time, integrated with the local culture, available to a wider range of society and included in the local burial practices. Acknowledgments: I would like to thank Carolyn Aslan, Stefanos Gimatzidis, Philipp Stockhammer and Sıla Votruba for various comments on this paper that undoubtedly helped to improve its quality, however all mistakes are mine. Furthermore, I also want to express my gratitude to Carolyn Aslan for proofreading the English.

References Andreou et al. 1996 S. Andreou – M. Fotiadis – K. Kotsakis, Review of Aegean Prehistory V. The Neolithic and Bronze Age of Northern Greece, American Journal of Archaeology 100, 1996, 537–597. Basedow 2000 M. Basedow, Beşik-Tepe. Das spätbronzezeitliche Gräberfeld, Studia Troica Monographien 1 (Mainz 2000). Becks et al. 2006 R. Becks – W. Rigter – P. Hnila, Das Terrassenhaus im westlichen Unterstadtviertel von Troia, Studia Troica 16, 2006, 27–88. Benzi 1992 M. Benzi, Rodi e la civiltà micenea (Rome 1992). Blakolmer 2013 F. Blakolmer, Die Farbe Rot in Symbolik, Bildkunst und Sprache der bronzezeitlichen Ägäis, in: Meller et al. 2013, 275‒286. Blegen 1928 C. W. Blegen, Zygouries. A prehistoric Settlement in the Valley of Cleonae (Cambridge 1928). Blegen et al. 1953 C. W. Blegen – J. L. Caskey – M. Rawson, Troy III. The Sixth Settlement (Princeton 1953). Blegen et al. 1958 C. W. Blegen – C. G. Boulter – J. L. Caskey – M. Rawson, Troy IV. Settlements VIIa, VIIb and VIII (Princeton 1958). Boulotis 2009 C. Boulotis, Koukonisi on Lemnos. Reflections on the Minoan and Minoanising evidence, in: C. F. Macdonald – E. Hallager – W. D. Niemeier (eds.), The Minoans in the Central, Eastern and Northern Aegean – New Evidence (Århus 2009) 175–218. Brysbaert – Vetters 2013 A. N. Brysbaert – M. Vetters, A moving story about exotica. Objects’ long-distance production chains and associated identities at Tiryns, Greece, Opuscula 6, 2013, 175–210.

132

Magda Pieniążek

Buchholz 1984/85 H.-G. Buchholz, Ägäische Kämme, Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 16/17, 1984/85, 91–142. Burns 2010 B. E. Burns, Mycenaean Greece, Mediterranean Commerce, and the Formation of Identity (Cambridge 2010). Cavanagh ‒ Mee 1998 W.-G. Cavanagh ‒ C. Mee, A Private Place. Death in Prehistoric Greece, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 125 (Jonsered 1998). CMS Corpus der Minoischen und Mykenischen Siegel (Berlin 1964–). Czebreszuk 2011 J. Czebreszuk, Bursztyn w kulturze mykeńskiej (Poznań 2011). Dickers 2001 A. Dickers, Die spätmykenischen Siegel aus weichem Stein. Untersuchungen zur spätbronzezeitlichen Glyptik auf dem griechischen Festland und in der Ägäis (Radhen/Westf. 2001). Dietrich 2014 O. Dietrich, Learning from ‘scrap’ about Late Bronze Age hoarding practices. A biographical approach to individual acts of dedication in large metal hoards, European Journal of Archaeology 17, 3, 2014, 468‒86. Dobres 2010 M.-A. Dobres, Archaeologies of technology, Cambridge Journal of Economics 34, 2010, 103–114. Easton 2014 D. Easton, The first excavations at Troy. Brunton, Calvert and Schliemann, in: Pernicka et al. 2014, 32–103. Eder 2007 B. Eder, Im Spiegel der Siegel. Die nördlichen und westlichen Regionen Griechenlands im Spannungsfeld der mykenischen Paläste, in: E. Alram-Stern – G. Nightingale (eds.), Keimelion. Elitenbildung und elitärer Konsum von der mykenischen Palastzeit bis zur homerischen Epoche. Akten des internationalen Kongresses vom 3. bis 5. February 2005 in Salzburg (Vienna 2007) 81–124. Eder 2014 B. Eder, Stone and Glass. The Ideological Transformation of Imported Materials and Their Geographic Distribution in Mycenaean Greece, in: B. Eder – R. Pruzsinszky (eds.), Policies of Exchange. Political Systems and Modes of Interaction in the Aegean and the Near East in the 2nd Millennium BC. Proceedings of the International Symposium at the University of Freiburg, Institute for Archaeological Studies, 30th May – 2nd June 2012, Oriental and European Archaeology 2 (Vienna 2015) 221–242. Effinger 1996 M. Effinger, Minoischer Schmuck (Oxford 1996). Eggert 1991 M. K. H. Eggert, Prestigegüter und Sozialstruktur in der Späthallstattzeit. Eine kulturanthropologische Perspektive, in: Urgeschichte als Kulturanthropologie. Beiträge zum 70. Geburstag von Karl J. Narr, Saeculum 42, 1, 1991, 1‒28. Eggert 2012 M. K. H. Eggert, Prähistorische Archäologie. Konzepte und Methoden, 4th edition (Tübingen 2012). Erkanal – Özkan 1999 H. Erkanal – T. Özkan, Excavations at Bakla Tepe, in: T. Özkan – H. Erkanal (eds.), Tahtalı Dam Area Salvage Project (Izmir 1999) 128–195. Erkanal-Öktü 2000 A. Erkanal-Öktü, Überblick über die Siegelfunde von Bakla Tepe, Liman Tepe und Panaztepe, in: I. Pini (ed.), Minoisch-mykenische Glyptik. Stil, Ikonographie, Funktion. CMS Suppl. 6 (Berlin 2000) 67–77. Evely 1993 R. D. V. Evely, Minoan Crafts. Tools and Techniques, Vol. I (Jonsered 1993).

Foreign Influences and Indigenous Transformations

133

Gerloff 1993 S. Gerloff, Zu Fragen der mittelmeerländischen Kontakte und absoluter Chronologie der Frühbronzezeit in Mittel- und Westeuropa, Prähistorische Zeitschrift 68, 1993, 58‒102. Götze 1902 A. Götze, Die Kleingeräte aus Metall, Stein, Knochen, Thon und ähnlichen Stoffen, in: W. Dörpfeld, Troia und Ilion. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in den vorhistorischen und historischen Schichten von Ilion 1870‒1894, Vol. 1 (Athens 1902) 320–423. Guttandin et al. 2011 T. Guttandin ‒ G. Plath ‒ D. Panagiotopoulos ‒ H. Pflug, Inseln der Winde. Die maritime Kultur der bronzezeitlichen Ägäis (Heidelberg 2011). Hahn 2012 H. P. Hahn, Words and things. Reflections on people’s interaction with the material world, in: Maran ‒ Stockhammer 2012, 157‒529. Hahn 2014 H. P. Hahn, Materielle Kultur. Eine Einführung, 2nd edition (Berlin 2014). Hahn – Weiss 2013 H. P. Hahn ‒ H. Weiss (eds.), Mobility, Meaning and Transformations of Things. Shifting Contexts of Material Culture Through Time and Space (Oxford 2013). Harding ‒ Hughes-Brock 1974 A. Harding ‒ H. Hughes-Brock, Amber in the Mycenaean World, Annual of the British School of Athens 69, 1974, 145–172. Hawkins – Easton 1996 D. Hawkins – D. Easton, The Hieroglyphic Seal from Troia, Studia Troica 6, 1996, 111–119. Helms 1981 M. Helms, Precious metals and politics. Style and ideology in the Intermediate Area and Peru, Journal of Latin America Lore 7, 2, 1981, 215‒238. Herbordt 2010 S. Herbordt, The Hittite King and his Court from the Perspective of the Sealed Bullae from Hattusa, in: I. Pini – W. Müller, Die Bedeutung der minoischen und mykenischen Glyptik, CMS Suppl. 8 (Mainz 2010) 213–224. Heurtley 1939 W. A. Heurtley, Prehistoric Macedonia. An Archaeological Reconnaissance of Greek Macedonia (West of the Struma) in the Neolithic, Bronze, and Early Iron Age (Cambridge 1939). Hochstetter 1987 A. Hochstetter, Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshügel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975–1979. Die Kleinfunde, Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 6 (Berlin 1987). Hodder 2012 I. Hodder, Entangled. An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things (Oxford 2012). Hughes-Brock 1995 H. Hughes-Brock, Seals and Beads. Their Shapes and Materials Compared, in: W. Müller (ed.), Sceaux minoens et mycéniens: IVe symposium international, 10–12 septembre 1992, CMS Suppl. 5 (Clermont-Ferrand 1995) 105–116. Hughes-Brock 1999 H. Hughes-Brock, Mycenaean beads. Gender and social contexts, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18, 1999, 277–296. Iakovides 1970 Σ. Ε. Ιακωβίδης, Περατή. Τo νεκροταφεíον, Vol. II (Athens 1970). Ingram 2005 R. S. Ingram, Faience and Glass Beads from the Late Bronze Age Shipwreck at Uluburun (MA Thesis, Texas University 2005). Online (last accessed 4 Jan. 2016).

134

Magda Pieniążek

Jablonka 2007 P. Jablonka, Emar und Troia. Zur Verbreitung hethitischer Hieroglyphensiegel, Baghdader Mitteilungen 37, 2007, 511–529. Joy 2015 J. Joy, Reinvigorating object biography. Reproducing the drama of object lives, World Archaeology 41, 4, 2015, 540‒556. Jung 2005 R. Jung, Aspekte des mykenischen Handels und Produktenaustauschs, in: B. Horejs – R. Jung – E. Kaiser – B. Teržan (eds.), Interpretationsraum Bronzezeit. Bernhard Hänsel von seinen Schülern gewidmet, Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 121 (Bonn 2005) 45–70. Karamitrou-Mentessidi 2008 G. Karamitrou-Mentessidi, Aiani. A Guide to the Archaeological Sites and Museum (Aiani 2008). Kayan 2014 I. Kayan, Geoarchaeological research at Troia and its environs, in: Pernicka et al. 2014, 694‒731. Knapp 2012 A. B. Knapp, Matter of fact: transcultural contacts in the Late Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean, in: Maran ‒ Stockhammer 2012, 32‒50. Korfmann 2001 M. Korfmann, Troia/Wilusa ‒ Ausgrabungen 2000, Studia Troica 11, 2001, 1‒50. Konstantinidi 2001 E. M. Konstantinidi, Jewellery Revealed in the Burial Contexts of the Greek Bronze Age, British Archaeological Reports International Series 912 (Oxford 2001). Krönneck 2003 P. Krönneck, Rekonstruktion der Paläolandschaft zur Zeit von Troia VI/VIIa, contribution in: R. Aslan – G. Bieg – P. Jablonka – P. Krönneck, Die mittel- bis spätbronzezeitliche Besiedlung der Troas und der Gelibolu-Halbinsel. Ein Überblick, Studia Troica 13, 2003, 202‒205. Krzyszkowska 2005 O. Krzyszkowska, Aegean Seals. An Introduction (London 2005). Latour 1986 B. Latour, The powers of associacion, in: J. Law (ed.), Power, Action and Belief. A New Sociology of Knowledge? (London, Boston 1986) 264‒280. Ludvik et al. 2014 G. Ludvik – M. Pieniążek – M. Kenoyer, Stone bead-making technology and beads from Hattusa. A preliminary report, contribution in: A. Schachner, Die Arbeiten in Boğazköy-Hattuša 2013, Archäologischer Anzeiger 2014, 1, 147‒153. Ludvik et al. 2015 G. Ludvik – M. Kenoyer – M. Pieniążek – W. Aylward, New insights into the stone beads of Bronze Age Troy. Scanning electron microscopy and manufacture analysis, Anatolian Studies 65, 2015, 1–18. Maran 2004 J. Maran, Zur Deutung des Bernsteins in der Schachtgräberzeit Südgriechenlands, in: B. Hänsel ‒ V. Studenikova (eds.), Zwischen Karpaten und Ägäis. Neolitikum und ältere Bronzezeit. Gedenkschrift für Vera Nĕmejcová-Pavúková, Internationale Archäologie – Studia Honoaria 21 (Rahden/Westf. 2004) 47– 65. Maran 2013 J. Maran, Bright as the sun. The appropriation of amber objects in Mycenaean Greece, in: Hahn – Weiss 2013, 147–169. Maran – Stockhammer 2012 J. Maran – P. Stockhammer (eds.), Materiality and Social Practice? Transformative Capacities of Intercultural Encounters (Oxford 2012). Matarese et al. 2015 I. Matarese – A. Crispino – R. Jung – M. C. Martinelli – P. Pallante – M. Pacciarelli, Vaghi e pendenti litici dell’età del bronzo dalla Sicilia e dalle Eolie, Archaeologia Austriaca 99, 2015, 111–153.

Foreign Influences and Indigenous Transformations

135

Matsas 1991 D. Matsas, Samothrace and the northeastern Aegean. The Minoan connection, Studia Troica 1, 1991, 159–180. Matsas 1995 D. Matsas, Minoan long-distance trade. A view from the northern Aegean, in: R. Laffineur ‒ W.-D. Niemeier (eds.), Politeia. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age, Aegaeum 12 (Liège 1995) 236‒247. Meller et al. 2013 H. Meller ‒ C.-H. Wunderlich ‒ F. Knoll (eds.), Rot ‒ Die Archäologie bekennt Farbe. 5. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentagung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Halle (Saale) (Halle 2013). Misch-Brandl 2008 O. Misch-Brandl, The Levant, in: J. Price (ed.), Masterpieces of Ancient Jewellery. Exquisite Objects from the Cradle of Civilisation (Philadelphia 2008) 47‒57. Mountjoy 2006 P. Mountjoy, Mykenische Keramik in Troia. Ein Überblick, in: M. Korfmann (ed.), Troia. Archäologie eines Siedlungshügels und seiner Landschaft (Mainz 2006) 241‒252. Musche 1992 B. Musche, Vorderasiatischer Schmuck von den Anfängen bis zur Zeit der Achaemeniden: ca. 10.000–330 v. Chr. (Leiden 1992). Nightingale 2008 G. Nightingale, Tiny, fragile, common, precious. Mycenaean glass and faience beads and other objects, in: C. M. Jackson – E. C. Wager (eds.), Vitreous Materials in the Late Bronze Age Aegean (Oxford 2008) 64–103. Osborne 2004 R. Osborne, Hoards, votives, offerings. The archaeology of the dedicated object, World Archaeology 36, 1, 2004, 1‒10. Panagiotopoulos 2012 D. Panagiotopoulos, Encountering the foreign. (De-)constructing alterity in the archaeologies of the Bronze Age Mediterranean, in: Maran ‒ Stockhammer 2012, 51‒60. Pernicka et al. 2014 E. Pernicka – Ch. B. Rose – P. Jablonka (eds.), Troia 1987–2012. Grabungen und Forschungen 1. Forschungsgeschichte, Methoden und Landschaft (Bonn 2014). Pernicka et al. in preparation E. Pernicka ‒ P. Jablonka – P. Pavúk – M. Pieniążek – D. Thumm (eds.), Troia 1987–2012. Grabungen und Forschungen 3. Die Spätbronzezeit (in preparation). Phillips 2009 J. Phillips, Egyptian amethyst in the Bronze Age Aegean. Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 1/2, 2009, 9‒25. Phillips 2012 J. Phillips, On the use and re-use of jewellery elements, in: M.-L. Nosch – R. Laffineur (eds.), Kosmos. Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age, Aegaeum 33 (Liège 2012) 483–492. Pieniążek 2010 M. Pieniążek, Leben in der Steppe. Auf dem Weg zur Erforschung spätbronzezeitlicher Besiedlungsstruktur im nordpontischen Raum, in: B. Horejs – T. L. Kienlin (eds.), Siedlung und Handwerk. Studien zu sozialen Kontexten in der Bronzezeit. Beiträge zu den Sitzungen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Bronzezeit 2007 und 2008. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 194 (Bonn 2010) 139–156. Pieniążek 2015 M. Pieniążek, At the crossroads. Dress and body ornaments in the northeastern Aegean, in: N. C. Stampolidis ‒ Ç. Maner ‒ K. Kopanias (eds.), Nostoi. Indigenous Culture, Migration + Integration in the Aegean Islands + Western Anatolia during the Late Bronze + Early Iron Age. Proceedings of the Conference Held at Istanbul 2011 (Istanbul 2015) 871‒888.

136

Magda Pieniążek

Pieniążek 2016 M. Pieniążek, Amber and carnelian. Two different careers in the Aegean Bronze Age, in: Ze studiów nad użytkowaniem bursztynu w III i II tys. przed Chr. / From Studies on Amber Use in the 3rd and 2nd Millennia BC, Fontes Archaeologici Posnanienses 52, 2016, 51–66. Pieniążek in press M. Pieniążek, Carnelian, agate, quartz and amber. Exchange and production of gemstone objects in the late Bronze Age Alalakh, in: A. Yener – T. Ingman (eds.), Celebrating Alalakh. Proceedings of the 15th Anniversary Symposium at the New Hatay Archaeology Museum, June 10‒12, 2015. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplementary Series. Pieniążek – Aslan 2016 M. Pieniążek – C. Aslan, Heroic past, memory and ritual at Troy, in: E. Alram-Stern – F. Blakolmer – S. Deger-Jalkotzy – R. Laffineur – J. Weilhartner (eds.), Metaphysis. Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze AgeProceedings of the 15th International Aegean Conference, Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Austrian Academy of Sciences and Institute of Classical Archaeology, University of Vienna, 22–25 April 2014 (Liège 2016) 423–432. Pieniążek in preparation M. Pieniążek, Funde aus Stein, in: Pernicka et al. in preparation. Pieniążek et al. in press M. Pieniążek ‒ P. Pavúk ‒ E. Kozal, The Troad, South Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean. Long-distance connections during the Late Bronze Age, in: M. Bartelheim ‒ B. Nessel ‒ D. Neumann (eds.), Transporte, Transportwege und Transportstrukturen. Jahressitzung der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Bronzezeit an der Universität Tübingen, 30.‒31. Oktober 2015 (in press). Pini 1992 I. Pini, Zu den Siegeln aus der Beşik-Nekropole, Studia Troica 2, 1992, 157–163. Poulaki-Pantermali 1988 E. Poulaki-Pantermali, Beads, in: K. Demakopoulou (ed.), The Mycenaean World. Five Centuries of Early Greek Culture: 1600‒1100 BC. Exhibition in the National Archaeological Museum, Athens, 1988‒1989 (Athens 1988) 137. Poulaki-Pantermali 2013 Ε. Πουλάκη-Παντερμαλή, Ανάδειξη αρχαιοτή των Μακεδονικού Ολύμπου. Αρχαιολογική Προμελέτη (Thessaloniki 2013). Pulak 2005 C. Pulak, Das Schiffswrack von Uluburun, in: Ü. Yalçin – C. Pulak – R. Slotta (eds.), Das Schiff von Uluburun. Welthandel vor 3000 Jahren. Katalog der Ausstellung des Deutschen Bergbau-Museums Bochum vom 15. Juli 2005 bis 16. Juli 2006 (Bochum 2005) 55‒102. Raff 2008 T. Raff, Die Sprache der Materialien. Anleitung zu einer Ikonologie der Werkstoffe (Münster 2008). Sazcı 2001 G. Sazcı, Gebäude mit vermutlich kultischer Funktion. Das Megaron in Quadrat G6, in: M. Korfmann (ed.), Troia. Traum und Wirklichkeit. Exhibition catalogue (Stuttgart 2001) 384–390. Sazcı 2013 G. Sazcı, Maydos Kilisetepe Höyüğü. Eine bronzezeitliche Hafensiedlung an den Dardanellen, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 43, 1, 2013, 29–40. Schiffer 1985 M. B. Schiffer, Is there a “Pompeii premise” in archaeology?, Journal of Anthropological Research 41, 1, 1985, 18‒41. Schiffer 1987 M. B. Schiffer, Formation Process of the Archaeological Record (Salt Lake City 1987) Schiffer et al. 2001 M. B. Schiffer ‒, Behavioral archaeology and the study of technology, Society of American Archaeology 66, 2001, 729‒737.

Foreign Influences and Indigenous Transformations

137

Schiffer ‒ Skibo 1997 M. B. Schiffer ‒ J. M. Skibo ‒ J. L. Griffitts ‒ K. L. Hollenback ‒ W. A. Longacre, The explanation of artifact variability, American Antiquity 62, 1, 1997, 27‒50. Spittler 2002 G. Spittler, Der Weg des Achats zu den Tuareg. Eine Reise um die halbe Welt, Geographische Rundschau 54, 10, 2002, 46–51. Stockhammer 2007 P. Stockhammer, Kontinuität und Wandel. Die Keramik der Nachpalastzeit aus der Unterstadt von Tiryns (Heidelberg 2007). Stockhammer 2012 P. Stockhammer (ed.), Conceptualizing Cultural Hybridization. A Transdisciplinary Approach (Heidelberg 2012). Stockhammer 2013 P. W. Stockhammer, From hybridity to entanglement, from essentialism to practice, in: P. van Pelt (ed.), Archaeology and Cultural Mixture, Archaeological Review from Cambridge 28, 1, 2013, 11–28. Stockhammer 2015 P. W. Stockhammer, Lost in things. An archaeologist’s perspective on the epistemological potential of objects, in: S. Böschen – J. Gläser – C. Schubert (eds.), Material Objects as a Challenge to Empirical Research, Nature and Culture 10, 3, 2015, 269–283. Tolstikov ‒ Treister 1996 V. Tolstikov – M. Treister (ed.), The Gold of Troy. Searching for Homer’s Fabled City (New York 1996). Treister 1996 M. Treister, The Trojan treasures. Description, chronology, historical context, in: Tolstikov – Treister 1996, 197‒234. Van Dommelen – Rowlands 2012 P. Van Dommelen – M. Rowlands, Material concerns and colonial encounters, in: Maran ‒ Stockhammer 2012, 20‒31. Voutsaki 1999 S. Voutsaki, The shaft grave offerings as symbols of power and prestige, in: I. Kilian-Dirlmeier – M. Egg (eds.), Eliten in der Bronzezeit. Ergebnisse zweier Kolloquien in Mainz und Athen (Mainz 1999). Wace ‒ Thompson 1972 [1914] A. J. B Wace ‒ M. S. Thomson, The Nomads of the Balkans. An Account of Life and Customs Among the Vlachs of Northern Pindus (London, New York 1972 [1914]). Warren 1969 P. Warren, Minoan Stone Vases (Cambridge 1969). Weismantel ‒ Meskell 2014 M. Weismantel ‒ L. Meskell, Substances. ‘Following the material’ through two prehistoric cases, Journal of Material Culture 19, 3, 2014, 233‒251. Wright 1995 J. Wright, From chief to king in Mycenaean society, in: P. Rehak (ed.), The Role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean, Aegaeum 11 (Liège 1995) 63–80. Zidarov in preparation P. Zidarov, Objects made of bone, in: Pernicka et al. in preparation.

138

Magda Pieniążek

Maydos-Kilisetepe: A Bronze Age Settlement on the Border Between Asia and Europe Göksel Sazcı1 – Meral Başaran Mutlu2 Abstract: The site of ancient Troy has long been viewed as a central place for the comprehension of the relationship between northwestern Anatolia, the Balkans, and the northeast Aegean during the Middle Bronze, Late Bronze, and Early Iron Ages. Recent surveys and excavations conducted in the Troad and on northeast Aegean islands have greatly enhanced our understanding of these periods. Archaeological excavations conducted at the site of Maydos-Kilisetepe on the Dardanelles coast of the Gallipoli Peninsula during the last five years have not only presented a cultural sequence comparable with that of Troy but also new finds thus far absent in the archaeological record of Troy. For instance, excavations at Maydos-Kilisetepe yielded evidence of highly elaborate residential units that served as special-function buildings. Maydos-Kilisetepe may have served as an important harbour town for the ships sailing between the Aegean and Black Sea and its material culture can, under certain circumstances, highlight seafaring and trade in the region during the second millennium BC. Keywords: Maydos-Kilisetepe, Bronze Age, Troad, Dardanelles Strait, architectural ornaments, seafaring, trade

Introduction The problem of communication between Asia and Europe on the one hand and between the Aegean and the Black Sea on the other has always fascinated students of the human past. Prehistoric archaeologists used to look at the area of the Dardanelles and the Bosporus in order to answer questions such as: how this communication could work in practice, did maritime or land routes predominate, who played important roles in the process of interaction and finally who was the most important traveller – people, things or ideas? Since the end of the 19th century until recently, the scientific discussions inevitably focused on Troy, which was the only excavated site in the region. During the last 20 years, the knowledge on the northeastern Aegean in the 2nd millennium BC grew considerably due to the excavations in Koukonisi on Lemnos, Mikro Vouni on Samothrace or Beşik-Tepe not far from Troy on the Aegean coast. However, thanks to the new research in Maydos-Kilisetepe, we have for the first time the opportunity to study the topic from a new ‘northern’ perspective. Maydos-Kilisetepe is the first excavated site lying on the other, or European, side of the Dardanelles. The investigations are in the initial stage, but the first results presented below show the potential of the site and demonstrate, based on selected examples, how the material culture from Maydos-Kilisetepe represents extremely interesting entanglements of northeastern Aegean, Balkan as well as unique local cultural traits.



1



2

Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Department of Archaeology, Çanakkale, Turkey; [email protected]. Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Department of Archaeology, Çanakkale, Turkey; [email protected].

140

Göksel Sazcı – Meral Başaran Mutlu

Fig. 1   Major sites in the northeastern Aegean that are mentioned in the text (graphics: G. Sazcı, after GoogleEarth)

The Site of Maydos-Kilisetepe in the Light of the First Years of Research The mound of Maydos-Kilisetepe developed on the southern coast of the Gallipoli Peninsula in the Çanakkale (Dardanelles) Strait, opposite the northern shores of the ancient region of the Troad (Fig. 1).3 The tell settlement is currently located in the middle of the modern town of Eceabat; the site is almost completely surrounded by recently-constructed buildings (Fig. 2). The area where the mound is situated in Eceabat was previously known as Maydos until the end of the 1930s. Maydos was mainly a Greek settlement until the end of the First World War, when a population exchange took place between Greece and Turkey under the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. Maydos evidently received its name from Madytos, under which name this town was called throughout classical antiquity.4 The Turkish name of Kilisetepe (‘Church Hill’), on the other hand, takes its name from a 19th century Orthodox church dedicated to Hagios Demetrios that stood on top of the mound. The church was partially destroyed in 1915 after a bombardment of Maydos by Allied forces during the Gallipoli Campaign. After that, only the foundation walls of the church survived at the site.5 Several inscriptions found around the church, including fragments of gravestones, sarcophagi, and dedications, enabled us to establish the name of the settlement.6 The mound measures 180 × 200m and at its highest point is about 33m above sea level. Soundings conducted at the mound indicate that the total thickness of the cultural levels does not exceed 14m. In terms of size, Maydos-Kilisetepe is among the largest mounds so far identified in areas along the Dardanelles Strait.7

3



6 7 4 5

Özdoğan 1986, 51–66; Tsvetkova 2000, 431–462; Tzvetkova 2001, 23–34; Loukopoulou 2004, 900–911; Tzvetkova 2008. Yavuz 2008, 457. Külzer 2008, 501–502. Krauss 1980; Isaac 1986; Külzer 2008. Özdoğan 1986, 51–71; Aslan et al. 2003, 187–189 ; Sazcı 2013, 29–40.

141

Maydos-Kilisetepe

Fig. 2   Aerial view of Maydos-Kilisetepe within the modern town of Eceabat (© Maydos Kilisetepe Project)

LEVELS I II

PHASES a b a b

PERIOD

DATING C14

TROIA

Byzantine – Recent Period Classical – Hellenistic Period

VIII

a III

b

Geometric – Archaic Period

c IV

V

VI

a b a

1340–1305 BC

ca. 1200 BC

1450–1380 BC

ca. 1300 BC

b2

Late Bronze Age

VIIb1–3 VIIa

1685–1520 BC

VI Late

c

1745–1620 BC

VI Middle

a

1795–1780 BC

VI Early

b

1850–1770 BC

c

1945–1865 BC

ca. 1750 BC

Middle Bronze Age

b

V

c d

VIII

ca. 1180 BC

b1

a VII

ca. 950 BC

Early Iron Age

2080–2060 BC Early Bronze Age III

ca. 1900 BC ca. 2000 BC

IV

Fig. 3   The archaeological levels at Maydos-Kilisetepe

Archaeological excavations at the mound, which are ongoing, have been directed by Göksel Sazcı from Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University since 2010. Investigations have so far revealed eight major cultural levels dating from the Early Bronze Age to the Byzantine period and virgin rock has not yet been reached (Fig. 3).

142

Göksel Sazcı – Meral Başaran Mutlu

Fig. 4   Pottery from Level VII dating to the earlier phase of the Middle Bronze Age (© Maydos Kilisetepe Project)

Middle Bronze Age Since 2015, archaeological excavations carried out at Maydos-Kilisetepe have until now reached the Early Bronze III Level VIII. This level is represented by the first several rows of stones of a defensive wall lying on a northeast-southwest axis and parts of walls perpendicular to it. Level VII, above the Early Bronze Age strata, is represented by four successive architectural phases. This Level VII at Maydos-Kilisetepe can be synchronised roughly with Middle Bronze Age period of Troy V. A radiocarbon dating from the oldest phase of this level provides the date of 2080‒2060 BC.8 The buildings with mud-brick walls on stone foundations in these successive four architectural phases were all oriented towards the Early Bronze Age defensive wall. Because the upper part of the defensive wall was cleared during this period, it is difficult to establish whether or not the Early Bronze Age defensive wall was used in Level VII. Beige Ware ceramics sometimes covered with a red coat are typical of this period (Fig. 4), as well as the application of volutes on the handles, commonly known from Troy V pottery (Fig. 4i–m). In terms of shapes, one-handled mugs and jugs, trefoil-mouthed jugs and lids with handles, which are also typical for Troy V,9 characterise this level at Maydos-Kilisetepe. Additionally noteworthy are pottery features that show links not only with the sites in northwestern Anatolia but also with sites in Bulgaria, e.g. knobbed handles (Fig. 4a–b). Such pottery does not exist at Troy. However, the site of Kanlıgeçit near Kırklareli City in Turkish Thrace, whose material remains are otherwise very similar to those of Troy, yielded exact parallels for those Balkan shapes mentioned above.10 Most of the buildings of the next Level VI, representing the younger Middle Bronze Age at Maydos-Kilisetepe, were uncovered during the course of the 2014‒2015 field seasons. This level, which corresponds with Troy VI Early, was an important period in the region’s cultural development. In the course of the excavations, sections of walls with stone foundations belonging to

In Troy c. the end of period IV, the turn of Early and Middle Bronze Age (Pavúk 2014). Blegen et al. 1951, 235–251. 10 See Özdoğan et al. 2010, 362–364, fig. 8. 8 9

Maydos-Kilisetepe

143

large domestic (?) structures, massive walls that might have had defensive function as well as a battered fortification wall have been uncovered (Fig. 5). At this stage of our work, it can be stated that the pottery associated with this wall is in accordance with finds from other sites in the region representing the final stages of the Middle Bronze Age (Fig. 6). It is likely that Level VI ended due to some sort of conflagration. Intensive destruction observed on the foundation of buildings points to an earthquake-like event. Late Bronze Age The architectural remains of Late Bronze Age Level V are much better preserved than those found in the preceding Level VI. Four different architectural phases, with evidence of fire, have been identified (Fig. 4). Some of the older buildings were transformed into a workshop area during this time. In this area, numerous bone implements, stone tools, storage pits, and silo bases with rectangular stone-paved floors and mud-brick walls have been uncovered. The interiors of some of the storage pits were plastered with 5cm thick clay. Although no botanical rests were found inside these storage pits, it is very probable that they were used to store food. The middle and south part of the excavated area yielded additional rectangular buildings with mud-brick walls on stone foundations, beaten earth floors, and partially stone-paved floors. Inside the buildings, hearths and several stone bases of wooden posts supporting the roof have been discovered. Carbonised matter on these stone bases proves that the posts were indeed made of wood. Rectangular, thin-walled silos made of stone and clay were attached to the corners inside the buildings. The interiors of these structures also contained hearths. In terms of indoor architectural elements, a volcanic stone measuring 1m in diameter, most probably a base of a monumental column, inside the northern building is notable.11 The study of the Late Bronze Age pottery has not finished yet. As far as can be observed, wheel-made ceramics like Anatolian Gray Ware and Tan Ware dominated the spectrum. Mycenaean pottery is present but in very small quantities. The use of handmade ceramics increased, and some of these may have been imported, as discussed below. The most significant feature of these buildings is that their mud-brick walls had relief-decorated surfaces demonstrating several different motifs (Fig. 7).12 Their form indicates that some of them were used as borders throughout the walls (Fig. 7a–g, o–p), while others served as frames for door and window openings (Fig. 7h–k). It is also likely that some of these mud-bricks with relief-decorated surfaces were put on the top of the walls at the junction with the ceiling inside buildings (Fig. 7l‒n). Running wave-meanders, hooked-spiral (‘running dog’) or rug patterns, and concentric circles are the most common motifs represented so far. There are also cases in which both the rug and hooked-spiral pattern co-exist in the same decoration scene. Wall reliefs are not unknown in the area of Minoan and Mycenaean Aegean, however they were mostly flat stucco reliefs,13 and frescos were the most prominent kind of wall decoration. In western Anatolia, Minoan-style wall paintings are known from Miletus;14 in addition, painted decoration was found in the Middle Bronze Age building identified as a palace at inland Beycesultan.15 Architectural ornaments are also rare in central Anatolia. If we exclude from our discussion the main gates that provide access to Hittite cities and open air temples, often bearing rock-cut reliefs, then we are left with one or two structures (Temples 5 and 9) adorned with frescoes in the Upper City of Ḫattuša.16 The closest parallels to the relief-decorated mud-bricks from

Similar stone artefacts were found at Troy VIF building. Here, it was identified as a column base. See Blegen et al. 1953, 285–297, figs. 183–184 and 478. 12 Sazcı 2013, 35‒38. 13 Blakolmer 2006, 9‒25. 14 Niemeier ‒ Niemeier 1997, 238‒239, figs. 77‒78. 15 Lloyd – Mellaart 1965, 16, pl. VIIIa. 16 Neve 1993, 26, fig. 75; Schachner 2013, 170–174, figs. 38–41. 11

144

Göksel Sazcı – Meral Başaran Mutlu

Fig. 5   Architectural levels at Maydos-Kilisetepe (© M. Mutlu, Maydos Kilisetepe Project)

Maydos-Kilisetepe

145

Fig. 6   Pottery from Level VI that dates to the late phase of the Middle Bronze Age (© Maydos Kilisetepe Project)

Maydos-Kilisetepe come from the Late Bronze Age site of Apsalos in the Macedonian region of Greece.17 Examples from Apsalos, however, were unfortunately found out of context; apparently discarded after the building ceased to be used. On the reliefs from Apsalos, the hooked-spiral is the main pattern. Additionally, similar wall reliefs were discovered in the Level 2 building at the Late Bronze Age site of Tiszaug Kemenyteto in Hungary.18 Roughly comparable motifs have also been encountered on an altar from a Late Bronze Age building at the site of Dikili Tash in the eastern Greek part of Macedonia.19 Interestingly, such decorations have not been attested at Troy – the most extensively excavated Middle and Late Bronze Age settlement in the region. The motifs observed on the relief-decorated mud-bricks in Level V at Maydos-Kilisetepe also appear on pots from the same level (Fig. 8a–c, f–i), application fragments, seals and other objects (Fig. 9f, g and h). In particular, the hooked-spiral pattern was apparently much preferred, as it was frequently applied to various types of objects. Several pot-sherds from Maydos-Kilisetepe in beige-dark red colours bear such incised or stamped motifs as well as repeated triangles (Fig. 8a–c, g–h and l–n). In addition, the rug pattern, which is more common in the central Balkans and in Transylvania20 than in western Anatolia and the Aegean, appears on Maydos-Kilisetepe pots as decoration (Fig. 8e–i).

19 20 17 18

Chrysostoumu – Georgiadou 2007, 168–169, pl. XL. Csanyi – Stanczik 1992, 116–117, fig. 76. Séfériadès 1983, 635–677, fig. 70. The hooked-spiral (or running-dog) motif recalls the finds of the Romanian Middle Bronze Age Wietenberg Culture, Boroffka 1994; Dietrich – Dietrich 2011, 67–84. In particular, several pot-sherds, similar to those at the Wietenberg Culture, have beige-dark red colours and bear incised or stamped hooked-spiral (or running-dog) patterns

146

Göksel Sazcı – Meral Başaran Mutlu

Fig. 7   Mud-brick reliefs recovered from Level V that date to the earlier phase of the Late Bronze Age (© Maydos Kilisetepe Project)

The finds from Level V at Maydos-Kilisetepe also demonstrate links with more distant regions. One such object is a lid of 7.2cm diameter made from dark serpentine (Fig. 9c–e). This lid, found in the workshop area on the north of the site, shows heavy wear that may be due to its long use.21 It closely resembles examples common in the Minoan world.22 This is not surprising since finds relating to the Minoan culture have previously been attested as far north as the site of Mikro

and repeated triangles. The use of rug pattern was reported from Middle/Late Bronze Age site of Vratitsa in Bulgaria, Hristova 2011, fig. 22.3, and Middle Bronze Age Level 19 at Kastanas near Thessaloniki in northern Greece, Hochstetter 1984, pl. 1.5–7; Hänsel 1989, 53. However, the combination of rug pattern and repeated triangles again recalls the finds from the Wietenberg Culture. 21 The sample taken from the floor on which this artefact was found yielded a radiocarbon date of 1695–1640 BC. This date temporally falls into the late phase of the Middle Bronze Age and the very beginning of the Late Bronze Age in the Aegean. 22 Type D185 according to the classification of P. Warren. See Warren 1969, 68–69.

Maydos-Kilisetepe

147

Vouni on Samothrace.23 D. Matsas, excavator of Mikro Vouni, explains the presence of Minoans in the north Aegean as being connected with their interest in metal sources in northern Greece.24 Also, finds of Minoan origin have previously been reported from Troy25 and Koukonisi on Lemnos.26 Among the Minoan finds at Troy, the most curious object is probably a jug found in a stone cist grave from Level V.27 This artefact could be dated to the Middle Minoan IIIA period (c. 18th century BC), a time of best documented connections between the south and north-east Aegean.28 There is more than one artefact that could be of Minoan origin at Koukonisi on the island of Lemnos; for instance, a stone lid that is almost identical to the one found at Maydos-Kilisetepe.29 The harbours of both Lemnos and Troy may have provided shelter for ships waiting for suitable wind conditions in order to safely pass through the Dardanelles as early as the beginning of the Early Bronze Age.30 Additionally, various objects from the ‘Treasure of Priam’ from Troy31 and the gold artefacts from the Poliochni Giallo phase as well as other finds of eastern Mediterranean origin from the site32 could be explained in terms of a seafaring network – of which several sites of the north-east Aegean were part of. It is likely that these two regions, Troy and Lemnos, might have retained their roles in the succeeding Late Bronze Age. Nevertheless, because the natural harbour of Troy, which must have been used during the Early Bronze Age, silted up due to alluvial deposits from the River Skamandros,33 nearby Beşik Bay may have taken over the role of harbour in the Middle and Late Bronze Age.34 The situation changed also on Lemnos, where Koukonisi seemed to have become a more important site than Poliochni in the Late Bronze Age. Two stone mace heads from Level V at Maydos-Kilisetepe constitute another category of objects that shows far-reaching connections during the Late Bronze Age (Fig. 7g–h). One of these mushroom-shaped mace heads was found in the workshop area, while the other came to light in a domestic context. The first of these stone mace heads, made of serpentine, measures 3.9cm in size and has a truncated bottom. In the case of the second one, 6.7cm in size, the bottom is missing. Similar mace heads have so far been recovered in a large geographical area that includes Iran, Caucasia, Ukraine, and Romania.35 However, the closest parallels for the mace heads from Maydos-Kilisetepe come from the sites in the north and northwestern Black Sea (Romania, Moldavia, and Ukraine).36 Furthermore, some vessels, for example a mug and a jug, found side by side in the Level V present further evidence about the site’s link with the eastern Balkan region (Fig. 7a–b). These handmade ceramics, which have no parallels among the ceramic repertories in Anatolia in this period, are rather common at numerous sites in northwest Bulgaria.37 All these finds described above suggest that Maydos-Kilisetepe could have played a considerable role in the exchange networks – and be an important station along the routes of communication – between the southern Aegean, the Balkans and other areas. Most of our archaeological

25 26 27 28 29 23 24

32 33 34 35 36 30 31



37

Matsas 1995, 235–246. Matsas 1995, 243–246. Guzowska 2009, 243–250; Girella – Pavúk 2014. Cf. also Pieniążek in this volume. Boulotis 2009, 175–218. Korfmann 1997, 33–37, figs. 28–32; Girella 2014, 480–498. Matsas 1995; Korfmann 1997, 33; Boulotis 2009 (strictly speaking MM IIIA‒LM I). Boulotis 2009, 196, fig. 20a, Boulotis dates this artefact to the early Late Bronze Age. This dating is in accordance with new radiocarbon dates from Maydos-Kilisetepe. Sazci – Çalış-Sazcı 2013, 509–519. Sazci 2007. Bernabó-Brea 1964; Bernabó-Brea 1976. Kayan 2006, fig. 10. Basedow 2000, 158–160. See also Pieniążek in this volume. Boroffka – Sava 1998, 17–113. This closely recalls Type 3 in the typology established by Boroffka and Sava. See Boroffka – Sava 1998, 24, figs. 8–9; Bolohan 2007, LXXIX. IIa–III. Such objects were also found in Troy, mostly in the Early Bronze Age contexts (Schmidt 1902, cat. nos. 7650–7666; Boroffka – Sava 1998, cat. no. 114), one example comes from a layer dating to the Late Bronze Age (Blegen et al. 1958, cat. nos. 33–139) but they represent other types. Krauss 2006, 12, fig. 4. However they seem to date predominantly to the Middle Bronze Age.

148

Göksel Sazcı – Meral Başaran Mutlu

Fig. 8   Incrusted pottery from Level V that dates to the Late Bronze Age (© Maydos Kilisetepe Project)

Maydos-Kilisetepe

Fig. 9   Imported wares at Maydos-Kilisetepe (© Maydos Kilisetepe Project)

149

150

Göksel Sazcı – Meral Başaran Mutlu

knowledge of the 2nd millennium BC in the northeastern Aegean has long been owed to the excavations at Troy. Besides Troy, archaeological surveys conducted in the Troad and excavations carried out on northeastern Aegean islands complement our understanding of the socio-cultural interactions and networks during the Middle and Late Bronze Age.38 As already mentioned above, there is considerable evidence that speaks for the broad spectrum of Troy’s contacts with the Aegean world during these periods.39 Simultaneously, it is striking that so far Troy hasn’t yielded any artefact from the Black Sea region that could be safely dated to the period VI or VIIa. Artefacts that relate to the Balkan material culture appeared first at the beginning of the period VIIb (ca. 1200–1180 BC, LH IIIC Early). Due to wind and current conditions, Beşik Bay (not far from Troy on the Aegean coast) could be used both by ships entering the strait from the Aegean as well as by those navigating from the direction of the Sea of Marmara down into the Aegean.40 Ships aiming at a safe passage through the Dardanelles could wait either there or in one of the natural harbours of the island of Lemnos before the arrival of suitable wind and current conditions. The third possible route is one that follows the shoreline of the Gallipoli Peninsula, where several bays also provide protection. Morto Bay, situated close to the Bronze Age site of Protesilas/Karaağaçtepe, along with Kilye Bay is among these shelters near to which Maydos-Kilisetepe is located. It is likely that Maydos-Kilisetepe was a significant inter-station on the way towards the Marmara and the Black Sea. A rich metal hoard found on the western coast of the sea of Marmara41 is another fact that speaks to the use of maritime routes through the Dardanelles in order to reach the area of the Black Sea. This route could be responsible for transportation of at least some of the copper ingots that were found at several sites in the Balkan hinterland. In Bulgaria, they would travel further inland along the rivers Meriç (Maritsa, Hebros) and Tunca (Tundža).42 The Turn of the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Level V at Maydos-Kilisetepe was destroyed after a devastating fire. The next level, Level IV, demonstrates more or less continuity in the architecture of the settlement, although certain new traits also appear in this period. New elements are visible in the construction of the foundations of houses. The lowest row of these foundations was formed in a peculiar way, by stones placed in an upright position. This technique is also known from the Troy VIIb (c. 12th–11th century BC).43 However, as visible on the example of well-preserved architecture of the Level IV discovered in the southern part of the excavated area, with the exception of the appearance of the vertical slabs in foundations, the overall shapes of structures and general way of construction did not change in comparison to the previous period. The case of the pottery is similar; although the main local pottery types of the previous phases survive in Level IV, we now see new traits widely represented in the ceramic repertoire at Maydos-Kilisetepe, such as new types of Handmade Burnished Ware

Pavúk – Schubert 2014, 864–923. See Pieniążek in this volume. 40 Korfmann 1989/1990, 68; Basedow 2000, 158–160; Korfmann 2001, 355–360; Basedow 2001, 415–418. An experimental marine voyage made in 1984 by Tim Severin, who’s intention was to follow ‘the route of the legendary Argonauts’ using a ship reconstructed according to ancient sources, provides us with some ideas about the routes possible in the Bronze Age for a boat sailing from Greece to the Black Sea (Severin 1987). In order to shorten his voyage to the entrance of the Dardanelles about 60 miles, Tim Severin took first a route from south of the island of Imbros. Upon failing to do so because of strong currents and winds, he instead used a route to the north of Imbros and entered into the Dardanelles by closely following the southern coast of the Gallipoli Peninsula. Cf. also Guttandin et al. 2011, 86–87 and Jablonka 2014, 239–251. 41 Harmankaya 1995, 217–254; Hansen 2005. 89–103. 42 It has been proposed on the basis of lead isotopic analyses that these copper ingots might have originated in Cyprus. Leshtakov 2007, 455–456; Echt et al. 2011, 23–27. See also Damyanov in this volume. 43 Becks 2003; Becks et al. 2005. 38 39

Maydos-Kilisetepe

151

Fig. 10   Handmade pottery of Balkan type and painted wheel-made wares from various levels at Maydos-Kilisetepe (a–p = Level IV, q = Level V, r = Level VI, s–z = Level III) (© Maydos Kilisetepe Project)

152

Göksel Sazcı – Meral Başaran Mutlu

– so-called ‘Barbarian Ware’ (Fig. 10a–j, q–r) or the handmade dark ‘Knobbed Ware’ (Fig. 10k–n) – representing new links with Balkans.44 Based on the changes in the pottery repertoire and new features in the architecture, one can assume that following the destruction of the settlement by fire at the end of the Level V important cultural transformations took place at Maydos-Kilistepe during the time of the Level IV. A comparable situation took place at Troy in the 12th–11th century BC when many new features appeared, for example new, previously unknown Balkan-style pottery that reached as much as c. 38% of ceramic used at the site.45 Changes also appeared in the architecture, economy and in other spheres.46 Based on the fact that the transformations in Troy were quite sudden and comprehensive, many researchers came to the conclusion that the arrival of some population groups from the Balkans must have been responsible for this development. However, it is almost impossible to reconstruct such events solely by means of pottery; for this reason it is safer to assume that the inhabitants of the site continued to live alongside any eventual newcomers,47 as is clearly visible in the material culture. Even the appearance of hybrid objects, such as Anatolian Grey Ware decorated with knobs or Handmade Burnished Ware decorated with incised multiple wavy lines (a feature characteristic for the Late Bronze Age wheel-made pottery from Troy), could be observed.48 The situation at Maydos-Kilistepe differs from Troy in many important aspects. One of them is the fact that the Balkan elements in the pottery repertoire and in other parts of material culture did not appear for the first time in 12th century but were present throughout the Bronze Age. Maydos-Kilistepe is the first among the Late Bronze Age tell settlements on the Gallipoli Peninsula and adjacent areas on the Thracian coast of the Aegean and Marmara seas49 that undergoes systematic investigations. At the moment it is difficult to decide how tight was the connection between the Maydos-Kilistepe and Troy and how the relationship between both sites developed in the course of time. The excavations began only a few years ago and at the present state of research it is impossible to decide if the changes in Level IV were predominantly the outcome of acculturation or socio-economic transformations at the turn of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age. Future research in Maydos-Kilisetepe will help to interpret the situation at the site as well as to understand the problem of the ‘Balkanisation’ of Troy during the 12th–11th centuries BC. Until recently, this was an isolated phenomenon and a true exception in the west Anatolian and Aegean world. The excavations demonstrated that Level IV also ended with a destructive calamity, resulting in the collapse of all buildings belonging to this period. The population of Level III built new kinds of houses of oval shape (previously unknown). Those newly-constructed oval houses also had upright placed stone foundations similar to their forerunners and used the coarse ware of earlier levels alongside newly introduced types, such as Greek Geometric pottery (Fig. 10s–z). Prospect Thus, available archaeological evidence from the last five years of excavation at Maydos-Kilisetepe implies that the links of the site with the Balkans, Anatolia, south Aegean and other areas, which began as early as the later stages of the Early Bronze Age, continued until the Geometric period. The investigations have been promising so far at the site; it is located at an important geographic point and has yielded finds that increase our understanding of the na-

In his Ph.D. dissertation on Troy VIIb pottery, Pavol Hnila prefers to use the term ‘Handmade Coarse Ware’ instead of ‘Barbarian Ware’ and ‘Handmade Lustrous Ware’ instead of ‘Buckel Keramik’ (Knobbed Ware), cf. Hnila 2012. 45 Hnila 2012; Chabot Aslan – Hnila 2015, 192. 46 Riehl 1999; Becks 2003. 47 A similar situation has also been attested at Troy. Hnila 2012, 216–218; Chabot Aslan – Hnila 2015, 185–209. 48 Hnila 2012, 218. 49 For tell settlements in this area see Özdoğan 1986. 44

Maydos-Kilisetepe

153

ture of regional and interregional networks. It must also be mentioned that these first five years of the excavations at Maydos-Kilisetepe concentrated on selected small sections of the mound in order to establish the stratigraphy of the site. Future studies will focus on other parts of the settlement and in a larger scale with the aim of better understanding both the affiliation of the site and its role in cultural interactions between Asia and Europe. References Aslan et al. 2003 R. Aslan – G. Bieg – P. Jablonka – P. Kronneck, Die mittel- bis spätbronzezeitliche Besiedlung (Troia VI und Troia VIIa) der Troas und der Gelibolu-Halbinsel. Ein Überblick, Studia Troica 13, 1993, 165–213. Basedow 2000 M. A. Basedow, Beşik-Tepe. Das spätbronzezeitliche Gräberfeld, Studia Troica Monographien 1 (Mainz 2000). Basedow 2001 M. Basedow, Der spätbronzezeitliche Friedhof am Beşiktepe. Geschichte und Landschaft, in: M. Korfmann (ed.), Troia. Traum und Wirklichkeit. Exhibition catalogue (Stuttgart 2001) 415–418. Becks 2003 R. Becks, Troia VII. The transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age, in: B. Fischer – H. Genz – E. Jean – K. Köroğlu (eds.), Identifying Changes. The Transition from Bronze to Iron Ages in Anatolia and its Neighbouring Regions, Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul, November 8‒9, 2002 (Istanbul 2003) 41‒56. Becks et al. 2005 R. Becks ‒ P. Hnila ‒ M. Pieniążek-Sikora, Troia in der frühen Eisenzeit. Troia VIIb1–VIIb3, in: M. O. Korfmann (ed.), Troia. Archäologie eines Siedlungshügels und seiner Landschaft (Mainz 2006) 181‒188. Bernabó-Brea 1964 L. Bernabó-Brea, Poliochni. Città Preistorica nell’ Isola di Lemnos, Vol. I (Rome 1964). Bernabó-Brea 1976 L. Bernabó-Brea, Poliochni. Città Preistorica nell’ Isola di Lemnos, Vol. II (Rome 1976) Blakolmer 2006 F. Blakolmer, The Minoan stucco relief. A palatial art form in context, in: Ε. Ταμπακάκη ‒ Α. Καλουτσάκης ‒ Θ. Δετοράκης (eds.), Πεπραγμένα Θ’ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, Ελούντα 1‒6 Οκτωβρίου 2001 (Heraklion 2006) 9‒25. Blegen et al. 1951 C. W. Blegen ‒ J. L. Caskey ‒ M. Rawson, Troy. The Third, Fourth and Fifth Settlements, Vol. II (Princeton 1951). Blegen et al. 1953 C. W. Blegen ‒ J. L. Caskey ‒ M. Rawson, Troy. The Sixth Settlement, Vol. III (Princeton 1953). Blegen et al. 1958 C. W. Blegen ‒ C. G. Boulter ‒ J. L. Caskey ‒ M. Rawson, Troy. Settlements VIIa, VIIb and VIII, Vol. IV (Princeton 1958). Bolohan 2007 N. Bolohan, ‘Buffer territories’ in the Balkan, in: Galanaki et al. 2007, 307‒313. Boroffka 1994 N. G. O. Boroffka, Die Wietenberg-Kultur. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Bronzezeit in Südosteuropa, Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 19 (Bonn 1994). Boroffka ‒ Sava 1998 N. G. O. Boroffka ‒ E. Sava, Zu den steinernen “Zeptern/Stössel-Zeptern”, “Miniatursäulen”, und “Phalliˮ der Bronzezeit Eurasiens, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 30, 1998, 17‒113.

154

Göksel Sazcı – Meral Başaran Mutlu

Boulotis 2009 C. Boulotis, Koukonisi on Lemnos. Reflections on the Minoans and Minoanising evidence, in: Macdonald et al. 2009, 175‒218. Chabot Aslan – Hnila 2015 C. Chabot Aslan – P. Hnila, Migration and integration at Troy from the end of the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age, in: Stampolidis et al. 2015, 185–209. Chrysostoumu ‒ Georgiadou 2007 A. Chrysostoumu – A. Georgiadou, Siedlungen und Nekropolen der späten Bronze- und frühen Eisenzeit in Almopia und äussere Einflüsse, in: Galanaki et al. 2007, 167‒201. Csanyi ‒ Stanczik 1992 M. Csanyi – I. Stanczik, Tiszaug-Kéménytetö, in: W. Meier-Arendt (ed.), Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss (Frankfurt 1992) 115‒119. Dietrich ‒ Dietrich 2011 L. Dietrich ‒ O. Dietrich, Wietenberg ohne Mykene? Gedanken zu Herkunft und Bedeutung der Keramikverzierung der Wietenberg-Kultur, Prähistorische Zeitschrift 86, 2011, 67‒84. Echt et al. 2011 R. Echt ‒ J. Kubiniok ‒ M. Thomas, Inderdisziplinäre Forschungen in der Mikroregion Drama, Bulgarien, in: V. Nikolov ‒ K. Bacvarov ‒ H. Popov (eds.), Interdisziplinäre Forschungen zum Kulturerbe auf der Balkanhalbinsel, Humbolt Union in Bulgarien (Sofia 2011) 19‒42. Galanaki et al. 2007 I. Galanaki ‒ H. Tomas ‒ Y. Galanakis ‒ R. Laffineur (eds.), Between the Aegean and Baltic Seas. Prehistory Across Borders. Proceedings of the International Conference “Bronze and Early Iron Age Interconnections and Contemporary Developments between the Aegean and the Regions of the Balkan Peninsula, Central and Northern Europe”, University of Zagreb, 11‒14 April 2005, Aegeum 27 (Liège 2007). Girella 2014 L. Girella, The MM IIIA juglet and the Troia VI Early cist tomb in Square A7, in: Pavuk 2014, 480‒498. Girella – Pavúk 2014 L. Girella – P. Pavuk, Minoanisation, acculturation, hybridisation. The evidence of the Minoan presence in the north east Aegean between the Middle and Late Bronze Age, in: Stampolidis et al. 2015, 387–420. Guttandin et al. 2011 Th. Guttandin ‒ D. Panagiotopoulos ‒ H. Pflug ‒ G. Plath, Inseln der Winde. Die maritime Kultur der bronzezeitlichen Ägäis (Heidelberg 2011). Guzowska 2009 M. Guzowska, En vouge Minoenne… On the social use of Minoan and Minoanising objects in Troia, in: Macdonald 2009, 243‒250. Hansen 2005 S. Hansen, Neue Forschungen zur Metallurgie der Bronzezeit in Südosteuropa, in: Ü. Yalcın (ed.), Anatolian Metal III, Der Anschnitt Beiheft 18 (Bochum 2005) 89–103. Harmankaya 1995 S. Harmankaya, Kozman Deresi Mevkii (Şarköy, Tekirdağ) Maden Buluntuları, in: G. Arsebük ‒ M. Mellink ‒ W. Schirmer (eds.), Readings in Prehistory. Studies Presented to Halet Çambel (Istanbul 1995) 217‒254. Hänsel 1989 B. Hänsel, Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshügel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975‒1979. Die Grabung und der Baubefund, PrähistorischeArchäologie in Südosteuropa 7 (Berlin 1989). Hnila 2012 P. Hnila, Pottery of Troia VIIB. Chronology, Classification, Context and Implications of Trojan Ceramic Assemblages in the Late Bronze Age/ Early Iron Age Transition (PhD Diss., Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Tübingen 2012).

Maydos-Kilisetepe

155

Hochstetter 1984 A. Hochstetter, Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshügel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975‒1979. Die handgemachte Keramik, Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 3 (Berlin 1984). Hristova 2011 R. Hristova, Late Bronze Age pottery from the site of Vratitsa, eastern Bulgaria. Definition, chronology and its Aegean affinities, in: B. Horejs ‒ P. Pavúk (eds.), Aegean and Balkan Prehistory, 9 Mar. 2011. Online ˂http://www. aegeobalkanprehistory.net/index.php?p=article&id_art=19˃ (last accessed 30 Dec. 2015). Isaac 1986 B. Isaac, The Greek Settlements in Thrace until the Macedonian Conquest (Leiden 1986). Jablonka 2014 P. Jablonka, Der Raum: Die Fundstelle und ihre geographische Lage, in: Pernicka et al. 2014, 218‒261. Kayan 2006 I. Kayan, Mit dem Kernbohrer in die Vergangenheit – Geoarchäologische Interpretationen der holozänen Sedimente in der Troas, in: M. O. Korfmann (ed.), Troia. Archäologie eines Siedlungshügels und seiner Landschaft (Mainz 2006) 317‒328. Korfmann 1989/1990 M. Korfmann, Troya’nın Çevresindeki Beşik Koyu Kazıları, Müze 2/3, 1989/1990, 67–79. Korfmann 1997 M. Korfmann, Troia-Ausgrabungen, Studia Troica 7, 1997, 1‒71. Korfmann 2001 M. Korfmann, Troia als Drehscheibe des Handels, im 2. und 3. vorchristlichen Jahrtausend. Erkenntnisse zur Troianischen Hochkultur und zur Maritimen Troia-Kultur, in: M. Korfmann (ed.), Troia. Traum und Wirklichkeit. Exhibition catalogue (Stuttgart 2001) 355‒368. Krauss 1980 J. Krauss, Die Inschriften von Sestos und der thrakischen Chersones, Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 19 (Bonn 1980). Krauss 2006 R. Krauss, Indizien für eine Mittelbronzezeit in Nordbulgarien, Archaeologia Bulgarica 3, 2006, 3‒26. Külzer 2008 A. Külzer, Ostthrakien (Eurōpē), Tabula Imperii Byzantini 12 (Vienna 2008). Leshtakov 2007 K. Leshtakov, The eastern Balkans in the Aegean economic system during the LBA. Ox-hide and bun ingots in Bulgarian lands, in: Galanaki et al. 2007, 447‒458. Lloyd ‒ Mellaart 1965 S. Lloyd ‒ J. Mellaart, Beycesultan Vol. II. Middle Bronze Age Architecture and Pottery (London 1965). Loukopoulou 2004 L. Loukopoulou, Thracian Chersones, in: M. H. Hansen ‒ T. Heine Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis (Oxford 2004) 900‒911. Macdonald et al. 2009 C. F. Macdonald ‒ E. Hallager ‒ W. D. Niemeier (eds.), The Minoans in the Central, Eastern and Northern Aegean. New evidence. Acts of a Minoan Seminar 22‒23 January 2005 in Collaboration with the Danish Institute at Athens and German Archaeological Institute at Athens (Aarhus 2009). Matsas 1995 D. Matsas, Minoan long distance trade. A view from the northern Aegean, in: R. Laffineur ‒ W. D. Niemeier (eds.), Politeia. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age, Proceedings of the 5th Aegean Conference, University of Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut, 10‒13 April 1994, Aegaeum 12 (Liege 1995) 235‒246. Neve 1993 P. Neve, Hattuša, Stadt der Götter und Tempel. Neue Ausgrabung in der Hauptstadt der Hethiter (Mainz 1993).

156

Göksel Sazcı – Meral Başaran Mutlu

Niemeier ‒ Niemeier 1997 B. Niemeier ‒ W. D. Niemeier, Milet 1994‒1995. Projekt “Minoisch-Mykenisches bis Protogeometrisches Milet”. Zielsetzung und Grabungen auf dem Stadionhügel und am Athenatempel, Archäologischer Anzeiger 1997, 189‒248. Özdoğan 1986 M. Özdoğan, Prehistoric Sites in the Gelibolu Peninsula, Anadolu Araştırmaları 10, 1986, 51‒71. Özdoğan et al. 2010 E. Özdoğan – H. Schwarzberg – M. Özdoğan, Kırklareli Höyüğü 2008 Çalışmaları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 31, 2, 2010, 357–374. Pavúk 2014 P. Pavuk, Troia VI Früh und Mitte. Keramik, Stratigraphie, Chronologie, Studia Troica Monographien 3 (Bonn 2014). Pavúk ‒ Schubert 2014 P. Pavuk ‒ C. Schubert, Die Troas in der Mittel- und Spätbronzezeit, in: Pernicka et al. 2014, 864‒923. Pernicka et al. 2014 E. Pernicka ‒ C. B. Rose ‒ P. Jablonka (eds.), Troia 1988‒2008. Grabungen und Forschungen I. Forschungsgeschichte, Methoden und Landschaft, Studia Troica Monographien 5 (Bonn 2014). Riehl 1999 S. Riehl, Archäobotanik in der Troas, Studia Troica 9, 1999, 367‒409. Sazcı 2007 G. Sazcı, The Treasures of Troia (Istanbul 2007). Sazcı 2013 G. Sazci, Maydos Kilisetepe Höyüğü. Eine bronzezeitliche Hafensiedlung an den Dardanellen, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 43, 1, 2013, 29‒40. Sazcı ‒ Çalış-Sazcı 2013 G. Sazci ‒ D. Çalış-Sazci, Tunç Çağı’nda Çanakkale Boğazı, in: E. Öner (ed.), İlhan Kayan Anı Kitabı (Izmir 2013) 509‒519. Schachner 2013 A. Schachner, Die Arbeiten in Boğazköy-Ḫattuša 2012, Archäologischer Anzeiger 2013/1, 2013, 147‒193. Schmidt 1902 H. Schmidt, Heinrich Schliemann’s Sammlung Trojanischer Altertümer (Berlin 1902). Séfériadès 1983 M. Séfériadès, Dikili Tash. Introduction à la préhistoire de la Macédoine orientale, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 107, 1983, 635–677. Severin 1987 T. Severin, Auf den Spuren der Argonauten (Düsseldorf, Vienna 1987). Stampolidis et al. 2015 N. C. Stampolidis ‒ Ç. Maner ‒ K. Kopanias (eds.), Nostoi. Indigenous Culture, Migration + Integration in the Aegean Islands + Western Anatolia during the Late Bronze + Early Iron Age. Proceedings of the Conference Held at Istanbul 2011 (Istanbul 2015). Tsvetkova 2000 J. Tsvetkova, Siedlungen und Siedlungssystem auf der thrakischen Chersonesos in der vorrömischen Zeit, Thracia 13, 2000, 431‒462. Tzvetkova 2001 J. Tzvetkova, Die thrakische Chersones und die thrako-griechischen Kontakte in der Zeit vor den Philaiden, Boreas. Münstersche Beiträge zur Archäologie 23/24, 2001, 23‒34.

Maydos-Kilisetepe

157

Tzvetkova 2008 Ю. Цветкова, История на Тракийския Херсонес. От Троянската война до времето на римското завоевание / History of the Thracian Chersonese. From the Trojan War until the Time of the Roman Conquest (Veliko Tarnovo 2008). Warren 1969 P. Warren, Minoan Stone Vases (Cambridge 1969). Yavuz 2008 M. F. Yavuz, İlkçağ’da Gelibolu Yarımadası Yerleşimleri, in: M. Demir (ed.), Çanakkale Tarihi I (Istanbul 2008) 447–470.

Transformations and Formations Around the Thermaic Gulf in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age: The Evidence of Burial Practices Konstantoula Chavela1 Abstract: Death is one of the mysteries that occur in human life, but in an ironic way it is the only one that is easily traceable by archaeologists, in contrast to birth or marriage. Recent discussions in archaeological theory and mortuary studies have emphasised that burials do not simply reflect the social reality and that cemeteries must be used as a tool to reconstruct the social structure of the communities as well as to understand the ideological and symbolical significance of the burials. For this reason, mortuary practices must be placed within their total social context, which is made up of cultural tradition, historical context and political strategies. These exact historical, political and cultural conditions that prevailed from the 11th to the 8th/early 7th centuries BC in the area of central Macedonia and more specifically in the Thermaic Gulf region, will be discussed below. The reference point will be the ancient settlement and cemetery at Toumba Thessaloniki, in the Thermaic Gulf. Keywords: Toumba Thessaloniki, central Macedonia, Thermaic Gulf, Early Iron Age, burial practices

Introduction Since the emergence of the discipline of archaeology in the 19th century, the dead have played a significant role. Cemeteries and burial mounds, which are at times more visible than settlements, have yielded evidence to support shared cultural traditions; cases of massive monuments and wealthy grave goods argue for the existence of prominent individuals/groups and ranked societies in the past. It was only in the decades of the 1960s and the 1970s that recognition dawned on the potential of mortuary data in reconstructing more subtle appreciations of social organisation in past societies. Processual archaeologists2 (L. Binford,3 A. Saxe,4 and J. Brown5) began to investigate the relationships between mortuary treatment, status and power, by combining the ethnographic literature and actual cases that affirmed the associations between variations in mortuary treatment and status differentials among the living. To explain such linkage, Saxe6 and Binford7 used Goodenough’s role theory. This argued that every individual has a social persona, a composite of various social identities maintained in life. Each social identity entails a specific relationship with others (parent-child, friend-friend, master-servant, etc.): these are recognised as appropriate for consideration in death and through them are realised the expression of status in mortuary ritual.8 The connection between status differentiation and mortuary treatment was regarded as

Ephorate of Antiquities of Achaia, Archaeological Museum of Patra, Hellenic Ministry of Culture, Greece; [email protected]. 2 For a general presentation of the contribution of Processual Archaeology in the study of mortuary practices, see Chapman 2013, 47–57. 3 Binford 1971. 4 Saxe 1970. 5 Brown 1971. 6 Saxe 1970, 5. 7 Binford 1972, 225–226. 8 Goodenough 1965, 1–24. 1

160

Konstantoula Chavela

being direct, with every component of mortuary variation corresponding to some aspect of the social persona of the deceased. The overall complexity or variability of the mortuary ritual within a given society would thus be a direct reflection of social complexity in terms of both vertical or hierarchical, and horizontal or non-hierarchical groupings.9 The simplicity of the processual approach to mortuary forms and practices in social terms has come under attack. The most aggressive criticism came from the post-processual and neo-marxist theorists (Hodder,10 Parker Pearson,11 Shanks and Tilley12). According to them, mortuary variation is not invariably an exact, direct or systematic representation of social roles and social hierarchy within the living society. Rather, the mortuary record is the product of ritual practices, which may be manipulated by the living society for their own interests. The basic contribution of the post-processual approach to mortuary analysis lies in the recognition that societies are not only situated in time, space and environment, but also in social and historical contexts. Also, it takes more serious notice of the mediating effect of the symbolic and of ‘meaning’ on the actions of those individuals and societies who created the archaeological record. But, as S. Kus states: “The question is no longer to deny or to defend these traditions, but rather to value how they helped archaeologists come to understand the immense field of questions, problem foci, cultures (contemporary and past), and theoretical perspectives that can inform archaeological appreciations of the subject before us: human and social responses to and understanding of death.”13All in all, the impact of the processual and post-processual perspectives upon each other gave valued new impetus to the research of mortuary practices. Recent studies tend to combine aspects of both Processual and Post-processual theory in order to achieve a more integrated approach to the interpretation of death and burial archaeology.14 According to J. Papadopoulos: “The cemetery and the society that produced it did not exist in a vacuum. What preceded it helped form it, and what succeeded it helped mold it into what survives today. Within its own time, alternative or dissimilar versions coexisted. What survives at any given time can be looked at in many different ways.”15 So mortuary practices must be placed within their total social context, which is made up of the cultural tradition, the historical context and the political strategies.16 The exact historical, political and cultural conditions that prevailed from the 11th to the 8th/early 7th centuries BC in central Macedonia, and more specifically in the Thermaic Gulf region, will be discussed below. The reference point will be the ancient settlement and cemetery at Toumba Thessaloniki, in the Thermaic Gulf. In handling the data, we take into account that the differences between individuals or groups can become apparent through a comparative analysis of individual burials: first through an intra-cemetery analysis at Toumba, and secondly through an inter-cemetery analysis of different cemeteries around the Thermaic Gulf. In addition, a brief description of settlement data and mortuary data is given – and is essential. The evaluation of the cost and energy differentials in mortuary ritual versus the comparable expenditures in constructing the houses of the living may yield a more balanced understanding of the actual degree of stratification within the living society. Differential distributions of prestige goods in settlement contexts may illustrate variations in ‘real wealth’ within the living society.17

9



11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10

Binford 1972, 232–235. Hodder 1982, 150–154. Parker Pearson 1982, 100–101; Parker Pearson 2000. Shanks – Tilley 1987. Kus 2013, 71. Keswani 2004; Rakita et al. 2005. Papadopoulos 2005, 354. Voutsaki 1993, 56, 167. Bloch 1971, 112–113; Parker Pearson 1984, 71; Metcalf – Huntington 1991, 110; Keswani 2004, 9.

Transformations and Formations Around the Thermaic Gulf in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age

161

The Settlement The archaeological site of Toumba Thessaloniki, known since 1895, spreads over a plateau to the east of the city of Thessaloniki. It includes first a conical mound (toumba) with layers of the Bronze Age, the Iron Age and historic times, and second a trapezoidal (almost flat) tell (table) extending out around the mound proper with layers of settlement from mainly the Early Iron Age, down to the end of the 4th century BC. In addition, outside the boundaries of the ancient village have been identified remains of sporadic facilities from various eras and the extensive cemetery dating from the 8th century down to the 4th century BC. One of the most striking elements of the settlement, which makes it literally stand out from the rest of such monuments in central Macedonia, is the size of the tell, which is 23m high. Its area at the base is close to 1.3ha, a size unusual for the region, while the top area is today reduced to about half that (Fig. 1).18 Not much is known about the layout and the organisation of the settlement during the Middle and the earlier Late Bronze Age, as only a small area belonging to these periods has been excavated. During the successive phases of the Late Bronze Age, the tell was surrounded by a system of casemated perimeter walls of large dimensions (3m in height). Although it is not clear whether these walls were intended for defence, or for holding back the soils of the tell (or both), it is still thanks to them, as has happened in other Late Bronze Age settlements, that the steep-sided mounds were preserved as evident markers of the local communities in the central Macedonian landscape.19 All around the outskirts of the settlement from the very start and expanding during the Middle Bronze Age, the habitation seems to have become widely and thinly spread on the different levels of the low natural hill on which the original settlement was situated.20 By the later part of

Fig. 1   Map of the archaeological site of Toumba Thessaloniki (© Google Map, design: K. Chavela)

Soueref 2009, 345–351; Chavela forthcoming. Andreou 2010, 649. 20 Andreou – Kotsakis 1996, 375. 18 19

162

Konstantoula Chavela

the Late Bronze Age (Phase 4), mud-brick complexes were tightly packed together on the highest terraces of the mound. These mud-brick compounds consisted of over a dozen roughly rectangular rooms and inner courts. One of these compounds (Building A) has been opened up to an extent of c. 230m². A number of others have been only partially investigated, but there are reasons to suspect that buildings at the site did not vary substantially in size, plan and elaboration. This would imply the absence of marked differences in terms of intra-settlement organisation. The compounds contained extensive indications of large-scale storage and a variety of other domestic activities concerning food preparation, cooking and the consumption of large quantities of food and probably wine, as well as domestic industries.21 During the next phase (Phase 3) (11th century BC), the existing ‘urban’ fabric in the ‘Toumba’ continued without any remarkable changes being noted, while the apsidal Building A remained in use, with some minor adjustments in its interior. At the turn of the millennium, from the end of the 11thto the early 10th centuries BC (Phase 2), the buildings consistently echoed the plans of the previous phase with only some occasional changes to the interior spaces.22 However, at the end of Late Bronze Age, shrinkage and mutation in the settlement space is observed, as the main building complex is sub-divided into smaller households.23 During the Early Iron Age, the settlement spread around the mound while its top was still occupied. Habitation of the site continued until the end of 4th century BC, when the settlement was abandoned, most probably in favour of the synoikismos of the newly founded Thessaloniki. The transformation of the settlement must have gradually begun in the 9th and was completed in the 8th century BC. A transitional phase has been recognised within the 9th century BC, when the extension of the settlement around the mound began. No architectural remains of the Early Iron Age have been found on the top of the mound. However, the evidence from pits and several disturbed contexts indicate the continuity of occupation. It seems that the remains of this period were both eroded and partially levelled during the 6th century BC, when a number of buildings were erected on the eastern and western part of the mound.24 The possibility of the use of the mound as a domestic space, even in the 9th century BC, cannot be ruled out. This seems the best explanation to account for the fragmentary picture obtained in the area around the tell during the 9th century BC, with its scanty Late Protogeometric and sub-Protogeometric pottery finds. The Early Iron Age architectural remains on the outskirts are extremely fragmentary, mainly due to the rescue type of the excavations. It is, however, clear that the settlement expanded during this period at several areas around the prehistoric mound. The walls of the buildings were postframed and built with mud bricks, while the floors were made of trodden earth.25 As to the ground plan of these structures, it would be risky to venture any remarks as none have been fully investigated. Based on relevant details in other neighbouring settlements, such as Kastanas,26 Assiros,27 Sindos28 and Nea Philadelphia,29 we can reconstruct houses with rectangular rooms,30 sometimes standing separate and sometimes in groups of 3–431 to form independent residential units.32 Ap-

Andreou – Kotsakis 1996, 374. This type of building is classified as a hybrid as it has rooms with rectangular and curvilinear plan. This is a very rare type of architectural building seen at Toumba Thessaloniki, in Attica and the Cyclades, see Mazarakis Ainian 1997, 234–235. 22 Andreou – Kotsakis 1996, 371–372. 23 Andreou – Eukleidou 2008, 328. 24 Andreou – Kotsakis 1993, 283; Andreou – Kotsakis 1996, σημ. 6; Exarchou 2004, 32–33, πίν. 1. 25 For the construction practices in the Iron Age, see Soueref, 2004, 323 n. 19. 26 Gimatzidis – Hänsel 2012. 27 Wardle – Wardle 2007, 469–476, fig. 3. 28 Gimatzidis 2010, 67–70, 73–78; Tiverios 2009a, 397–407. 29 Misailidou-Despotidou 1998, 259–263, drawing 1. 30 Lang 2002, 16. 31 Hänsel 1989, 176–177, 336. 32 Kastanas: Hänsel 1989, pls 34–42. Anchialos: Tiverios 1998, 246, figs. 4–5. N. Philadelpheia: Misailidou-Despotidou 1998, 259–263, fig. 1. Souroti: Soueref – Chavela 2004, 345–347. 21

Transformations and Formations Around the Thermaic Gulf in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age

163

sidal-ended buildings may also have existed, given the popularity this specific architectural type enjoyed during Protogeometric and Geometric times in nearby regions.33 Large quantities of handmade pottery, dominated by bowls and jugs along with cooking vessels that usually bear intense traces of burning and large coarse pithoi, all attest to the operation of organised households. The presence of painted pottery, imported (from Euboea) and local (with sub-Protogeometric decoration, Silver Slip Wares), was primarily intended for banqueting and indicates the existence of other activities, which indeed were already developed in the village of Toumba as early as the Late Bronze Age. These activities concern the organisation of the feasting events during which these particular vessels were displayed in drinking ceremonies.34 Regarding the relationship between the two categories of ceramics found, it is observed that, from the mid-8th and even more so in the late 8th century BC, painted pottery, imported or local, begins to outnumber the handmade, which now covers only the very basic needs of every household.35 The Intra-Cemetery Analysis The Late Bronze Age graves recently investigated within the settlement at Toumba Thessaloniki are so far the only evidence for the burial practices developed in the region.36 Some 17 graves are concerned, of which 11 were found intact. They are dated mostly to the late 12th and early 11th centuries BC – with the possibility that some belong to the early 12th century BC. Deposition of the dead took place mostly inside the buildings, and in the streets between them. These places seem to have been abandoned immediately after burial and only reused much later for habitation purposes. Regarding the burial practices, no specific rules seem to have been observed, neither in the type of grave nor in its orientation nor the body position. Grave goods existed for the most part in a few adult graves or with juveniles of childbearing age. Closed vases (cut-away necked jugs, kantharoi, Mycenaean amphoriskoi) are combined with other objects, such as beads and spindle whorls.37 According to the excavators,38 although there seems to be no systematic and organised ritual treatment of the dead, the age and sex can influence some aspects of the burial ritual. The distribution of the other burials in the structural complexes (buildings A and B) are considered to reflect, from the point of view of the tenants, the intention of the descendants to declare and maintain links with their ancestors. Moreover, the distribution of the burials within different parts of Building A was, for the most part, considered indicative of the existence of large groups living in large compounds, but which were divided into smaller units. Although they had family ties between themselves, they still retained a relative autonomy within the framework of the overall household.39 The first evidence for the existence of organised burial space dates back to the Early Iron Age and, more specifically, to the 8th century BC, at which time the process of the settlement’s expansion into the area around the prehistoric mound seems to have been completed. These cemeteries were relatively distant, from 400 up to 800m from the ancient settlement. There was a preference for ridges and spaces formed between the ravines that characterise the area to the southwest and the southeast of the settlement. The specific areas are used only during the 8th century and occasionally during the early 7th century BC. During the Archaic, Classical and early Hellenistic

35 36 37 38 39 33 34

Mazarakis-Ainian 1989, 269–288; 1997, 43, 98, 112; Lang 2002, 16. Andreou 2003, 191–210; Andreou – Psaraki 2007, 397–420. Chavela forthcoming. Andreou – Kotsakis 1993, 279–286; Andreou – Eukleidou 2008, 325–326, fig. 1; Andreou et al. 2010, 362–364. Andreou – Eukleidou 2008, 325–326, fig. 1. Andreou et al. 2010, 364. Andreou et al. 2010, 364.

164

Konstantoula Chavela

periods, the burial ground laid closer to the settlement (Fig. 1).40 In a total of 98 graves, some 91% (89 graves) belong to the type of the pit grave with a slate cover, which was usually defined by small rough stones. Oval pits were opened in the natural reddish soil and were covered with a slab. Sometimes their walls are lined with stones (Fig. 2). More rare are the cases where the shallow pit lacks its cover (7%), while a single example has its shallow pit covered with a pile of stones. Finally, there is only one cist grave (1%) (Fig. 3). The main burial custom is that of individual interment (98.1%), while the custom of cremation is represented by a single example in a cut-away necked jug (1.1%). There is only a child burial, in which a small animal was placed, whose presence may be part of the burial ritual.41 The majority of the dead are oriented eastwest (65%), while only 17.3% were placed northsouth. Regarding the position of the dead body, when this is in a fairly good state of preservation, it is supine with the head turned sometimes to Fig. 2   Toumba Thessaloniki. Adult burial in pit the right, sometimes to the left; the hands are in grave (photo: Ephorate of Antiquities of the city most cases positioned alongside the body. Rarely of Thessaloniki) is one of them bent and placed on the chest, or both of them crossed on chest or groin. Thrice the dead had been placed in a contracted position. The presence of jewellery in one of them indicates a woman, while another burial a little way off belonged to a child.

Fig. 3   Frequency of grave types (graph: K. Chavela)

40 41

Chavela forthcoming; Soueref – Chavela forthcoming. Bourbou – Themelis 2010, 116–117.

Transformations and Formations Around the Thermaic Gulf in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age

165

The fragmentary preservation of the skeletal material and the absence of any detailed analysis of it make any interpretation of issues relating to gender and the age at death very difficult, let alone any determination as to the identity of the deceased.42 This lacuna has forced a reliance in several occasions to be placed on the nature of the grave-offerings present to reach an understanding of the gender; however, such conclusions are quite precarious. For example, all burials that are considered on the basis of grave goods (especially jewellery) to be of women are oriented westeast. On the other hand, in the case of graves with iron knives, no such patterns emerge: in a total of seven graves, three of them are oriented north-south and four are east-west. The majority of the graves, based mostly on their dimensions, seem to have belonged to adults or juveniles, while child burials are extremely few in number (3%). Regarding the grave offerings, it is very interesting that most graves (72%) had at least one grave good. The majority of these, at 59%, have been furnished exclusively with vessels – usually one or two, rarely three. In 28% of the burials, there exists a combination of ceramics and non-ceramic offerings, while in 13% there have been placed only an item(s) not made of clay (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4   Frequency of offerings per grave (graph: K. Chavela)

The vessels that accompanied the dead in the cemetery of Toumba were, for the most part (93%), locally produced, while imported pottery (at 7%) is represented by several examples from Euboea. The local ceramics is made up as follows: a.) handmade pottery of the Early Iron Age 20%; b.) wheel-made grey wares43 6%; c.) pottery with sub-Protogeometric decoration44 10%; d.) local pottery with geometric decoration 6%; e.) monochrome pottery with thick walls45 35%; f.) egg-shelled Monochrome Wares46 16% (Fig. 5).Concerning handmade pottery, the most popular shape is that of the bowl with horizontal solid or pierced handles and, less often, the wishbone handle, or the spouted bowl. More restricted is the presence of cut-away necked jugs, while even more unusual are examples of cups with vertical handles and of deep bowls (Fig. 6). Wheelmade grey wares occur exclusively as cups with a vertical handle. A wider variety of shapes occur in pottery with sub-Protogeometric decoration. Pendant semicircles, the decorative motif par excellence of this category, is associated with one-handled spouted vessels, deep bowls, and

44 45 46 42 43

Liston – Papadopoulos 2004, 7–38. Chavela 2004, 329–339; Exarchou 2004 ; Chavela forthcoming. Chavela 2012a, 247–251, fig. 1; Chavela forthcoming. Chavela 2012a, 251–254, figs. 2–3; Chavela forthcoming. Chavela 2012a, 254–255; Chavela forthcoming.

166

Konstantoula Chavela

Fig. 5   Frequency of pottery in the graves (graph: K. Chavela)

Fig. 6   Frequency of handmade pottery (photos and graph: K. Chavela)

kantharos-type vases, as well as special vessel shapes such as the footed krater. Monochrome pottery, mostly with thick walls, occurs most frequently in graves of the 8th century BC. For the first category, the predominant shape is that of the skyphos followed by one-handled spouted vessels and the stemless cups (Fig. 7). This last one is the representative shape of the monochrome eggshell pottery (Fig. 8). A special category comprises a limited number – only two – of locally-produced skyphoi with pendant semicircles, a shape quite popular in Euboea. Finally, two bowls with linear decoration were imported from Euboea. In 41% of the graves, metal objects were deposited: mainly jewellery and some clothing accessories or tools. The majority of these (50%) are of copper/bronze, followed by iron (42%), while the presence of gold is extremely low (8%) (Fig. 9). Especially popular are the iron rings of the

Transformations and Formations Around the Thermaic Gulf in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age

167

Fig. 7   Frequency of monochrome pottery with thick walls (photos and graph: K. Chavela)

Fig. 8   Frequency of egg-shelled monochrome pottery (photos and graph: K. Chavela)

closed type,47 while bronze rings, both simple48 and with spiral discs,49 and earrings, both spiral50 and ordinary hoops,51 occur less frequently. The bracelets are limited to two pairs: one belongs to the type with spirals (spiral wristlets)52 and the other comprises one and half turns.53 Restricted is

49 50 51 52

Vokotopoulou 1986, 313–314; Misailidou-Despotidou 2011, 124–125. Vokotopoulou 1986, 315. Andronikos 1969, 238–240; Vokotopoulou 1986, 315. Misailidou-Despotidou 2011, 46–47. Misailidou-Despotidou 2011, 49. Vergina: Andronikos 1969, 241–243; Rhomiopoulou – Kilian-Dirlmeier 1989, 122–123. Tsaousitsa: Casson 1921, 13–14; Misailidou-Despotidou 2011, 107–108. 53 Bouzek 1973, 124. 47 48

168

Konstantoula Chavela

Fig. 9   Frequency of metal objects (graph: K. Chavela)

also the presence of bronze hair clips,54 figure-of-eight shaped fibulae,55 collars,56 tweezers57 and pins. A particular case are the six gilded-copper bosses that were placed on the chest of the dead – clearly some form of dress accessories,58 and a gold rectangular plate. The tools are exclusively iron knives, which accompanied both female and the male burials.59 Characteristic and certainly not due to accident or chance is the absence of weaponry. With regard to the position and manner of positioning and combination of these offerings, the following deductions can be made: a.) the pots are placed mainly in the region of the abdomen, with a few deposited by the legs, at chest or head height; b.) the iron knives are located at the thigh area or the palms of the hands; c.) half the graves (4 graves) with knives contained a skyphos as well, with geometric decoration of local production; d.) of the six imported Euboean pots, half of them were the only finds in the grave; e.) in the graves with the most jewellery, no vases were found; f.) hand and wheel-made vessels coexist; and g.) the pots are mostly open forms. After this overview of the Early Iron Age cemetery at Toumba, we may now discern that local mortuary rites aredefined by a uniform approach to burial. This is indicated by the constant practice of single inhumations, the almost exclusive use of pits for the interments, the standard position of extended bodies and the small range of grave goods. The use of a particular area for the disposal of the dead, in combination with a consistent orientation, supports the idea of an organised burial ground. These characteristics, together with the fact that the graves seem to be placed without any visible indications of clustering or specific distribution and arrangement, could indicate that the differentiation is based in a horizontal – rather than a vertical – axis. However, a range of variables in the funerary process at Toumba Thessaloniki can be detected, which somewhat breaks up this picture of homogeneity. These differences may have been crucial to the management and definition of social relations. They include the range of the grave goods, the total absence of grave goods from a number of burials (28%), the exceptions to the common burial orientation (17.3%), the discrepancies in body position, the single cremation and the scarce presence of child burials (3%). The variety in the form of the pit graves is another such factor: their structural differences represent disparities in the energy and time expended in their

56 57 58 59 54 55

Andronikos 1969, 243–247. Andronikos 1969, 227–230; Misailidou-Despotidou 2011, 95–97. Andronikos 1969, 247–248. Vokotopoulou 1986, 319. Andronikos 1969, 243–247; Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1992, 417, 618–621. Three of them belong to the type of the straight knife and four belong to the type with the curved form with a triangular handle. Vokotopoulou 1986, 297–299.

Transformations and Formations Around the Thermaic Gulf in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age

169

manufacture. Those enclosed by pebble stones, the pits with built walls, or the grave covered with stone pile all consumed larger amounts of resources and probably larger groups of people were involved in their construction than for the simple pit graves.60 It is no coincidence that the grave covered with the cairn was the ‘richest’ one in the cemetery. It is a female interment, furnished with a bronze collar, the six gilded bosses, and both iron and bronze rings. The discrepancies in body position as slighter: variations in how the arms and legs are placed could still be helpful to reveal differences between groups.61 However, to take such an approach it is essential that the variables of the body position be scrutinised with the grave goods in a multivariate statistical analysis: this exercise is still in progress. Grave goods are another parameter in which diversities can be detected. Approaches and interpretations made about this class of objects are varied.62 Material deposited with the dead is normally regarded as one reflection of the social identity of the deceased, as indicators of wealth or of foreign contacts and interregional relations. Indicative here is the case of a group of four female graves, including the above-mentioned rich burial, where a relative abundance of grave goods were found in the same place. In these graves, handmade and wheel-made painted vases are combined with a variety of bronze and iron jewels that is unmatched in the other graves. This specific group, so differentiated from other graves in the cemetery, could be a reflection of social differentiation. Furthermore, the choice to place a grave within a specific group may be intended to make a statement to those excluded. The fact that the most richly-furnished graves were of females than of males could be interpreted to mean that male wealth could be shown through female display: women exhibit their husband‘s status as well as their own.63 However, the majority of the graves present a small range of grave goods. This suggests that either such people could not obtain the prestige goods or that the provision of ‘rich’ goods in the tomb was not important to them. Symptomatic of the latter attitude is the case of vessels of Euboean provenance, manufacture or inspiration: these vases, while occurring with relative frequency in a settlement context, have a quite limited use in a funerary one.64 Another quite tempting interpretation apropos the limited presence of luxurious pottery from the graves suggests itself: namely those vessels found in mortuary contexts were significant for their content rather than their ceramic properties.65 The dominance of the open shapes (97%) over the closed (3%) probably is to be connected with actual feasting performances. In this respect, the fact that the jug – the main pouring vessel – is the only closed vessel commonly represented is in itself suggestive. Especially interesting is the lack of infant and child burials, apart from three graves, from the cemetery at Toumba. Although there may be archaeological explanations for this, the inescapable conclusion is that children were not normally buried in an adult cemetery. In the case of those that were found, it follows that there must be some special reason for their inclusion. Characteristic is a lack of offerings. One child has been buried with a small animal and is set over a female burial, while a second was in direct contact with an adult grave furnished with a knife. The most common grave good was a glass eye-bead or a clay bead – artefacts that could be interpreted as gender-neutral. The presence of infants, children or other members of non-‘normative’ groups has been considered a deliberate act that somehow controlled, shaped and manipulated the funerary environment.66 Here, however, it seems more probable that the presence of child burials may be

62 63 64

Nordquist 1987, 97–103. Parker Pearson 2000, 8. Ekengren 2013, 173–192. Harding 2000, 395–396. A similar effect is seen in the graves of the Archaic period with the Attic black-figure vases, see Chavela 2012b, 185–186. 65 A similar interpretation is given for the vessels that were found in the LBA tombs identified within the settlement, Andreou et al. 2010, 362–364. 66 Moore – Scott 1997. 60 61

170

Konstantoula Chavela

Fig. 10   Map of the study area (graph: K. Chavela)

serving no ulterior purpose at all. Could they simply be buried close to adults – e.g. parents – with whom they were associated in life? The Inter-Cemeteries Analysis Around the Thermaic Gulf, in addition to the ancient settlement of Toumba, there developed, mostly during the Early Iron Age and after, several other settlements: Karabournaki,67 Polichni, 68 Therme,69 Gona,70 Sindos,71 Nea Philadelpheia (Fig. 10).72 Some of them already seem to have been inhabited in the Late Bronze Age, but none matched in extent and importance to the settlement of Toumba. Nowhere have been found cemeteries of the LBA, and during the Early Iron Age and especially during the 8th century BC their formal cemeteries were developed outside the boundaries of the settlements and at a considerable distance from them73 (Polichni/Stavroupolis: 400m northwest of the settlement,74 N. Philadelpheia: southwest of the settlement75). Furthermore, there was a clear break with the cemeteries of the Archaic and Classical periods, with the

69 70 71 72 73 74 75 67 68

Tiverios 2009b, 385–396. Karliambas et al. 2009, 237–246; Tzanavari – Lioutas 1993, 265–278. Skarlatidou – Tzanakouli 2009, 227–336. Skarlatidou – Konstantinidou 2003, 213–226; Patis 2010. Gimatzidis 2010; Tiverios 2009a. Misailidou-Despotidou 1998, 258–266, fig. 1. For a first presentation see, Chavela 2009, 307–322. Lioutas 2013, 213. Misailidou-Despotidou 2013, 225.

Transformations and Formations Around the Thermaic Gulf in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age

SITES

Inhumations

Cremations

Toumba Thessaloniki

+

+

Stauroupoli Thessaloniki

+

+

Karambournaki

+

?

N. Eukarpia

+

+

Oraiokastro

+

–

Therme

+

+

N. Philadelpeia

+

+

171

Tab. 1 Distribution of burial practices of different cemeteries

sole exception of Therme.76 In all of them, the prevalent form is that of an extended cemetery with individual graves, which are set in a single layer; only Polichni/Stavroupolis differs, as here burials of different periods were deposited in two or three different layers.77 The excavations in these cemeteries, being of different calibres, do not allow us to have a clear picture of their organisation by and large apart from a few cases, like in the case of Nea Philadelpheia.78At all the cemeteries, all genders and ages are included in a single funerary area. In the cases of the cemeteries at Stavroupolis,79 Oraiokastro80 and Nea Eukarpia,81 the percentage of infant and child graves is particularly high. The basic burial practice was inhumation, while cremation occurs less frequently (Tab.1). Urns have been found among the tombs, placed above the covering slabs or in small pits (Oraiokastro82), while occasionally they are encased (Nea Eukarpia83). The dead were mainly placed in pit graves with slab covers, rather less so in cists; simple pits without stone cover were less common. Cremation burials in urns seems quite widespread in the cemetery of the Stavroupolis – mostly in cut-away necked jugs and amphorae, which are sometimes covered with a slab.84 Occasionally, in the cemeteries of Oraiokastro,85 Nea Eukarpia,86 Nea Philadelphia87 and Therme,88 the dead were inhumed in pithoi and rarely in amphorae (Tab. 2). Indications for the existence of small tumuli have been detected in Nea Philadelphia, where there were revealed grave circles with a diameter of up to 20m in the southern part of the cemetery,89 as is also the case in Nea Eukarpia.90With regard to how the dead are positioned, a steady preference for the extended over the contracted position is maintained; limited examples where the body was buried face down are recorded (Stavroupolis91). Hands are placed sometimes crossed over

Skarlatidou – Ignatiadou 1996, 478. Lioutas – Gioura 1997, 322; Lioutas 1999, 548. 78 In the cemetery of N. Philadelpheia were discovered parts of its northern and eastern boundary; these are made clear by the positioning of the ends of the graves in a row. Misailidou-Despotidou 1997, pl. 238b. 79 Lioutas – Gioura 1997, 322. 80 Lambrothanasi – Papagianni 2001, 263. 81 Lambrothanasi-Korantzi et al. 2002, 250. 82 Lambrothanasi – Papagianni 2001, 263. 83 Lambrothanasi-Korantzi et al. 2002, 249–250, fig 3–4. 84 Lioutas – Gioura 1997, 322; Lioutas – Kotsos 2007, 834; Kotsos 2009, 665–666, fig. 31–32; Lioutas 2013, 213– 215. 85 Lambrothanasi – Papagianni 2001, 263, fig. 13. 86 Lambrothanasi 1999, 547, fig. 37. 87 Misailidou-Despotidou 2012. 88 Pithoi at the cemetery of Therme are placed in a pit and covered with slabs, and in one case the jar is boxed in, Skarlatidou 1999, 534. 89 Misailidou-Despotidou 1998, 264. 90 Lambrothanasi-Korantzi et al. 2002, 249. 91 Lioutas – Gioura 1997, 322. 76 77

172

Konstantoula Chavela

SITES

GRAVE TYPES

Toumba Thessaloniki

Pits

Cists

Jar Burials

Shallow Pits

+

+

–

+

Stauroupolis Thessaloniki

+

+

+

–

N. Eukarpia

+

+

–

–

Oraiokastro

+

+

+

–

Karabournaki Thessaloniki

+

N. Philadelpheia

+

+

+

+

Therme Thessaloniki

+

–

+

–

Tab. 2 Distribution of grave types of different cemeteries

the pelvis, i.e. at Stavroupolis92and Nea Eukarpia,93 or between the thighs (Nea Philadelpheia94), and sometimes alongside the body or slightly folded over the chest or abdomen (Nea Eukarpia,95 Oraiokastro96). Orientation is mostly inconstant, with an exception at Oraiokastro, where the majority of the graves are aligned on a north-south axis.97 A significant proportion of burials in most of these cemeteries were furnished with vases, bronze or iron jewellery and tools. The handmade vessels are of a limited range of shapes: bowls with horizontal or vertical handles, or wishbone-handled bowls, cut-away necked jugs, kantharoi, cups with vertical handles, feeders and amphoriskoi. A significant presence of wheel-made grey wares is noted (cups with vertical handle, kantharoi), while also present are examples of monochrome wares with thick walls or egg-shell ones (skyphoi, stemless cups, oinochoiskes, one-handled spouted vessels). Locally produced sub-Protogeometric pottery (one-handled spouted vessels, cups with vertical handles, amphorae) appears in most cemeteries, in contrast with the few imported, mainly Euboean, pots. The latter (Pendent Semicircle Skyphoi or vessels with linear decoration and with panels), although found in most settlements,98 are not used as offerings other than in the cemetery at Karabournaki (Tab. 3).99 The metal objects are mainly of copper/bronze and less of iron; gold is extremely rare. Jewellery mainly consists of bracelets (spiral wristlets and those with one and a half coils), finger rings (with spiral discs, lozenge-shaped bezels or of bands), earrings, bronze figure-of-8 shaped fibulae and arched ones, pins of various types, biconical beads, collars, pendants, spiral tubes, hair clips, plates of various types for bedecking garments. The gold items are limited to the presence of some earrings, gold plates and gilded bronze bosses, which decorated clothing and headgear.100 Tools are mainly iron knives of various types. Frequent too are clay items believed to be spindle-whorls. Particularly interesting, once again, is the absence of weapons in all the cemeteries concerned.101

94 95 96 97 98

Lioutas – Gioura 1997, 322. Lambrothanasi-Korantzi et al. 2002, 250. Misailidou-Despotidou 2012. Lambrothanasi-Korantzi et al. 2002, 250. Lambrothanasi – Papagianni 2001, 263. Lambrothanasi – Papagianni 2001, 263. N. Philadelpheia Early Iron Age: Misailidou-Despotidou 1998, 262, fig. 6. Polichmi: Tzanavari – Lioutas 1993, 270–271. 99 Panti 2012, 257–261, figs. 1–2. 100 At the Oraiokastro cemetery (Lambrothanasi – Papagianni 2001, 266) and that at Stavroupolis (Lioutas – Gioura 1997, 322–323) these are located in infant and child burials, set on the forehead of the dead. 101 The iron spearhead found in a grave at Oraiokastro seems to be related mostly to the way of death than the furnishing of the grave, see Lambrothanasi – Papagianni 2001, 266–267, figs. 13–14. 92 93

173

Transformations and Formations Around the Thermaic Gulf in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age

SITES

POTTERY Handmade Pottery

Painted Imported Pottery

Painted Local Pottery

Wheelmade Grey Pottery

Monochrome with thick walls

Egg-shelled Monochrome

Toumba Thessaloniki

+

+

+

+

+

+

Stauroupolis

+

–

–

+

+

–

N. Eukarpia

+

–

+

+

+

–

Oraiokastro

+

–

+

–

–

–

Karabournaki

+

+

+

;

+

+

N. Philadelpheia

+

–

–

+

+

+

Therme

+

–

+

+

+

Tab. 3 Distribution of pottery of different cemeteries

Most of the cemeteries connected to the above mentioned settlements (Stavroupolis,102 Nea Eukarpia,103 Oraiokastro,104 Karabournaki,105 Therme (Sedes)106 and Nea Philadelpheia107), as at Toumba, give the impression that they are regulated by rules on commonly held burial practices. However, a much more varied range of mortuary customs can be argued to exist than the archaeological record apparently declares, as was noted before. Once again, in this lies a great potential for differentiation, for the shaping and displaying of social identities, and for the exclusion or inclusion of individuals into smaller or larger groups. Similarities are traced in the constant preference for inhumation over cremation, also in the constant employment of pits, in the inclusion of all ages and genders in the same funerary area, and finally in the regular and repetitive use of particular offering types, whether ceramic, jewellery or tools. A gradually increasing diversity can be detected in the broad range of grave types, in particular cemeteries like Nea Philadelpheia and Polichni/Stavroupolis. These two present the greatest diversity in the grave typology: no doubt partly due to the large number of graves that have been excavated (2,226 graves at N. Philadelpheia, 700 at Polichni/Stavroupolis). Although pit-graves remain the most common type, a significant number of cist and jar-burials has been observed. This rising variability of form could be indicative of a more complicated social ranking in these communities, given the different expenditures in energy and time required for their construction. The presence of infant and child burials constitutes another factor of diversity. The high percentage of infant and child graves at Polichni/Stavroupolis, Oraiokastro and Nea Eukarpia is in contrast with their limited presence at Nea Philadelpheia, Therme and Toumba. The changes in the frequency and the spatial distribution of child burials have been interpreted as reflecting shifts in the symbolism of child burial within the relevant society. Their presence may be promoted and regarded as necessary for the survival of the society.108 Their inclusion in the burial plots of Late Geometric Athens was combined with the rise of the city-state: it is considered as an indicator of the early steps towards democracy.109 Taking into account all the abovementioned, we could say that in the case of the settlements around the Thermaic Gulf, some (Polichni/Stavroupolis,

104 105 106 107 108 109 102 103

Lioutas – Gioura 1997, 317–326; Lioutas 2013, 213–215. Lambrothanasi-Korantzi et al. 2002, 439–454. Lamprothanasi – Papagianni 2001, 263–270. Tsibidou-Avlonitou 1999, 532; Panti 2012, 259–262. Skarlatidou – Ignatiadou 1996, 476–490; Skarlatidou 1999, 532–536. Misailidou-Despotidou 1998, 259–268. Houby-Nielsen 2000, 162. Morris 1987.

174

Konstantoula Chavela

Oraiokastro and Nea Eukarpia) adopted a systematic incorporation of child burials in their formal cemeteries as early as the Iron Age, while in other cases (Nea Philadelpheia, Therme and Toumba) child burials were a rare phenomenon until the Archaic period. The co-occurrence of different burial practices in the same funerary area, in our case of inhumation and cremation, has been suggested to reflect the existence of different subgroups in the community: ones possessing different social status, or different cultural identities,110 or even unusual circumstances in death.111 In the case of the cemeteries of the Thermaic Gulf, and ruling out the existence of different cultural identities, we believe that it is more likely that cremation, as it requires a higher expenditure of effort than simple inhumation and includes more stages of processing, is to be associated with groups enjoying a different status. The presence of more cremations in Nea Philadelphia and Polichni/Stavroupolis might therefore reflect the existence of groups with a different social status. Particularly interesting is the variation in the position of the dead body. Albeit at all the cemeteries there has been attested a constant preference for the extended position, yet the different placement of hands and feet could be indicative of religious and cosmological beliefs prevailing within each community. How else can be interpreted the constant placement of hands between the thighs and the bound ankles in the cemetery of Nea Philadelphia?112 Another factor of inter-cemetery diversity is also detectable in the grave goods. This comprises two parameters. The first concerns the way the grave goods are placed in the grave and the second their types. Regarding the first, the gilded bosses are indicative. At the Polichni/Stavroupolis and Oraiokastro cemeteries these have been found mostly in infant and child graves, while at Nea Philadelpheia they are mainly detected in female graves. As for the second parameter, the ceramics of Euboean provenance, manufacture or inspiration are the focus. Although found in all the settlements, they are nevertheless absent from most cemeteries, except at Karabournaki as well as at Toumba. Again, although the majority of cemeteries observed a preference for open shapes, mainly bowls and skyphoi, in the cemetery of Nea Philadelphia it is the cut-away necked jug that holds sway. Regarding metal objects, especially jewellery, it is established that such occur with greater frequency and variety in the cemetery of Nea Philadelpheia,113 and also in that of Therme,114 whilst at the cemetery at Oraiokastro115 they form the majority of offerings. The large number of specific types of jewellery was considered a reflection on the special position of women in the local community, while their symbolic forms are to be associated with the prevailing religious or social conditions.116 Of course, the large number of metal objects might also suggest the presence of emerging social groups that expressed themselves by the possession of metal objects. These postulated groups may indeed have been involved in the manufacture and marketing of both metals and the objects.117 Through such behaviour, as we have already mentioned, these groups, both males and females, are able to proclaim their wealth.

Ucko 1969, 273–275; Tainter 1978, 126; O’Shea 1996, 299, 341–342, 364–367; Cavanagh – Mee 1998, 108, 123; Carr 1995, 167, 180; Harding 2000, 111–114. 111 O’Shea 1984, 247, 254. 112 Misailidou-Despotidou 2012. 113 Misailidou-Despotidou 1998, 264–265, figs. 10–11. In the case of the cemetery of N. Philadelphia, a decisive factor in the strong presence of metal objects and mainly in copper/bronze jewellery should be the immediate vicinity of the Axios. For the presence of copper jewellery in the Axios region, see Tsaousitsa: Casson 1921, 15, 17–18, figs. 11, 12a, pl. I; Casson 1925, 24–27 pls. I–II, IV–V; Kilian 1975, 74–78, pls. 34–39. Gynaikokastro: Savvopoulou 2001, 178, figs. 20–23. 114 Skarlatidou 2007, 22–28. 115 Lambrothanasi – Papagianni 2001, 264. 116 Savvopoulou 1988, 614; Savvopoulou 2004, 315. For the priestly/religious aspects of women who are accompanied by pendants/pyxides, see Mitrevski 1996/97, 86–89. 117 Mazarakis Ainian 2006, 182. 110

Transformations and Formations Around the Thermaic Gulf in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age

175

From the inter-cemetery analysis we can draw the following conclusions: a.) the settlements of Nea Philadelphia and Polichni/Stravroupolis show a more complex social stratification, and specifically inthe case of Nea Philadelphia, the presence of the large central building in a prominent place increases the likelihood of a more complex social organisation; b.) the settlement of Polichni/Stavroupolis, as well as those connected to the cemeteries in Oraiokastro and Nea Eukarpia, follow common burial practices, which may be due to their belonging to a single territorial unit (Fig. 10). The common burial practices that the settlements of Toumba and at Karabournaki seem to follow, although the data available to us from the latter is still quite limited, create another spatial entity (Fig. 10). Conclusions During the Late Bronze Age there appears in central Macedonia a group of settlements of considerable size with imposing construction systems as well as facilities for centralised storage. These settlements were governed by strict communal regulations, which defined their lives. These are detectable in the dense and strictly symmetrical arrangement of residential complexes, which are separated by parallel narrow streets. Under these conditions of a clear and strict delimitation, the settlement size underwent minor changes. These characteristics are indicative of regional variability when compared with communities in other areas, and the establishment of inter-communal networks with relatively simple and unstable hierarchies. In essence, the community probably evolves into a local political centre with some economic power, within which a social complexity is observed,118 as is evidenced by the presence of central buildings (Toumba Thessaloniki, Building A).119 This set-up appears to be in operation in the area of central Macedonia from the Late Bronze Age onwards. During the early phases of the Iron Age a kind of regional hierarchy developed, a system in which some settlements had a higher and some a lower position. The basic social group of those settlements has been considered to be the ‘house/oikos’. The physical height of these places was suggested to have a symbolic importance and relevance in antiquity, representing the importance a community held in its region. On the other hand, the continuous rebuilding on the same point reinforces the foundations of the established order by emphasising the ancestral values. Furthermore, the rebuilding of houses following the same old plan was a kind of symbolic expression of the continuing social identity of those households.120 Contrary to the rules that define the function of settlements on mounds around the Thermaic Gulf in Late Bronze Age, not any pattern can be distinguished in the treatment of the dead. Presumably, there existed an underlying way of thinking relevant to perceptions regarding the past and the ancestors. The above observation is reinforced by the fact that in all other regions of Macedonia respect for the dead is an essential component among the living residents.121 This ideology explains the reception of burials within the settlement of Toumba: it is, after all, a practice well known in the region of Macedonia since the Early Bronze Age at Archontiko122 and in Korinos Pieria.123 Intra-settlement burials could emphasise a close relation between the deceased and the house, placing an emphasis on kin relations; the preference of domestic spaces for the deposition of the dead could be representative of stability and permanence. The explanations given for the intra-settlement burials range from economic to spiritual or social motivations. Such practices may be argued to have bolstered claims of an elite group to ancestral rights over urban

120 121 122 123 118 119

Andreou – Kotsakis 1987, 84–86; Andreou – Kotsakis 1996, 382–383. Andreou – Kotsakis 1996, 374, fig. 4. Andreou 2010, 649–650. Andreou 2010, 651; Andreou 2014, 147. Papaefthymiou-Papanthimou et al. 2000, 429; Papaefthymiou-Papanthimou 2010, 272. Bessios 1993, 202–203.

176

Konstantoula Chavela

land, while providing kinship links to powerful spirits. These ties to dead ancestors can reinforce the religious status and economic standing of any individuals or families claiming affiliation.124 During the Early Iron Age, habitation continued uninterruptedly on in the already existing Late Bronze Age settlements around the Thermaic Gulf, while there were also a number of newly-created smaller settlements in the area. Where continuous habitation is witnessed (Toumba Thessaloniki, Assiros), a gradual shrinkage and mutation of settlement pattern is revealed in the architectural remains. In the early phases of the Early Iron Age, large residential complexes were transformed into smaller households, whereas during the 9th and mainly in the 8th centuries BC, habitation was at the same time extended around the foot of the mound (Toumba Thessaloniki) or the settlement was finally abandoned (Assiros).125 The extension of the residence area beyond the clear limits of the Late Bronze Age settlements coupled with the foundation of new zones of habitation, partly compelled by a growing population, should be considered also as a result of socio-economic changes that gradually led to the genesis of the early urban centres in central Macedonia, regardless of whether or not their potential was fully realised.126 The basic social unit of these settlements is now formed of independent households, as is evidenced by the presence of independent residential units.127 A new dimension in the organisation of residential facilities of the Early Iron Age has been provided by new data on the existence of large residential facilities that seem to go beyond the compass of a single rural family dwelling, as, for example, at Assiros128 and N. Philadelpheia.129 The large dimensions of these unique buildings and their distinguished position within the settlement – in N. Philadelpheia the central building is over 200m² large – the economic power and manpower expressed in their construction, the self-sufficiency in agricultural products that the presence of numerous storage vessels indicates has all been interpreted to indicate the desire of some members to distinguish themselves from the rest of the community.130 Among these buildings should also be included the one that was excavated outside the proper settlement at Toumba Thessaloniki131 as well as another structure in Souroti Thessaloniki.132 Having thus acquired a broad picture of the settlements developed around the Thermaic Gulf as early as the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age, the initial impression given is that there are no dramatic changes in this transitional era, even though wider realignments are taking place in both the Balkans and elsewhere in the Aegean. No significant break is detected in settlement, material culture and social practices. However, considerable changes are perceived: especially in the reorganisation of tell sites in central Macedonia, some of which grew considerably in size after the middle of the 9th century BC, and also in the increase in the number of settlements over a wider geographical area. At the same time, there are indications for the formation of a new cultural landscape, which, although incorporating many elements of the preceding Late Bronze Age, was principally signified by the relocation of symbolic activities – moving from settlements to cemeteries. The Late Bronze Age in the area of central Macedonia, as already highlighted by Andreou,133 is the time when the communities defined themselves by using as a medium/symbol the residential space in order to express their diversity both inter-community and intra. Externally, the entire residential space, i.e. the tell-mounds, may have served as the medium for comparison among local

126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 124 125

Brody 2010, 120; Parker Pearson 1993, 206. Wardle – Wardle 2007, 476–479; Wardle – Wardle 2012. Koukouli – Chrysanthaki 2014, 165. Koukouli – Chrysanthaki 2014, 166. Wardle – Wardle 2007, 477–479, figs. 4–5; Wardle – Wardle 2012. Misailidou-Despotidou 1998, 259–263, fig. 3. Koukouli – Chrysanthaki 2014, 166. Soueref 1997, 339–340, fig. 2. Soueref – Chavela 2004, 347–349. Andreou 2010, 648–654; Andreou 2014, 145–147.

Transformations and Formations Around the Thermaic Gulf in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age

177

communities – the bigger, the more significant.134 Large architectural constructions emphasised the success of the community and its long-term history in the area. They also defined the limits of occupation, creating a clear boundary between the inside and the outside.135 Within the community, the residential space was gradually used as an arena of competition between residential groups. Indicative of this behaviour and its force, exercised even by cooperative groups nonetheless competing for control of ancestral space, is the crowded domestic pattern on the top of the mounds.136 The contest for residential space in combination with the possession of other types of material culture, such as pottery or some other valuable imported objects from the southern Aegean or the Danube area (to which some groups seemed to have access), are signs of a continuously growing desire for diversification, as well as for a degree of autonomy for the ‘house/oikos’ and its members.137 This desire came into conflict with the strict rules of the community and increasingly undermined the existing social structures. It has been suggested that during this competitive process, at the end of Late Bronze Age, some weaker and spatially marginalised groups would have decided to split off and move to the surrounding flanks of the mounds.138 These specific groups would then have felt the need to acquire a distinct entity. By escaping the strict boundaries of the settlement and breaking old family ties, they effectively redefined themselves. They created smaller but independent households, which gradually come to constitute the basic social group of settlements. In addition, they used more extensively goods or ways from the south in Greece in order to redefine their internal divisions and their external influences. In opening themselves up to these external influences, they further emphasised their separate identity. With respect to pottery, the increasing numbers of painted vessels, imported or locally made, and their presence in all the excavated architectural remains both indicate that these items were accessible to a larger number of individuals or groups. It seems that within the organisation of the feasting events these pots were no longer used by the privileged few: the inequalities in the community have been mitigated somewhat. They have managed to bypass the established rules and have attained a new status, while renegotiating the traditional social boundaries and identities.139 The settlement context, however, seems to be insufficient to serve the interest of these groups. The gradual appearance of extensive cemeteries located outside the boundaries of settlements is considered to be the result of this restiveness. Cemeteries became the new ‘arena’ for negations and changes in their social positions and relations.140 The decision to establish extra-settlement cemeteries did not only carry social importance, but it also involved the fashioning of ideological and symbolic messages. Placing the graves outside the settlement created new spatial loci and indicated a shift in burial ideology. The relationship between houses and graves now became more visible. According to Goldstein,141 the existence of formal disposal areas for the dead suggested a society with corporate groups organised by lineal descent. This is also indicated by the existence of burials without profound differences between them. The feasting events were apparently transferred to this new arena. During these occasions, vessels associated with food and wine consumption were used, before being deposited inside the graves. As has been pointed out by Hamilakis142 and others, eating and drinking seems to affirm people in social ways, as well as biologically, through the sensory experiences of the human body.

136 137 134 135

138

141 142 139 140

Andreou 2010, 649. Andreou 2001, 169; Andreou 2010, 650; Stefani 2014, 392. Andreou 2001, 169; Andreou 2010, 649–650. Andreou – Psaraki 2007, 432–439; Vliora et al. 2014, 575–583. Andreou 2001, 170. Andreou – Psaraki 2007, 417. Chapman 1991, 152. Goldstein 1980, 7–8. Hamilakis 1998, 115–119.

178

Konstantoula Chavela

Taking into account that the establishment of a burial ground or a grave is the result of choices that were and are made by individuals in a society in relation to the landscape they live in, it seems more than probable that, in addition to the symbolic substance of cemeteries, these may have served to mark and define group-territories. The use of burials to make a claim on territory is not unknown, especially in transitional periods that are characterised by political instability and emerging social rivalries.143 It was no coincidence that during the Archaic and Classical periods, when these socio-political upheavals had run their course, the preferred areas then were quite close to the settlement, as for example at Toumba Thessaloniki.144 All such social and cultural developments that took place during the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age formed the base on which the complex processes were founded, which led gradually to the emergence of the multivalent institution known as the polis. This took various forms in the region of central Macedonia. The expansion of settlements into more spacious formations that allow for a better management of space is evidenced in actions of ‘central planning’, such as the enclosure of Kastanas, the strong embankments of Nea Philadelphia and Sindos and paved roads. These are actions that can engender in individuals and groups increased powers and authority. Also, at that time, the regional hierarchal system, which had operated during the Late Bronze Age and the early phases of theEarly Iron Age, seems to have relaxed. This is observed in the development of many settlements of equal rank set at short distances from each other around the Thermaic Gulf, which still follows the model of the disperse settlement (komidon) pattern of habitation of the Late Bronze Age. Already in the Early Iron Age, some of them constituted a single territorial unit, in which each settlement performed a single-purpose role in the operation of a singular civic formation that never reached the level of the city-state. A typical example of this peculiar urban formation is known from ancient sources to have operated at ancient Therme, of which both the settlement in Toumba and that at Karabournaki were a part.145 A similar unity must have been formed with the settlement of Polichni, by embracing the communities whose cemeteries are known at Nea Eukarpia and Oraiokastro (Fig. 10). This surmise is supported by common burial practices, as we have already seen. Why were these processes never completed? Why did these communities never develop into city-states? Perhaps the causes can already be detected in the Early Iron Age. According to Mazarakis-Ainian,146 all the settlements with organised cemeteries and a so-called ‘ruler’s dwelling’ in southern Greece failed to develop into poleis, while those which accepted burials within or in close proximity to their living space finally acquired polis status. The basic explanation for this difference in development was that the latter communities – which were probably organised in several small family clans – accepted transformations that ended in the formation of the polis. The former set, however, under the pressure of internal rivalries between the members of the elite, were unable to face the new challenges. In the case of the settlements around the Thermaic Gulf, perhaps the breaking of the family ties existing in the Late Bronze Age and the subsequent creation of many small independent households resulted in the development of intense rivalries, a reflection of which may be seen in the variations, small or large, detected in the burial practices both at intra- and inter-communal levels. The residents of these communities, in their efforts to define themselves competitively, seemingly lost the opportunity to co-operatively build more powerful state formations. They simply followed parallel paths until the 4th century BC, when at last the city of Thessaloniki came into being. Acknowledgements: First of all, I am indebted to K. Soueref for the permission to study and publish the context of his excavations at the settlement and the cemetery of Toumba Thessaloniki. Crucial to the study of the context was the contribution of I. Kostopoulos Foundation. Finally, I wish to thank St. Gimatzidis for his infinite patience.

Parker Pearson – Retsihisatse 1990, 397–410; Wallace 2003, 251–277. Soueref – Chavela forthcoming. 145 Chavela forthcoming. 146 Mazarakis Ainian 2008, 389. 143

144

Transformations and Formations Around the Thermaic Gulf in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age

179

References Andreou 2001 St. Andreou, Exploring the patterns of power in the bronze Age settlements of Northern Greece, in: K. Braningan (ed.), Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age, Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 4 (Sheffield 2001) 160–173. Andreou 2003 Στ. Ανδρέου, Η Μυκηναϊκή κεραμική και οι μακεδονικές κοινωνίες κατά την Ύστερη Εποχή του Χαλκού, in: Ν. Κυπαρίσση-Αποστολίκα – Μ. Παπακωνσταντίνου (eds.), Η περιφέρεια του Μυκηναϊκού Κόσμου. Β΄Διεθνές Διεπιστημονικό Συμπόσιο, 26–30 Σεπτεμβρίου, Λαμία 1999. Πρακτικά / The Periphery of the Mycenaean World. 2nd International Interdisciplinary Colloquium, 26–30 September, Lamia 1999. Proceedings (Athens 2003) 191–210. Andreou 2010 St. Andreou, Northern Aegean, in: E. Cline (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Bronze Age Aegean (New York, Oxford 2010) 643–659. Andreou 2014 Στ. Ανδρέου, Εκατό χρόνια έρευνας στην Εποχή του Χαλκού της Μακεδονίας. Τι άλλαξε, in: Stefani et al. 2014, 141–152. Andreou – Eukleidou 2008 Στ. Ανδρέου – K. Ευκλείδου, Η πανεπιστημιακή ανασκαφή στην Τούμπα Θεσσαλονίκης, Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 22, 2008, 323–328. Andreou – Kotsakis 1987 Στ. Ανδρέου – K. Κωτσάκης, Διαστάσεις του χώρου στην κεντρική Μακεδονία. Αποτύπωση της ενδοκοινοτικής και διακοινοτικής χωροοργάνωσης, in: Αμητός. Τιμητικός τόμος για τον καθηγητή Μανώλη Ανδρόνικο (Thessaloniki 1987) 57–88. Andreou – Kotsakis 1993 Στ. Ανδρέου – K. Κωτσάκης, Ανασκαφή τούμπας Θεσσαλονίκης 1993, Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 7, 1993, 279–286. Andreou – Kotsakis 1996 Στ. Ανδρέου – K. Κωτσάκης, Η προϊστορική τούμπα της Θεσσαλονίκης. Παλιά και νέα ερωτήματα, Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 10 Α, 1996, 369–387. Andreou – Psaraki 2007 St. Andreou – K. Psaraki, Tradition and innovation in the Bronze Age Pottery of the Thessaloniki Toumba. Food and drink consumption and “tableware” ceramics, in: Todorova et al. 2007, 397–420. Andreou et al. 2010 Στ. Ανδρέου – K. Ευκλείδου – Σ. Τριανταφύλλου, Η πανεπιστημιακή ανασκαφή στην τούμπα Θεσσαλονίκης, Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 24, 2010, 359–364. Andronikos 1969 Μ. Ανδρόνικος, Βεργίνα Ι. Το νεκροταφείο των τύμβων (Athens1969). Bessios, 1993 Μ. Μπέσιος, Ανασκαφές στη βόρεια Πιερία, Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 7,1993, 201–205. Binford 1971 L. R. Binford, Mortuary practices, their study and potential, in: Brown 1971, 6–29. Binford 1972 L. R. Binford, An Archaeological Perspective (New York 1972). Bloch 1971 M. Bloch, Placing the Dead. Tombs, Ancestral Villages and Kinship Organization in Madagascar (London 1971) Bourbou – Themelis 2010 P. Bourbou – P. Themelis, Child burials at ancient Messene, in: A.-M. Guimier-Sorbets – Y. Morizot, L’Enfant et la mort dans l’Antiquité I. Nouvelles recherches dans les nécropoles grecques. Le signalement des tombes d’enfants (Paris 2010) 111–128.

180

Konstantoula Chavela

Bouzek 1973 J. Bouzek. Graecomacedonian Bronzes (Prague 1973). Brown 1971 J. A. Brown (ed.), Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, Memoir of the Society for American Archaeology 25 (Washington DC 1971). Brody 2010 A. J. Brody, New perspectives on Levantine mortuary ritual. A cognitive interpretive approach to the archaeology of death, in: T. E. Levy (ed.), Historical Biblical Archaeology and the Future. The New Pragmatism (London 2010) 125–141. Carr 1995 C. Carr, Mortuary practices. Their social, philosophical-religious, circumstantial, and physical determinants, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2, 2, 1995, 105–200. Cavanagh – Mee 1998 W. Cavanagh – C. Mee, A Private Place. Death in Prehistoric Greece, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology CXXV (Jonsered 1998). Casson 1921 S. Casson, Excavations in Macedonia, Annual of the British School at Athens 24/1919–1921, 1921, 1–33. Casson 1925 S. Casson, Excavations in Macedonia II, Annual of the British School at Athens 26/1923–1925, 1925, 1–33. Chapman 1991 J. Chapman, The creation of social arenas in the Neolithic and Copper Age of S.E. Europe. The case of Varna, in: P. Garwood – D. Jennings – R. Skeates – J. Toms (eds.), Sacred and Profane. Proceedings of a Conference on Archaeology, Ritual and Religion, Oxford University, Committee for Archaeology Monograph 32 (Oxford 1991) 15–171. Chapman 2013 R. Chapman, Death, burial and social representation, in: Tarlow – Nilsson-Stutz 2013, 47–57. Chavela 2004 K. Χαβέλα, Τεφρόχρωμη τροχήλατη κεραμική της Εποχής του Σιδήρου από την Τούμπα Θεσσαλονίκη, in: Stampolidis – Giannikouri 2004, 329–339. Chavela 2009, K. Χαβέλα, Τα ταφικά έθιμα ως δείκτης διακοινοτικών και διαπολιτισμικών επαφών στο χώρο της Κεντρικής Μακεδονίας κατά την Εποχή του Σιδήρου, in: N. Σταμπολίδης – A. Γιαννικουρή (eds.), ΑΘΑΝΑΣΙΑ. Ο Άνω, ο Υπεράνω και ο Κάτω κόσμος στη Μεσόγειο της Ύστερης Εποχής του Χαλκού και της Πρώιμης Εποχής του Σιδήρου (Heraklion 2012) 307–322. Chavela 2012a K. Χαβέλα, Τοπικά κεραμικά εργαστήρια του 8ου αι. π.Χ. περιμετρικά του Θερμαϊκού Κόλπου, in: Kefalidou – Tsiafaki 2012, 247–256. Chavela 2012b Κ. Χαβέλα, Αττική μελανόμορφη κεραμική από την Τούμπα Θεσσαλονίκης, in: Μ. Τιβέριος – Β. ΜισαηλίδουΔεσποτίδου – Ε. Μανακίδου – Ά. Αρβανιτάκη / M. Tiverios – V. Misailidou-Despotidou – E. Manakidou – A. Arvanitaki (eds.), H κεραμική της αρχαϊκής εποχής στο Βόρειο Αιγαίο και την περιφέρειά του (700–480 π.Χ.) / Archaic Pottery of the Northern Aegean and its Periphery (700–480 BC), Proceedings of the Archaeological Meeting Thessaloniki 19–22 May (Thessaloniki 2012) 179–188. Chavela forthcoming K. Χαβέλα, Το προκασσάνδρειο πόλισμα στην Τούμπα Θεσσαλονίκης (8ος–4ος αι. π.Χ.). Η μαρτυρία της κεραμικής (forthcoming). Ekengren 2013 F. Ekengren, Contextualizing grave goods. Theoretical perspectives and methodological implications, in: Tarlow – Nilsson-Stutz 2013, 173–192.

Transformations and Formations Around the Thermaic Gulf in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age

181

Exarchou 2004 O. Εξάρχου, Η τεφρή τροχήλατη κεραμική από τον προϊστορικό οικισμό της Τούμπας Θεσσαλονίκης (MA thesis, University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki 2004). Gimatzidis 2010 St. Gimatzidis, Die Stadt Sindos. Eine Siedlung von der späten Bronze- bis zur Klassischen Zeit am Thermaischen Golf in Makedonien, Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 26 (Rahden/Westf. 2010). Gimatzidis – Hänsel 2012 Στ. Γιματζίδης – B. Hänsel, Η τούμπα του Καστανά στην Πρώιμη Εποχή του Σιδήρου, in: Δ. Β. Γραμμένος (ed.), Μελέτες για την αρχαία Μακεδονία. Προς τη γένεση των πόλεων (Thessaloniki 2012). Online (last accessed 12 July 2017). Goldstein 1980 L. Goldstein, Mississippian Mortuary Practices. A Case Study of Two Cemeteries in the Lower Illinois Valley. Northwestern University Archaeological Program (Evaston, IL 1980). Goodenough 1965 H.W. Goodenough, Rethinking “status” and “role”. Toward a general model of the cultural organization of social relationships, in: M. Banton (ed.), The Relevance of Models for Social Anthropology, Association of Social Anthropologists Monographs 1 (New York 1965) 1–24. Hamilakis 1998 Y. Hamilakis, Eating the dead. Mortuary feasting and the politics of memory in the Aegean Bronze Age societies, in: K. Branigan (ed.), Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age (Sheffield 1998) 115–132. Hänsel 1989 B. Hänsel, Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshügel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975‒1979. Die Grabung und der Baubefund, PrähistorischeArchäologie in Südosteuropa 7 (Berlin 1989). Harding 2000 A. F. Harding, European Societies in the Bronze Age (Cambridge 2000). Houby-Nielsen 2000 S. Houby-Nielsen, Child burials in ancient Athens, in: J. Sofaer-Derevenski (ed.), Children and Material Culture (London 2000) 151–166. Hodder 1982 I. Hodder, The identification and interpretation of ranking in prehistory. A contextual perspective, in: C. Renfrew – S. Shennan (eds.), Ranking, Resource and Exchange (Cambridge 1982) 150–154. Karliambas et al. 2009 Γ. Καρλιάμπας – Γ. Βουζαρά – Στ. Χατζητουλούσης, Ανασκαφικές έρευνες στην τράπεζα της Πολίχνης κατά το 2009, Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 23, 2009, 237–246. Kefalidou– Tsiafaki 2012 Ε. Κεφαλίδου – Δ. Τσιαφάκη, Κεραμέως παίδες. Αντίδωρο στον Καθηγητή Μιχάλη Τιβέριο από τους μαθητές του (Thessaloniki 2012). Keswani 2004 P. Keswani, Mortuary Ritual and Society in Bronze Age Cyprus (London 2004). Kilian 1975 K. Kilian, Trachtzubehör der Eisenzeit zwischen Ägäis und Adria, Prähistorische Zeitschrift 50, 1975, 10–140. Kotsos 2009 Στ. Κώτσος, Σταυρούπολη. Οδός Φωκά/Παλαιολόγου (Ο.Τ. Γ263,1), Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 64, 2009, 665–666. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1992 X. Κουκούλη-Χρυσανθάκη, Πρωτοϊστορική Θάσος. Τα νεκροταφεία του οικισμού Καστρί (Athens 1992). Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 2014 Ch. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, The archaeological research in Early Iron Age Macedonia. Review and perspectives, in: Stefani et al. 2014, 153–178.

182

Konstantoula Chavela

Kus 2013 S. Kus, Death and cultural entanglements of the experienced, the learned, the expressed, the contested, and the imagined, in: Tarlow – Nilsson-Stutz 2013, 59–75. Lambrothanasi 1999 Ε. Λαμπροθανάση, Νέα Ευκαρπία, Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 54, Χρονικά Β2, 1999, 547–548. Lambrothanasi – Papagianni 2001 E. Λαμπροθανάση – E. Παπαγιάννη, Νεκροταφείο της εποχής του Σιδήρου στο Ωραιόκαστρο Θεσσαλονίκης, Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 15, 2001, 263–270. Lambrothanasi-Korantzi et al. 2002 E. Λαμπροθανάση-Κοραντζή – E. Παπαγιάννη – Χρ. Πολουκίδου, Ν. Ευκαρπία Θεσσαλονίκης. Το νεκροταφείο της Εποχής του Σιδήρου, Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 16, 2002, 249–256. Lang 2002 F. Lang, Housing and settlement in Archaic Greece, in: Habitat et Urbanisme dans le Monde Grec de la Fin des Palais Mycéniens à la Prise de Milet (494 av. J.-C.). Table Ronde Internationale du 9–10 mars 2001 à Toulouse, Pallas 58, 2002, 13–32. Lioutas 1999 Α. Λιούτας, Σταυρούπολη, Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 54, Χρονικά Β2, 1999, 548. Lioutas 2013 A. Λιούτας, Πρώιμη κεραμική από το δυτικό νεκροταφείο (Σταυρούπολη) του οικισμού της τράπεζας Λεμπέτ (Πολίχνη) στη Θεσσαλονίκη, in: Π. Αδάμ-Βελένη – Ε. Κεφαλίδου – Δ. Τσιαφάκη (eds), Κεραμικά εργαστήρια στο Βορειοανατολικό Αιγαίο (8ος – αρχές 5ου αι. π.Χ.). Ημερίδα ΑΜΘ 2010 (Thessaloniki 2013) 213–215. Lioutas – Gioura 1997 A. Λιούτας – E. Γκιούρα, Τοπογραφικές αναζητήσεις ΒΔ της αρχαίαςΘεσσαλονίκης, Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 11, 1997, 317–326. Lioutas – Kotsos 2007 A. Λιούτας – Στ. Κώτσος, Δήμος Σταυρούπολης, Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 62, 2007, 834. Liston – Papadopoulos 2004 J. Liston – J. Papadopoulos, The “Rich Athenian Lady” was pregnant. The anthropology of a geometric tomb reconsidered, Hesperia 73, 2004, 7–38. Mazarakis-Ainian 1989 A. Mazarakis-Ainian, Late Bronze Age apsidal and oval buildings in Greece and adjacent areas, Annual of the British School at Athens 84, 1989, 269–288. Mazarakis Ainian 1997 A. Mazarakis Ainian, From Rulers’ Dwellings to Temples. Architecture, Religion and Society in Early Iron Age Greece (1100–700 BC), Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 121 (Jonsered 1997). Mazarakis Ainian 2006 A. Mazarakis Ainian, The archaeology of basileis, in: S. Deger-Jakoltzy – I. S. Lemos (eds.), Ancient Greece. From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer, Edinburgh Leventis Studies 3 (Edinburgh 2006) 181–211. Mazarakis Ainian 2008 A. Mazarakis Ainian, Buried among the living in Early Iron Age Greece. Some thoughts, in: G. Bartoloni – M. G. Benedettini (eds.), Sepolti tra i vivi / Buried among the living. Evidenza ed interpretazione di contesti funerary in abitato. Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Roma 26–29 aprile 2006 (Rome 2008) 365–398. Metcalf – Huntington 1991 P. Metcalf – R. Huntington, Celebrations of Death. The Anthropology of Mortuary Ritual (Cambridge 1991). Misailidou-Despotidou 1997 Β. Μισαηλίδου-Δεσποτίδου, Νέα Φιλαδέλφεια, Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 52, 1997, 645–648. Misailidou-Despotidou 1998 Β. Μισαηλίδου-Δεσποτίδου, Νέα Φιλαδέλφεια. Ανασκαφική έρευνα στην «τράπεζα» και στο νεκροταφείο Εποχής Σιδήρου, Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 12, 1998, 259–268.

Transformations and Formations Around the Thermaic Gulf in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age

183

Misailidou-Despotidou 2011 Β. Μισαηλίδου-Δεσποτίδου, Χάλκινα κοσμήματα αρχαϊκών χρόνων από τη Μακεδονία (Thessaloniki 2011). Misailidou-Despotidou 2012 Β. Μισαηλίδου-Δεσποτίδου, Νέα Φιλαδέλφεια: οικιστικά κατάλοιπα και νεκροταφείο της εποχής σιδήρου (Thessaloniki 2012). Online (last accessed 12 July 2017). Misailidou-Despotidou 2013 Β. Μισαηλίδου-Δεσποτίδου, Τοπική κεραμική από τη Νέα Φιλαδέλφεια Θεσσαλονίκης, in: Π. Αδάμ-Βελένη – Ε. Κεφαλίδου – Δ. Τσιαφάκη (eds), Κεραμικά εργαστήρια στο Βορειοανατολικό Αιγαίο (8ος – αρχές 5ου αι. π.Χ.). Ημερίδα ΑΜΘ 2010 (Thessaloniki 2013) 225–233. Mitrevski 1996/1997 Д. Митревски, Гробот на Пајонската свештеничка од Марвинци. Прилог кон вреднувањето на пајонската религија на железното време (Grave of Paeonian priestess from Marvinci. Contribution to evaluation of Paeonian religion in the Iron Age), Macedoniae Acta Aarchaeologica 15, 1996/1997, 69–89. Moore – Scott 1997 J. Moore – E. Scott, Invisible People and Processes. Writing Gender and Childhood into European Archaeology (Leicester 1997). Morris 1987 I. Morris, Burial and Ancient Society. The Rise of the Greek City-state (Cambridge 1987). Nordquist 1987 G. C. Nordquist, A Middle Helladic Village. Asine in the Argolid, Boreas 16 (Uppsala 1987). O’Shea 1984 J. M. O’Shea, Mortuary Variability. An Archaeological Investigation (Orlando 1984). O’Shea 1996 J. M. O’Shea, Villagers of the Maros: a Portrait of an Early Bronze Age Society (New York 1996). Papadopoulos 2005 J. K. Papadopoulos, The Early Iron Age Cemetery at Torone, Monumenta Archaeologica 24 (Los Angeles 2005). Papaefthymiou-Papanthimou et al. 2000 A. Παπαευθυμίου-Παπανθίμου – A. Πιλάλη-Παπαστερίου – Δ. Μπασογιάννη, Αρχοντικό 2000. Τυπολογική παρουσίαση και ερμηνευτικά προβλήματα των πηλόκτιστων κατασκευών, Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 14, 2000, 421–433. Papaefthymiou-Papanthimou 2010 A. Παπαευθυμίου-Παπανθίμου, Η ανασκαφική έρευνα στον προϊστορικό οικισμό του Αρχοντικού Γιαννιτσών, Εγνατία 14, 2010, 257–274. Parker Pearson 1982 M. Parker Pearson, Mortuary practices, society and ideology. An ethnoarchaeological study, in: I. Hodder (ed.), Symbolic and Structural Archaeology (Cambridge 1982) 99–113. Parker Pearson 1984 M. Parker Pearson, Social change, ideology and the archaeological record, in: M. Spriggs (ed.), Marxist Perspectives in Archaeology (Cambridge 1984) 59–71. Parker Pearson 1993 M. Parker Pearson, The powerful dead. Archaeological relationships between the living and the dead, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 3, 2, 1993, 203–229. Parker Pearson 2000 M. Parker Pearson, The Archaeology of Death and Burial (Texas 2000). Parker Pearson – Retsihisatse 1990 M. Parker Pearson – R. Retsihisatse, Ancestors, forests and ancient settlements. Tandroy readings of the archaeological past, in: P. J. Ucko – R. Layton (eds.), The Archaeology and the Anthropology of Landscape. Shaping your Landscape (London 1990) 31–45.

184

Konstantoula Chavela

Panti 2012, Α. Παντή, Νέα στοιχεία για την ωοκέλυφη κεραμική, in: Kefalidou – Tsiafaki 2012, 257–264. Patis 2010 Δ. Πάτης, Κεραμικά ευρήματα από την τράπεζα της Γκόνα. Η πρώιμη Εποχή του Σιδήρου (MA Thesis, University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki 2010). Rakita et al. 2005 G. Rakita – J. Boukstra – L. Beck – S. Williams (eds.), Interacting with the Dead. Perspectives on Mortuary Archaeology for the New Millennium (Gainesville 2005). Rhomiopoulou – Kilian-Dirlmeier 1989 K. Rhomiopoulou – I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Neue Funde aus der eisenzeitlichen Hügelnekropole von Vergina, Griechisch Makedonien, Prähistorische Zeitschrift 64, 1989, 86–145. Savvopoulou 1988 Θ. Σαββοπούλου, Νέα στοιχεία από το νεκροταφείο του Π. Γυναικόκαστρου, Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη 2, 1988, 219–229. Savvopoulou 2001 Θ. Σαββοπούλου, Παλαιό Γυναικόκαστρο. Το νεκροταφείο των «περιβόλων», in: Ν. Σταμπολίδης (ed.), Καύσεις στην Εποχή του Χαλκού και την Πρώιμη Εποχή του Σιδήρου (Athens 2001) 169–186. Savvopoulou 2004 Θ. Σαββοπούλου, Η περιοχή του Αξιού στην Πρώιμη Εποχή του Σιδήρου, in: Stampolidis – Giannikouri 2004, 307– 316. Saxe 1970 A. A. Saxe, Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices (PhD Diss., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 1970). Shanks – Tilley 1987 M. Shanks – C. Tilley, Reconstructing Archaeology. Theory and Practice (Cambridge 1987). Skarlatidou 1999 E. Σκαρλατίδου, Θέρμη, Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 54, 1999, 532–536. Skarlatidou 2007 Ε. Σκαρλατίδου, Θέρμη. Το αρχαίο νεκροταφείο κάτω από τη σύγχρονη πόλη (Athens 2007). Skarlatidou – Ignatiadou 1996 E. Σκαρλατίδου – Δ. Ιγνατιάδου, Πρώτα συμπεράσματα από την ανασκαφή του αρχαίου νεκροταφείου στη Θέρμη (Σέδες), Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 10 Α, 1996, 477–490. Skarlatidou – Konstantinidou 2003 E. Σκαρλατίδου – E. Κωνσταντινίδου, Δοκιμαστική ανασκαφική έρευνα στην «τράπεζα» Γκόνα της Θεσσαλονίκης. Πρώτη παρουσίαση, Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 17, 2003, 213–226. Skarlatidou – Tzanakouli 2009 E. Σκαρλατίδου – B. Τζανακούλη, Νέα οικιστικά στοιχεία από το αρχαίο πόλισμα στη θέρμη Θεσσαλονίκης, Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 23, 2009, 327–336. Soueref 1997 K. Σουέρεφ, Τούμπα Θεσσαλονίκης 1997. Ανασκαφή ανατολικά της τράπεζας και στο αρχαίο νεκροταφείο, Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 11, 1997, 337–342. Soueref 2004 K. Σουέρεφ, Η πρώιμη εποχή του Σιδήρου στην ανατολική παραθερμαϊκή ζώνη, in: Stampolidis – Giannikouri 2004, 322–328. Soueref 2009 K. Σουέρεφ, Τούμπα Θεσσαλονίκης. Ανασκαφές στην τράπεζα και στο νεκροταφείο, Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 20 χρόνια, 2009, 345–358.

Transformations and Formations Around the Thermaic Gulf in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age

185

Soueref – Chavela 2004 K. Σουέρεφ – K. Χαβέλα, Σουρωτή 2004. Ανασκαφές στο αρχαίο νεκροταφείο, Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 18, 2004, 345–347. Soueref – Chavela forthcoming K. Σουέρεφ – K. Χαβέλα, Ταφικές πρακτικές της προκασσάνδρειας Θεσσαλονίκης. Η περίπτωση του νεκροταφείου στην Τούμπα Θεσσαλονίκης (forthcoming). Stefani 2014 E. Stefani, Communal works and monumentality in the settlements of Macedonia during the Late Bronze Age, in: Stefani et al. 2014, 381–398. Stampolidis – Giannikouri 2004 Ν. Σταμπολίδης – Α. Γιαννικουρή,Το Αιγαίο στην Πρώιμη Εποχή του Σιδήρου (Athens 2004). Stefani et al. 2014 E. Stefani – N. Merousis – A. Dimoula, A Century of Research in Prehistoric Macedonia, 1912–2010 (Thessaloniki 2014). Tarlow – Nilsson-Stutz 2013 S. Tarlow – L. Nilsson-Stutz, The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Death and Burial (Oxford 2013). Tainter 1978 J. A. Tainter, Mortuary practices and the study of prehistoric social systems, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 1, 1978, 105–141. Tiverios 1998 M. Tiverios, The ancient settlement in the Anchialos-Sindos double trapeza. Seven years (1990–1996) of archaeological research, in: B. D’Agostino – M. Bats (eds.), Euboica. L’Eubea e la presenza euboica in Calcidica e in Occidente (Naples 1998) 243–253. Tiverios 2009a M. Τιβέριος, Η «διπλή τράπεζα Αγχιάλου», Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 20 χρόνια, 2009, 397–407. Tiverios 2009b M. Τιβέριος, Η πανεπιστημιακή ανασκαφή στο Καραμπουρνάκι Θεσσαλονίκης, Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 20 χρόνια 2009, 385–396. Todorova et al. 2007 H. Todorova – M. Stefanovich – G. Ivanov (eds.), The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory. Proceedings of the International Symposium Strymon Praehistoricus. Kjustendil-Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria), Serres-Amphipolis (Greece), 27.09–01.10.2004, In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul 2 (Sofia 2007). Tsibidou-Avlonitou 1999 M. Τσιμπίδου-Αυλωνίτη, Καλαμαριά, Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 54, 1999, 531–532. Tzanavari – Lioutas 1993 K. Τζαναβάρη – A. Λιούτας, Τράπεζα Λεμπέτ. Μία πρώτη παρουσίαση, Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 7, 1993, 265–278. Ucko 1969 P. J. Ucko, Ethnography and archaeological interpretation of funerary remains, World Archaeology 1, 1969, 262–280. Vliora et al. 2014, Ευ. Βλιώρα – Ευ. Κυριατζή – Στ. Ανδρέου, Η κατανάλωση της κεραμικής και η ενδοκοινοτική οργάνωση στο τέλοςτης Ύστερης Εποχής του Χαλκούστη Μακεδονία. Παρατηρήσεις στη χειροποίητη κεραμική από την Τούμπα Θεσσαλονίκης, in: Stefani et al. 2014, 575–583. Vokotopoulou 1986 I. Βοκοτοπούλου, Βίτσα. Τα νεκροταφεία μιας μολοσσικής κώμης (Athens 1986) Voutsaki 1993 S. Voutsaki, Society and Culture in the Mycenaean World. An Analysis of Mortuary Practices in Argolid, Thessaly and the Dodecanese (PhD Diss., University of Cambridge, Cambridge 1993).

186

Konstantoula Chavela

Wallace 2003 S. Wallace, The perpetuated past. Reuse or continuity in material culture and structuring of identity in Early Iron Age Crete, Annual of the British School at Athens 98, 2003, 251–277. Wardle – Wardle 2007 K. Wardle – D. Wardle, Assiros Toumba. A brief history of the settlement, in: Todorova et al. 2007, 469–479. Wardle – Wardle 2012 K. A. Wardle – D. Wardle, Assiros toumba in the 8th and 7th centuries BC. The apsidal structures of phase 1 and their function (Thessaloniki 2012). Online (last accessed 12 July 2017).

Protocorinthian and Corinthian Ceramic Imports in Macedonia: Different People, Different Tastes? Eleni Manakidou1 Abstract: Corinth showed little interest in colonising the northern Aegean region, and yet, during the Archaic period, substantial ceramic finds from Corinthian workshops have been brought to light in many Macedonian sites. These pottery imports date from the last quarter of the 8th century BC onwards, giving accurate, albeit limited, information on the still not well-known exchange pottery network in this area during that time. Protocorinthian painted vases belong to the most ‘sophisticated’ groups of Εarly Archaic fine pottery. They were appreciated as such by non-Corinthian users, since they bore particular symbolism and, usually, served a special function. Corinthian decorated vases circulated in much larger quantities than any previous Greek ceramic ware, thus increasing their consumption potential in the foreign markets. The aim of this paper is to explore frequency, variability (shapes, decoration, usage) and distribution patterns (settlements, cemeteries, sanctuaries) of various groups of Corinthian pottery (transport amphorae, cooking ware, painted vases) within a certain chronological and geographical frame. Secondly, it will focus on the materiality of this imported commodity and its variable functions in domestic, ritual and funerary contexts in Archaic Macedonia and attempt to analyse the relations to their place of origin. Keywords: Macedonia, Archaic period, Protocorinthian, Corinthian, painted pottery, Greek colonies, trade, exchange

Introduction The early Corinthian presence in northwestern Greece, southern Italy and Sicily is well documented through written sources and the archaeological record, especially thanks to the Corinthian pottery, which was imported not only in the Greek colonies but also in other indigenous settlements of these regions. A different picture emerges from the coastal areas of the northern Aegean, where the meager colonial activity of Corinth during the Archaic period, particularly in central Macedonia,2 is counterbalanced by the substantial ceramic findings from Corinthian workshops, discovered in many sites. These pottery imports date from the last quarter of the 8th century BC onwards and provide accurate, but limited, information on the not fully yet explored exchange network of the Early Archaic period (i.e. the whole 7th century BC); then, from the late 7th century BC, they increase continuously until the end of the Archaic Corinthian pottery production, i.e. the first half of the 5th century BC. This paper considers both coarse and fine decorated Corinthian vases that appear during this period. The first group includes transport amphorae of type A and grinding bowls, while the second group comprises mostly of perfume and sympotic vases of various shapes and sizes. With regard to imported pottery, one can observe differences in quantity and quality within the same site, according to the exact findspot of each vase as well as from place to place – especially between the Greek colonies in the northern Aegean and the communities with a native or mixed population that existed

Department of Archaeology, School of History and Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece; [email protected]. 2 On the foundation of Poteidaia, the only Corinthian colony in the broader area, on the peninsula of Pallene (c. 600 BC) and its probable connection to the nearby open-air sanctuary at Sane: Salmon 1984, 392–394; Vokotopoulou 1993b; Winter 2006, 132–143, 145–146; Tiverios 2008, 40–43. For Corinthian colonies in the West, see Salmon 1984, 209–217, 270–280, 387–392, 394–396; Corinto e l’ Occidente. Atti del trentaquattresimo convegno di studi, Taranto 1994–1995. 1

188

Eleni Manakidou

near the coast or in the hinterland. The amount of pottery, even those coming from small-scale excavations, reveal the territorial and chronological expansion of a site, while its state of preservation can be a good indicator for various conclusions, such as the site’s longevity or brief existence, its contacts and productivity, the natural or external reasons for its decline and other crucial factors.3 Protocorinthian Pottery Protocorinthian painted vases belong to the most ‘sophisticated’ and technically advanced groups of Early Archaic fine pottery. Despite their modest material and size, the combination of foreign (oriental) and local (Corinthian) elements with regard to their shape and decoration made these products highly valuable. They were appreciated as such in foreign markets, since they had a particular symbolism and a special function: they were considered important enough to be used as offerings and grave gifts, and less often as domestic commodities. The number of these vessels is, of course, small compared to the diverse local or regional ceramic products found in the settlements under consideration. Therefore, the cases of the Eretrian colonies of Methone and Mende on the west and east shore of the Thermaic Gulf are of particular interest,4 because they display a variety of Protocorinthian imports with an emphasis on shapes also found in the western Greek colonies – note that similar finds are documented from the sanctuary and the nearby habitation area in Sane. More specifically, in Methone these vases include predominantly Early and Middle Protocorinthian kotylai with linear motifs and panels with ‘wire-birds’ (Fig. 1),5 while in Mende we have, besides kotylai, some Middle and Late Protocorinthian conical, ovoid and piriform aryballoi with sub-geometric decoration and animal friezes.6 Oinochoai with globular or conical body and olpai are exceptional and date to the Late Protocorinthian phase, as do some examples from Sane.7 Other shapes, such as pyxides and kraters, occur only occasionally.8 Two other coastal sites on the Thermaic Gulf, Krania/Platamon in southern Pieria (ancient Herakleion) and the promontory of Karabournaki in the area of Thessaloniki, can be added to the list of settlements that have yielded similar types of pottery, albeit in considerably smaller

Excavations in sanctuaries and cemeteries have yielded substantial numbers of imported vases, in contrast to the relatively fewer groups of local pottery; the opposite can be noted for the ceramic assemblages found in the settlements associated with them. In any case, the study of these finds may be affected by external facts and fortuitous incidents, as the discovery of votive deposits, the percentage of looted or otherwise destroyed burials, the removal or displacement of ancient remains due to natural causes or human activities, the duration and the character of the research. For example, from 402 graves found in Akanthos in one year’s time, only 165 contained burial gifts and from the total 282 graves excavated in the Early Archaic cemetery of Abdera, only 77: Kaltsas 1998, 290; Skarlatidou 2010, 353–354. In Sindos, over half of the 121 excavated graves were already looted in antiquity, whereas in Agia Paraskevi almost two-thirds of the 435 graves were intact: Vokotopoulou et al. 1985, 13; Sismanidis 1987, 791; Misailidou-Despotidou 2011, 21. Burials and vessels in seaside cemeteries can often be damaged and worn by seawater, as in Oisyme: Koukouli-Chrysanthaki – Marangou 2012, 322; Manakidou 2012b, 359. On the contrary, most vase fragments from deposit pits are often in good condition, as from the sanctuaries in Sane and Poseidi: Vokotopoulou 1993b, 148; Moschonissioti 2012b. 4 Tiverios 2008, 17–18, 34–35; Besios et al. 2012, 19–21. In general, for Euboean presence and activities in the area of the Thermaic Gulf and Chalkidike see Winter 2006, 109–111, 285–287, 290–292; Tiverios 2008, 4–16, 21, 24–26, 45, 51; Besios et al. 2012, 232–237. 5 Besios et al. 2012, 59, 68–78; some of the pieces with a hemispherical body are dated to the Late Geometric period, although there are no clear typological or chronological indications; the dating of the rest between 725–710 or 720–705 BC seems to be somehow arbitrary (also note that neither chronological bracket corresponds to the established chronology for the Early Protocorinthian i.e. 720–690 BC). 6 Moschonissioti 2012a, 203–204, figs. 3–4; cf. two similar piriform aryballoi from Sane: Vokotopoulou 1993a, 189, cat. no. 2; 208, fig. 12a; 196, cat. no. 28; 196, fig. 12b, fragments from Argilos: Neeft 2012, 192, fig. 4. 7 Vokotopoulou 1993a, 194, cat. no. 22; 225, fig. 30; 196, cat. no. 27; 231, fig. 37. 8 Besios et al. 2012, 79–80. Some fragments of pyxides’ lids and bodies exist in the still unpublished material from Karabournaki. 3

Protocorinthian and Corinthian Ceramic Imports in Macedonia

189

Fig. 1   Protocorinthian tall kotyle from the ‘Hypogeio’ at Methone (by permission of M. Besios and A. Kotsonas, photo: G. Parasis)

amounts9 and with fine kotylai and aryballoi included among their earliest finds. Corinthian imports increase towards the last quarter of the 7th century, during the so-called Transitional period. Two typical pottery groups are the pointed or piriform aryballoi and the oinochoai with scale motifs.10 A good selection of Protocorinthian, Transitional and Early Corinthian aryballoi with geometric and animal decoration are attested in the finds from Mende, both the settlement and the necropolis, and from Sane; all of them are comparable to sporadic examples from other Greek colonies further east, e.g. Akanthos, Torone, Argilos and Abdera.11 At the same time, transport amphorae of type A – with the characteristic reddish-orange fabric that contains large black inclusions – were shipped frequently to northern sites, having already been diffused in south Italy and Sicily. These hand-made containers are known in several coastal settlements of central Macedonia and Thrace from the end of the 8th to the beginning of the 7th century BC and survive throughout the entire Archaic period (Fig. 2). Often they occur in coastal cemeteries in secondary use contexts, as cinerary urns for adults or grave vases for babies and children.12 The same practice was common in many colonies and included not only transport amphorae, but also various imported and local vessels, such as pithoi, pithoid amphorae, hydriae and others.



Poulaki-Pantermali 2007, 631–632, 642, figs. 16–17; Manakidou 2013, 177; one sherd from Torone: Cambitoglou et al. 2001, 335 cat. no. 6.2, fig. 54 (S. Paspalas); two sherds from Argilos: Perreault – Bonias 2006, 52, n. 19. 10 Skarlatidou 2010, 311–312; Manakidou 2013, 177, fig. 2. 11 Kaltsas 1998, 232; Cambitoglou et al. 2001, 337, cat. no. 6.11, fig. 55 (S. Paspalas); Skarlatidou 2010, 308–314; Neeft 2012, 192, fig. 4. 12 One very early and safely dated example was yielded at Sindos (Level 7): Gimatzidis 2010, 283–285, 507, cat. no. 617, pl. 82. Examples from Methone and Karabournaki: Besios et al. 2012, 186–187, 441–442, cat. no. 103; Besios – Noulas 2012, 404, fig. 7; Filis 2012, 315, fig. 3Γ; 316; Manakidou 2013, 176; Filis 2014, 238–239, 261, figs. 7–8. Examples as burial vases from Mende, Akanthos, Abdera and Oisyme: Kaltsas 1998, 52, pl. 43b–c; 112, pl. 124a; 113, pl. 126c; Skarlatidou 2010, 102, fig. 117, 171; 192, fig. 299; 207–208, fig. 329; 212–213, fig. 337; 226, fig. 358; 227, fig. 361; Koukouli-Chrysanthaki – Marangou 2012, 329, fig. 15; Moschonissioti 2012a, 202, fig. 1. Similar early finds from south Italian and Sicilian sites: Klug 2013, 27, 31–32. 9

190

Eleni Manakidou

Fig. 2   Corinthian transport amphora from the settlement at Karabournaki, late 7th century BC (Archive of the Aristotle University Excavation)

The number of Early Protocorinthian vases, mostly tall kotylai, from a pit at Methone remains unique until now for Macedonia. Protocorinthian pottery found in the so-called Potters’ Quarter and other deposits in ancient Corinth display a wide variety of shapes, but all of them in relatively small amounts when compared to the bulk of plain or non-decorated contemporary ceramic production. Similar Protocorinthian vases of small to medium size have been discovered together with Corinthian transport amphorae in many places of south Italy and Sicily, where Greek colonial activity is attested as early as the middle of the 8th century BC, regardless of the settlers’ origin; a fact that demonstrates the importance of Corinthian pottery and other imported Greek goods to the local market. These Protocorinthian vases have been found not only in cemeteries (e.g. in Pithecousai, Kyme, Taranto, Gela, Naxos/Giardini, Syracuse), but also in residential and sacred areas (for the latter, one should highlight the sites of Saturo near Taranto, Incoronata/Metaponto, Timpone della Motta/Francavilla Marittima, Kroton, Leontini, etc.), prompting in many cases the production of local imitations. It is noteworthy that in mainland and island southern Greece the same types of Protocorinthian vases are often present in graves and sanctuaries, clearly bearing a special meaning as offerings and, therefore, as ‘precious’ objects or ‘individual’ gifts. For example, in the Heraia of Argos and Perachora, in Aigina, in Delphi, and in the Cyclades (Delos, Paros, Despotiko, Kythnos) – to name just a short list of sites, composed of earlier excavations and more recent projects – significant amounts of Early Archaic painted wares have been discovered, including a high or medium percentage of small-sized Protocorinthian pottery. The predominance of perfume vases in all cases is striking, but also justified, as they were suitable votives for both male and female deities, dedicated by worshippers of both sexes.13

Cf. Kourayos 2006, 60, 190, pl. II.1–2; Detoratou 2012, 35–42, 91. In general, for the dedication, function, decoration and distribution of Protocorinthian vases see Kristensen 2001; Parko 2001; Lambrugo 2013, 235–239; Böhm 2014, 158–162.

13

Protocorinthian and Corinthian Ceramic Imports in Macedonia

191

Corinthian Pottery During the entire Archaic period, especially the 6th and the 1st half of the 5th century BC, Corinthian decorated vases circulated in much larger quantities than any other Greek ceramic ware in the past, reaching even the most remote parts of the ancient world, thereby increasing their consumption potential in the foreign markets. They became a ‘common good’ for Greeks and non-Greeks all around the Mediterranean, having not only a functional, but also a symbolic role in various activities, i.e. daily, religious and mortuary practices. Local and imported painted wares co-exist in most settlements, including the Greek colonies of central Macedonia and Chalkidike, such as Methone and Mende. There, Corinthian vases are always present, however they seem to become primary imports for the local clientele only in the middle of the 6th century BC, since other groups of fine painted pottery were also available – for example, a lot of East Greek vases circulated in the north Aegean, where they apparently dominated the market during that period. Towards the end of the century, the number of Late Corinthian pottery imports increases significantly, together with the number of different findspots and the variety of possible uses. The Parian colony of Thasos is a remarkable example of the systematic and long-lasting distribution of Corinthian pottery,14 documented through the innumerable, still-unpublished fragments that have been unearthed at the city’s sanctuaries – the most characteristic of which is that of a sanctuary dedicated to Artemis, followed by those devoted to other deities (Athena, Demeter, Apollo and Heracles). After reaching the island, many of these imports were redistributed to the Thasian colonies as to other Greek and non-Greek settlements on the opposite Thracian shore, such as: Neapolis/Kavala, Oisyme/Nea Peramos, Antisara/Kalamitsa, Galepsos/Karyane, Tragilos/Aidonochori, Phagres/Orfani, Eion/Profitis Elias, Berge/Neos Skopos, Gazoros, Argilos/Nea Kerdylia. The variety of functions for these vessels is shown by their presence in all possible contexts and environments.15 Regarding the remaining Greek colonies in the area under examination, Corinthian vases – mostly of average quality – are common primarily in graves and then in settlements and sanctuaries. The fact that they were given as burial gifts – notably for children – and votive offerings concurs with the function of Corinthian pottery in the rest of the Greek world. Conversely, Corinthian vases found in Archaic tombs of major Macedonian sites, such as Aigai/Vergina and Archontiko near Giannitsa,16 vary in number and quality according to the status and sex of the deceased. For example, the rich burials in the western necropolis of Archontiko contained the most precious metal and clay objects, including Corinthian vases of above-average quality without distinction between men and women, as it appears from the presently-known material. In smaller settlements on the coastline and in the hinterland, there are fewer Corinthian items in each tomb, sometimes only one or two, and do not always occur in every burial. The average small size of these vases made them suitable for children burials and adult cremations, as well as for dedications in sanctuaries and perhaps for gift-exchanges in daily life. Except for the usual perfume vases (i.e. aryballoi and alabastra) and a wide range of kotylai, a clear preference for some special shapes should be noted here, in particular for exaleiptra17 (counting at

Neeft 2012, 189–191. Perreault – Bonias 2006, 52–53; Manakidou 2012b, 361–364; Neeft 2012, 192–194. 16 For good illustrations of some Middle and Late Corinthian vases displaying the prevailing tastes of wealthy local customers (although with occasionally misleading legends) see Lilibaki-Akamati et al. 2011, 345–347; Kottaridi 2013, 70, 74, 76, 100, 129. 17 For the frequency and possible meaning of exaleiptra, imported and local, in Macedonia see Rhomiopoulou – Touratsoglou 2002, 22; Misailidou-Despotidou 2011, 30–31; Saripanidi 2012. Beside the numerous clay pieces, there are also some metal ones, made of bronze or iron, with low metallic tripod stands; for such vessels found in Karabournaki, Sindos, Sedes/Therme, Archontiko and Vergina see Descamps-Lequime 2002; Skarlatidou 2007, 80; Lilibaki-Akamati et al. 2011, 313; Kottaridi et al. 2011, 122, fig. 130. 14 15

192

Eleni Manakidou

least one in most graves), but also for ring aryballoi (Fig. 3a),18 amphoriskoi19 and plastic vases20 – all suitable for keeping small quantities of perfumed oils and ointments. These last groups of elaborate vessels are sporadically documented, however, since they rarely occur in Corinth itself they seem to have been a sort of ‘export value’ for the Corinthian workshops in certain regions of the ancient world. The overwhelming majority of Corinthian pottery imports in almost all settlements in Macedonia belongs to the Middle and Late Corinthian phase and lasts through the 5th century BC.21 Although a lot of the local cemeteries have been partially excavated, most of the corresponding residential areas are sparsely explored. Rescue fieldwork in Toumba and systematic excavations in KarabourFig. 3a  Middle Corinthian ring-aryballos naki, both in the area of Thessaloniki (as well as in from the cemetery of Oisyme, height 0,064m other neighbouring settlements, like Therme/Sedes, (by permission of the Ephorate of Antiquities in Kavala) Agia Paraskevi, Souroti, Polichni/Lebet, Sindos, Nea Philadephia, Agios Athanasios),22 give us a glimpse of the urban, commercial and artisanal organisation at the mouth of the Thermaic Gulf and along the riverbanks of Axios and Gallikos during the Archaic period. Thanks to the above-mentioned research projects, a similar range of painted Corinthian vases is documented in various contexts, i.e. domestic, ritual and sepulchral, albeit to varying extends. Globular aryballoi and kotylai are the most common finds, bearing animal or floral motifs – the aryballoi often having warrior friezes and football patterns. The rarer version of footed aryballoi (Fig. 3b) with larger dimensions is also present.23 Alabastra appear less frequently in central Macedonia, but, interestingly enough, they occur in significant amounts in the Greek

Vokotopoulou et al. 1985, 258–259 cat. no. 419 (M. Tiverios); Lilibaki-Akamati et al. 2011, 3456 (centre left); Manakidou 2012b, 362, 363, figs. 7–8; cf. Kourayos 2006, 190, pl. II.6, 191, pl. III.2 (right edge). 19 Kaltsas 1998, 237; Vokotopoulou et al. 1985, 114–115, cat. no. 169 (M. Tiverios); Lilibaki-Akamati et al. 2011, 346 (bottom left); Misailidou-Despotidou 2011, 28, fig. 4; 34, fig. 13; Kottaridi 2013, 100 (top left). 20 Several pieces in various forms (lion, panther, ram, sphinx) from the Artemision on Thasos and two pieces up to now from Karabournaki, see Böhm 2014, 225, cat. no. L 23; 226, cat. no. P 3; 233, cat. no. H 63; 242, cat. no. W 9; 250, cat. nos. W 95–W 96; 252, cat. no. W 114; 254–255, cat. nos. 8–9; 256, cat. nos. Sp 20–Sp 21; 264, cat. nos. 13–14. In general, for the repertory, symbolic value and distribution of Corinthian plastic vases see Böhm 2014, 162–164, 169–216. 21 The lowering of the dating for the three Corinthian phases proposed by M. Tiverios – almost 10 to 15 years lower than the established one, see Amyx 1988, 429; Lambrugo 2013, 231–233 – is not unanimously accepted, but it is adopted in several publications of Corinthian vases from tombs in Macedonia and Thrace, see Trakosopoulou-Salakidou 1999, 1204, n. 42; Skarlatidou 2002, 303; Misailidou-Despotidou 2011, 28, n. 39; against it e.g. Böhm 2014, 27. 22 Only a small portion of this rich material is so far known from preliminary reports, but from the already mentioned and illustrated Corinthian vases, the homogeneity and standardisation of these imports becomes clearly evident. Here is a representative selection of typical shapes found mainly in graves and secondly in other contexts: Vokotopoulou et al. 1985, passim (M. Tiverios); Sismanidis 1987, 793–794, pls. 160.1, 161.1, 162.1, 163.1–2; Kaltsas 1998, 233–237; Trakosopoulou-Salakidou 1999, 1204–1205; Skarlatidou 2002, 282, 290, 292–293, 302–303; Skarlatidou 2007, 44; Misailidou-Despotidou 2011, 27–35; Allamani-Souri 2012, 284, 286–287, 291–293; Besios – Noulas 2012, 404–405; Gimatzidis 2012, 299–301; Manakidou 2012a, 94–95; Manakidou 2012b, 361–364; Moschonissioti 2012b, 387–388; Skarlatidou et al. 2012, 465–466; Manakidou 2013, 361–364. 23 Vokotopoulou et al. 1985, 156–158, cat. nos. 245–248 (M. Tiverios); Lilibaki-Akamati et al. 2011, 346 (top); Misailidou-Despotidou 2012, 371–373, fig. 1d; Skarlatidou et al. 2012, 465, fig. 8; Kottaridi 2013, 129 (top right). 18

Protocorinthian and Corinthian Ceramic Imports in Macedonia

193

colonies of Chalkidike and Thrace, starting from the Early Corinthian phase.24 Oinochoai are common finds in colonial sanctuaries and cemeteries; the types with squat and conical body in a small format are sometimes present, but there are also few medium-sized examples with a round body.25 Other shapes, such as Middle Corinthian cups and plates, are rather unusual.26 Column kraters deserve a special mention, as they were large-sized and valuable vessels per se. They have been discovered in several sites, especially along the coastline of the Thermaic Gulf, such as in Methone, Leibithra, Karabournaki, Ano Toumba, Sane, Poteidaia and elsewhere. Sporadic finds are also known from few inland settlements located in central and west Macedonia (Aigai/Vergina, Aiane) and from other coastal colonies further east (Akanthos, Argilos, Neapolis/Kavala).27 Fig. 3b   Middle Corinthian footed globular aryballos These vases bear black-figure decoration and from the cemetery of Oisyme, height 0,101m (by persome of them can be attributed to the best mission of the Ephorate of Antiquities in Kavala) vase-painters of the Middle Corinthian period (Fig. 4).28 It is noteworthy that we have such pieces not only from graves but also from residential and cult areas. Similar patterns of distribution can be traced for the Corinthian column kraters found both in the Greek colonies of Magna Grecia and Sicily and the local native communities there. The preference for such mixing vessels with figural decoration is emphasised from the import of Attic pieces of the same shape, as well as from the production of column kraters in the local workshops in the Late Archaic period.29 The earlier known Corinthian and Attic black-figure examples in Macedonia date from the 2nd quarter of the 6th century and the Attic ones continue until the end of the century, even to the beginning of the 5th century BC. The existence of so many imported kraters indicates that the local customers adopted the practice of the Greek symposium and appreciated these elaborate vases with their

Kaltsas 1998, 236; Trakosopoulou-Salakidou 1999, 1204, 1214, fig. 9; Skarlatidou 2010, 317–318; Lilibaki-Akamati et al. 2011, 347 (top left, elaborate and rare piece with double-frieze decoration); Besios – Noulas 2012, 404–405, fig. 12; Manakidou 2012b, 362, figs. 3–4; Neeft 2012, 189 fig. 1. Cf. Kourayos 2006, 190, pl. II.3–5; Detoratou 2012, 50–60. 25 Kaltsas 1998, 236–237; Skarlatidou 2002, 290, cat. no. 14; Lilibaki-Akamati et al. 2011, 345, 346 (centre right); Kottaridi et al. 2011, 172, fig. 195; Misailidou-Despotidou 2012, 374, 375, fig. 7; Moschonissioti 2012b, 387, fig. 6; 388, fig. 8. 26 Misailidou-Despotidou 2011, 28–29, figs. 4–5; Besios – Noulas 2012, 405, fig. 10; Neeft 2012, 194, fig. 8. 27 Vokotopoulou 1993a, 190, cat. no. 5, 210 fig. 15a; Kaltsas 1998, 236; Manakidou 2005; Perreault – Bonias 2006, 52, 179, pl. VII.1; Kousoulakou – Kousoulakou 2007, 700, 702, 712, fig. 10; Kefalidou 2008; Allamani-Souri 2012, 291–293, fig. 13; Besios – Noulas 2012, 404; Neeft 2012, 194, fig. 11; Manakidou 2012a, 95, fig. 2; Manakidou 2013, 179–180. 28 For MC kraters from the Three-Maidens Group see Manakidou 2005, 78; Kefalidou 2008, 618, n. 5. Cf. Amyx 1988, 196–198. 29 Local column kraters can be either plain (grey ware or black-glazed) or with painted decoration (Chalkidian ware): Vokotopoulou 1993b, 179, cat. no. 194; Rhomiopoulou – Touratsoglou 2002, 61; Panti 2008, 79, 195, 211–212, 253; Misailidou-Despotidou 2011, 34, fig. 14; Allamani-Souri 2012, 291, fig. 12; Skarlatidou et al. 2012, 469, fig. 14e, 470, fig. 16a. The exact provenance of a group of black-figure column kraters, often without plates in the handles and of small format, found in the area is still a matter of debate: Panti 2008, 88–89; Misailidou-Despotidou 2011, 29, n. 53; Manakidou 2012a, 97–99; Manakidou 2013, 185–187. 24

194

Eleni Manakidou

a

b Fig. 4   Middle Corinthian column kraters from the settlement at Karabournaki, 2nd quarter of 6th century BC (Archive of the Aristotle University Excavation)

Protocorinthian and Corinthian Ceramic Imports in Macedonia

195

Fig. 5   Late Corinthian vases (kotyle, lekythos, aryballos, exaleiptra) with conventionalising decoration from the Archaic cemetery at Therme/Sedes (after Skarlatidou 2007, 44; by permission of E. Skarlatidou)

impressive images as ­luxury items for conspicuous and collective wine consumption;30 they even copied the krater’s form – with small modifications – and added simple decorative elements, such as floral or geometric motifs with alternating bands on the body and oblique crosses on the handle-plates. Conventionalised decoration is typical for almost all vases of the Late Corinthian II and III phases (Fig. 5), which are well documented at almost every excavated site in the area under consideration. Among them, kotylai and kotyliskoi, exaleiptra and quatrefoil aryballoi make up the vast majority,31 while lekythoi with ovoid body, globular and cylindrical pyxides occur sporadically.32 Some of these late vases are decorated only with stripes and bands – otherwise they have simple floral and geometric motifs.

Manakidou 2012a, 95, 97. Vokotopoulou et al. 1985, 106–108, cat. no. 159; 134–135, cat. no. 216; 158–159, cat. nos. 249–250; 222, cat. no. 356, 224–225, cat. no. 360; 248–250, cat. no. 405; 252–254, cat. no. 412; 260–261, cat. nos, 420–422; 286–287, cat. no. 470; 288–289, cat. no. 474; 296–297, cat. no. 489; 304, cat. no. 510; 310–311, cat. no. 519 (M. Tiverios); Sismanidis 1987, 794, pl. 162.1; Skarlatidou 2007, 44; Misailidou-Despotidou 2011, 29–35, figs. 7–15; Misailidou-Despotidou 2012, 373–374; Moschonissioti 2012a, 204, fig. 5. For typical decoration of these late vases see Risser 2001, 23–33. 32 Lekythoi: Vokotopoulou et al. 1985, 18–19, cat. no. 4 (M. Tiverios); Rhomiopoulou – Touratsoglou 2002, 92; Skarlatidou 2007, 44 (top right). Pyxides: Allamani-Souri 2012, 284, fig. 1; Manakidou 2012b, 364, fig. 11; Misailidou-Despotidou 2012, 372, fig. 3e; Neeft 2012, 194, fig. 12. 30 31

196

Eleni Manakidou

Several Corinthian vases of medium and predominantly small size have been found in the open-air sanctuary at Sane, on the Kassandra Peninsula of Chalkidike; but still many more were in miniature format.33 The variety of this material is impressive since it includes not just the typical kotyliskoi, but also phialai, plates, bowls, exaleiptra, pyxides, amphorae, kraters, kalathoi and lamps. On the contrary, in the larger sanctuary of Poseidon at Poseidi, a few kilometers to the south, Corinthian vases show no great differences from analogous finds in other secular contexts – there is only more variety in terms of size and decoration; moreover, among the vases of miniscule size, small kotylai are rare. Corinthian pottery found in this locality is also less numerous compared to other vase groups, e.g. to East Greek and Attic pottery, and more specifically to the plentiful Ionian plain and Attic black-figure cups. In general, miniature vases, especially kotyliskoi, belong to the standard repertory of Late Corinthian II and III and occur equally in settlements, cemeteries and sanctuaries – that is, the same types are known from Sindos, Nea Philadelphia, Ano Toumba, Karabournaki, Therme/Sedes, Agia Paraskevi, Souroti, Aphytis, Sane, Akanthos, Argilos, Thasos and its colonies, etc.34 As expected, Corinthian ceramic imports exerted influence on the local pottery production, just as other Greek workshops did. Imitations of Protocorinthian (Fig. 6) and Corinthian painted vases have already been known from many peripheral areas, especially from Corinthian or other Dorian colonies (e.g. Ambrakia, Corfu, Rhodes, Taranto, Syracuse, etc.), and recent excavations in central Macedonia revealed the local production of Corinthian-type vases dating to both phases.35 In most cases, both shape (mainly kotylai, but also aryballoi, oinochoai, exaleiptra, column kraters) and style (silhouette and black-figure technique) have been copied. Patterns of Distribution and Uses of Protocorinthian and Corinthian Pottery Of all known groups of Archaic painted vases, the products of Corinthian workshops were apparently the most sought after, or simply the most effectively marketed, ‘luxury’ but affordable ware among various groups of people in many different areas. Because they were widely disseminated and they can be found almost everywhere and in all kind of contexts (domestic, ritual, funeral), it is legitimate to ask if some particular patterns can be discerned in order to understand the vast production and distribution of these vases and to evaluate their popularity during the entire Archaic period. Obviously, both the not-so-numerous Protocorinthian and the abundant Corinthian vases were represented outside Corinth, their amount depending on the size and location of the recipient

Gimatzidis 2012, 298–299 (with further bibliography). Vokotopoulou et al. 1985, 43, cat. nos. 53–54; 57, cat. no. 77; 278–279, cat. no. 453 (M. Tiverios); Vokotopoulou 1993a, 191, cat. no. 9; 213, fig. 18; Kaltsas 1998, 235–236; Misailidou-Despotidou 2011, 30, fig. 7; 32, fig. 9; 33, fig. 11; Gimatzidis 2012, 299, fig. 3; Manakidou 2012, 364, fig. 10, 367; Misailidou-Despotidou 2012, 374, 375, fig. 6. Cf. Risser 2001, 68; Kourayos 2006, 60, 191, pl. III.1; Detoratou 2012, 66–83, 93–94. 35 For imitations of Protocorinthian vases from Krania and Methone, see Poulaki-Pantermali 2007, 632; Besios et al. 2012, 60–61, 95–98. The discovery of good quality Corinthian-type black-figure vases (predominantly kotylai, also round aryballoi and oinochoai, perhaps amphorai and column kraters) in Poteidaia, Methone and Karabournaki is indicative of the existence of traveling potters from Corinth, probably of one or several workshop(s), installed someplace in the coastal settlements of the Thermaic zone, with Poteidaia as a possible candidate – a fact supported by the discovery of an Archaic pottery kiln and scattered Corinthian-type sherds found there: Besios – Noulas 2012, 404–405, fig. 9; Kousoulakou 2013, 69–72; Manakidou 2013, 183–185. Some oinochoai with black-figure scenes from Poseidi and Aphytis display similarities to Corinthian models, see Misailidou-Despotidou 2012, 377, fig. 11; Moschonissioti 2012b, 392, fig. 15. For other locally produced vases imitating standard Corinthian shapes, especially kotylai (in big, medium and miniature format) and exaleiptra, see Rhomiopoulou – Touratsoglou 2002, 24–25, 40, 65, 101; Panti 2008, 90–92, 192–197, 214–216, 218, 256; Skarlatidou 2010, 319; Saripanidi 2012, 286–287. These last two types of vases are frequent in most cemeteries of the settlements around the Thermaic Gulf and in central Macedonia, less so in Chalkidike; the local potters did not only adapt the form of the Corinthian models, but they sometimes even imitated the painted decoration (mostly linear and geometric patterns) or coated with brown glaze the entire vase or part of it. 33 34

Protocorinthian and Corinthian Ceramic Imports in Macedonia

197

Fig. 6   Imitation of Protocorinthian kotyle from the ‘Hypogeio’ at Methone (by permission of M. Besios and A. Kotsonas, photo: G. Parasis)

areas within the Corinthian trade network. The distribution of the imported items occurred most likely from some central coastal settlements with harbour facilities and also from some coastal hinterland hub settlements to other smaller sites. Regarding the function of these imported vases, we can assume that they usually kept their initial use as perfume and sympotic vases, although some of them might have been bought only to be offered in sanctuaries or placed in tombs, as they lack signs of usage. The majority of painted Protocorinthian and Corinthian vases that reached north Aegean sites has been found in funerary contexts, secondly in ritual and then in domestic contexts; this is frequently the case in other areas of the ancient world in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. Variations in the functionality of certain vase groups and their frequency can be observed between place of origin and places of destination, even between nearby communities with different population’s origin and make-up. In accordance with the specified cultural context in the places of consumption, these decorated vases were mostly considered to be something special and that is why they were preferably offered to the deceased or the deities in funeral or religious practices; some of them may have acquired a special function in the local mortuary or ritual procedure as well. There is also a preponderance of small-sized and miniature vases that were mainly intended for graves (e.g. children jar burials) and votive gifts. Generally, the preferred shapes and decoration patterns – floral and figured – tend towards standardisation and only some exceptional pieces (e.g. column kraters) display mythological or other narrative scenes. Some of the imported shapes triggered the production of local imitations, a fact that also proves the ability of local craftsmen and perhaps their training in close proximity to immigrant potters that came to work in the area of the Thermaic Gulf. The amount of local pottery inspired by Corinthian ware seems to be smaller than the quantities imported, but future research and publications may alter this assumption. These local vases could have had similar functions as their prototypes, because they have been found in the same contexts, although local products were more frequently encountered in domestic complexes. Protocorinhian vases are documented in smaller numbers and in fewer sites according to the limited production of these early groups and the meager presence of Corinth in the area of the northern Aegean, in contrast to its spread towards the West. The significantly bigger production

198

Eleni Manakidou

of Corinthian pottery resulted in the ample demand and ‘brand awareness’ of it in many distant areas. The different amounts and the subsequent popularity of these imported vases are dependent on various factors that can be due either to general production and trading conditions or to specific needs and consumption habits of the local purchasers. Conclusions Trade and handicraft activities were two essential factors for Corinth’s wealth and its leading role among the Archaic Greek city-states. Leaving aside the much-discussed issue of the external influences and impulses on the city’s manufacture (including fine pottery), we have to admit that no one could promote and set the pace for its products better than Corinth itself.36 Local commodities were exported together with exotic goods and other raw materials, increasing perhaps in this way their commercial value and popularity in the foreign markets. These long-term trading activities were so well planned that they eventually led to new consumption patterns at home and abroad, and, consequently, to more profit and power for the city of Corinth. Evidently, Corinthian pottery exports became very popular in certain periods of time and in certain areas, such as the northern Aegean, overcoming natural impediments and cultural barriers between Greek producers or merchants and non-Greek customers. The proximity of the Greek colonies along the Macedonian and Thracian coastline with native communities in the same region must have had a considerable impact on the local consumption habits and tastes, a phenomenon indicative of the possible commercial and cultural interaction between the two groups. When speaking of ‘exchange’, we can only recognise the Corinthian ceramic products that are visible in the archaeological record of north Aegean sites and not the organic ones that were connected with them (such as perfumes, edible oil, etc.), while some other perishable goods (timber, leather, minerals) perhaps existed as a means of exchange on the part of the local population. This is however not a case of cultural dominance over a region that was barely ‘colonised’ by the city of Corinth. The exchange of handicraft products was certainly not reciprocal since north Aegean artefacts of this period never, if rarely, reached Corinth. Thus, the circulation of ceramic wares in this not-yet-classified and hardly reconstructable exchange network highlights, rather, the Corinthian supremacy in the north Aegean markets through the added value and symbolism of its ceramic products. This presentation aimed to explore the frequency, variability (shapes, decoration, usage), and distribution patterns of various groups of Corinthian pottery within a specific chronological and geographical frame and in connection to their place of origin. It also focused on the materiality of this imported commodity and its variable functions in domestic, religious and funerary contexts in Macedonia. It is certainly difficult, and somewhat risky, to draw conclusions about the needs and preferences of the local purchasers from only one category of material – in our case, the imported Corinthian fine and to a lesser extent coarse pottery. Nevertheless, we can admit that the nexus between the place of origin and the place of consumption of these vases is much more complicated than our present knowledge allows us to conclude. Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Prof. emer. M. Tiverios for his useful comments and Ass. Prof. A. Avramidou for thoroughly correcting my English.

36

Salmon 1984, 110–113; Parko 2001, 56, 59; Lambrugo 2013, 317–326; Böhm 2014, passim.

Protocorinthian and Corinthian Ceramic Imports in Macedonia

199

References Allamani-Souri 2012 Β. Αλλαμανή-Σουρή, Κλειστά σύνολα αρχαϊκής κεραμικής από το νεκροταφείο της Σουρωτής στον Νομό Θεσσαλονίκης και δείγματα αγγείων από τον οικισμό της Τούμπας στη Θεσσαλονίκη (Archaic pottery groups from the Souroti cemetery in the prefecture of Thessaloniki and selected vases from the Toumba settlement in Thessaloniki), in: Tiverios et al. 2012, 283–296. Amyx 1988 D. A. Amyx, Corinthian Vase-Painting of the Archaic Period (Berkeley 1988). Besios – Noulas 2012 Μ. Μπέσιος – Κ. Νούλας, Αρχαϊκή κεραμική από την ακρόπολη της αρχαίας Μεθώνης (Archaic pottery from the acropolis of Ancient Methone), in: Tiverios et al. 2012, 399–407. Besios et al. 2012 Μ. Μπέσιος – Γ. Ζ. Τζιφόπουλος – Α. Κοτσώνας, Μεθώνη Πιερίας Ι: Επιγραφές, χαράγματα και εμπορικά σύμβολα στη γεωμετρική και αρχαϊκή κεραμική από το ‘Υπόγειο’ της Μεθώνης Πιερίας στη Μακεδονία (Thessaloniki 2012). Böhm 2014 St. Böhm, Korinthische Figurenvasen. Düfte, Gaben und Symbole (Regensburg 2014). Cambitoglou et al. 2001 A. Cambitoglou – J. Papadopoulos – O. Tudor Jones (eds.), Torone I. The Excavations of 1975, 1976, and 1978 (Athens 2001). De La Genière 2006 J. de La Genière (ed.), Les clients de la céramique grecque. Actes du Colloque de l’Académie des Inscriptions et BellesLettres, Paris, 30–31 janvier 2004, Cahiers du Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum France 1 (Paris 2006). Descamps-Lequime 2002 S. Descamps-Lequime, Un exaleiptron en fer et en bronze de la nécropole macédonienne de Karabournaki, dans les collections du Musée du Louvre, in: A. Giumlia-Mair (ed.), I bronzi antichi. Produzione e tecnologia. Atti del XV Congresso Internazionale sui Bronzi Antichi organizzato dall’ Università di Udine, sede di Gorizia, Grado-Aquileia, 22–26 maggio 2001 (Montagnac 2002) 108–115. Detoratou 2012 Σ. Δετοράτου, Πρωτοκορινθιακή και κoρινθιακή κεραμική εισηγμένη στην Πάρο, Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον A΄, Μελέτες, 58–64/2003–2009, 2012, 31–100. Filis 2012 Κ. Φίλης, Εμπορικοί αμφορείς από το Καραμπουρνάκι (Trade amphorae from Karabournaki), in: Kefalidou – Tsiafaki 2012, 309–320. Filis 2014 K. Filis, Karabournaki. The transport amphorae from a subterranean structure in Trench 27/89D, Eirene 50, 2014, 233–265. Gimatzidis 2010 S. Gimatzidis, Die Stadt Sindos. Eine Siedlung von der späten Bronze- bis zur klassischen Zeit am Thermaischen Golf in Makedonien (Rahden/Westf. 2010). Gimatzidis 2012 Σ. Γιματζίδης, Αρχαϊκή κεραμική σε οικισμούς και ιερά της Μακεδονίας. Η οικοσκευή των θνητών και των αθανάτων στη Σάνη της Παλλήνης (Archaic pottery in settlements and sanctuaries in Macedonia. Household vessels of mortals and immortals at Sane in Pallene), in: Tiverios et al. 2012, 297–304. Kaltsas 1998 Ν. Ε. Καλτσάς, Άκανθος Ι. Η ανασκαφή στο νεκροταφείο κατά το 1979 (Athens 1998). Kefalidou 2008 E. Kefalidou, The Argonauts Krater in the Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, American Journal of Archaeology 112, 2008, 617–624.

200

Eleni Manakidou

Kefalidou – Tsiafaki 2012 Ε. Κεφαλίδου – Δ. Τσιαφάκη (eds.), Κεραμέως παῖδες. Αντίδωρο στον Καθηγητή Μιχάλη Τιβέριοαπό τους μαθητές του (Thessaloniki 2012). Klug 2013 R. D. Klug, Griechische Transportamphoren im regionalen und überregionalen Handel. Untersuchungen in griechischen und nicht-griechischen Kontexten in Unteritalien und Sizilien vom 8. bis zum 5. Jh. v. Chr. (Rahden/Westf. 2013). Kottaridi et al. 2011 A. Kottaridi – D. McCarthy – E. Stone – E. Withers (eds.), Heracles to Alexander the Great. Treasures from the Royal Capital of Macedon, a Hellenic Kingdom in the Age of Democracy. A Collaboration between the Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford and the Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Tourism, 17th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities (Oxford 2011). Kottaridi 2013 A. Kottaridi, Aigai. The Royal Metropolis of the Macedonians (Athens 2013). Koukouli-Chrysanthaki – Marangou 2012 Χ. Κουκούλη-Χρυσανθάκη – Α. Μαραγκού, Αρχαϊκή κεραμική από τη θασιακή αποικία Οισύμη (Archaic pottery from the Thasian colony of Oisyme), in: Tiverios et al. 2012, 321–338. Kourayos 2006 Y. Kourayos, The Archaic sanctuary of Apollo on the Island Despotiko, in: De La Genière 2006, 59–67. Kousoulakou – Kousoulakou 2007 Κ. Κουσουλάκου – Α. Κουσουλάκου, Αρχαϊκό ιερό στην Ποτίδαια της Χαλκιδικής. Τα αρχαιολογικά δεδομένα και η επεξεργασία τους σε ψηφιακό περιβάλλον, in: Ancient Macedonia VII / Aρχαία Mακεδoνία VII. Macedonia from the Iron Age to the Death of Philipp II. Papers read at the Seventh International Symposium held in Thessaloniki, October, 14–18, 2002 (Thessaloniki 2007) 697–714. Kousoulakou 2013 Ντ. Κουσουλάκου, Κλίβανος αρχαϊκών χρόνων στην Ποτίδαια (Pottery kiln in Potidaia), in: P. Adam-Veleni – E. Kefalidou – D. Tsiafaki (eds.), Κεραμικά Εργαστήρια στο Βορειοανατολικό Αιγαίο (8ος – αρχές 5ου αι. π.Χ.) / Pottery Workshops in Northeastern Aegean (8th – early 5th c. BC). Scientific Meeting AMTh 2010 (Thessaloniki 2013) 69–72. Kristensen 2001 R. Kristensen, Protocorinthian pottery in Greek sanctuaries, in: Scheffer 2001, 61–69. Lambrugo 2013 C. Lambrugo, Profumi di argilla. Tombe con unguentari corinzi nella necropoli di Gela (Rome 2013). Lilibaki Akamati et al. 2011 M. Lilibaki-Akamati – I. M. Akamatis – A. Chrysostomou – P. Chrysostomou, The Archaeological Museum of Pella (Athens 2011). Manakidou 2005 E. Manakidou, Ein fragmentierter Kolonnettenkrater aus Karaburnaki und die Darstellung heroischer Hochzeiten auf korinthischen und attischen schwarzfigurigen Vasen, Athenische Mitteilungen 120, 2005, 71–83. Manakidou 2012a E. Manakidou, Archaische bemalte Keramik aus Korinth und Athen in Makedonien als Ausdruck lokaler Vorlieben und Bedürfnisse, in: St. Schmidt – A. Stähli (eds.), Vasenbilder im Kulturtransfer. Zirkulation und Rezeption griechischer Keramik im Mittelmeerraum, Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum Deutschland Beiheft 5 (Munich 2012) 93–101. Manakidou 2012b Ε. Mανακίδου, Εισηγμένη κυκλαδική, κορινθιακή και αττική κεραμική αρχαϊκών χρόνων στην αρχαία Οισύμη (Imported Archaic Cycladic, Corinthian and Attic pottery in Ancient Oisyme), in: Tiverios et al. 2012, 359–370. Manakidou 2013 E. Manakidou, Marché régional, importations et imitations de céramiques corinthiennes et attiques à Karabournaki (Macédoine) à l’époque archaïque, in: A. Tsingarida – D. Viviers (eds.), Pottery Markets in the Ancient Greek World (8th–1st centuries B.C.). Proceedings of the International Symposium held at the Université libre de Bruxelles 19–21 June 2008, Études d’Archéologie 5 (Brussels 2013) 175–187.

Protocorinthian and Corinthian Ceramic Imports in Macedonia

201

Misailidou-Despotidou 2011 Β. Μισαηλίδου-Δεσποτίδου, Χάλκινα κοσμήματα αρχαϊκών χρόνων από τη Μακεδονία. Έρευνα στα χάλκινα κοσμήματα των νεκροταφείων της Αγίας Παρασκευής και της Νέας Φιλαδέλφειας (Thessaloniki 2011). Misailidou-Despotidou 2012 Β. Μισαηλίδου-Δεσποτίδου, Η αρχαϊκή κεραμική από το νεκροταφείο της αρχαίας Άφυτης (Archaic Pottery from the Cemetery of Ancient Aphytis), in: Tiverios et al. 2012, 371–384. Moschonissioti 2012a Σ. Μοσχονησιώτη, Επείσακτη κεραμική στο παράλιο νεκροταφείο της Μένδης (Import Pottery at the Seaside Cemetery of Mende), in: Π. Αδάμ-Βελένη – Κ. Τζαναβάρη (eds.), Δινήσεσσα. Τιμητικός τόμος για την Κατερίνα Ρωμιοπούλου (Thessaloniki 2012) 201–209. Moschonissioti 2012b Σ. Μοσχονησιώτη, Αρχαϊκή κεραμική από το ιερό του Ποσειδώνα στο Ποσείδι της Χαλκιδικής (Archaic pottery from the Sanctuary of Poseidon at Poseidi, Chalkidike), in: Tiverios et al. 2012, 385–398. Neeft 2012 C. W. Neeft, Corinthian pottery in Thasos and Argilos. Preliminary observations, in: Tiverios et al. 2012, 189–196. Panti 2008 Ά. Παντή, Τοπική κεραμική από τη Χαλκιδική και το μυχό του Θερμαϊκού κόλπου (Άκανθος, Καραμπουρνάκι, Σίνδος) (Thessaloniki 2008). Parko 2001 H. Parko, Small Corinthian oil-containers. Evidence of the Archaic perfume trade?, in: Scheffer 2001, 55–60. Perreault – Bonias 2006 J. Y. Perreault – Z. Bonias, L’habitat d’Argilos. Les céramiques archaïques, un aperçu, in: De La Genière 2006, 49–54, 173–182. Poulaki-Pantermali 2007 Ε. Πουλάκη-Παντερμανλή, Πλαταμών Ολύμπου (Ηρακλείου) και η εποχή του Σιδήρου, in: Ancient Macedonia VII / Aρχαία Mακεδoνία VII. Macedonia from the Iron Age to the Death of Philipp II. Papers read at the Seventh International Symposium held in Thessaloniki, October, 14–18, 2002 (Thessaloniki 2007) 625–643. Rhomiopoulou – Touratsoglou 2002 Κ. Ρωμιοπούλου – Γ. Τουράτσογλου, Μίεζα. Nεκρoταφείo υστερoαρχαϊκών-πρώιμων ελληνιστικών χρóνων (Αthens 2002). Risser 2001 M. K. Risser, Corinth VII, 5: Corinthian Conventionalizing Pottery (Princeton, N.J. 2001). Salmon 1984 J. B. Salmon, Wealthy Corinth. A History of the City to 338 BC (Oxford 1984). Saripanidi 2012 Β. Σαριπανίδη, Το εξάλειπτρο στα ταφικά έθιμα της Κεντρικής Μακεδονίας (The exaleiptron in the funerary customs of Central Macedonia), in: Kefalidou – Tsiafaki 2012, 283–288. Scheffer 2001 C. Scheffer (ed.), Ceramics in Context. Proceedings of the Internordic Colloquium on Ancient Pottery held at Stockholm, 13–15 June 1997 (Stockholm 2001). Sismanidis 1987 Κ. Σισμανίδης, Tο αρχαϊκό νεκροταφείο της Αγίας Παρασκευής Θεσσαλονίκης. Πρώτη παρουσίαση και πρώτες εκτιμήσεις, in: Σ. Δρούγου – Χ. Σαατσόγλου-Παλιαδέλη – Μ. Τιβέριος (eds.), Αμητός. Τιμητικός τόμος για τον καθηγητή Μανόλη Ανδρόνικο (Thessaloniki 1987) 787–811. Skarlatidou 2002 E. Skarlatidou, Una tomba arcaica in Macedonia. Nuovi dati per un riesame della cronologia della ceramica corinzia, Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente 80, 2002, 281–307.

202

Eleni Manakidou

Skarlatidou 2007 E. Skarlatidou, Thermi. The Ancient Cemetery Beneath the Modern Town (Athens 2007). Skarlatidou 2010 Ε. Σκαρλατίδου, Το αρχαϊκό νεκροταφείο των Αβδήρων. Συμβολή στην έρευνα της αποικίας των Κλαζομενών στα Άβδηρα (Thessaloniki 2010). Skarlatidou et al. 2012 Ε. Σκαρλατίδου – Φ. Γεωργιάδης – Ά. Παντή – Κ. Χατζηνικολάου, Επείσακτη και εγχώρια αρχαϊκή κεραμική από το αρχαίο νεκροταφείο στη Θέρμη (Σέδες) της Θεσσαλονίκης / Archaic imported and local pottery from the ancient cemetery at Thermi (Sedes), Thessaloniki, in: Tiverios et al. 2012, 461–474. Tiverios 2008 M. Tiverios, Greek colonisation of the Northern Aegean, in: G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Greek Colonisation. An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas Vol. 2 (Leiden, Boston 2008) 1–154. Tiverios et al. 2012 Μ. Τιβέριος – Β. Μισαηλίδου-Δεσποτίδου – Ε. Μανακίδου – Ά. Αρβανιτάκη / M. Tiverios – V. Misailidou-Despotidou – E. Manakidou – A. Arvanitaki (eds.), H κεραμική της αρχαϊκής εποχής στο Βόρειο Αιγαίο και την περιφέρειά του (700–480 π.Χ.) / Archaic Pottery of the Northern Aegean and its Periphery (700–480 BC), Proceedings of the Archaeological Meeting Thessaloniki 19–22 May (Thessaloniki 2012). Trakosopoulou-Salakidou 1999 Ε. Τρακοσοπούλου-Σαλακίδου, Από την επείσακτη κεραμική της αρχαϊκής Ακάνθου, in: Ancient Macedonia VI / Aρχαία Mακεδoνία VI. Papers read at the Sixth International Symposium held in Thessaloniki, October 15–19, 1996. Julia Vokotopoulou in memoriam (Thessaloniki 1999) 1197–1217. Vokotopoulou et al. 1985 Ι. Βοκοτοπούλου – Α. Δεσποίνη – Β. Μισαηλίδου – Μ. Τιβέριος, Σίνδος. Κατάλογος της έκθεσης. Αρχαιολογικό Μουσείο Θεσσαλονίκης (Athens 1985). Vokotopoulou 1993a Ι. Βοκοτοπούλου, Αρχαϊκό ιερό στη Σάνη Χαλκιδικής, in: Ancient Macedonia V / Aρχαία Mακεδoνία V. Papers read at the Fifth International Symposium held in Thessaloniki, October 10-15, 1989 (Thessaloniki 1993) 179–236. Vokotopoulou 1993b I. Vokotopoulou (ed.), Greek Civilization. Macedonia, Kingdom of Alexander the Great, Marché Bonsecours, Montreal, 7th May–19th September 1993 (Athens 1993). Winter 2006 E. Winter, Stadtspuren. Zeugnisse zur Siedlungsgeschichte der Chalkidiki (Wiesbaden 2006).

Strangers in a Strange Land: Two Soldiers’ Graffiti from Ancient Thermi Eurydice Kefalidou1 – Ioannis Xydopoulos2 Τo the memory of Tassos Christidis (1946–2004), who was the first to study the two graffiti Abstract: This paper discusses two interesting unpublished terracotta fragments from a vase and a roof-tile, respectively. They were both found in the settlement of ancient Thermi (modern Toumba in Thessaloniki) during the 1980s. Both show incised male figures in oriental dress and/or headdress and bear incised inscriptions. The inscriptions are clearcut, written in an as yet unknown script/language (or, perhaps, languages); the letters include Phoenician/Greek, Carian, Aramaic, and Lycian characters, together with some curious signs or symbols which have not yet been identified. We present the excavation data and the possible chronology of both fragments, one of which has been found in a dug-out structure, typical of the Archaic period in the areas around the Thermaic Gulf. The oriental figures are compared to the ones shown in the reliefs from Persepolis and Susa, as well as on other similar works of Achaemenid art. Moreover, an effort is made to identify the ethnicity of the people who wrote these inscriptions, focusing mainly on the various nations who followed Xerxes’ army during his march in Greece (480 BC). According to Herodotus, the vast army had camped at Thermi, a fact that can probably explain the creation and presence of the two finds examined here. Keywords: Macedonia, Toumba, Thermi, graffiti, Persian army, Achaemenid art, Herodotus

Findspot and Date Two ceramic objects triggered this study: a sherd and a roof-tile, both found at the ancient settlement of Toumba, in the northeast part of the modern city of Thessaloniki. During the Archaic period, to which our objects belong, as we will see later, the important city of Thermi (at the heart of the Thermaic Gulf) was flourishing in this area. Several ancient authors mention Thermi3 while the archaeological research of the last 30 years has shown that it was originally comprised of several small habitation nuclei (komai), the most important being the modern sites of Karabournaki and Toumba Thessaloniki.4 Toumba Thessaloniki is a tell-based settlement consisting of a hill (toumba, max. height 66m asl), a ‘table’ (trapeza, 46–50m asl), and the cemeteries that lie around them. Systematic excavations –conducted since 1984 by the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki on the Toumba hill – revealed an important Bronze Age site.5 Only rescue excavations have been carried out on

Department of History and Archaeology, School of Philosophy, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece; [email protected]. 2 Department of Ancient Greek, Roman, Byzantine, and Medieval History, School of History and Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece; [email protected]. 3 See, e.g. HecataeusFGHist 1a, F 146; Herodotus 7.122–123; 127.4; 179; 183; 8.127; [Aristotle], Ath. Pol. 15.2; Ps-Scylax, Periplous, 66; Strabo 7a.1, 20; 22; 25; 8. 1. 3; Stephanus Byzantius, Ethnika p. 309, l. 19; 310, ll. 1–2; 679, l. 4. 4 The distance between the two sites is c. 4.5 km, while the distance between the settlement of Toumba and the sea is c. 1.5km. On ancient Thermi see (with bibliography): Τiverios 1995–2000, 314–320; Τiverios 2009, 394; Soueref 2011, 206–210, 344–349, 359–363; http://karabournaki.ipet.gr. 5 See (with further bibl.): Andreou – Kotsakis 1996; Chavela 2007, 288–290; Andreou et al. 2010; Vliora et al. 2014. 1

204

Eurydice Kefalidou – Ioannis Xydopoulos

Fig. 1    Excavation in 4, Ortansias Str. 1986 – General view (© Thessaloniki Ephoreia of Antiquities, photo: T. Savvopoulou)

the trapeza (by the Thessaloniki Ephorate of Antiquities since 1985) due to the construction of modern apartment buildings.6 The trapeza was inhabited mainly from the Early Iron Age until the late 4th century BC, when it was abandoned after the foundation of the city of Thessaloniki.7 A plot in the west part of the trapeza, in 4 Ortansias Street, was one of the first to be excavated in 1986 by Thomi Savvopoulou (Fig. 1). The excavation revealed different phases of rectangular houses with foundations built with meticulous stonework and a mudbrick superstructure as well as open-air spaces – dating from the 6th to the late 4th century BC, lying above Early Iron Age strata. There are two main building phases during the 6th century BC that can be dated to the first and

6



7



For overviews of the first results of the rescue excavations see (with further bibl.): Soueref 1989; Chavela 2007, 276–288; Soueref 2009; Soueref 2011, 78–81 (no. AK 25). For the general stratigraphy of the Toumba settlement: Soueref 1996, 392–393; Chavela 2007, 292–296. During the Archaic and Classical periods, the size of the settlement is estimated to c. 95.000m²: Soueref 2009, 345.

Strangers in a Strange Land: Two Soldiers’ Graffiti from Ancient Thermi

205

Fig. 2   Excavation in 4, Ortansias Str. 1986 – the beehive-shaped pit (© Thessaloniki Ephoreia of Antiquities, photo: T. Savvopoulou)

the second half of the century, respectively. A fire destruction layer separates the second Archaic phase from the later habitation layers of the early 5th and the late 4th century BC.8 Among the house walls, various pits of different sizes have been discovered – one of which was beehive-shaped,9 dug into the virgin red soil of the trapeza, beneath the late Archaic fire-destruction layer mentioned above, and another layer of brown-grayish soil was lying directly above the pit; therefore, the pit must have been constructed during the earlier phase of habitation in this particular area (Fig. 2).10 Similar pits, either beehive or rectangular, have been found in the following years not only at the Toumba settlement but also at the Karabournaki settlement (almost 30 found so far) and elsewhere (e.g. at the site of Nea Kallikrateia).11 In all cases, it seems that



Savvopoulou 1990; cf. Soueref 1987, 235, who excavated a plot next to this one (6, Ortansias Str.). A second (complementary) excavation was conducted in our plot in 1988, by K. Soueref (Soueref 1988, 246–249), who re-examines the different building phases and suggests some probable dates. For an overview of the building phases of this area: Chavela 2007, 277–279, figs. 2, 4, 6, Ortansias Str. Notice that the fire destruction layer is not attested everywhere in the settlement, but is probably a local incident. 9 Dimensions: Upper diameter 1.44m, diameter at bottom 2.24m, depth 1.20m (all dug in the virgin soil). Apparently, it was part of a ‘double’ beehive-shaped pit, since one of its walls was built with stones in order to separate it from an adjacent pit: for similar double constructions in the Toumba settlement: Chavela 2007, 305–306. 10 Constructed during Settlement Phase V or IV (9th–late 7th century BC) and abandoned after Phase III (6th‒early 5th century BC): Chavela 2007, 293–295. 11 On these pits (and also on smaller cylindrical ones) see, with further references and comparisons: Toumba: Soueref 1996, 394; Soueref 1999, 180; Chavela 2007, 304–311. Karabournaki: Panti 2009; Τiverios 2009, 387–388; Tsiafakis 2010, 384–386. Nea Kallikrateia: Bilouka – Graikos 2002, 379–380; Bilouka – Graikos 2009, 240. The suggestion made by M. Tiverios that some of these pits may also have been used for habitation seems to have been recently revised, except perhaps in the case of the very large rectangular dug-outs at Karabournaki. 8

206

Eurydice Kefalidou – Ioannis Xydopoulos

Fig. 3   Excavation in 4, Ortansias Str. 1986 – pottery from the pit (© Thessaloniki Ephoreia of Antiquities, photo: E. Kefalidou)

these structures were built in the 7th or even the late 8th century BC and their initial use must have been multiple (household activities, storage, small workshops – depending on their size and on the finds from their fills).12 These dug-outs were eventually put out of use – filled with stones, broken pots, animal bones, shells and other waste – and closed. According to the pottery from their fills, it seems that in most cases, at least at the settlements around the Thermaic Gulf, they were abandoned in the Late Archaic period, as it is also the case of the Toumba pit that interests us here. Our pit was filled with soft brown soil, large and small stones,13 a grinding stone, a pithos base, many pottery fragments, a biconical spindle whorl, as well as some shells and animal bones. The sherds belong to both handmade and wheel-made vases, mostly plain but with a fair number of decorated pieces, and of various shapes and fabrics: open and closed vessels, fine and coarse wares (almost all of them micaceous), for table, cοοking and storage use (the latter include mostly coarse pithos fragments). Some of them were burned either during use (cooking) or secondarily, which we can probably connect with the fire destruction layer mentioned above. They mainly date to the Archaic period (7th‒6th century BC), although there are several Early Iron Age sherds (Fig. 3).14 The pit was filled in the course of a single event, since both earlier (Iron Age) and later (Archaic) fragments were found mixed in all depths. The later fragments include a black-figure

Cf. Bozhinova in this volume. The stones were apparently used to make it more stable in order to create an earth floor over it: cf. Soueref 1988, 247; Soueref 1999, 180, who notices that many similar pits were filled with earth and stones, and sometimes new walls were built over them. The Excavation Diary (p. 45) mentions some carbonised material near the rim of the pit. 14 The Archaic pottery is mainly wheel-made, including gray wares (some of them plain, some burnished and a few bucchero) and fragments with painted red, brown or black bands or with more elaborate curvilinear patterns. Of special interest are three 7th century BC pieces: a fragment decorated with concentric circles (probably a local imitation of Euboean ware); part of a mug with red horizontal bands; and a vertical handle from a kantharoid vase decorated with a black fishbone pattern. Most of the archaic pottery is local; imported pieces include some of the fragments already mentioned above (among them East Greek bucchero, black-figure and black-glazed sherds) as well as a fragment of a Late Corinthian kotyle, decorated with horizontal red bands on the black surface of the vase. The Early Iron Age pottery is mostly handmade and includes gray plain and polished wares (e.g. wishbone handles 12 13

Strangers in a Strange Land: Two Soldiers’ Graffiti from Ancient Thermi

207

sherd of late 6th to early 5th century BC depicting part of a nude dancing (?) man with a white band around his chest, and five blackglazed sherds (some with impressed palmettes) of the late 5th century or even 4th century BC – but these are probably intrusions. Among the sherds, there was a fragment of a local closed vase, decorated with a buff brownish-red band with leaves, and with an incised drawing and inscription (Fig. 4);15 this was certainly not a later intrusion because it was found stuck on the wall of the Fig. 4   Pottery fragment with graffito (© Thessaloniki pit, c. 30cm below its mouth. Ephoreia of Antiquities, photo: E. Kefalidou) The potter’s wheel-marks, visible at the inner side of the sherd, show that the painted pattern was shown almost vertically (with a tilt to the left) on the vase wall; therefore, the graffito, which is parallel to the band-and-leaves, was inscribed after the pot was broken. What survived to us today is a graffito showing a head facing right,16 with a tall, rounded hat decorated with diagonal lines and 10 or 11 signs in a peculiar script (below, S1–S10). A few months later, again in 1986, a fragment of a flat roof-tile was handed in to the Thessaloniki Museum by a resident of the Toumba area. It also shows a graffito: a man with a long robe and a high, rounded hat, facing right and holding out a stick-like object with both hands and an inscription of 16 signs (below, T1–T16) – again in a peculiar script (Fig. 5).17

Fig. 5  Roof-tile fragment with graffito (© Thessaloniki Ephoreia of Antiquities, photo: O. Kourakis ‒ D. Karolidis)

of bowls, handles, necks and bodies of amphorae and jugs with cut-away or plain necks), as well as a sherd of the local ‘Silver-slipped’ Ware, with a violet band on off-white ground. 15 Light brown clay, fairly fine, with small quantity of mica. Dimensions: 4.4 × 6.4cm; wall thickness 7.2mm. 16 The back of his head is missing; it looks like the graffito was executed on a larger fragment of the vase, which was broken again later; and this last piece is what survived down to us. 17 Local light brown clay, with small and medium micaceous and other inclusions. Dimensions: 28.5 × 23cm, wall thickness (except from the rim) 2.8cm.

208

Eurydice Kefalidou – Ioannis Xydopoulos

It is obvious that we have: A) Two objects that were inscribed after they were broken and/or taken down from a roof. They both bear peculiar inscriptions and depict men with similar tall, rounded headdresses, one of which looks like a turban due to the diagonal lines. The more complete figure also has long hair, wears a long robe and holds a stick-like object. B) Although the artistic skills of the graffiti makers are –to say the least – mediocre (see e.g. the three-fingered hands on the tile!), it is important to note that their figures point to the oriental world, not only because of the hats and long robes, but also because of the gesture of the hands shown on the roof-tile, e.g. both hands are used to hold the stick-like object (to all of these issues we will return below). C) The people who made the drawings apparently also wrote the peculiar inscriptions, to which we will also return below. D) Based on the stratigraphy, the fabric of the sherd and the contents of the pit where it was found (all discussed above), we can securely date the small fragment to the Late Archaic period; therefore, we can probably assume a similar date for the roof-tile. E) The finding place of both objects lies within the area of the ancient city of Thermi. The first scholar who studied these objects was the late philologist Tassos Christidis, who, unfortunately, did not finish his study. However, as Professor Michalis Tiverios informed us (and we warmly thank him), he and Tassos Christidis were discussing the idea that the finding place, the date, the inscriptions and the iconography of these graffiti may be connected with the Persian presence in Macedonia during the Late Archaic period. Following this initial idea, we scrutinised both the inscriptions and the iconography of these objects and some initial suggestions are presented as follows. Inscriptions (Fig. 6) Although lacking the special skills of Tassos Christidis, still an attempt will be made here to identify the scripts. Prima vista, some of the signs are easily recognisable, since they appear in the Phoenician, Carian, Aramaic, Lycian, and Greek alphabet (or to some of these). However, not all letters seem to belong to one specific alphabet and some of them may not even be letters but could be linear symbols. After examining the inscriptions, the following remarks emerged: A) The script is alphabetic in both inscriptions: 16 signs can be distinguished on the tile and 10 or 11 signs on the sherd. B) The orientation of the script seems to be from right to left in both inscriptions (cf. the digamma). C) The apparent use of diacritic marks on some letters is noteworthy in both inscriptions: note the letter pi (S8, with a stroke over the sign) or the omicron (S6 – provided that it is indeed an omicron and not a linear symbol);18 and the delta (S7–T2) or the psi (T6 – that appears with some added strokes). D) Influence of the Phoenician-Greek alphabetic tradition can be seen in some signs on the tile (delta?-T2, alpha-T7, psi?-T6, ni-Τ9, sigma with three segments-Τ10, digamma-Τ11, theta-Τ15, psi-T16); and in some on the sherd (alpha-S1, iota-S2, rho-S4, theta-S9, epsilon archaic-S10).

See e.g. in Boardman 1970, 23, the round symbol in the centre and the linear mark no. 8 on a stamp seal made in western Anatolia (Lydia) under Persian rule. As he wrote, these symbols “are based on circles with simple additions of straight lines or arcs. The forms invented for several of these devices may well have been suggested by other patterns. Thus, D2–D4 recall the winged sun disc with stylised tail, legs or wings. D5 and D6 look like simple bucrania or the so-called ‘taurine’ device. D8 and D9 suggest a floral”.

18

Strangers in a Strange Land: Two Soldiers’ Graffiti from Ancient Thermi

209

Fig. 6  Graffiti on the pottery fragment (above) and the roof-tile (below) (© Thessaloniki Ephoreia of Antiquities, photos: E. Kefalidou; O. Kourakis ‒ D. Karolidis)

E) Only what seem to be an alpha, a theta, and a sigma are in common on the two documents. However, both objects show signs that are not Phoenician/Greek, also those on the tile are different from those on the sherd. F) On the roof-tile, some symbols appear twice (T13 and T14 seem to be the same); on the sherd, every sign is different. An important question for understanding these inscriptions arises immediately: Do both inscriptions belong to the same epigraphic corpus? We believe that this is not the case. The origin of these documents is a determining factor in answering this very important question for the possible identification of the language(s). The roof-tile was probably made locally in the Toumba area, while the sherd belongs to a local vase, i.e. made either in the Toumba area or, generally, in the wider region of Macedonia/North Aegean. However, both objects were inscribed after they were broken, therefore anyone who came to the area could have made these graffiti. If the scripts are in some form of Greek, the possible candidates who have inscribed these words (if these are indeed words) on the two different objects could be: a) the indigenous populations of Chalkidike, either colonists from the south or local Chalkidians; b) Greeks in the Persian army (see below, Historical Context; c) local Macedonians, trying to exercise their ability in the writing of the Greek language. If the scripts are not Greek, as we believe is the case, then one should consider the possibility of non-Greek soldiers in the Persian army, especially Thracians, living in the Chalkidike (e.g. at Akte)19 since we know that in Xerxes’ time at least the Thracians at Zone and Samothrace made use of the Greek alphabet, albeit in a different form than in our inscriptions.20 Moreover, if we take for granted that we are dealing with two different alphabets, are we then also dealing with two different languages? The nature of these documents is impossible to define in the present stage of our research. We can imagine people scratching on the tile and the sherd the figures of soldiers or royal guards or high-ranking officials/generals, or perhaps even the Great King (see below, Iconography), and then writing these puzzling (to us) words (?). Were they trying to leave something memorable behind, as was – and still is – the habit of many soldiers doing their duty abroad? Was it some kind

Thucydides 4.109.1; Xydopoulos 2007, 8. Thracian inscriptions from Zone and Samothrace: Brixhe 2006; Brixhe et al. 2015. We must also mention another non-Greek script incised on a small terracotta plaque found in a late 7th/early 6th c. BC pithos burial at Abdera, Thrace: Skarlatidou 2010,155, no. K161, fig. 225.

19 20

210

Eurydice Kefalidou – Ioannis Xydopoulos

of game between comrades? Could these perhaps be messages of a somewhat formal character (if so, from whom to whom?), or even orders to the soldiers, having the ‘formal’ figure as a ‘stamp’? This latter hypothesis could also be an explanation for the use of two different scripts/languages. In any case, it seems that, regardless of the nature of these objects, there are two possibilities: either those who wrote them apparently knew the form of the letters (perhaps by just seeing them), but could not master the script, i.e. they were semi-illiterate; or what we are dealing here is an as-yet unidentified alphabet. As for the tile inscription, we did wonder if this could be a kind of an abecedarium, but this does not seem possible since at least two letters are repeated.21 Also, if we are correct in assuming that the direction of the writing on the roof-tile is from right to left and if the script were Greek, then the two final letters of the inscription would be theta and psi. It would be interesting to conceive of an end of a Greek word consisting of ‘th-ps’ and if this would make sense. Therefore, we must probably reject the possibility of a Greek script. Another thought was that what we have here is just the initial letters of the soldiers’ names (belonging to the same platoon/unit?) together with the ‘official’ figure with the long robe. Again, problems arise: all these letters (?) do not seem to belong to the same alphabet/s, or at least to the alphabets known to us so far; as we already mentioned, Phoenician, Greek, and perhaps Carian letters are seen, thus making the whole issue a striving puzzle. Also, some of the letters in the sherd inscription could belong (or, at least in our opinion, look similar) to the Aramaic alphabet: a (S1), p? (S8), t (S9), h (S10); while others to the Lycian one: i (S2), r (S4), r again (S7a), and d (S7). If we are to point out some closer connections, we could say that many of the 10 or 11 letters of the sherd graffito may be Phoenician; one could read: an ’aleph (S1), a sixth century zayin? (S2),22 a tsade? (S5), a daleth? (S7), a pe (S8), a teth (S9) and a he (S10). Furthermore, the tile inscription seems to have close connections with the Carian scripts, although not all letters match; still, one could read: w (T3), ^k? (T5), n? (with strokes-T6), m (T9), u (T12), u (with strokes-Τ13, T14), q (Τ15), and n (T16).23 Some of the letters on the roof-tile are strikingly similar to the Carian ones seen on the sherds of an ‘orientalising’ vase from the Karabournaki site.24 Even more, Carians were known for their early contacts with the Thermaic Gulf and it was the Carian fleet that was under the command of Xerxes’ son, Ariabignes, during the campaign of 480 BC. Carians were imitating the Greek way of life and knew the Greek language.25 They were also renowned soldiers, masters of the sailing art, had a long tradition of practising piracy.26 Of interest for both our inscribed objects is that Thucydides links the Carians with the Phoenicians.27 Maybe this is just a mistake on the historian’s side, since we do not hear about the Phoenicians being together with the Carians in his work again, but perhaps it is an implication of the Phoenician presence in the north Aegean, already noticed by Herodotus, regarding the foundation of Thasos.28

For a 6th century BC abecedarium (in Parian-Thasian alphabet) inscribed on a cup sherd found in northern Greece and on another abecedarium from Chalkidike (on an early 5th century skyphos from the sanctuary of Poseidon at Poseidi, in Ionic alphabet): Tiverios 2011 (with an interesting general discussion on abecedaria, most of them on pottery and most of them Archaic). To these we may also add an unpublished abecedarium from Nea Kallikrateia, near Thessaloniki, dated in the first half of the 4th century BC, exhibited in the Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki. Cf. also a 5th century BC abecedarium written on a roof-tile from Halieis (in Argive alphabet): Jameson 1969, 319, n. 21, pl. 80h. 22 Naveh 2005, 94, no. 4. 23 For the Carian alphabet, see Adiego 2007, 508. For Carian inscriptions in central Macedonia, with the excellent comments of the late Tassos Christidis, see Tzanavari – Christidis 1995, 13–16; Adiego et al. 2012, 195–202. 24 Tiverios 1999, 1175–1181. The sherds are on p. 1181. 25 Herodotus 7.97 (see also 7.93 and 8.19 and 22 for Carians in Xerxes’ army); Tiverios 1999, 1178 and 1179 n. 22 for bilingual inscriptions on Carian and Greek. 26 Herodotus 1.171.4 (Carians as fine soldiers); 1.171.3 and 2.152; Thucydides 1.8.1 (Carians as pirates). 27 Thucydides 1.8.1; Tiverios 1999, 1180. 28 Thucydides 1.8.1; Hornblower 1991, 29–30; Tiverios 1999, 1180. See also Herodotus 6.47.

21

Strangers in a Strange Land: Two Soldiers’ Graffiti from Ancient Thermi

211

Iconography If we cannot (yet) understand what they wrote, can we possibly understand what they depicted? Both alphabets (or whatever we can make out of them) and the iconography of our objects (dress, headdresses, etc.) point to the Persian world and Achaemenid art. Of course, it goes without saying that our graffiti are crude and rudimentary – to say the least – compared to the formal royal art of the Persian Empire. However, our figures instantly bring to mind the soldiers/palace guards shown in the palaces of Persepolis (stone reliefs) and Susa (glazed brick reliefs),29 as well as other similar figures depicted in Achaemenid minor arts. To be more specific: The hats shown on both our fragments have the same raised rounded outline (J. Boardman calls them ‘busby headdresses’30), which reminds us of the similar headdresses of the ‘cavalry costume’ (formerly called ‘Median-type’ dress) worn by various courtiers and royal attendants, like the palace guards (Fig. 7) and the royal grooms on the Persepolis reliefs.31 Moreover, the hat on the small sherd has diagonal stripes, thus perhaps suggesting an oriental turban, which reminds us of the headdresses worn by the members of the so-called Lydian or Syrian delegation again in the Persepolis reliefs.32 The long robe shown on our roof-tile graffito reminds us of the Persian court robe, a rather typical garment worn by the Great King himself and by Persian soldiers, guards, various courtiers, royal attendants and ushers, as well as by some delegation members, like the Assyrians or Lydians (again in the Persepolis reliefs).33 We may thus suggest that our figures have headdresses that remind us mostly of the ‘Lydian/Syrian’ turbans and/or the cavalry costume hats, while one of them wears a long robe comparable to the Persian court robe.34 Moreover, the roof-tile graffito shows that the figure wears not only a robe, but also perhaps an overgarment, indicated by the vertical lines scratched at his lower back and exceeding below the hem. Overgarments of various types are common in Achaemenid art but the lines of our graffito are too crude to help us make any further suggestions about the type of this mantle (?). What seems very important is the position of the hands holding the stick-like object, already mentioned above. If we interpret it as a spear there is a striking similarity with Achaemenid soldiers/guards shown on different media who also hold their spears in the same way, sometimes called ‘brickfist pattern’. Unless of course they carry another weapon, such as a shield (Fig. 7: royal soldiers/guards with court robes and oval shields), which cannot be hung from their shoulders, like a

Generally on Achaemenid monumental sculpture and its influences: Farkas 1974 (Susa: 38–45; Persepolis: 46–76). Esp. on the palace of Susa: Perrot 2010. Esp. on the palace of Persepolis: Kokh 2006. Generally on the royal Achaemenid iconography: Garrison 2013. 30 Boardman 1970, 27, no. 18 (Achaemenid stamp seal, depicting a man in sleeved tunic and leggings). 31 Palace guards: see e.g. Farkas 1974, fig. 54. Royal grooms: see e.g. Farkas 1974, fig. 18. 32 See Farkas 1974, fig. 53 (“probably reign of Xerxes”, 486‒465/464 BC). 33 See e.g. Farkas 1974, figs. 16, 17, 24 (kings); figs. 54, 66, 67 (royal guards); figs. 45, 47, 52, 55, 56 (ushers); figs. 52, 53 (Lydians or Syrians). Generally on the two distinctive forms of Persian dress (the long lose court robe and the ‘cavalry costume’ with the sleeved coat, leggings and rounded headdress) see with bibl.: Llewellyn-Jones 2013, 61–66. Llewellyn-Jones 2015, 235–240. 34 This mixture of motifs and styles is also attested in other forms of Achaemenid minor arts: see e.g. the stamp seal in Boardman 1970, 37–39. On similar mixtures of dress and other iconographical patterns in depictions of Persians, Medes and other Orientals produced by various Asia Minor artists or craftsmen see (with bibl.): Paspalas 2000, passim. See also Miller 1997, 156, who notices that the Athenians do not seem to depict Persians wearing this type of dress in their art but they prefer to show them in the cavalry/‘Median’costume. Generally on the mixture of motifs and patterns and the cultural and artistic interaction between Persia and Greece, especially in the 4th century BC: Llewellyn-Jones 2012 (esp. 337–340 and n. 60 with further bibliography); Cf. also Paspalas 2000 and 2008, esp. on the 4th century BC art of Macedonia. 29

212

Eurydice Kefalidou – Ioannis Xydopoulos

Fig. 7   Persepolis ‒ Soldiers/guards with ‘Persian’ and ‘Median’ dress (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/File:Persépolis._La_Garde.jpg [last accessed 30. Apr. 2018])

quiver or a sword.35 The fact that our figure has no other weapon except for the spear may seem strange, but it is not uncommon in Achaemenid art, as we can see in the case of the soldiers/ palace guards in Persepolis (Fig. 7) and on similar figures shown on golden plaques from the Oxus Treasure.36 In any case, it is probably quite safe to suggest that this special gesture shows that the maker of our roof-tile graffito was at least rather familiar with Achaemenid iconography. And finally, one more comment regarding the hair of our figures: the more complete figure on the roof-tile has rather long hair (reaching below his shoulders), which is normal in Achaemenid iconography; however, both of them do not seem to have a beard as it is normally expected.37 Nonetheless, the small fragment is broken off at the area of the chin and it is not certain whether the beard is missing; additionally, the roof-tile graffito shows a curving line which starts behind the eye and continues below the jaw. Could this be an indication of a beard? Possibly yes because, as we can see on some of the Oxus plaques, which are rather simple engravings and therefore close comparanda to our graffiti, the beard is also indicated as a curving projection below the jaw.

Generally on the ‘brick-fist pattern’: Davis-Kimball 1989, 110–111 (“Code 2: Hands in Brickfist Aspect”). For depictions of this specific gesture see e.g.: Farkas 1974, 46–59, figs. 17, 54, 66, 67 (Persepolis) and figs. 38–45, pl. XVII (Susa); See also a stamp seal showing a ‘royal guard’: Boardman 1970, 36, no. 171. Similar figures shown on non-Achaemenid Near Eastern art normally hold their spears and sticks with one hand: see e.g. the stelai in Börker-Klähn 1982, nos. 263‒266 (depicting a Babylonian king, 6th‒5th century BC); And cf. also the motif on much older stelai from Ugarit, 2nd millennium BC (Börker-Klähn 1982, nos. 285, 286, 289), as well as the stelai op. cit. nos. 309, 311, 314, 315 (most of them Hittite). Notice also the absence of the ‘brickfist’ pattern on the sculptures of the Assyrian palaces at Nimrud and Nineveh (9th‒7th century BC): Barnett – Falkner 1962, passim; Barnett et al. 1998, passim. On neo-Assyrian iconography see also: Czichon 1992 (notice e.g. the depictions of king Sargon II [722/721‒705 BC], standing with long robe and high hat, holding his sceptre in his right hand: 182, pl. 74, 1–2). Lastly, in Greek art soldiers very rarely hold their spear with both hands and this happens only when they are resting – never when they are on guard: see e.g. the third from the right soldier on the painted frieze of the Macedonian tomb in Aghios Athanasios near Thessaloniki: Tsimpidou-Auloniti 2005, 133, pls. 31, 35b. 36 On the Oxus Treasure (most of the objects date to the 5th‒4th century BC) see generally: Pitschikjan 1992. Curtis 2012. Esp. on the 51 Oxus golden plaques: Curtis et al. 2003. Notice that some plaques seem to have been more ‘professionally’ executed while others are just crude scratches, much like the Toumba graffiti. 37 For the full long well set hair and beard in Achaemenid iconography: Llewellyn-Jones 2013, 58–60; Llewellyn-Jones 2015, 235–240. It is interesting to notice that in the Persepolis’ reliefs all men, regardless of their style of dress and their other accessories, have beards, except some men from Africa and Arabia, who do not have any other common iconographical elements with our graffiti (e.g. headdresses, garments or ‘brickfist pattern’). 35

Strangers in a Strange Land: Two Soldiers’ Graffiti from Ancient Thermi

213

Still, there are also a few other probable interpretations, as far as the identification of the figures is concerned. We could, for example, interpret the stick-like object as a scepter, thus identifying him as a king; in Achaemenid iconography the king can be shown standing or seated but he commonly wears a crenelated crown and usually holds the scepter in his right hand.38 Or we can take the stick-like object as a stick and therefore recognise a court official, like the ones on the Persepolis reliefs (Fig. 7, top right and bottom right: court official, like the ones leading the delegation members on the Persepolis reliefs); this is also a possibility, although the sticks held by these courtiers are normally shorter.39 Be that as it may, the main issue that our two graffiti raise is connected with the presence of the vast Persian army in Greece, which, interestingly enough, has hardly left any archaeological traces in Thrace, Macedonia, and central and south Greece.40 Ιf our two artefacts are indeed connected to the Persian factor, as we suggest below, we gain new and intriguing information, thus urging us to find their most probable historical context. Historical Context All this implies, in our opinion, a more or less permanent Persian military presence in the area of Macedonia. The two graffiti under examination, dated to the late 6th or early 5th century BC, could be linked with three different phases of the local history. In our effort to attach the finds to a possible historical context, we came up with the following: Case 1: The offer of the Anthemous region to the expelled Athenian tyrant Hippias by the thenking of Macedon (Amyntas I) illuminates aspects of the latter’s policy in the last decade of the 6th century BC with Persia. Macedon was a client kingdom to Persia since 513‒512 BC and by this offer Amyntas was clearly showing his loyalty to Persia, hoping to get the maximum benefit for his kingdom. At first, there must not have been a strict Persian occupation in Macedon but rather subordination on quite loose terms.41 One concludes that Macedon was under a loose client status, if one takes into account specific parameters, such as: a) the absence of any evidence concerning a Macedonian revolt from the Persian yoke, an action which would have been certainly emphasised by Herodotus in his attempt to highlight the philhellenic feelings and actions of Amyntas’ son and successor, Alexander I, against the Persians;42 and b) the fact that Xerxes rewarded Alexander I generously, by allowing him to rule the region between Mt. Olympus and Mt. Haemus.43 Macedon must have fulfilled the conditions of servitude to Darius, in exchange for its dynastic stability and Persian military protection, so there was no reason for an uprising. But, conditions changed, and after the outbreak of the Ionian Revolt the Persians wanted to strengthen their position in the northern part of the Aegean. All that was needed was a campaign, after which the Persian general

On the various ways of depicting the king in Achaemenid iconography: Garrison 2013, 577–584; Llewellyn-Jones 2015 (esp. for the crown see his n. 35). On the royal crown see also Llewellyn-Jones 2013, 60–61. 39 See e.g. Farkas 1974, figs. 45, 47, 52, 55, 56. 40 The spoils from the Persian Wars must have been plentiful and precious; however excavations so far revealed only a few pieces such as a bronze helmet from Olympia, a bronze bit from the Athenian Acropolis, a bronze phiale from Delphi and (perhaps) some pieces of jewellery and small artefacts from other sanctuaries; Moreover, only a few items which can be otherwise connected with this vast army have been found, mostly trilobate arrowheads: on these issues see Miller 1997, 29–62. For an interesting case of a group of graffiti connected with the Persian presence in Greece, although in a very different context than the Toumba examples see: Ivantchik 2006, 249; this is an Attic ostracon, probably used for an ostracism in 485 BC, with a scratched depiction of an archer in ‘Skythian’ costume and the inscription, in Greek: KALLIAS, SON OF KRATIOS, A MEDE (an accusation of medismos, i.e. ties with Persia; the same inscription is found on ten other ostraca). 41 On the whole story and for comments: Xydopoulos 2012, 28, n. 41. 42 For details: Xydopoulos 2012, 29, n. 47. 43 Justin Epit. 7.4.1. Also: Hammond 1989, 43. 38

214

Eurydice Kefalidou – Ioannis Xydopoulos

Mardonius managed to include the Macedonians into “the Persian slaves”.44 Herodotus clearly states that the Persian infantry occupied Macedonia. Amyntas I appears as Darius’ hyparchos (a man ruling over the Macedonians),45 an indication perhaps of a more intense Persian military presence in Macedon, something implied by Herodotus.46 However, we do not know any details about the location of the Persian camps, due to lack of archaeological evidence. The two inscribed artefacts may present a hint for the stationing of the Persian army somewhere around Thermi, but for the moment this is pure speculation. Case 2: When in 480 BC the Persian army reached Macedonia, Xerxes treated the Macedonian king (by then, Alexander I) as a local subjected ruler. The lack of evidence is once again our major difficulty in reconstructing this second possible context. Herodotus is our major source but, as the main objective of his narrative was Xerxes’ invasion to mainland Greece, his information is limited to the Persian moves rather than the very presence of the Persians in the coasts of Bottiaia, Mygdonia, Anthemous and Chalkidike. After all, Macedonia was a vassal state and there was nothing of interest for the historian to comment upon. This fact allows only for some general remarks regarding the relations between Xerxes and Alexander: It has been suggested that Alexander and his Macedonians “were forced to lend their aid to the king”,47 although (as already mentioned) there is no specific information about Alexander’s actions. We think that such a hypothesis is problematic, if not wrong, since: a) the status of Macedonia was the one described above in Case 1; and b) in Herodotus’ narrative of later events, Alexander I is presented as a loyal vassal on Xerxes’ side.48 To return to the context related to Xerxes’ presence in Macedonia, and Thermi in particular, Herodotus is explicit when describing that Xerxes ordered his fleet to be stationed at the Thermaic Gulf.49 We are informed that the fleet’s ships (ναυτικὸς στρατός) were covering the whole area ranging from Thermi to the east, up to Sindos and Chalastra to the west.50 Eventually, Xerxes, with the rest of his army, followed the route from Acanthus through the Chalkidike mainland51 to Thermi. Apparently, the army had its camps set alongside the Gulf’s coast, up to the river Haliacmon.52 It is well known that Xerxes’ army was vast. Its contingents were multi-national, coming from all parts of the Persian Empire, and it is Herodotus again who gives us a full account of all the nations crossing the Hellespont.53 All these troops finally made it to Macedonia, where they spent some time in their military camps preparing themselves for the invasion of southern Greece while Xerxes was inspecting the surrounding areas up to Pieria to the west and Thessaly to the southwest.54 Among these soldiers dwelling around the Thermaic Gulf, Lydians, Carians, Phoenicians, and Cypriots were included, as well as Greeks from Ionia and the cities of the Chalkidike peninsula.55 Troops from the eastern part of the empire intermingled with those of the western. Besides the navy of the Persians, there were also other fleets belonging to nations such as Sidonians, Tyrians, Aradians, Carians, Cypriots, Lycians, Cilicians, Lydians.56 Also, as Balcer put it, “[m]ilitary garrisons commanded by Persians from Sardis to Abydos, Sestos to Kardia, Leuke Akte, Tyrodiza, and westward to Doriskos, Eion, and Thermi aided significantly the movement of Xerxes’ invading forces as garrisons throughout the empire quartered soldiers from the many imperial satrapies”.57

46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 44 45

Herodotus 6.44.1. Herodotus 5.20.4. The discussion in Xydopoulos 2012, 30, n. 52. Herodotus 6.44; 7.108.1. See Bichler – Rollinger 2000, 75. Sprawski 2010, 138. See, e.g., Herodotus 7.173.3; 8.34. Herodotus 7.121.1. Herodotus 7.123.3. Herodotus 7.124.1 Herodotus 7.127.1. Herodotus 7.61–80. Herodotus 7.128–131. Herodotus 7.123.1–2. Herodotus 7.98. Balcer 1995, 241.

Strangers in a Strange Land: Two Soldiers’ Graffiti from Ancient Thermi

215

These garrisons must have dwelled at camps or built barracks during the winter. Once again, our evidence is scarce. This seems logical enough, since these constructions must have had a temporary character, therefore they would have been built out of perishable materials (wood and wattle and daub). On the other hand, there could have been installations with more permanent features, which might have been used (or even destroyed) by the Macedonians after the Persian withdrawal from Macedonia, thus leaving no archaeologically visible traces behind. Case 3: Finally, there is a third possibility: After the Persian defeat at Salamis in 480 BC and Xerxes’ flight from mainland Greece, the Persian army spent the winter in Thessaly and Macedonia, at the same time crushing a rebellion in the city of Olynthus.58 We cannot know the exact role Alexander I played in these events; however, it must be taken for granted that he remained a faithful ally to the Persians. As for the issue we have raised with the two inscribed artefacts, the destruction of Olynthus (as well as the siege of Poteidaia) in the Chalkidike peninsula implies perhaps that the bulk of the remaining Persians who had survived the campaign in south Greece were residing in the same camps where they had spent the previous winter. As the above three possible contexts show, whatever the case may be, one can easily trace a strong Persian presence in Macedonia from 492 to 479 BC – and perhaps a more discrete one from 513 to 492 BC. As for the individuals who incised the drawings and the inscriptions on the artefacts studied here, it seems probable that they could belong to one of the Persian expeditionary armies that reached Macedonia in this specific period(s). Whether Persians, Medians, Lycians, Lydians, Carians, Phoenicians, Ionians, Cypriotes, or locals, they have left their eternal marks – and an as-yet unsolved problem – in what could perhaps be just a writing exercise on broken waste ceramics. In any case, we believe that these graffiti clearly show another face of the war – that these soldiers had full awareness of the place they were at and they understood their role in a tough and cruel environment. Acknowledgements: For helping us during various stages of our study and providing some relevant bibliography we warmly thank: I. Adiego, A. Bresson, C. Brixhe, K. Chavela, S. Gimatzidis, Α. Johnston, H. Koch, L. Llewellyn-Jones, N. Marinatos, N. Oikonomaki, S. Paspalas, K. Soueref, M. Tiverios, D. Tsiafaki, G. Tzifopoulos, A. Zournatzi, and to T. Papakostas for checking our English text.

References Adam-Veleni – Tzanavari 2009 Π. Αδάμ-Βελένη – Κ. Τζαναβάρη (eds.), Το αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη – 20 χρόνια. Επετειακός τόμος (Thessaloniki 2009). Adiego 2007 I. J. Αdiego, The Carian Language (Leiden, Boston 2007). Adiego et al. 2012 I. J. Adiego – M. Tiverios – E. Manakidou – D. Tsiafakis, Two Carian inscriptions from Karabournaki-Thessaloniki, Greece, in: K. Konuk (ed.), Stephanèphoros. De l’économie antique à l’Asie Mineure. Hommages à Raymond Descat (Bordeaux 2012). Andreou – Kotsakis 1996 Σ. Ανδρέου – Κ. Κωτσάκης, Η προϊστορική Τούμπα Θεσσαλονίκης. Παλιά και νέα ερωτήματα, Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 10A, 1996, 369–387. Andreou et al. 2010 Σ. Ανδρέου – Κ. Ευκλείδου – Σ. Τριανταφύλλου, Η πανεπιστημιακή ανασκαφή στην Τούμπα Θεσσαλονίκης, Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 24, 2010, 359–364.

Herodotus 8.127.

58

216

Eurydice Kefalidou – Ioannis Xydopoulos

Balcer 1995 J. M. Balcer, The Persian Conquest of the Greeks 545–450 BC (Konstanz 1995). Barnett – Falkner 1962 R. D. Barnett – M. Falkner, The Sculptures of Assur-Nasir-Apli II (883–859 B.C.), Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727 B.C.), Esarhaddon (681–699 B.C.) from the Central and South-West Palaces at Nimrud (London 1962). Barnett et al. 1998 R. D. Barnett – E. Bleibtreu – G. Turner, Sculptures from the Southwest Palace of Sennacherib at Nineveh (London 1998). Bichler– Rollinger 2000. R. Bichler – R. Rollinger, Herodot (Darmstadt 2000). Bilouka – Graikos 2002 Α. Μπιλούκα – Ι. Γραικός, Νέα Καλλικράτεια 2002. Η ανασκαφική έρευνα στον αρχαίο οικισμό, Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 16, 2002, 375–384. Bilouka – Graikos 2009 Α. Μπιλούκα – Ι. Γραικός, Νέα Καλλικράτεια Χαλκιδικής. Η πρόσφατη σωστική ανασκαφική έρευνα (1999–2005) στην Ερετριακή αποικία των Δικαιοπολιτών στον Θερμαίο Κόλπο, in: Adam-Veleni – Tzanavari 2009, 239–247. Boardman 1970 J. Boardman, Pyramidal stamp seals in the Persian Empire, Iran 8, 1970, 19–45. Börker-Klähn 1982 J. Börker-Klähn, Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen und vergleichbare Felsreliefs (Mainz 1982). Brixhe 2006 C. Brixhe, Zônè et Samothrace. Lueurs sur la langue thrace et nouveau chapitre de la grammaire comparée?, Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 150, 2006, 121–146. Brixhe et al. 2015 C. Brixhe – Α. Ζουρνατζή – Χ. Παρδαλίδου, Ένας επιγραφικός θησαυρός, in: Π. Τσατσοπούλου-Καλούδη (ed.), Αρχαία Ζώνη Ι. Το ιερό του Απόλλωνα (Komotini 2015) 209–563. Chavela 2007 Κ. Χαβέλα, Η χωροχρονική διάσταση του αρχαίου πολίσματος στην Τούμπα Θεσσαλονίκης. Η κεραμική ως ‘πιλότος’ ερμηνείας (PhD Diss., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki 2007). Czichon 1992 R. M. Czichon, Die Gestaltungsprinzipien der neuassyrischen Flachbildkunst und ihre Entwicklung vom 9. zum 7. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Munich, Vienna 1992). Curtis 2012 J. E. Curtis, The Oxus Treasure [British Museum Objects in Focus] (London 2012). Curtis et al. 2003 J. E. Curtis – A. Searight – M. R. Cowell, The gold plaques of the Oxus Treasure. Manufacture, decoration and meaning, in: T. Potts – M. Roaf – D. Stein (eds.), Culture through Objects. Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of P. R. S. Moorey (Oxford 2003) 219–247. Davis-Kimball 1989 J. Davis-Kimball, Proportions in Achaemenid Art (PhD Diss., University of California, Berkeley 1989). Farkas 1974 A. E. Farkas, Achaemenid Sculpture (Leiden 1974). Garrison 2013 M. B. Garrison, Royal Achaemenid iconography, in: D. T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran (Oxford 2013) 566–595. Hammond 1989 N. G. L. Hammond, The Macedonian State (Oxford 1989).

Strangers in a Strange Land: Two Soldiers’ Graffiti from Ancient Thermi

217

Hornblower 1991 S. Hornblower, A Commentary on Thucydides. Volume I: Books I–III (Oxford 1991). Ivantchik 2006 Α. Ι. Ivantchik, ‘Scythian’ archers on Archaic Attic vases. Problems of interpretation, Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 12, 2006, 197–271. Jameson 1969 M. H. Jameson, Excavation at Porto Cheli and vicinity. Preliminary Report I: Halieis, 1962–1968, Hesperia 38, 1969, 311–342. Kokh 2006 H. Kokh, Persepolis and its Surroundings (Tehran 2006). Llewellyn-Jones 2012 L. Llewellyn-Jones, The great kings of the fourth century and the Greek memory of the Persian past, in: J. Marincola – L. Llewellyn-Jones – C. Maciver (eds.), Greek Notions of the Past in the Archaic and Classical Eras, History Without Historians, Edinburgh Leventis Studies 6 (Edinburgh 2012) 317–346. Llewellyn-Jones 2013 L. Llewellyn-Jones, King and Court in Ancient Persia (Edinburgh 2013). Llewellyn-Jones 2015 L. Llewellyn-Jones, ‘That My Body is Strong’. The physique and appearance of Achaemenid monarchy, in: D. Boschung – A. Shapiro – F. Waschek (eds.), Bodies in Transition. Dissolving the Boundaries of Embodied Knowledge, Morphomata 23 (Paderborn 2015) 211–248. Miller 1997 M. C. Miller, Athens and Persia in the Fifth Century B.C. A Study in Cultural Receptivity (Cambridge 1997). Naveh 2005 J. Naveh, Early History of the Alphabet. An Introduction to West Semitic Epigraphy and Palaeography (Skokie, IL 2005). Panti 2009 Ά. Παντή, Λαξευτές κατασκευές από τις ανασκαφές της ΙΣΤ΄ΕΠΚΑ στο Καραμπουρνάκι, in: Adam-Veleni – Tzanavari 2009, 273–284. Paspalas 2000 S. A. Paspalas, On Persian-type furniture in Macedonia. The recognition and transmission of forms, American Journal of Archaeology 104, 2000, 531–560. Paspalas 2008 S. A. Paspalas, The Achaemenid lion-griffin on a Macedonian tomb-painting and on a Sikyonian mosaic, in: S. M. R. Darbandi – A. Zournatzi (eds.), Ancient Greece and Ancient Iran. Cross Cultural Encounters, 1st International Conference, Athens 11–13 November 2006 (Athens 2008) 301–325. Perrot 2010 J. Perrot (ed.), Le palais de Darius à Suse. Une résidence royale sur la route de Persépolis à Babylone (Paris 2010). Pitschikjan 1992 J. R. Pitschikjan, Oxos-Schatz und Oxos-Tempel. Achämenidische Kunst in Mittelasien (Berlin 1992). Savvopoulou 1990 Θ. Σαββοπούλου, Άνω Τούμπα, Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 41/1986, 1990, Χρονικά, 134–135. Skarlatidou 2010 Ε. Κ. Σκαρλατίδου, Το αρχαϊκό νεκροταφείο των Αβδήρων (Thessaloniki 2010). Soueref 1987 Κ. Σουέρεφ, Ανασκαφή στην Οδό Ορτανσίας της Τούμπας Θεσσαλονίκης, Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 1, 1987, 235–245. Soueref 1988 Κ. Σουέρεφ, Έρευνες στην Τούμπα Θεσσαλονίκης, Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 2, 1988, 243–255.

218

Eurydice Kefalidou – Ioannis Xydopoulos

Soueref 1989 Κ. Σουέρεφ, Τούμπα Θεσσαλονίκης: ανασκαφή στην οδό Εμπεδοκλέους, Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 3, 1989, 215–225. Soueref 1996 Κ. Σουέρεφ, Tούμπα Θεσσαλονίκης 1985–1996. Το ανασκαφικό έργο στην τράπεζα και το νεκροταφείο, Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 10Α, 1996, 389–406. Soueref 1999 Κ. Σουέρεφ, Τούμπα Θεσσαλονίκης. Ανασκάπτοντας στην τράπεζα και στο αρχαίο νεκροταφείο, Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 13, 1999, 177–190. Soueref 2009 Κ. Σουέρεφ, Τούμπα Θεσσαλονίκης. Ανασκαφές στην τράπεζα και το αρχαίο νεκροταφείο, in: Adam-Veleni – Tzanavari 2009, 345–358. Soueref 2011 Κ. Σουέρεφ, Τοπογραφικά και αρχαιολογικά κεντρικής Μακεδονίας (Thessaloniki 2011). Sprawski 2010 S. Sprawski, The Early Temenid Kings to Alexander I, in: J. Roisman – I. Worthington (eds.), A Companion to Ancient Macedonia (Oxford 2010) 127–144. Τiverios 1995–2000 Μ. Τιβέριος, ΄Eξι χρόνια πανεπιστημιακών ανασκαφών στο Καραμπουρνάκι Θεσσαλονίκης (1994–1999), Εγνατία 5, 1995–2000, 297–321. Tiverios 1999 Μ. Τιβέριος, Κάρες στο μυχό του Θερμαϊκού κόλπου, in: Ancient Macedonia VI / Aρχαία Mακεδoνία VI. Papers read at the Sixth International Symposium held in Thessaloniki, October 15–19, 1996 (Thessaloniki 1999) 1175–1181. Tiverios 2009 Μ. Τιβέριος, Η πανεπιστημιακή ανασκαφή στο Καραμπουρνάκι Θεσσαλονίκης, in: Adam-Veleni – Tzanavari 2009, 385–396. Tiverios 2011 M. Tiverios, An Archaic alphabet on a Thasian kylix, in: G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), The Black Sea, Greece, Anatolia and Europe in the First Millennium B.C., Colloquia Antiqua 1 (Leuven, Paris, Walpole MA 2011) 317–329. Tsiafakis 2010 D. Tsiafakis, Domestic architecture in the Northern Aegean. The evidence from the ancient settlement of Karabourbaki, in: H. Tréziny (ed.), Grecs et Indigènes de la Catalogne à la Mer Noire. Actes des rencontres du programme européen Ramses 2, 2006–2008 (Paris 2010) 379–387. Tsimpidou-Auloniti 2005 Μ. Τσιμπίδου-Αυλωνίτη, Μακεδονικοί τάφοι στον Φοίνικα και στον Άγιο Αθανάσιο Θεσσαλονίκης (Athens 2005). Tzanavari – Christidis 1995 K. Tzanavari – A. P. Christidis, A Carian graffito from the Lebet Table, Kadmos 34, 1995, 13–16. Vliora et al. 2014 Ε. Βλιώρα – Ε. Κυριατζή – Σ Ανδρέου, Η κατανάλωση της κεραμικής και η ενδοκοινοτική οργάνωση στο τέλος της Ύστερης Εποχής του Χαλκού στη Μακεδονία. Παρατηρήσεις στη χειροποίητη κεραμική από την Τούμπα Θεσσαλονίκης, in: E. Stefani – N. Merousis – A. Dimoula (eds.), A Century of Research in Prehistoric Macedonia 1912–2012. International Conference Proceedings, Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, 22–24 November 2012 (Thessaloniki 2014) 575–584. Xydopoulos 2007 I. K. Xydopoulos, The concept and representation of northern communities in Ancient Greek historiography. The case of Thucydides, in: J. P. Montojo – F. Pedersen (eds.), Communities in European History. Representations, Jurisdictions, Conflicts (Pisa 2007) 1–22. Xydopoulos 2012 I. K. Xydopoulos, Anthemous and Hippias. The policy of Amyntas I, Illinois Classical Studies 37, 2012, 21–37.

Thracians and Greeks in the North Aegean Despoina Tsiafaki1 Abstract: The focus of this paper is to take a look at the interactions between Greeks and Thracians in the northern Aegean – a region conceived as southern Thrace in ancient times. Based on the information provided by the literary sources, ancient Thrace was a wealthy land due to its metals, fertile fields, timber, horses and slaves. The Greek interest in the region can already be traced back to the Bronze Age and is also found in the following centuries of historic times. The up-to-date data suggest two principal periods regarding the interrelations between Greeks and Thracians until the Hellenistic times: a) the Late Bronze Age period and b) from the Iron Age onwards, with the colonisation and Archaic period as milestones. The information for the first period, the Bronze Age is to date very limited and is primarily based on archaeological findings of Mycenaean origin or prototype. The literary sources are not of great assistance in this case, except maybe for some hints or echoes. For the next period, from the Iron Age onwards, which is the focus of this paper, the evidence is much richer, since the literary sources provide information for direct contacts. Cultural material, mythology, poetry and various types of written information contribute to a better understanding of the interrelations between Greeks and Thracians. The colonisation of northern Aegean and the Greek settlements there are clear evidence for the existence of contacts with the locals, while in Classical times, Athenian vase painting and drama presents further sources of data regarding the perception of Thracians in Athens. Keywords: Greeks, Thracians, north Aegean, mythology, literary sources, drama, vase painting, colonisation, Mycenaean, Iron Age, Archaic

Introduction Scholarly interest in subjects that focus on the relationship between the ancient Greeks and the ‘Other’– that is, non-Greek cultures – has already been around for some decades.2 ‘Otherness’, as opposed to ‘Greek’ and equivalent to ‘non-Greek’, appears as a theme in various publications which attempt to understand and reconstruct the past of not only the Greek culture, but of the other cultures as well. Ancient Greeks interacted with several different people in the Balkans and Asia Minor, for example, the so-called Ilyrians, Persians, Skythians and Thracians. During the colonisation period, they expanded to the east and west as well as to the north and south.3 For trading or settling, Greeks came into contact with various people and cultures, resulting in influences on both sides. Thracians were among the people the Greeks met in the north Aegean, along the coast from Mount Olympus to the River Hebros and in its hinterland. Ancient Thrace (Fig. 1) is nowadays divided primarily among the following different countries: Greece, Bulgaria, and Turkey. Archaeological research is conducted by all those countries and it corresponds to the regions that more or less cover northern Greece, Bulgaria and western Turkey, respectively. The extension and priorities of research vary from country to country, along with their respective methodologies and aims. The archaeological approaches followed could also



1



2



3

ATHENA – Research & Innovation Center in Information, Communication & Knowledge Technologies, Xanthi Branch, Greece; [email protected]. See for example: Hall 1989; Hall 1997; Cohen 2000; Harrison 2002; Xydopoulos 2004, 11–14; Antonaccio 2009, 32–53; Vlassopoulos 2013. Graham 1982; Boardman 1999; Tsetskhladze 2006; Antonaccio 2007; Tsetskhladze 2008.

220

Despoina Tsiafaki

Fig. 1   Map of ancient Thrace with indicative distribution of the Tribes and Greek colonies (reprint from Ancient Thrace, Komotene 1996, 54)

be different with regard to the questions that have to be answered. Furthermore, the use of the different languages in the publications (Greek, Bulgarian, Turkish and also Romanian) adds one more issue for the creation of a common research model, one that seeks knowledge, understanding and communication regarding the completion of the puzzle for the picture of Thrace in Antiquity. Greeks and Thracians The focus of this paper is to examine Greeks and Thracians from the central part of the northern Aegean, a region that corresponds with southern Thrace in ancient times. Ancient Thrace was known as a very wealthy land with metals, fertile fields, timber, horses, and slaves – to name a few; 4 therefore, it is no surprise that the Greek interest was attracted there either for trade,

4



Danov 1976; Fol – Marazov 1977; Bredow 1989, 143–152; Archibald 1998; Tsiafaki 1998; Tsiafaki 2003; Tsiafaki 2009; Valeva et al. 2015. For Thrace in Prehistory see also: Aslanis 2000, 23–39.

Thracians and Greeks in the North Aegean

221

establishment or even control (military, political, economical, etc.). The up-to-date information indicates two principal periods regarding the interrelations between Greeks and Thracians before the Hellenistic period: a) the Late Bronze Age; and b) from the Iron Age onwards, with the Archaic period as a milestone. The information for the first period is very limited and based primarily on archaeological findings that are unearthed through on-going excavations. As for the next period, which is the focus of this paper, the material evidence is enriched with information provided by mythology, poetry and other types of literary sources. If Greece is taken as the centre, then Thrace can be considered as a periphery, something that has been already denoted in the scholarly research. To that significant role play, the longstanding tradition of the Classical Studies as well as the fact that most of the known information comes from the ancient Greek literary sources. As an illiterate people, Thracians did not leave behind literary evidence with information about themselves or others. The Greek interest for their neighbours to the north can be traced as early as the Bronze Age. During this period, a general increase in maritime trade, exchanges or other types of expansion are observed.5 Mycenaean findings at various sites in the north Aegean indicate some type of interaction. In particular, the excavations of the last few decades in northern Greece brought to light many more Mycenaean imports than before, thereby expanding our knowledge on the area and its activities.6 The Myceneaen findings in the region are not only limited to pottery, but include a great range of products, such as figurines, or metal artefacts, such as weapons.7 Along with the imports, there are also several different types of Mycenaean pottery produced locally in Macedonia and Thrace, especially in the area of the Thermaic Gulf and Chalkidike.8 This material evidence indicates that this northern region had some kind of contact or knowledge of the Mycenaeans.9 On the other hand, with regard to the literary sources, there is unreliable information coming from this period. The Linear B tablets are mostly records for accounting – although religious material might occasionally be present. The Homeric epics have been dissociated more or less from a historical Bronze Age context;10 however, even if they do not portray the Mycenaean world, they might reflect echoes of that distant Heroic Age,11 especially if they are seen in combination with the material evidence. The mythological events narrated in the Homeric poems could indicate some knowledge of the previous period during the Iron Age, as well as fragments of Greek activity in the area. Rhesos12 is a good example and Odysseus spent some time in Thrace on his



Tartaron 2013; Stefani 2015. The earliest known Mycenaean pottery in northern Greece was found at Torone, colony of the Chalcidians, and dates to the LH Ι–ΙΙ. See: Cambitoglou – Papadopoulos 1993. Mycenaen pottery has been also found in various places in Chalkidike, in the area of the Thermaic Gulf, Pieria, Kastanas, Assiros or in sites today in modern Bulgaria. For an overview see: Tiverios 2008, 11, n. 55 with bibliography; Vlachopoulos – Tsiafaki 2017, passim. See also: Wardle 1993, 125–130; Andreou – Kotsakis 1999, 107–116; Mitrevski 1999, 235–246; Andreou – Fotiadis – Kotsakis 2001, 259–327; Andreou 2002/2003, 221–222; Andreou 2003, 192–210; Andreou et al. 2003, 495; Buxeda i Garrigós et al. 2003, 263–284; Baralis 2008, 108–110; Andreou 2009, 15–40; Tsiafakis 2013, 61, n. 3; Papadopoulos – Nerantzis 2014, 68, 70, 84. 7 For Mycenaean figurines in the region and discussion on their presence see: Renfrew 1985, 209, 262, 276; Kilian 1990, 449, 452, 455; Koukouli-Chysanthaki 1992, 723, n. 84, 734; Jung 2003, 219, n. 75. For metal objects see Vlachopoulos – Tsiafaki 2017. 8 For local production see: Kiriatzi 2000, 257–258; Wardle et al. 2001, 631–643; Andreou 2002/2003, 221–222; Andreou 2003, 196. 9 The up-to-date data does not yet allow for extraction of conclusions about the nature of those contacts, either to say whether they were systematic or similar in all the places. The possibility of the foundation of ‘Myceanean emporia’ has been suggested by some scholars. See: Kilian 1990, 445–446, 455; Soueref 1993, 1401–1417. 10 A concise overview of potential connections between Homer and the Mycenaean world is provided in Bennet 1997. See also Raaflaub 2006. 11 Although the uncertainty of the date of Homer and his work, the Iliad and the Odyssey might echo former traditions that could go back to earlier times. See: Baralis 2008, 108; Tsiafaki 2009, 123, n. 6; Burgess 2014, 75. 12 Homer, Il. 12.433–511; Tsiafaki 1998, 234–238; Tsiafaki 2003, 1–5. 5 6

222

Despoina Tsiafaki

way back to Ithaca.13 He stayed on the land of the Kikones, who were allies of the Trojans, and met Maron, the priest of Apollo. Lykourgos, another Thracian king, is also mentioned by Homer (Il. 6.130–140) along with many other Thracians such as Akamas, Peiroos or Mentes.14 Information about the interactions between the Greeks and local Thracians in early times could be retrieved through the mythological past – those referring to Heracles and his labours that occurred there. The labour of the human-eating horses of the Thracian king Diomedes took place in the area of Abdera on the coast of Thracian Aegean.15 While in the region of Torone, at Chalkidike, the hero fought and killed the two sons of the sea daemon Proteas. Heracles is further related to Thasos.16 The battle with the son of Ares, Kyknos,17 also took place in Thrace while other episodes of his adventures also seem to occur in the Thracian lands. 18 In all those episodes, Heracles fights natives who are generally represented as ferocious, violent or uncultivated. In all the cases, the result is that in the end the Greek hero overcomes his opponents and succeeds in his mission, albeit after significant loss.19 In particular, for the north Aegean, Heracles’ adventures appear to be structured upon the pattern of the hero killing the nefarious and uncivilised sons of Ares and Poseidon.20 However, in the case of Heracles, it is noteworthy that during his return after the completion of his 10th labour with the oxen of Geryones, 21 who lived in the far west, the hero had a long trip before he arrived to Mycenae. Departing from the west, Heracles went to Italy and after that, Sicily. From there, he arrived in Thrace and Scythia after that. He ended at his final destination, Mycenae, after he had completed this long journey, during which he also had various adventures and difficulties. The completion of this labour involves an actual tour of Heracles throughout the Mediterranean and it incorporates almost all the regions of Greek colonisation. As a representative hero in Greek mythology, these specific labours of Heracles might be a sign of knowledge and/or contacts with the region of Thrace. However, it is not only through Heracles that ancient Greek mythology might also indicate knowledge of the northern region. The myth of Phrixos and Helle or/and that of the Argonauts22 may indicate the Greek interest and expeditions in the region of the Black Sea, as well as perhaps reflect some kind of knowledge of the area in the pre-colonial period.23 These myths could also reflect the Greek search for metals or their attempts to exploit regions rich in metals, such as in

15 16 13 14

17 18



21 22 19 20

23



Homer Il. 2.846–847, Od. 10.39, 66, 197–212; Tsiafaki 1998, 238–239; Tsiafaki 2003, 7. Homer Il. 2.844–850, 5.461, 6.7, 22.484–485, 13.221–263; Tsiafaki 2003, 1–2. Anastasiou 1986, 48–50; Tsiafaki 1998, 198–200; Parisaki 2000, 66; Tsiafaki 2003, 8–9. Herod, II.44; Graham 1978, 89–90; Grandjean – Salviat 2000, 142–143; Graham 2001, 379–380; Tiverios 2006, 80. Apoll. Biblioth. 2.5.11; Anastasiou 1986, 79–82. The conflict with Syleus, the vine grower, took place in the Strymonian Gulf, in an area known in antiquity as the “plain of Syleus”; Herod. 7.115; Conon Narr. 17; Bickermann and Sykutris 1928, 14, n. 1, 26; Mallios 2011, 283– 284. Heracles killed the son of Ares, Lycaon, Thracian king of Crestonians; Eur. Alc. 501–4; Apollod. Bibl. 2.5.2. The fight with Alkyoneus, who was the tyrant of Pallene, took place there and, after killing Alkyoneus, Heracles entrusted Potidaea to Sithon, son of Poseidon or Ares; Apollod. Bibl. 16.1; Bickermann and Sykutris 1928, 9: Speusippus Letter 6; Anastasiou 1986, 86–88. It is also said that Heracles appointed the son of Sithon, Aristomachos, to protect the area of Torone; Bickermann and Sykutris 1928, 9: Speusippus Letter 7. However, there is the tradition that the eponymous hero of the city of Olynthus was the son of Heracles; Ath. 8.334e. Even though some of those myths could be later inventions, there is an echo through them of the connection of the hero with the area already in earlier times. For the presence of Heracles in the region see also Mallios 2011, 63–64, 280–285; Tiverios 2013, 101–106. In the case of Diomedes’ man-eating horses, for example, Heracles lost his companion Abderos. Mallios 2011, 48. Anastasiou 1986, 55–83. Vojatzi 1982; LIMC II (1984) λ. Argonautai, 591–599 (R. Blatter); Hiller 1991, 213–215; LIMC VII (1994) s.v. Phrixos et Helle, 398–399 (Ph. Bruneau); Lordkipanidzé 1996, 21–49; Lordkipanidze 2001, 10–14. Lordkipanidze 2001, 9. See Damyanov this volume.

Thracians and Greeks in the North Aegean

223

the Black Sea area.24 The most traded commodities were copper, tin, gold and silver.25 This effort to control areas rich in metals was not limited only to the Bronze Age, but is obvious also in the Iron Age, during the so-called colonisation period.26 The story of the Argonauts goes back to the pre-Homeric oral poetry, as it is shown through their appearance in both the Iliad and the Odyssey. 27 The Trojan War, according to the Greek mythological tradition, takes place one generation later than the Argonauts adventure and could also be a sign of knowledge and exploration of the region by the Greeks. If we consider that the participants in the Trojan War were the descendants of the Argonauts, 28 then the Trojan War can be approached as another Greek expedition – organised by Greeks of several different origins – to the area or an effort to get there. Archaeological findings in northern Greece and the north Aegean, Greek mythology, and Homer all present evidence and hints about the perception and/or the contacts of the Greeks with the region of Thrace from the Bronze until the Iron Age and even in the Early Archaic period. The sources indicate first of all knowledge, interaction and some type of contact or their wish to make contacts. Homer knows Thrace as a wealthy land with gold and silver, and it is famous for its warriors and horses both incomparable in beauty and bravery.29 Through poetry and mythology, it is suggested that Greeks were already familiar with the north Aegean and that they were met with difficulties from the local inhabitants, which were surpassed somehow in the end. In the case of Odysseus’ visit to the land of Kikones,30 for example, there is a hint on the one hand for a Greek attempt to establish control in the area that, although initially successful, ended with the expulsion of the Greeks. On the other hand, the episode with Maron implies good terms and friendly communications. The aspect of ferocity, uncivilised along with exotic, is presented better through the relevant stories of Heracles, while Homer reflects the aspect of Thrace during his time by referring to a number of kings and heroes (Rhesos, Lykourgos, Maron, Thamyris, Boreas, Akamas, etc. 31). Many of whom remain vivid in the next centuries and play a noteworthy role regarding the Greek relationship with and perception of the Thracians. From the Time of Colonisation Onwards The second phase of relations between Greeks and Thracians can be placed from the Iron Age to Classical times. In this case, the information is much more abundant, and the material evidence is complimented with literary sources along with mythology. 32 An important factor for interactions during this time was Greek colonisation. Therefore, the contacts could overall be placed, to a certain extent, within this framework of Iron Age exchange (transport, commercial opportunities, exchange of goods whether as gifts, commodities or others) along with other reasons (e.g. overpopulation, politics) that resulted in the foundation of colonies. Greeks from Ionia (Asia Minor), mainland Greece (e.g. Corinth) and the islands (e.g. Euboia, Cyclades) expanded to the west and east, and the north and south and established colonies as far

For copper-rich deposits and metal resources in the region see: De Jesus 1977, 97–102; De Boer 2002, 446–452. De Boer 2002, 443. 26 Damyanov 2015, 297–304; Vlachopoulos – Tsiafaki 2017, passim, for the reasons of foundation of various colonies. 27 Homer, Il. 7.468–471, 21.41, 23.747; Homer, Od. 10.135–139, 11.256–259, 12.59–72. 28 Lordkipanidzé 1996, 30–31, 35. 29 Homer, Il. 10.433–511, 11.4, 576ff., 23.808. 30 Homer, Od. 9.39–66, 197–212; Tsiafaki 2003, 7. 31 Tsiafaki 2003, 43–66. 32 For the Greek image of Thracians through the literary sources see Xydopoulos 2004, 11–22. Noteworthy is that many myths related to the area appear to be formulated during the 8th–6th centuries BC; a period that could also correspond with the formation of the Homeric epics. For examples of myths formulated during that period see Tsiafaki 1998, passim. 24 25

224

Despoina Tsiafaki

as the Iberian Peninsula, the Euxeinos Pontos (Black Sea) and north Africa.33 Southern Italy and Sicily (a region mostly known as Magna Grecia) encompassed a major area of Greek colonies that met with great development and growth. The area of the north Aegean, the Hellespont and the Black Sea, where the territories of the various Thracian tribes were located, also attracted the Greek interest and a significant number of Greek colonies were established there. As for the area of the north Aegean in particular, Greeks from the south had appeared already in the 8th century BC on the coast of Macedonia and especially in Pieria and Chalkidike, as well as in the Thracian lands between the rivers Strymon and Nestos. 34 It seems, however, that the major period for the colonisation of the region was during the 7th and 6th centuries BC, with a particular emphasis in the 7th century BC.35 The placement of the colonies along the coast of the Aegean implies that specific areas were settled by colonists who originated from certain geographical regions. In the western part, for example, there are the colonies by the Cyclades (Andros, Paros) such as Akanthos, Sani, Argilos, Eion, Thasos and its Peraia; next is the region colonised by Ionia (Klazomenae, Teos, Chios) with colonies such as Abdera and Maroneia; in the eastern part came colonists from Aeolia who established themselves in Ainos, Samothrace and its Peraia.36 The presence of Miletus should not be ignored in the region since, during the time of the Persian rule, it had an important role through Histiaios and Aristagoras.37 It should be noted, however, that Milesians showed a special interest in the area of Euxeinos Pontos for founding their colonies. Corinthians or Euboians appear to focus their interest in the western side of the Strymon River. However, they are also present on the peninsula of Chalkidike and the coastline of the Thermaic Gulf – an area that, at least until the 6th century BC, seems to be a Thracian territory. Despite the restriction of the physhical Corinthian establishment into the single colony of Potidaia, Corinthian pottery dominates in the region for a significant period of time.38 Greeks from the Cyclades are found in a very specific territory: the eastern part of Chalkidike, at the Strymonic Gulf, Thasos and its Peraia. The most eastern point of the Aegean coast they reached is Stryme 39 – but as a Thasian colony. Greeks from Ionia and Aeolia, on the other hand, do not appear to expand west of the Strymon area. This distribution presents Chalkidike as a barrier for the various colonists, as if there was a kind of a mutual agreement. However, the up-todate data regarding the Aegean shore of Thrace, do not indicate a central or organised colonisation based on similar or unified criteria and motivations, rather, they may have been individual attempts of the various places from the Cyclades and Ionia/Aeolia; therefore, the above distribution presents an interesting question and demands further exploration. The foundation of Greek colonies along the Aegean Thrace coincides with the establishment of the Greek presence in the area. At the same time, the local inhabitants may have been pushed generally inland – or they co-existed with the Greeks in some cases – while the Greek settlements defined their control areas. The archaeological remains provide information for the existence of certain Thracian establishments along the shore as well.40 The literary information and the archaeological data indicate that the majority of the Greek communities usually remained along the coast and did not move further inland.

Descoeudres 1990; Boardman 1999; Hodos 2006; Tsetskhladze 2006; Tsetskhladze 2008; Tiverios 2008, 1–154; Vlassopoulos 2013, 78–128. 34 Tsiafaki 2003, 12–17; Loukopoulou 2004, 870–884; Bonias – Perreault 2009b; Tsiafaki 2009, 124; Zannis 2012. 35 Isaac 1986; Triantafyllos 1987–1990, 298–312; Parisaki 2000, 66–72; Loukopoulou 2004, 870–874; Loukopoulou et al. 2005; Baralis 2008, 112–115; Triantafyllos 2009, 187–204; Damyanov 2015, 296–301. 36 For the colonies of Samothrace in its Peraia see: Tsatsopoulou 1987–1990, 323–334. 37 Herod 5.1, 11, 23,124, 126; Isaac 1986, 15–17. 38 For the presence of the Corinthian pottery in the region see: Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 1986 onwards; Tiverios et al. 2012; E. Manakidou in present volume. 39 Herod. 7.108, 109; Bakalakis 1967; Parisaki 2000, 69–70; Loukopoulou et al. 2005; Loukopoulou – Psoma 2008, 55–86; Triantafyllos – Terzopoulou 2012, 141–156. 40 Triantafyllos 1987–1990, 298–312; Baralis 2008, 101–107. 33

Thracians and Greeks in the North Aegean

225

The written sources provide evidence for the colonisation of the different sites, but this information varies and, as a rule, it is not very detailed regarding the relationship of the Greeks with the various Thracian tribes. These relationships have to be examined separately in each case and they may differ from time to time. It should be kept in mind that the native inhabitants of the region in examination belonged to different tribes that – in the Greek imagination – probably had a Thracian affiliation.41 Since there was not an organised Thracian state – that is, until the formation of the Odrysian kingdom in the 5th century BC42 – the borders of Thrace itself and, moreover, of each tribe cannot be precisely defined.43 Furthermore, it should not be ignored that the Thracian territories were gradually moved to the east during the expansion of the Macedonians. The region also faced the Persian expansion in the late 6th and early 5th centuries BC, which, however, did not seem to significantly alter the physiognomy of the people who lived there.44 For the part of the northern Aegean that this study examines, among the primary tribes were Bisaltes, Edonoi, Bistones and Kikones, from west to east. The exact areas each of them occupied are not known, but there is a broad sense for their territories. 45 The physical remains of their communities (settlements, sanctuaries, cemeteries)46 suggest that they were not too far in distance from the Greek establishments – usually settled along the coast – which implies tentative contacts of the two peoples. It is not also known what or how were the relationships between the Thracian tribes themselves. It is again primarily through the written sources that we get to know about the state of affairs with the natives, 47 as, for example, in the case of the colonisation of Thasos48 and Abdera.49 At these sites, they indicated that there were struggles and the Greeks had to fight for their establishment. In other cases, such as for Maroneia, not any conflicts between the colonists and the local inhabitants are attested. This might be taken as an indication of a non-violent establishment of the Chians in the land of the Thracian Kikones. 50 The archaeological findings can also reveal the relationships of the Greeks with the Thracians. It is not only the material culture, but also the expansion of a colony itself that suggests good terms with the Thracians. The cases of Abdera, Maroneia or Thasos are representative examples for this. Despite occasional conflicts with the local tribes, they managed to establish the colonies and to reach a significant growth for several centuries. Therefore, it can be suggested that Greeks should have found some balance in their relationship or co-existence with the Thracians. Furthermore, subsequent assumptions can be made, such as the policy followed by the colonists. It seems that

For the Aegean Thrace before the Greek colonisation see: Triantafyllos 1987–1990, 298–312; Baralis 2008, 101– 107; Triantafyllos 2009, 187–204; Matsas 2009, 205–218. For the history of Thrace in general see also: Danov 1976. 42 Archibald 1998. 43 Tsiafaki 1998, 20; Veligianni-Terzi 2004, 10–13; Tsiafaki 2009, 123; Bouzek – Graninger 2015, 12–21. 44 It is mentioned (Herod. 4.144.3, 5.1.1) that around 510 BC, when Megabazos marched along the Aegean Thrace and after conquering all tribes and sites, he reached the lower Strymon area, some of the Paionian tribes there were deported to Asia Minor. However, they returned to their home via Doriskos, during the time of the Ionian Revolt (499–494 BC). Isaac 1986, 17–18; Zahrnt 2015, 37–39. 45 The occupation of the different tribes is an issue that concerns the archaeological research. For the different suggestions see: Wiesner 1963, 13ff.; Triantafyllos 1987–1990, 297; Mihailov 1991, 597ff.; Bredow 1999, 3–13;Veligianni-Terzi 2004, 12–19; Zanni et al. 2007, 745, 754. Delev 2014, 3–22. 46 Triantafyllos 1987–1990, 298–312. 47 The relationship of the Greeks with the local inhabitants in the area is not well known to date and it seems that there were great variations. See: Triantafyllos 1987–1990, 301–302; Ilieva 2007, 212–226; Baralis 2008, 113–117; Ilieva 2011, 25–43. 48 Graham 1978; Poilloux 1982; Grandjean 1988; Grandjean – Salviat 2000; Graham 2001; Gimatzidis 2002; Müller – Mulliez 2009, 135–150; Muller 2010, 212–224. 49 Skarlatidou 1984, 147–161; Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1986, 86–88; Isaac 1986, 73–108; Moustaka et al. 2004; Veligianni-Terzi 2004, 37–41; Tsiafaki 2009, 125; Kallintzi 2012, 132–140. 50 Tsiafaki 2009, 125. Chians founded Maroneia in the 1st half of the 7th century BC. See: Isaac 1986, 111–114; Veligianni-Terzi 2004, 42–46; Loukopoulou et al. 2005, 130–131, 319–321; Damyanov 2015, 296. 41

226

Despoina Tsiafaki

they realised that the strategy of settlement and aggression could not be the only or best choice when dealing with the locals. Therefore, they probably did not employ it as their typical practice. Rather, they preferred to establish networks and links with the non-Greek communities and rulers in order to exploit the resources of the region. The foundation of colonies mainly along the coast of the north Aegean could be aligned with the goals or strategy adapted by the colonists. Trade combined with the wealth of the land (e.g. metals, timber, fertile plains) seems to be among the principal reasons for the Greek attempt to settle there. The abundance of metals in the area and the know-how of Thracians in smithing techniques would be arguments for the Greeks to maintain a relationship with the locals. 51 The plethora of Greek pottery – a large percent of which were containers for goods such as olive oil, wine, salted fish, etc. – indicate the existence of a systematic trade and exchange process with the local Greek and native communities. The earliest to date Greek pottery imports found in the Aegean Thrace correspond generally to the period of colonisation.52 In some cases, imports from the mother cities are recognised (e.g. Thasos) but, in others, identification is uncertain (e.g. Argilos53). However, during the 7th and the 6th centuries BC, Eastern Greek pottery is found throughout the northern Aegean, with Corinthian wares following that. As previously stated, a Corinthian colony (Potidaia) is located in the area of the Thermaic Gulf and Chalkidike, while the east Greek colonies are found mainly in the area east of the Nestos River. The presence of material originating from both areas found throughout the entire region of the north Aegean indicates that they were part of trade networks, rather than being witness of direct contacts and relations between the colonies and Corinth or East Greece. Attic pottery appears to follow chronologically in the region; it is around the 6th century BC54 when it was imported systematically to many sites in the north Aegean.55 The Attic pottery is more frequently consumed during the 5th century BC – an assumption supported by a simple visit to the Archaeological Museums of Amphipolis, Kavala and Komotini, for example – since detailed statistical analysis on pottery from the excavated sites is still missing. This applies more to the general distribution pattern of Attic pottery overseas and possibly has little to do with single historical events. At the same time, there began the Athenian presence in the region. During the 6th century BC there occurred some contacts56 that they do not seem to be controlled so much by the city of Athens, rather, they were individual activities. The occurrence of Miltiades, however, along with the establishment of Athenians in the Thracian Chersonese, indicates friendly relations with the Thracians there. It is after the Persian Wars, according to historical evidence, that Athens officially turned its interest to the region and attempted to establish itself; particularly in two areas: a)  the region of Pangaion, west of the Nestos River and b) the Hellespont. 57 The region of Pangaion was

See as example the case of Zone in Aegean Thrace; Archibald 2010, 164–165. For an overview of the Greek imports in the region see the volumes of Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη from 1986 onwards; Tiverios et al. 2012. The individual publications of the sites provide also a picture for the Greek objects unearthed there. 53 Argilos is a good example, since up-to-date it has not been identified pottery from its mother city, Andros. However, the so-called “Siphnian pottery” has been found, which comes probably from the Cyclades but it is not generally attributed to Andros. For this in particular see: Bonias et al. 2012, 209–214; Tsiafaki et al. 2012, 215–226. It should be noted that so far the local pottery production of Andros for the Archaic period is not yet well known. 54 There are some references for the existence of SOS amphorae for example, but it is not known how early they are, or if they are sporadic imports. For examples see Filis 2014. 55 See Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη from 1986 onwards; Tiverios et al. 2012; the pottery database in Beazley’s archive http://www.beazley.ox.ac.uk for the Attic vases found in the region; Avramidou – Tsiafaki 2015, 111–136. 56 Peisistratus went to the area of the Thermaic Gulf and Pangaion during his exile from Athens. Herod. 1.59–64; Tsiafaki 1998, 23–24; Sears 2013, 52–59. Miltiades the elder went to the Thracian Chersonese after an invitation by the local inhabitants, Dolonki, in the 6th century BC, but there is no indication whether it was a city action or a personal invitation. Herod. 6.34; Tsiafaki 1998, 23. 57 Parisaki 2000, 72. For the Athenian interest and relations with the area see: Tsiafaki 1998, passim; Tsiafaki 2009, 126; Sears 2013. 51 52

Thracians and Greeks in the North Aegean

227

of interest due to the gold and silver mines that were needed for minting coins, while the Hellespont was an important route to the sources of grain. The timber abundance in Aegean Thrace (needed for shipbuilding) was an additional motive for the Athenian interest. As for Aegean Thrace, Athenians tried to establish their presence in the area of the Strymon River. The Athenian general Kimon, whose mother was probably of Thracian origin, conquered Eion at 476 BC; a site used by the Athenians as a trade and naval base. 58 At the same time, the Athenians continued their efforts to move inland. However, at 465/4 BC they were defeated at Drabeskos by the Thracians Edonoi. It was not until 437 BC that they managed to colonise Amphipolis and establish control there. The extent of the area they controlled is not known, but it should not be forgotten that at the time of the Athenian presence in the area, the Odrysian kingdom was established by Teres, who was succeeded by his son, Sitalkes (455‒424 BC).59 The Odrysian kingdom extended from Strymon to Euxeinos Pontos and from the Aegean until the Danube, according to Thucydides (2.97). The Athenians were on good terms with both Thracian kings and they tried to maintain this good relationship in various ways. In 5th century BC Athens itself, there is significant information on the interest in Thrace and Thracians. It appears that there was possibly a Thracian community in the city of Athens,60 supporting this claim was the introduction of the cult of the Thracian goddess Bendis in the city in 430/429 BC.61 She was a deity of hunting, equivalent to the Greek Artemis. Bendis’ cult was popular in Athens from the 2nd half of the 5th century BC onwards. Her official introduction as an Athenian cult was probably inspired politically by Perikles’ desire for an alliance with Thrace and its king, Sitalkes, in the time of the Peloponnesian War. It can also be seen as a favour to theThrcians living in Attica.62 Athenians established an impressive festival (including a horseback torch race and a night feast) to celebrate the Thracian goddess. Of interest is that in this festival Thracians and Athenians participated in two distinct groups. Furthermore, there was a sanctuary for Bendis at Mounychia in Piraeus; it seems that it was among the earliest mentioned Thracian sanctuaries.63 In the same area in Piraeus, there was also a sanctuary for Artemis. The two goddesses apart from similar qualities also shared a similar appearance in Athenian art. Worthy of note is that the Greek goddess Artemis was worshipped in the Athenian colony, Amphipolis64 – perhaps a further indication for the interrelations of Athenians with the Thracians. Religion can often act as a link among different people and the data in the case of Greeks and Thracians indicate that it was used as such. Herodotus, for example, mentions (5.7–8) that they had in common the cults of Dionysos, Ares and Artemis. As is mentioned above, Artemis shared the same qualities with the Thracian goddess Bendis and Athenians introduced her cult in their own city. An even earlier example than Bendis, which implies the employment of religion by the Athenians for establishing a relationship with Thrace, was the foundation of an altar for Boreas in the Ilissos area after the Persian Wars. In this case, the Athenians wanted to express their gratitude to their old ‘son-in-law’ from Thrace for helping them twice during the Persian Wars.65 Apollo also appears to have been very popular in Thrace, as his sanctuaries occurred in various places. Even though he was a Greek god, it seems that he was not worshipped exclusively by the colonists, as

60 61 58 59

64 65 62 63

Tsiafaki 1998, 25. Archibald 1998, 102–125. Avramidou – Tsiafaki 2015, 58–60. Tsiafaki 1998, 205–211; Planeaux 2000, 165–192; Tsiafakis 2000, 386–388; Avramidou – Tsiafaki 2015, 49, 94, 101–102. For Bendis see recently Deoudi 2015. Dana 2015, 251. Rabadjiev 2015, 448. Isaac 1986, 55. The Thracian wind Boreas helped Athenians for the first time in 492 BC, during the expedition of Mardonios at chersoneses of Athos, the residence of the wind. The second time was at the Artemision naval battle, during which Athenians received an oracle to ask for help from their son-in-law from Thrace. Herod. 6.44, 7.189. Tsiafaki 1998, 135–164; Tsiafakis 2000, 383–386; Avramidou – Tsiafaki 2015, 95–99.

228

Despoina Tsiafaki

the archaeological material would suggest – based on the case of the sanctuary of Apollo at Zone, for example.66 The influence of the Thracian religion or tradition is attested also in the case of Rhesos67 – a famous Thracian king known to Homer (Il. 12.433–511). Apparently Rhesus’ cult was widespread in the Rhodope Mountains;68 something not missed by the Athenians, who ‘remembered’ him around the time of the colonisation of Amphipolis. Following an oracle (Polyainus, 6.53), they transferred his relics to Amphipolis and erected a memorial of Rhesos there. Thracians were famous, among others, as soldiers and nurses (female) and we know that Euripides had a Thracian nurse. 69 That might explain not only his interest in Thracian myths, which he included in his tragedies (e.g. Rhesos), but also his deep knowledge about them. However, the other tragedians (Aeschylus, Sophocles) show interest in Thrace and its myths already from the beginning of the 5th century BC. It is noteworthy that Sophocles and Euripides are the earliest preserved sources for the Thracian origin of many heroes (e.g. Phineus, Thamyris, Eumolpos).70 Mural painting also used Thracian themes in its repertory (Orpheus, Thamyris, Eioneus, Mousaios, Phineus) and it should not be ignored that the famous painter Polygnotos came from Thasos after an invitation from Cimon, and that he included Thracians in his famous paintings.71 The Contribution of the Attic Vase Painting The Attic vase painting preserves, to a great extent, this interest in Thrace. Already in the 6th century BC there appeared on Attic vases figures in Thracian garments, 72 but it is during the 5th century BC that the Thracian themes gain popularity. Men in Thracian garments also occurred during the 5th century BC, but the preference now is on Thracian myths and heroes.73 There is a particular interest for Thracian musicians, such as Orpheus, Thamyras, Mousaios and Eumolpos, whereas other gods and heroes are also represented. Phineus, Lykourgos, Tereus and Diomedes are representatives of the mythical Thracian kings depicted on vase paintings; next to them is the Thracian goddess Bendis and the personifications of the North Wind (Boreas) and the river Strymon. The case of the personification of the river Strymon is of special interest, since it was a well known river in Thrace, located in the area of the Athenian colony of Amphipolis in Aegean Thrace. Strymon is also referred to as the father of the Thracian king, Rhesos (Euripides, Rhesos, 386–387, 393–394, 919–930). The only known representation of his on Attic vase painting dates to the time of the great Athenian success in the area – the victory at Eion, in 476/5 BC. It is on an Attic amphora74 that, apart from the Strymon, personifications of Okeanos and the river Nile also

Ancient Zone, located nearby to modern Alexandroupolis, was a 6th century BC colony of the Greeks who colonised Samothrace. Tsatsopoulou 2007; Tsatsopoulou-Kaloudi 2017, 542–547. Zone was one of the colonies at the seashore (Peraia) across the island, that consisted of the “Σαμοθρηΐκεα τείχεα”, as they are mentioned by Herodotus (7.108). At the Apollo sanctuary unearthed at the site, a large number of inscribed Greek pottery fragments have been found. The language of the inscriptions is a local Thracian dialect, but the alphabet used for their incision is Greek. The findings lead to the assumption that there was a common cult of Greek and Thracians for Apollo. 67 Isaac 1986, 55–57; Tsiafaki 1998, 234–238; Tsiafaki 2003, 1–5; Avramidou – Tsiafaki 2015, 85–86. 68 Philostratus, Heroikos 680–681. The cult of Rhesos is also attested on a Greek inscription. See: Isaac 1986, 56–57. 69 Aristophanes, Thesmof. 280. 70 Avramidou – Tsiafaki 2015, 56–58; Tsiafaki 2016, 726–740. 71 Thamyris and Orpheus for example, appear in Polygnotos’ Nekyia at Delphi (Paus. 10.30.8). Tsiafaki 1998, 259. 72 Best, 1969, 3–16; Zimmermann 1980, 429–446; Raeck, 1981, 67–100; Tsiafaki 1998, 32–37; Tsiafakis 2000, 365– 372. 73 For a detailed presentation of the depiction of Thracian myths on Attic vases see: Tsiafaki 1998, passim. 74 Attic red figure pointed amphora attributed to the Copenhagen painter, in a private Collection in Germany; BAPD 30676; Cahn 1988, 107–115; LIMC VI I (1994) s.v. Strymon, 815, no. 1 (C. Weiss); Tsiafaki 1998, 203; Avramidou – Tsiafaki 2015, 99–101. 66

Thracians and Greeks in the North Aegean

229

appear. Modern scholarship has seen these scenes as a reflection of the political and historical events that took place in Athens during that period of the 5th century BC.75 The presence of the Thracian or Thrace-related myths in Attic vase painting is noticeable and lasts the entire 5th century BC. There is a plethora of subjects, as stated above, that – although cannot be presented here in detail, except for some brief examples – are indicative of the Athenian interest in Thrace. The study of the Thracian myths depicted on Attic vases 76 divides them into two distinctive groups. The first group appears around 490/480 BC – meaning the time of the Persian wars – and the second around 460/450 BC. A primary difference between them is the existence or absence of violence. To be more specific, the first group has as a typical attribute: the depiction of violence in most of the presented myths. In contrast, violence is not that noticeable in the second group, even if the same episodes are depicted. The cases of the murder of the Thracian musician Orpheus and the abduction of the Athenian Oreithyia by the Thracian Boreas, which will be presented below, are characteristic examples of this differentiation. There are of course some exceptions, as, for example, in the case of Lykourgos, king of the Thracian Edonians; a myth preserved in the Attic vase painting during the 2nd half of the 5th century BC.77 The Thracian king opposed the cult of Dionysos and he commanded his soldiers to attack the god and his followers. As punishment, Dionysos drove Lykourgos mad and it was in this condition he murdered his son Dryas, believing that he was a vine.78 Although there are a few vases known that depict this myth, the vase painters focus on the mania of the king with emphasis on the element of violence. Orpheus, the celebrated Thracian musician, is maybe the most popular Thracian in Attic vase painting throughout the 5th century BC. The vase painters present three different episodes of his story in the following chronological sequence: a) his murder, b) the musician surrounded by Thracian warriors, and c) his oracular head.79 The case of Orpheus is characteristic for denoting the difference in the representation of Thracian myths between the 1st and the 2nd half of the 5th century BC, as it was mentioned before. More specifically, during his earlier representations, the scene of his murder by the Thracian women is presented, which includes the element of violence (Fig. 2), while around the middle of the century, the theme of him as a musician becomes more favourable80 (Fig. 3). In those latter scenes, Orpheus is surrounded by Thracian men who look very calm and are not at all reminiscent of the ferocious Thracians and wild warriors that were described by the literary sources. This is due to the charm of Orpheus’ song that could enchant even the wildest animals but, at the same time, the period of its appearance on Attic vases coincides with the Athenian attempts to be on good terms with Thracians and to establish an alliance with their king, Sitalkes. Thamyris is another famous Thracian musician who attracted the Attic vase painting. His contest with the Muses is depicted during the 2nd half of the 5th century BC 81 (Fig. 4). According to the myth, 82 Thamyras was so confident about his musical skills that he claimed he could win in a musical contest with the Muses. The Muses accepted the challenge and, as expected, they defeated Thamyras. His punishment was to lose his sight and his musical skills. The episode is included in the repertoire of the Attic vase painting but there is nothing violent in its depiction, nor any sign of wildness. Rather, it is a musical scene that in some cases gets an idyllic and amorous

Cahn 1988, 107–115; LIMC VI I (1994) s.v. Strymon, 815, no. 1 (C. Weiss); Tsiafaki 1998, 203; Avramidou – Tsiafaki 2015, 99–101. 76 Tsiafaki 1998, passim; Tsiafakis 2000, 364–389; Avramidou – Tsiafaki 2015, 68–107, 137–138. 77 For the depiction of the myth in Athenian iconography see: LIMC VI (1992) s.v. Lykourgos I, 309–319 (A. Farnoux); Tsiafaki 1998, 182–188; Tsiafakis 2000, 381–382; Avramidou – Tsiafaki 2015, 86–87. 78 Homer, Il. 6.130–140; Apollodoros 3.5.1; Diodoros Siculus 3.65.4–7. 79 Tsiafaki 1998, 41–93; Tsiafakis 2000, 375–377; Avramidou – Tsiafaki 2015, 75–78. 80 Tsiafaki 1998, 77–93. 81 Tsiafaki 1998 94–106; Tsiafakis 2000, 377–380. 82 Homer, Il. 2.594–600; Sophocles’ lost play “Thamyras”; Pausanias 4.33.3. 75

230

Despoina Tsiafaki

Fig. 2   Death of Orpheus. Attic red figure stamnos by the Dokimasia Painter in Basel Antikenmuseum BS 1411. 470 BC (reprint from Tsiafaki 1998, pl. 8b)

Fig. 3   Orpheus singing among Thracians. Attic red figure column krater by the Orpheus Painter in Berlin, Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen V.I. 3172. 440 BC (reprint from Tsiafaki 1998, pl. 23)

Thracians and Greeks in the North Aegean

231

Fig. 4   The Thracian Boreas rapes the Athenian Oreithyia. Attic red figure pointed amphora by the Oreithyia Painter, in Munich, Staatliche Antikensammlungen 2345. 470/460 BC (reprint from Tsiafaki 1998, pl. 37)

atmosphere. 83 The Thracian aspect is highlighted through the Thracian/Eastern type garments that Thamyras wears. Apart from Orpheus and other musicians related to Thrace, the Athenian vase painters show interest in the Thracian wind Boreas (Fig. 5). According to an old tradition, Boreas raped Oreithyia, the daughter of the Athenian king Erechtheus, and took her to Thrace. 84 There, they had two sons, the Boreads (Zetes and Calais) and two daughters, Chione and Kleopatra. The Attic potters are attracted to the scene of rape, which appears around the time of the Persian Wars and continues during the 5th century BC. In the earlier examples, he appears very ferocious and wild, while over time he gets a more peaceful appearance. It is characteristic that the mid-5th century

This is a characteristic of the Thamyras’ scenes depicted by the Meidias Painter and his circle. The romantic atmosphere is a typical attribute of the Meidian circle. See Burn 1987, passim. 84 Herod. 6.44, 7.189; Tsiafaki 1998, 135–164. 83

232

Despoina Tsiafaki

Fig. 5   Thamyras and the Muses. Attic red figure aryballoid lekythos by Meidias Painter in Ruvo, Museo Jatta 1538. 420/410 BC (photo courtesy of the Museum)

vases present him as a youth, running behind a young girl. This is again around the same time that Athenians were – or tried to be – on good terms with Thrace. The case of the mythical Tereus should also not be forgotten. His myth was included in Athenian poetry and art during the 5th century BC.85 Representations of the story of Tereus occur on Attic vases, with the king himself appearing around 460 BC.86 According to the myth, which presents similarities with the story of Boreas it its first part, Tereus was the son-in-law of the Athenian king Pandion. After he married Pandion’s daughter, Prokne, he took her with him to Thrace. There, Tereus and Prokne had a son, Itys. Tereus also brought to Thrace the sister of Prokne, Philomela, whom he raped. In order to keep this secret, he cut out her tongue. Nevertheless, Philomela managed to inform Prokne, and the two sisters took revenge on Tereus by killing Itys and serving him to his father to eat. The king realised what happened and chased them with an axe. At that point, the gods interfered and they turned Tereus into a hoopoe, Prokne into a nightingale and Philomela into a swallow. The Thracian origin of Tereus appears for the first time in

Hall 1989, 103–106; Tsiafaki 1998, 189-191; LIMC VII (1994) s.v. Prokne et Philomela, 527–529 (E. Touloupa); LIMC Suppl. (2009) s.v. Tereus (E. Simon – Μ. Dennert). 86 Tsiafaki 1998, 189–197; Avramidou – Tsiafaki 2015, 89–90. 85

Thracians and Greeks in the North Aegean

233

Sophocles’ drama “Tereus”, dated a little before 431 BC.87 He was connected to the real Thracian king, Teres, who was the father of Sitalkes. Athenians formed an alliance with Sitalkes in 431 BC. Already in antiquity, Athenians had been accused of using the myth to fulfil political aspirations and modern scholarship has seen “kinship diplomacy” in the topic.88 Thracian-related themes appear to be a widespread subject in the Attic vase painting from the Archaic period until the Classical times, with a peak in the 5th century BC. They seem to be contemporary with the numerous interactions that took place between Athens and Thrace (some more peaceful than others). Their contribution is significant in terms of being a source of knowledge as well as presenting the Athenian view of Thrace and Thracians. The presence of Thracians in Athens and the inclusion of Thracian myths and heroes in Athenian art and literature (poetry, drama, historical narrations), along with the historical events (political, expeditions, etc.), made Thrace part of the Athenian life during that period. In that sense, the iconography can be seen as a reflection of the Athenian interest in that exotic and mysterious land with ferocious as well as charming attributes. Conclusions Through this short consideration of the material culture, along with evidence from mythology and further literature, it became clear that the interrelations between Greeks and the people in the north Aegean have a long tradition that can go back to the Bronze Age, at least in some areas. Although the type of knowledge or contacts among the people of that period is not easily reconstructed, the evidence coming primarily through the archaeological findings leaves little doubt for their existence. It is the time of the Greek colonisation that sets the beginning of a new phase of contacts, this time clearer and more specific. Material culture and written information, including mythology, are again the sources of information for this phase that goes down to the Classical period and continues in the centuries to come. Exchange and settling are more obvious now and the relations have different tones from place to place and time to time, depending on a combination of socioeconomical and political reasons. Although the hostile or friendly terms are not always easily traced, especially since they probably changed for various reasons, it is apparent that Greeks and Thracians co-existed in the same, or nearby, settlements. After all, the Greek settlements were established in already-populated areas. The presence of the colonists in the region who came from different places of the ancient Greek world is one axis for the study of the interrelations between Greeks and Thracians. The other is the examination of the Thracian presence in the Greek lands. Therefore, the study of the Thracians and their image in Athens itself is included here. Athens played an important role in Aegean Thrace, especially from the 5th century BC onwards. Furthermore, Thracians lived in Athens and they inspired poets and artists, as it is shown through the drama or the depictions of mortals or mythological figures in Attic art and particularly in the vase painting. The knowledge for the relationship between Greeks and Thracians is still very limited and the research done is in an early stage. However, the scholarly interest in the topic is vivid, with significant contribution. Current interdisciplinary research held in the different modern countries where ancient Thrace was widespread will provide more information and fill the missing pieces of the puzzle. Acknowledgements: An earlier version of this paper was presented at the EAA Istanbul 2014. I would like to thank the organisers of the session Archaeology across Past and Present Borders, St. Gimatzidis, M. Pieniążek and S. Votruba for their invitation and their hospitality. For the completion of this work we acknowledge support by the project

Tsiafaki 1998, 190–191; Zacharia 2001; Avramidou – Tsiafaki 2015, 89–91. Thucydides (2.29) disagrees with the identification of the mythical Teres with the Thracian king Tereus, and he prefers the Phokian version of the myth. For “Kinship diplomacy” see: Jones 1999, 30–32; Zacharia 2001, 101–103.

87 88

234

Despoina Tsiafaki

“Computational Science and Technologies: Data, Content and Interaction” (MIS 5002437) which is implemented under the Action “Reinforcement of the Research and Innovation Infrastructure”, funded by the Operational Programme “Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship and Innovation” (NSRF 2014–2020) and co-financed by Greece and the European Union (European Regional Development Fund).

References Adam-Veleni – Tzanavari 2012 Π. Αδάμ-Βελένη – Κ. Τζαναβάρη (eds.), Δινήεσσα. Τιμητικός τόμος για την Κατερίνα Ρωμιοπούλου (Thessaloniki 2012) Anastasiou 1986 Γ. Αναστασίου, Ηρακλής, in: I. Κακριδής (ed.), Ελληνική Μυθολογία, v. 4 (Athens 1986) 14–125. Andreou 2002/2003 S. Andreou, Macedonian politics and Aegean encounters. The social context of Mycenaean and Protogeometric pottery in Central Macedonia, Greece, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 46, 2002/2003, 221–222. Andreou 2003 Σ. Ανδρέου, Η μυκηναϊκή κεραμική και οι κοινωνίες της κεντρικής Μακεδονίας κατά την Ύστερη Εποχή του Χαλκού, in: Ν. Κυπαρίσση-Αποστολίκα – Μ. Παπακωνσταντίνου / Ν. Kyparissi-Apostolika – Μ. Papakonstantinou (eds.), Η περιφέρεια του Μυκηναϊκού Κόσμου. Β΄Διεθνές Διεπιστημονικό Συμπόσιο, 26–30 Σεπτεμβρίου Λαμία, 1999 / The Periphery of the Mycenaean World. 2nd International Interdisciplinary Colloquium, 26–30 September, Lamia 1999 (Athens 2003) 191–210. Andreou 2009 S. Andreou, Stratified wheel made pottery deposits and absolute chronology of the LBA to the EIA transition at Thessaloniki Toumba, in: S. Deger–Jakotzy – A. Bächle (eds.), LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms III. LH III C Late and the Transition to the Early Iron Age. Proceedings of the International Workshop Hhld at the Austrian Academy of Sciences at Vienna, February 23rd and 24th 2007 (Vienna 2009) 15–40. Andreou – Kotsakis 1999 Σ. Ανδρέου – Κ. Κωτσάκης, Μυκηναϊκή παρουσία. Μυκηναϊκή περιφέρεια. Η Τούμπα Θεσσαλονίκης, μια θέση της Εποχής του Χαλκού στη Μακεδονία, in: Η περιφέρεια του μυκηναϊκού κόσμου. Α’ διεθνές διεπιστημονικό συμπόσιο, Λαμία 25–29 Σεπτεμβρίου 1994 (Athens 1999) 107–116. Andreou – Fotiadis – Kotsakis 2001 S. Andreou – M. Fotiadis – K. Kotsakis, The Neolithic and Bronze Age of northern Greece, in T. Cullen (ed.), Aegean Prehistory. A Review, American Journal of Archaeology Supplement 1 (Boston 2001) 259–327. Andreou et al. 2003 S. Andreou – S. Dimitriadis – V. Kilikoglou – E. Kiriatzi – K. Kotsakis – A. Tsolakidou, Measuring demand and supply of Mycenaean and Protogeometric style pottery in Late Bronze Age Macedonia with special reference to Thessaloniki Toumba, in: K. Foster – R. Laffineur (eds.), Metron. Measuring the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 9th International Aegean Conference, 18–21 April 2002, Yale University, Aegeum 24 (Liege, Austin 2003) 495. Antonaccio 2007 C. Antonaccio, Colonization. Greece on the move, 900–480, in: H. A. Shapiro (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Archaic Greek World (Cambridge 2007) 201–224. Antonaccio 2009 C. Antonaccio, (Re)defining ethnicity. Culture, material culture, and identity, in: T. Hodos – S. Hales (eds.), Visual Culture and Social Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean (Cambridge 2009) 32–53. Archibald 1998 Z. H. Archibald, The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace. Orpheus Unmasked (Oxford 1998). Archibald 2010 Z. H. Archibald, A Lost Continent. The Political Communities of Ancient Thrace, Eirene XLVI, 2010, 162–167.

Thracians and Greeks in the North Aegean

235

Aslanis 2000 Ι. Ασλάνης, Γεωμορφολογία και Προϊστορική κατοίκηση στη Θράκη, in: Θράκη. Ιστορικές και Γεωγραφικές προσεγγίσεις (Athens 2000) 23–39. Avramidou – Tsiafaki 2015 Α. Αβραμίδου – Δ. Τσιαφάκη, Αττική κεραμική. Συμβολή στις επαφές Αθήνας και Θράκης / Attic Pottery. Its Contribution to the Relationship Between Athens and Thrace (Athens 2015). Online (last accessed 12 July 2017). Bakalakis 1967 Γ. Μπακαλάκης, Ανασκαφή Στρύμης (Thessaloniki 1967). Baralis 2008 A. Baralis, The Chora formation of the Greek cities of Aegean Thrace. Towards a chronological approach to the colonization process, in: P. Guldager-Bilde – J. Hjarl Petersen (eds.), Meetings of Cultures. Between Conflicts and Coexistence (Aarhus 2008) 101–130. Bennet 1997 J. Bennet. Homer and the Bronze Age, in: I. Morris – B. Powell (eds.), A New Companion to Homer (Leiden 1997) 511–533. Best 1969 J. G. P. Best, Thracian Peltasts and their Influence on Greek Warfare (Groningen 1969). Bickermann – Sykutris 1928 E. Bickermann – J. Sykutris, Speusipps Brief an König Philipp. Text, Übersetzung, Untersuchungen. Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig. Philologisch-historische Klasse 80, 3 (Leipzig 1928). Boardman 1999 J. Boardman, The Greeks Overseas: Their Early Colonies and Trade, 4th edition (London, New York 1999). Bonias – Perreault 2009a Ζ. Ι. Μπόνιας – J. Y. Perreault (eds.), Έλληνες και Θράκες. Πρακτικά του διεθνούς Συμποσίου «Έλληνες και Θράκες στην παράλια ζώνη και την ενδοχώρα της Θράκης στα χρόνια πριν και μετά τον μεγάλο αποικισμό» Θάσος, 26–27 Σεπτεμβρίου 2009 / Greeks and Thracians. Acts of the International Symposium “Greeks and Thracians along the Coast and in the Hinterland of Thrace during the Years before and after the Great Colonization” Thasos, 26–27 September 2009 (Thasos 2009). Bonias – Perreault 2009b Ζ. Ι. Μπόνιας – J. Y. Perreault, Η εγκατάσταση των Ελλήνων στην περιοχή των εκβολών του Στρυμόνα, in: Bonias – Perreault 2009a, 11–26. Bonias et al. 2012 Ζ. Μπόνιας – J. Perreault – Σ. Πασπαλάς – Χ. Τελεβάντου, Ανδριώτικη κεραμική στην Άργιλο. Ένα πρόγραμμα σε εξέλιξη (Andrian pottery at Argilos. A program in progress), in: Tiverios et al. 2012, 209–214. Bouzek – Graninger 2015 J. Bouzek – D. Graninger, Geography, in: Valeva et al. 2015, 12–21. Bredow 1989 I. von Bredow, Ethnonyme und geographische Bezeichnungen der Thraker bei Homer, in: J. G. P. Best – N. M. W. Vries (eds.), Thracians and Myceneans. Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Thracology, Rotterdam, 24–26 September 1984 (Leiden 1989) 143–152. Bredow 1999 I. von Bredow, Stammesnamen und Stammeswirklichkeit I. Zu den Stammesbezeichnungen der Thraker an der nord­ ägäischen Küste vom 8.–5. Jh. v. Chr. Von der Chersones bis zu Neapolis, Orbis Terrarum 5, 1999, 3–13. Burgess 2014 J. S. Burgess, Homer (London, New York 2014).

236

Despoina Tsiafaki

Burn 1987 L. Burn, The Meidias Painter (Oxford 1987). Buxeda i Garrigós et al. 2003 J. Buxeda i Garrigós – R. E. Jones – V. Kilikoglou – S. T. Levi – Y. Maniatis – J. Mitchell – L. Vagnetti – K. A. Wardle – S. Andreou, Technology transfer at the periphery of the Mycenaean World. The cases of Mycenaean pottery found in Central Macedonia (Greece) and the Plain of Sybaris (Italy), Archaeometry 45, 2, 2003, 263–284. Cahn 1988 H. Cahn, Okeanos, Strymon und Atlas auf einer rotfigurigen Spitzamphora, in: J. Christiansen – T. Melander (eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Ancient Greek and Related Pottery, Copenhagen, August 31 – September 4, 1987 (Copenhagen 1988) 107–115. Cambitoglou – Papadopoulos 1993 A. Cambitoglou – J. Papadopoulos, The earliest Mycenaeans in Macedonia, in: C. Zerner – P. Zerner – J. Winder (eds.), Wace and Blegen. Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age 1939–1989. Proceedings of the International Conference held at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Athens, December 2–3, 1989 (Amsterdam) 289–302. Cohen 2000 B. Cohen (ed.), Not the Classical Ideal. Athens and the Construction of the Other in Greek Art (Leiden 2000). Damyanov 2015 M. Damyanov, The Greek Colonists, in: Valeva et al. 2015, 295–307. Dana 2015 D. Dana, Inscriptions, in: Valeva et al. 2015, 243–264. Danov 1976 C. M. Danov, Altthrakien (Berlin, New York 1976). De Boer 2002 J. G. de Boer, A Bronze age ‘Metal road’ to Eastern Thrace?, Ancient West & East 1, 2, 2002, 443–454. De Jesus 1977 P. S. de Jesus, Metal resources in ancient Anatolia, Anatolian Studies 27, 1977, 97–102. Delev 2014 P. Delev, A History of the Tribes of South-western Thrace in the First Millennium B.C. (Sofia 2014). Deoudi 2015 M. Deoudi, Bendis in Kleinasien, in: A. Muller – E. Lafli (eds.), Figurines de terre cuite en Mediterranée grecque et romaine (Villeneuve d’Ascq 2015) 49–59. Descoeudres 1990 J. P. Descoeudres (ed.), Greek Colonists and Native Populations. Proceedings of the First Australian Congress of Classical Archaeology held in honour of Prof. A. D. Trendall, Sydney, 9–14 July 1985 (Oxford 1990). Filis 2014 K. Filis, Karabournaki. The transport amphorae from a semi-subterranean structure in trench 27/89d, Eirene. Studia Graeca et Latina 50, 2014, 233–265. Fol – Marazov 1977 A. Fol – I. Marazov, Thrace and the Thracians (New York 1977). Gimatzidis 2002 Σ. Γιματζίδης, Ο αποικισμός της Θάσου. Η επανεξέταση της κεραμικής πρωΐμων φάσεων της αρχαίας πόλης, Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 16, 2002, 73–81. Graham 1978 A. J. Graham, The foundation of Thasos, Annual of the British School at Athens 73, 1978, 61–98.

Thracians and Greeks in the North Aegean

237

Graham 1982 A. J. Graham, The Colonial Expansion of Greece, The Cambridge Ancient History III, 3, 2nd edition (Cambridge 1982) 83–162. Graham 2001 A. J. Graham, Thasian controversies. Precolonial and colonial, in: A. J. Graham (ed.), Collected Papers on Greek Colonization (Leiden 2001) 366–384. Grandjean 1988 Y. Grandjean, Recherches sur l’habitat thasien à l’époque grecque, Études Thasiennes XII (Paris 1988). Grandjean – Salviat 2000 Y. Grandjean – F. Salviat, Guide de Thasos, Sites et monuments 3, 2nd edition (Athens, Paris 2000). Hall 1989 E. Hall, Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-Definition through Tragedy (Oxford 1989). Hall 1997 J. M. Hall, Ethnic Identity and Greek Antiquity (Cambridge 1997). Harrison 2002 T. Harrison, Greeks and Barbarians (New York 2002). Hiller 1991 S. Hiller, The Myceneans in the Black Sea, Aegaeum 7, 1991, 207–216. Hodos 2006 T. Hodos, Local responses to colonization in the Iron Age Mediterranean (London, New York 2006). Iakovidou 2007 Α. Ιακωβίδου (ed.), Η Θράκη στον Ελληνο-Ρωμαϊκό κόσμο. Πρακτικά του 10ου Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Θρακολογίας, Κομοτηνή-Αλεξανδρούπολη 18–23 Οκτωβρίου 2005 (Athens 2007). Ilieva 2007 P. Ilieva, Thracian-Greek συμβίωσις on the shore of the Aegean, in: Iakovidou 2007, 212–226. Ilieva 2011 P. Ilieva, The ‘warlike’ Thracians and the Greeks. The politics of the written logos versus the ‘silent discourse of things’ as evidence for mixed habitation in Aegean Thrace, Seminarium Thracicum 7 (Sofia 2011) 25–50. Isaac 1986 B. Isaac, The Greek Settlements in Thrace until the Macedonian Conquest (Leiden 1986). Jones 1999 C. P. Jones, Kinship Diplomacy in Graeco-Roman Antiquity (Cambridge, MA 1999). Jung 2003 R. Jung, Η Μυκηναϊκή κεραμική της Μακεδονίας και η σημασία της, in: Ν. Κυπαρίσση-Αποστολίκα – Μ. Παπακωνσταντίνου (eds.), Η περιφέρεια του Μυκηναϊκού Κόσμου. Β΄Διεθνές Διεπιστημονικό Συμπόσιο, 26–30 Σεπτεμβρίου, Λαμία 1999. Πρακτικά / The Periphery of the Mycenaean World. 2nd International Interdisciplinary Colloquium, 26–30 September, Lamia 1999. Proceedings (Athens 2003) 211–225. Kallintzi 2012 Κ. Καλλιντζή, Επίθεση και Άμυνα στην πόλη των Αβδήρων, in: Adam-Veleni – Tzanavari 2012, 132–140. Kilian 1990 K. Kilian, Mycenaean Colonization. Norm and Variety, in: Descoeudres 1990, 445–467. Kiriatzi 2000 E. Kiriatzi, Pottery technologies and people at LBA Toumba Thessalonikis, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 44, 2000, 222.

238

Despoina Tsiafaki

Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1986 Ch. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Abdera and the Thracians, in: A. Fol – M. Lazarov – V. Popov – C. Angelova – K. Porojanov (eds.), Les Thraces et les colonies grecques, VII–V s. av. n. è.. Thracia Pontica III. Troisieme symposium international, Sozopol 6–12 Octobre 1985 (Sofia 1986) 82–98. Koukouli-Chysanthaki 1992 Χ. Κουκούλη-Χρυσανθάκη, Πρωτοϊστορική Θάσος (Athens 1992). Lordkipanidzé 1996 O. Lordkipanidzé, La geste des Argonautes dans les premières épopées grecques, sous l’angle des premiers, in: O. Lordkipanidzé – P. Lévêque (eds.), Sur les traces des Argonautes. Actes du 6e Symposium de Vani (Colchide) 22–29 Septembre 1990, Annales Littéraires de l’Université de Besançon 613 (Paris 1996) 21–49. Lordkipanidze 2001 O. Lordkipanidze, The Golden Fleece. Myth, euhemeristic explanation and archaeology, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 20, 1, 2001, 1–38. Loukopoulou 2004 L. Loukopoulou, Thrace from Strymon to Nestos, in: M. H. Hansen – T. H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Greek Poleis. An Investigation Conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation (Oxford 2004) 870–884. Loukopoulou et al. 2005 Λ. Λουκοπούλου – Α. Ζουρνατζή – Μ.-Γ. Παρισάκη – Σ Ψωμά, Επιγραφές της Θράκης του Αιγαίου, μεταξύ των ποταμών Νέστου και Έβρου (νομοί Ξάνθης, Ροδόπης, Έβρου) (Athens 2005). Loukopoulou – Psoma 2008 L. D. Loukopoulou – S. Psoma, Maroneia and Stryme revisited. Some problems of historical topography, in: L. D. Loukopoulou – S. Psoma (eds.), Thrakika Zetemata Ι. Meletemata 58 (Athens 2008) 55–86. Mallios 2011 Γ. Κ. Μάλλιος, Μύθος και Ιστορία. Η περίπτωση της αρχαίας Μακεδονίας (PhD Diss., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki 2011). doi: 10.12681/eadd/26955. Matsas 2009 Δ. Μάτσας, Η Σαμοθράκη πριν την άφιξη των Ελλήνων αποίκων, in: Bonias – Perreault 2009a, 205–236. Mihailov 1991 G. Mihailov, Thrace before the Persian entry into Europe, The Cambridge Ancient History III, 2 (Cambridge 1991) 591–618. Mitrevski 1999 D. Mitrevski, The Spreading of the Mycenaean Culture through the Vardar Valley, in: Ancient Macedonia VI / Aρχαία Mακεδoνία VI. Papers read at the Sixth International Symposium held in Thessaloniki, October 15–19, 1996 (Thessaloniki 1999) 235–246. Moustaka et al. 2004 A. Moustaka – E. Skarlatidou – M.-C. Tzannes – Y. Ersoy (eds.), Klazomenai, Teos and Abdera. Metropoleis and Colony. Proceedings of the International Symposium held at the Archaeological Museum of Abdera, Abdera, 20–21 October 2001 (Thessaloniki 2004). Muller 2010 A. Muller, D’Odonis à Thasos. Thraces et Grecs, VIIIe–VIe s. av .J.-C. Essai de bilan, in: H. Treziny (ed.), Grecs et indigènes de la Catalogne à la mer Noire (Paris, Aix-en-Provence 2010) 212–224. Müller – Mulliez 2009 A. Müller – D. Mulliez, Από την Οδωνίδα στην Θάσο. Θράκες και Έλληνες (8ος–6ος αι. π.Χ.). Προσπάθεια απολογισμού, in: Bonias – Perreault 2009a, 135–150. Papadopoulos – Nerantzis 2014 S. Papadopoulos – N. Nerantzis, Research on the Prehistory of Thasos. 1922–2012, in: E. Stefani – N. Merousis – A. Dimoula (eds.), A Century of Research in Prehistoric Macedonia, 1912–2012. International Conference Proceedings, Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki 22–24 November 2012 (Thessaloniki 2014) 67–90.

Thracians and Greeks in the North Aegean

239

Parisaki 2000 Μ.-Γ. Παρισάκη, Σύντομη ιστορική και αρχαιολογική επισκόπηση της Θράκης του Αιγαίου, in: Θράκη. Ιστορικές και Γεωγραφικές προσεγγίσεις (Athens 2000) 65–76. Planeaux 2000 C. Planeaux, The date of Bendis’ entry into Attica, Classical Journal 96, 2000, 165–192. Poilloux 1982 J. Pouilloux, La fondation de Thasos. Archéologie, littérature et critique historique, in: L. Hadermann-Misguich – G. Raepsaet – G. Cambier (eds.), Rayonnement grec. Hommages à Charles Delvoye (Brussels 1982) 91–101. Raaflaub 2006 K. Raaflaub, Historical approaches to Homer, in: S. Deger-Jalkotzy – I. S. Lemos (eds.), Ancient Greece. From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer (Edinburgh 2006) 449–462. Rabadjiev 2015 K. Rabadjiev, Thracian Religion, in: J. Valeva – E. Nankov – D. Graninger (eds.), A Companion to Ancient Thrace (Hoboken 2015) 443–456. Raeck 1981 W. Raeck, Zum Barbarenbild in der Kunst Athens im 6. und 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Bonn 1981). Renfrew 1985 C. Renfrew, The Archaeology of Cult. The Sanctuary at Phylakopi (London 1985). Skarlatidou 1984 Ε. Σκαρλατίδου, Επισκόπηση της ιστορίας των Αβδήρων με βάση τις φιλολογικές πηγές, Θρακική Επετηρίδα 5, 1984, 147–161. Sears 2013 M. A. Sears, Athens, Thrace, and the Shaping of Athenian Leadership (New York 2013). Soueref 1993 Κ. Σουέρεφ, Μυκηναϊκά στοιχεία στα παράλια και στο εσωτερικό της Κεντρικής Μακεδονίας, Αρχαία Μακεδονία V, 1993, 1401–1417. Stefani 2015 E. Stefani, Before colonisation. Mycenaeans in the Mediterranean, in: P. Veleni – D. Tsangari (eds.), Greek Colonisation. New Data, Current Approaches. Proceedings of the Scientific Meeting held in Thessaloniki, 6 February 2015 (Athens 2015) 149–167. Tartaron 2013 T. F. Tartaron, Maritime Networks in the Mycenaean World (Cambridge 2013). Tiverios 2006 Μ. Τιβέριος, Πάρος – Θάσος – Εύβοια, in: Ν. Σταμπολίδης (ed.), Γενέθλιον. Αναμνηστικός Τόμος για την συμπλήρωση είκοσι χρόνων λειτουργίας του Μουσείου Κυκλαδικής Τέχνης (Athens 2006) 73–85. Tiverios 2008 M. Tiverios, Greek colonisation of the northern Aegean, in: Tsetskhladze 2008, 1–54. Tiverios 2013 M. Tiverios, The presence of Euboeans in the north Helladic region and the myths of Heracles, Studies in Ancient Art and Civilization 17. Dedicated to Professor Ewdoksia Papuci-Władyka on the 35th Anniversary of Scientific Work, 2013, 97–112. Tiverios et al. 2012 Μ. Τιβέριος – Β. Μισαηλίδου-Δεσποτίδου – Ε. Μανακίδου – Ά. Αρβανιτάκη (eds.), Η Κεραμική της αρχαϊκής εποχής στο Βόρειο Αιγαίο και την περιφέρειά του (700–480 π. Χ.). Πρακτικά Αρχαιολογικής Συνάντησης, Θεσσαλονίκη, 19–22 Μαΐου 2011 / Archaic Pottery of the Northern Aegean and its Periphery (700–480 BC). Proceedings of the Archaeological Meeting, Thessaloniki, 19–22 May 2011 (Thessaloniki 2012).

240

Despoina Tsiafaki

Triantafyllos 1987–1990 Δ. Τριαντάφυλλος, Η Θράκη του Αιγαίου πριν από τον ελληνικό αποικισμό, Θρακική Επετηρίδα 7, 1987–1990, 298–312. Triantafyllos 2009 Δ. Τριαντάφυλλος, Η Θράκη του Αιγαίου πριν και μετά τον ελληνικό αποικισμό, in: Bonias – Perreault 2009a, 187–204. Triantafyllos – Terzopoulou 2012 Δ. Τριαντάφυλλος – Δ. Τερζοπούλου, Ανασκαφή Στρύμης, in: Adam-Veleni – Tzanavari 2012, 141–156. Tsatsopoulou 1987–1990 Π. Τσατσοπούλου, Η ελληνική παρουσία στο Β. Αιγαίο. Οι αποικίες της Σαμοθράκης, Θρακική Επετηρίδα 7, 1987– 1990, 323–334. Tsatsopoulou 2007 P. Tsatsopoulou, The Colonies of Samothrace. Topography and Archaeological Research, in: Α. Ιακωβίδου (ed.), Η Θράκη στον Ελληνο-Ρωμαϊκό κόσμο. Πρακτικά του 10ου Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Θρακολογίας, Κομοτηνή – Αλεξανδρούπολη 18–23 Οκτωβρίου 2005 (Athens 2007) 648–656. Tsatsopoulou-Kaloudi 2017 Π. Τσατσοπούλου-Καλούδη, Αρχαία Ζώνη, in: Vlachopoulos – Tsiafaki 2017, 542–547. Tsetskhladze 2006 G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Greek Colonisation. An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas I (Leiden, Boston 2006). Tsetskhladze 2008 G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Greek Colonisation. An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas II (Leiden, Boston 2008). Tsiafaki 1998 Δ. Τσιαφάκη, Η Θράκη στην αττική εικονογραφία του 5ου αιώνα π.Χ. Προσεγγίσεις στις σχέσεις Αθήνας και Θράκης (Komotene 1998). Tsiafakis 2000 D. Tsiafakis, The Allure and Repulsion of Thracians in the Art of Classical Athens, in: B. Cohen (ed.), Not the Classical Ideal. Athens and the Construction of the Other in Greek Art (Leiden 2000) 364–389. Tsiafaki 2003 Δ. Τσιαφάκη, Θράκες βασιλείς από τον Στρυμόνα στην Ίσμαρο, Περί Θράκης 3, 2003, 43–66. Tsiafaki 2009 Δ. Τσιαφάκη, Έλληνες και Θράκες από τον 7ο μέχρι τον 5ο αιώνα π.Χ., in: Bonias – Perreault 2009a, 123–134. Tsiafakis 2013 D. Tsiafakis, Architectural similarities(?) between Black Sea and North Aegean settlements, in: G. Tsetskhladze – S. Atasoy – A. Avram – Ş. Dönmez – J. Hargrave (eds.), The Bosporus. Gateway between the Ancient West and East (1st Millennium BC – 5th Century AD), Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress on Black Sea Antiquities, Istanbul, 14th–18th September 2009, British Archaeological Reports International Series 2517 (Oxford 2013) 61–68. Tsiafaki 2016 Δ. Τσιαφάκη, Ο Φινέας στην αττική αγγειογραφία, in: Μ. Γιαννοπούλου – Χ. Καλλίνη (eds.), ἠχάδιν II. Τιμητικός τόμοςγια τη Στέλλα Δρούγου (Athens 2016) 726–740. Tsiafaki et al. 2012 Δ. Τσιαφάκη – Ν. Καζάκης – Α. Σακαλής – Ν. Τσιρλιγκάνης, Ανδριώτικη (;) κεραμική στην Άργιλο. Οι πρώτες δύο φάσεις της αρχαιομετρικής έρευνας (Andrian (?) Pottery at Argilos. The First Two Phases of the Archaeometrical Study), in: Tiverios et al. 2012, 215–226. Veligianni-Terzi 2004 Χ. Βεληγιάννη-Τερζή, Οι ελληνίδες πόλεις και το βασίλειο των Οδρυσών από Αβδήρων πόλεως μέχρι Ίστρου ποταμού (Thessaloniki 2004).

Thracians and Greeks in the North Aegean

241

Valeva et al. 2015 J. Valeva – E. Nankov – D. Graninger, A Companion to Ancient Thrace (Malden 2015). Vlachopoulos – Tsiafaki 2017 Α. Γ. Βλαχόπουλος – ∆. Τσιαφάκη (eds.), Αρχαιολογία. Μακεδονία και Θράκη (Athens 2017). Vlassopoulos 2013 K. Vlassopoulos, Greeks and Barbarians (New York 2013). Vojatzi 1982 M. Vojatzi, Frühe Argonautenbilder (Würzburg 1982). Wardle 1993 K. A. Wardle, Mycenean Trade and Influence in Northern Greece, in: C. W. Zerner – P. C. Zerner – J. Winder (eds.), Wace and Blegen. Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age, 1939–1989. Proceedings of the International Conference held at the American School of Classic Studies at Athens, December 2–3, 1989 (Amsterdam 1993) 117–141. Wardle et. al. 2001 K. A. Wardle – D. Wardle – N. M. H. Wardle, The symposium in Macedonia. A prehistoric perspective, Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 15, 2001, 631–643. Wiesner 1963 J. Wiesner, Die Thraker. Studien zu einem versunkenen Volk des Balkanraumes (Stuttgart 1963). Xydopoulos 2004 I. Xydopoulos, The Thracian image in the Archaic literature. The absence of otherness, Περί Θράκης 4, 2004, 11–22. Zacharia 2001 K. Zacharia, The Rock of the Nightingale. Kinship Diplomacy and Sophocles’ Tereus, in: F. Budelmann – P. Michelakis (eds.), Homer, Tragedy and Beyond. Essays in Greek Literature in Honor of P. E. Easterling (London 2001) 91–112. Zahrnt 2015 M. Zahrnt, Early History of Thrace to the Murder of Kotys I (360 BCE), in: Valeva et al. 2015, 35–47. Zannis 2012 A. G. Zannis, Le pays entre le Strymon et le Nestos. Géographie et Histoire (VII– IV siècle avant J.-C.) (Athens 2012). Zanni et al. 2007 D. Zanni – L. G. des Combes – A. G. Zannis, Les Thraces autonomes de la region comprise entre le Strymon et le Nestos, in: Iakovidou 2007, 745–754. Zimmermann 1980 K. Zimmermann, Thraker-Darstellungen auf griechischen Vasen, in: R. Vulpe (ed.), Actes du IIe Congrès International de Thracologie, Bucarest, 4–10 Septembre 1976. Vol. I (Bucarest 1980) 429–446.

First Encounters and Further Developments: Greeks Meeting Thracians on the Western Pontic Coast Margarit Damyanov1 Abstract: The Greek settlers that founded colonies on the western shores of the Black Sea in the 7th and early 6th century BC created a ‘contact’ zone with Early Iron Age Thrace. Local geographic, demographic, and other circumstances varied, creating conditions for different scenarios, from the steppe of Dobrudzha in the north down to wooded Strandzha Mountain in the south. There is practically no evidence to illustrate the first encounters – no written sources and very little archaeology. The chronology of the Early Iron Age cultures in the coastal areas is also problematic. Demography is the most crucially unknown element of the equation: how many Greeks and how many, if any, Thracians? However, in the decades and centuries after the foundations, phenomena emerged that could shed light on the process. They seem not to reveal confrontation between colonists and natives, but a cohabitation, and possibly cooperation. At least in some areas, the formation of the Greek poleis and their territories would have brought stability that attracted natives, creating heterogeneous communities. Then, this hybrid milieu would have facilitated the penetration of goods, technologies and ideas deeper in the interior. Keywords: Greek colonisation, Black Sea, Early Iron Age, Archaic period, Thracia Pontica, trade, contacts, colonial chorai

An aphorism, attributed to a famous Bulgarian historian of the recent past,2 describes how Bulgarian scholars view Bulgarian history: when we (Bulgarians) win wars, we are victorious Proto-Bulgarians; when we lose wars, we are peacefully farming Slavs; otherwise, we are Thracians with ancient and mysterious spiritual culture. Though it may seem a strange introduction to a text on the ancient history of part of present-day Bulgaria (and some neighbouring lands), this concept is crucial, as it clearly defines what is accepted as ‘ours’ and what is rejected as ‘alien’. For the purpose of the present paper, this division could be fleshed out in the following manner: the Thracians are regarded as a legitimate part of Bulgaria’s heritage, unlike the Greeks that settled on the coasts and lived for centuries side by side with them. It would not be a wild guess to say that the reason for this is in the national conflicts in the more recent past, modern geography, and the fact that the ethnic and political notions of ‘Greek’ and ‘Greece’ have survived the millennia up to the present. From an archaeologist’s point of view, it is more important that the exclusion of the ‘Greek’ element would hamper the proper understanding of the history of Thrace in the end of the Early Iron Age and in the Late Iron Age. The above-described opposition could be used to explain the state of research of the Greek cities on the shores of the Black Sea. It would be justified to say that their study is underdeveloped.3 A simple illustration of that fact is that the last major publication on the Greek colonisation of the



1



2



3

National Institute of Archaeology with Museum, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria; mmdamyanov@ gmail.com. To my knowledge, these words belong to N. Genchev (1931–2000), an authority on the history of the Bulgarian Renaissance, Dean of the Faculty of History of Sofia University (1975–1982) and Rector of Sofia University (1991–1993). Compared, for example, to the development of the same subject in Romania – possibly because of the different perception of Classical Antiquity as part of the national identity. A telling illustration of this different attitude is the fact that J. Boardman’s seminal ‘Greeks Overseas’ was translated and published in Romania in 1988.

244

Margarit Damyanov

western Pontic coast, by a Bulgarian and in Bulgarian, appeared in 1947.4 In later years, monographs on the subject were authored only by foreign scholars.5 Two important collections of texts on the individual poleis in the Black Sea were also an initiative from the outside.6 Only in 2008 did a study appear that was dedicated to a part of the Bulgarian coast.7 The archaeological investigations of the Greek colonies on the Bulgarian coast were also lagging behind. An early major campaign in the necropolis of Apollonia (Sozopol) in 1946–1949 was discontinued, but did result in an important publication8 – to be followed by an almost half-century-long interruption.9 Due to its status of a ‘museum-city’ and the touristic needs of the neighbouring resort, Mesambria (Nesebar) was more actively excavated,10 and three volumes of the series Nessèbre were published.11 However, more attention was paid to the better preserved Late Antique and Mediaeval monuments. In addition, until 2007, the investigations in the necropolis of the Greek city were limited to rescue excavations or just recording the disturbed remains. For a long time, there was no major publication about Odessos – a gap that echoes the lack of systematic investigations and that was partially filled only recently.12 At the same time, the introduction, in the late 1970s and the 1980s, and the promotion of the subject of Thracia Pontica were hardly aiding the study of the Greek colonisation in the Black Sea. It started with conjectures that were asserted with authority to serve as a frame of a future research program: claims for a historical continuity of the maritime culture along the Black Sea coast from prehistory to the Middle Ages, in which the arrival of the Greeks was just an episode, and for a ‘spiritual continuity’ that considered the Christianity in Strandzha to be more of a ‘Thracian meta-paganism’ (?).13 The program quickly abandoned some of its goals. For example, despite the fact that it envisaged investigations of a wide ‘coastal area’, some 100–150km deep14 – in order not to severe the historical development of the littoral from that of the interior – more than three decades later there is still not a single excavated and published Thracian necropolis from the period of the Greek colonisation (7th–5th centuries BC) in the coastal area to the south of the Balkan range – the hinterland of Apollonia and Mesambria. Instead, the researchers’ fixation with stone anchors (see below) and the postulated early Thracian seafaring, based only on the evidence of these anchors,15 diverted scholarly attention from the study of the actual processes that unrolled in the coastal areas in the crucial period of the 7th–6th centuries BC. It brought forth bold, not to say untenable, hypotheses, like the transformation of the Early Iron Age Thracian ‘city/port/protopolis’ Mesambria into a Classical Greek polis.16 The overall situation changed in the last two decades – not due to new government policies (although there were some state-funded excavations), but more because intensive development of the coastal areas prompted equally intensive archaeological investigations. The accumulation of new data, although still mostly unpublished, both enables and requires a reassessment of the current state of research.

6 7 8 9 4 5

12 13 14 15 16 10 11

Danov 1947. Blavatskaya 1952; Isaac 1986, 237–278; Nawotka 1997; Oppermann 2004. Grammenos – Petropoulos 2003; Grammenos – Petropoulos 2007. Gyuzelev 2008. Venedikov 1963. See Hermary et al. 2010. Kiyashkina et al. 2012, 15–21. Ivanov 1969; Velkov 1980; Velkov 2005. Minchev 2003; Minchev 2007. Fol 1982b, 13–14. Ognenova – Dimitrov 1982, 431–436. See for example Dimitrov et al. 1982. See for example Ognenova-Marinova 1986; Ognenova-Marinova 1991; last in Preshlenov 2003, 164–165.

First Encounters and Further Developments

245

Late Bronze Age Contacts? The present paper’s main topic concerns the processes, initiated by the arrival of Greek settlers on the Thracian coast of the Black Sea, starting in the 2nd half of the 7th century BC and evolving through the Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic periods – the very end of the Early Iron Age and throughout the Late Iron Age (in Thracian terms). Evidence from later periods is brought in as an attempt to explain earlier phenomena. The foundation of the apoikiai created an entirely new situation for both Greek and Thracians, which cannot be adequately described with the generic term ‘contacts’; it was more of a full-time and centuries-long ‘cohabitation’ of communities that differed in culture, language, and social organisation. Thus, the author’s aim is to explore the extent of this coexistence and the resulting phenomena beyond the simple fact of living side by side, although the scarceness of evidence could be discouraging. In order to explore the uniqueness of the colonial situation, it is worth starting with some notes on the interactions between Thrace (and Pontic Thrace in particular) with the Aegean world – long before the period under consideration (and somewhat beyond the expertise of the author). Such an overview would naturally lead to the Archaic colonisation movement and the encounters of Greeks and Thracians on the shores of the Black Sea, discussing the possible or alleged pre-colonial contacts. Geographically, there are two possible directions for overseas artefacts or influences to reach Thrace – directly from the northern Aegean or following the roundabout route through the Propontis and the straits to the Black Sea. Quite naturally, already in the Late Bronze Age (LBA), interactions with the Mediterranean are much more visible along the northern Aegean, with imports penetrating to the north following the major rivers. The occurrence of Mycenaean (type of) pottery gradually fades to the east of Chalkidiki,17 possibly reaching Hebros – as some of the few examples beyond the coast (for example at Dragoyna)18 should have followed its valley. The sites in the interior clearly indicate that the imports came from the Aegean following the river valley routes,19 not from the Black Sea,20 with one reported fragment from Tsarevo as a single exception.21 A similar situation is revealed by the distribution of the far more numerous metal items (mainly weapons), imported or imitated in Late Bronze Age Thrace and leaving a broad empty space along the western Black Sea coast.22 The only group of finds that seems to gravitate towards the Pontic coast are some copper ingots (ox-hide or bun-shaped) illustrating the inclusion of parts of Thrace into the Mediterranean traffic of metals. Some of them were also found along the river routes from the Aegean. A hoard (a ship-cargo?) from the sea at cape Maslen Nos could be the only firm evidence of maritime contacts,23 although it lacks context and therefore it remains unknown who transported it; it has been suggested that the ingots could be local exports.24 The tempting idea that the ‘stone anchors’25 from the coastal waters of Bulgaria could support the hypothetical Late Bronze Age seafaring between the Aegean and the Black Sea26 has

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Baralis 2008, 109, fig. 3. Bozhinova et al. 2013, 67–78, Taf. 14. Doncheva 2011, 93, Abb. 2. Alexandrov 2004; Bozhinova et al. 2013, 79, Abb. 4. Doncheva 2011, 88. Doncheva 2011, 94, Abb. 3; Bozhinova et al. 2013, 79, Abb. 4. Doncheva 2011, 90; Doncheva 2012, 677–680. Leshtakov 2007, 453–454. At least some of these pierced stone blocks could have served other purposes, e.g. as weights for talyan fishing nets (Orachev 2007, 26–27). The bibliography on the subject is more than ample and is illustrated here with only a few titles. 26 For an example outside Bulgaria, see Hiller 1991, 209. 17 18

246

Margarit Damyanov

been questioned with good reason.27 As the subject is relevant also to the following period of the Early Iron Age, several points should be stressed upon. For one, none of the anchors have been discovered in a secure (and datable) archaeological context. Most of the anchors were made of the local stone of the regions where they were found;28 therefore, they cannot indicate long-range maritime expeditions. One of the very few specimens that offer any possibility for independent dating is an anchor with two holes that was found in the sea off Sozopol and bears a Greek inscription, most probably Hellenistic.29 There has been an attempt to attribute this anchor to a Hellenised Thracian from Apollonia, clinging to the old ways of his Late Bronze and Early Iron Age ancestors,30 which hypothesis however cannot possibly withstand any scutinity. Except for the above-mentioned ingots, no foreign goods from the Late Bronze Age have been discovered along the western coast of the Black Sea. And last, stone anchors were used in much later periods;31 in fact, M. Lazarov illustrates an anchor with a Christian inscription and another with a Christian cross,32 but for unknown reasons considers the markings as added (much) later. Thus, the picture of the early maritime traffic in the Black Sea remains obscure and somewhat distorted by wishful interpretations. Just as several decades ago, the optimistic view could be restated in the following manner: “there is no need … to doubt that Mycenaean Greeks passed through the Bosporos, although, to date, we have no direct evidence for the Mycenaeans in the Black Sea itself.”33 In the same train of thought, one can safely ignore the thalassocracies of Diodorus (in the version of Eusebius).34 First, even some proponents of their historicity tend to limit the scope of the Thracian ‘rule of the sea’ to the Aegean (and part of the Propontis?), leaving aside the Black Sea.35 Its traditional chronology falls in the 10th or 9th century BC,36 later than the copper ingots, and in a period that is practically devoid of any identifiable Mediterranean imports on the Pontic coast. The attempts to support the idea with archaeological evidence rely on the stone anchors37 that, as claimed above, are of little value. Thus, the notion that down to the 8th or 7th century BC “Thracians have frequently sailed the sea, but gradually left this activity to other people, like the Greeks”,38 remains rather hypothetical, especially for the Black Sea. Before the Colonisation This very brief and incomplete discussion of the Late Bronze Age contacts between Thrace and the Aegean (which was far more variegated than being only Greek) could be used as a comparison with the following centuries. What seemed to follow the collapse of the Mediterranean world was a halt in the interactions with Thrace that lasted well into the 8th century BC. Only then did there start to appear signs of renewed contacts, following the same pattern – earlier and clearly discernible along the Aegean coast and following the rivers to the interior, while in the Black Sea one has to wait for the beginning of the colonisation.

29 30 31 27 28

34 35 36 37 38 32 33

Leshtakov 2007, 454; De Boer 2008, 285–288. Ivanov et al. 1985. IGBul. V, 5154; Lazarov 2009, 42. Porozhanov 1989, 10. E.g. see Raban 2000; Tòth 2002, 86–88. The fact that stone anchors were still being used in the 20th century has been underlined already by H. Frost (Frost 1982, 281). Lazarov 2009, colour plates, not numbered. French 1982, 22. Diod. 7, 11. Lazarov 2009, 48. Stronk 1990, 66. Stronk 1990, 67–69; Bouzek 2007, 114. Stronk 1990, 69.

First Encounters and Further Developments

247

In the Aegean, before the foundation of the apoikiai, the ethnicity of the Thracians partners remains unclear. In any case, from the later 8th century BC on several pottery groups appear on the islands (Thasos and Samothrace), on coastal sites and also in the interior, indicating interactions at least of a regional scale. These are the wheel-made pottery with painted geometric decoration39 and the G 2-3 ware,40 both of northern Aegean origin. The identification of local workshops that manufactured G 2-3 type of pottery41 and the suggested local production of wheel-made pottery in this early period at the inland site of Koprivlen, deep in the Rhodope mountains,42 imply not only the importation of goods, but also the transfer of technology and the actual movement of people (of still unknown ethnicity). On Thasos at least, these regional wares are accompanied by products from further south and the actual Greek world, e.g. Euboean pendent semi-circle skyphoi,43 and isolated specimens may have penetrated further inland.44 This ‘pre-colonial’ southern influx of goods continued after the foundation of the Greek colonies on the northern Aegean coast,45 and only in the very end of the 7th or the early 6th century BC did they meet, in the easternmost part of the Thracian Plain, with imports that arrived from the Pontic coast and the newly established Apollonia (see below). Finally arriving to the main topic, it should be stated that in the Pontic basin there is still nothing obviously ‘pre-colonial’ to compare with the processes in the northern Aegean. Two Geometric specimens of problematic provenance, allegedly from Istros and Berezan, remain unparalleled after many decades of investigations.46 With official dates for the earliest colonies around the middle of the 7th century BC (according to the written sources), only a few isolated pieces, found deep in the interior of the Northern Pontic region, could indicate reconnaissance expeditions on the eve of colonisation.47 The First Encounters The lengthy introduction on earlier periods and the broader context served to underline the differences between the two Thracian coasts – the far more accessible Aegean and the distant Pontic backwaters. While in the first case the Greek colonisation was preceded by a gradual opening of the area, the whole process in the Black Sea seems to be much more precipitate, leading to a clear-cut contact situation, unburdened by previous developments. Therefore, it should be easier to explore the changes that resulted from the arrival of the Greeks that came to stay. The first encounters, around and after the middle of the 7th century BC, remain obscure. Traditionally, Istros was first (together with Orgame) in northern Dobrudzha in the mid-7th century, followed by Apollonia to the south several decades later. All other Greek colonies on the western Pontic shore were founded in the 6th century (with the distinct possibility of Kallatis being considerably later).48 There are no written sources to elucidate the events, and archaeology has not yet provided definite answers. One of the main unknowns is demography – on both sides: how many Greeks arrived and how many Thracians (if any) were there to meet them. Early Archaic colonisation

41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 39 40

Last in Bozkova – Delev 2012. Ilieva 2009; Ilieva 2013; Ilieva 2014. Ilieva 2013, 129; Ilieva et al. 2014. Bozkova – Delev 2011, 23; Bozkova – Delev 2012, 75 Gimatzidis 2002. In return, goods from the north travelled to Euboea, see Lemos 2012. Karadzinov 2010, 161. Karadzinov 2010, passim; Karadzinov 2012. Boardman 1991. Kerschner 2006, 237–239, 244. For the chronology of the individual poleis, see Avram et al. 2004.

248

Margarit Damyanov

was not a crowded enterprise. The written sources almost never provide numbers – one happy exception is Herodotus’ story about Cyrene49 – and one cannot expect more than a couple of hundred people (or even less) to have founded the first settlements; only later additional settlers boosted the demography of the fledgling colonies.50 Theoretically, such small groups should have been outnumbered by the indigenous populations, and it was probably the need for defences against attacks from the land that led the colonists to offshore islands, peninsulas and promontories (e.g. Apollonia, Mesambria, Orgame, Istros, Tomis). Certainly, it could be just an established practice or a natural reflex, and other sites, e.g. of Odessos or Kallatis, seem to be more vulnerable. Unfortunately, the native demographic situation on the western Pontic shores in the crucial latter half of the 7th century BC is also unclear. To begin with, there were major differences between the northernmost part (the coast of Dobrudzha) and the regions to the south. Indeed, one explanation of the curious fact that the Milesian colonisation of the Black Sea did not progress from south to north, but rather the other way around (starting with Istros and Orgame, 400km away from the Bosporos), could be sought for precisely in the peculiar situation in the region after the collapse of the local Early Iron Age Babadag Culture. Romanian scholars almost unanimously51 agree that these events predate the arrival of the Greeks52 and that the Milesians found an uninhabited, or very sparsely inhabited country.53 The site of Orgame has provided pre-colonial levels, but with a long hiatus before Orgame itself.54 Thus, the setting of the first encounters that eventually ensued from the colonisation was probably not the presumed opposition between Greek newcomers and established native communities. Certainly, northern Dobrudzha had other advantages as well, e.g. the agricultural potential to feed the settlers.55 The picture seems to be different further south. Apollonia, still in the 7th century BC, probably appeared in a settled landscape. There are dolmens in the area and Early Iron Age Thracian ‘hillforts’ existed on the peaks of the Meden Rid chain that encompasses the narrow coastal plain.56 In the case of Malkoto Kale site, continuity is claimed from well before the colonisation to well after it.57 The situation on the coast itself is less clear: Early Iron Age pottery without clear context has been reported from Sozopol’s Old Town – the site of Apollonia58 – and there are traces of Early Iron Age habitation only about a kilometre away from there (Fig. 1), but with a hiatus before the coming of the Greeks.59 In that case, the evidence from limited (and unpublished) excavations in the Old Town fails to capture the first encounters. For now at least, no ‘pre-colonial’ layers have been detected on the small offshore island of St. Kirik, the heart of the early colony. Another site with an unclear ‘pre-colonial’ to ‘colonial’ transition is the so-called ‘pit sanctuary’ at Kostadin Cheshma near Debelt, at the inner end of Mandra Lake, which was once a navigable bay that connected to the sea. Early Iron Age pottery is reported from the strata surrounding the pits,60 but not from the pits that contained some imports from the late 7th and mainly from the 1st half of the 6th century BC.61

Herodotus, 4. 153. Avram 2012. 51 Only recently a possible continuity was suggested of some native communities from before the colonisation into the Archaic period (Baralis – Lungu 2015). 52 Juganaru 2005, 80–82; Juganaru 2008, 136–137; Ailincai 2013, 279–280. 53 Avram 2007, 487–489. 54 Manucu-Adameşteanu 2003, 344–345. 55 Krebs 1997. 56 Gyuzelev 2008, 106–111. 57 Shalganova – Gotsev 1995, 328; Archibald 1998, 34–36. 58 Nedev – Panayotova 2003, 95–96; Gyuzelev 2008, 119–120. 59 Panayotova et al. 2014а, 268–269; Panayotova et al. 2014b, fig. 2. 60 Balabanov 1999, 71–72. 61 Tzochev 2011, 75–76. 49 50

First Encounters and Further Developments

249

Fig. 1   Early Iron Age Thracian pottery from a site in Sozopol (photos: M. Damyanov)

Therefore, it is possible that there was a withdrawal from the coast before the colonisation (see below the discussion on Mesambria), but that would be a bold claim in the present state of our knowledge. Proceeding down the chronology, Odessos was founded in the early 6th century BC in a settled region where a large network of native necropoleis of inurned cremations emerged shortly before the arrival of the Greeks.62 Frustratingly enough, this development is very visible a few dozen kilometres in the interior, with the necropoleis at Ravna and Dobrina as the best-known sites,63 while the situation on the coast remains unclear. Dorian Mesambria, less than 30km to the north of Apollonia across the Bay of Burgas, deserves special attention, as it has been put forward to illustrate the uninterrupted transformation of an Early Iron Age Thracian coastal settlement into a Greek colony64 – a very unique scenario, at least for the region, having in mind that the foundation date in the end of the 6th century BC makes Mesambria one of the latest apoikiai in the Black Sea. It is based on the combined evidence of written sources, which mention a mythical Thracian founder,65 and finds of Early Iron Age pottery from the peninsula.66 Chronology is the main problem of this hypothesis, as the Early Iron Age pottery cannot reach down to the late 6th century BC67 – a hiatus that is made even more visible by the absence of any Greek pottery before the official foundation of Mesambria,68 leaving empty the late 7th and almost the entire 6th century BC, when Greeks were already sailing the Black Sea. In the same peri-

64 65

Hänsel 1974; Archibald 1998, 58–63; Damyanov 2006, 293–294; Damyanov 2010, 266. Mirchev 1962; Mirchev 1965. See note 16 above; additional bibliography and discussion in Gyuzelev 2008, 78–84. Strabo 7. 6. 1. Apparently, the myth was well known in Mesambria, as it is mentioned in a Roman tombstone from the city, IGBul I², 345. 66 Venedikov 1980. 67 Alexandrescu – Morintz 1982. 68 Reho 2005, nos. 1–5, 11; Bozkova 2009, 143–144. 62 63

250

Margarit Damyanov

od, imports were already penetrating the Thracian hinterland of the Bay of Burgas (at Kostadin Cheshma and further inland – see below). Therefore, it would be safer to dismiss the mythical Melsas as a later (Greek) invention,69 meant to strengthen Mesambrians’ claims on the land, possibly in the Hellenistic period when the polis was expanding – a phenomenon that was by no means isolated.70 To sum up, the first encounters between Greek and Thracians at the very moment of the colonisation of the western Black Sea coast remain elusive: no ancient author tells of the events, no colonial site reveals uninterrupted occupation before and after the colonisation, and there are no abandoned or burned down native settlements that could be blamed on the conquering Greeks. In this respect, any reconstructions that envision agreements between the peaceful Ionians (compared against aggressive Dorians) and the native nobility71 are only speculative. There could be other explanations. Two-way Exchanges: Goods and Technologies What we can glimpse is a slightly later moment in the development of the newly established apoikiai and their surroundings, where the native milieu of the colonies is reflected mostly in the production and consumption of hand-made pottery of non-Greek type and technology. The presence of non-Greek pottery in and around the colonies could receive – and has received – various and controversial interpretations: for example it could have been brought (or made) by native wives, taken by the colonists, or could have been exchanged before the development of the own ceramic production of the colonies (an explanation that seems less convincing for later periods). Undoubtedly, one should not put an equation sign between pottery and ethnic or other identities. Such an approach in the northern Pontic area could be illustrated by earlier publications72 and was brought to the extreme by Sergey Solovyov, who postulated a mainly native population of the early Berezan, based on the finds of hand-made pottery.73 Later, the pendulum swung the other way and economic considerations were added: hand-made vases could have been used by poor Greeks74 and this could have depended on the ‘availability (including price)’ of the wheel-made pottery.75 Recently, Nadežda Gavriljuk considered the handmade pottery to be complementary to the wheel-made cooking ware in Olbia, and again an indication of lower social status; the author thinks of foods that were produced by the Scythians and brought to the city in Scythian types of vessels.76 However, there is another side of the coin regarding the conception of ‘availability’: apparently, hand-made, non-Greek (native) pottery was also ‘available’ in the colonial situation – and the exchange of foods in native containers required two sides. It is conceivable, therefore, that under certain circumstances and with all due reservations pottery could attest certain ‘interactions’, in our case between the Greek settlers and the natives, right after the colonisation. While a priori equating pottery to people is certainly a mistake, it would be equally one-sided to allow only pots, but not people, to cross the presumed border between the Greek colonies and the local communities.

71 72 73 74

Nawotka 1994. See Pavlopoulou 1994, 126–127. Avram 1996. E.g. Marchenko 1988. Solovyov 1999, 43, 49–55. Stolba 2002, 187–189. Notably, in this publication dedicated to the materials from Panskoye I in northwestern Crimea, various groups of hand-made pottery were regarded as indicating the presence of Taurians or Tauro-Scythians. 75 Hannestad 2007, 142–147. 76 Gavriljuk 2010, 348–349. 69 70

First Encounters and Further Developments

251

Hand-made sherds were discovered in Istros, including in the sacred precinct, where some of them could be dated to 630–620 BC;77 observations on the archaeological material from the residential part of the city actually indicate an increase in the generally modest share (only a few percent) of hand-made pottery in the later Archaic levels.78 This situation is mirrored in the settlements in the chora of Istros, the earliest of which are dated to the very beginning of the 6th century BC. There, hand-made pottery of Thracian (but also of northern Pontic) tradition could reach up to 10–15 percent of the total.79 Strictly speaking, these finds seem to be the earliest securely dated traces of a Thracian presence in the area after the collapse of the Babadag Culture. However, they appear in a clearly Greek context (in the case of Istros) or in a predominantly Greek setting (in the rural settlements). The varying percentages and the observed increase of hand-made pottery’s share in the residential levels of Istros could invite another interpretation: gradual infiltration of natives into the colony’s surroundings, where the settlers created a kind of ‘zone of stability’ after the troubled times of the 7th century BC. These people would have participated, along with groups of additional colonists, in the demographic surge in the area during the 6th century BC. Due to the state of research, Istros offers better opportunities to trace such developments, but native pottery has been discovered in the earliest layers of all western Pontic colonies. In Apollonia, on the island of St. Kirik, where the temenos of the city was located along with part of the earliest settlement,80 fragments of coarse jars were found in early 6th century BC contexts (Figs. 2–3). Thracian pottery was also discovered in pits with 6th century BC materials in Odessos,81 as well as in the Archaic levels of Tomis.82 To the south, no early rural sites have been found yet, however, in the last few years, new coastal sites were identified, demonstrating the same mixed material record. One such settlement, possibly an emporion,83 was located on the peninsula of Urdoviza in present-day Kiten, about 30km to the south of Apollonia. The earliest archaeological material dates from the 1st half of the 6th century BC, and among the predominantly Greek ceramic assemblage Thracian pottery is again present (Figs. 4–5).84 The situation in the Istrian chora, which is better known, would seem to imply the actual presence of natives, involved at least in the economy of the polis: this is indicated by the varying share of hand-made pottery, as well as by the consumption of pottery of different origins (Thracian and northern Pontic). It is a picture that is identical to what is observed in other areas in the northwestern Pontic region, in the Greek colonies on Dniester and in Olbia and their surroundings. In the case of Apollonia, an indirect indication of interactions with the natives could be the very early exploitation of the copper deposits of Meden Rid, of which there is abundant evidence on St. Kirik.85 It would be difficult to imagine large-scale mining in the hills, kilometres away from the city, without the consent and the active participation of the local Thracians (for example, providing labour). Taking possession of arable land and mining are all activities that belonged to the chora as the economic base of the polis. At the same time, it seems to have served as middle ground, mediating the interactions between the Greek apoikia and the larger native world. All traffic of goods and ideas would have passed through the chora, facilitated, as one would expect, by

79 80 81 82 83 84

Alexandrescu 2005, 384–385, esp. C295. Dimitriu 1966, 40–41, 54–56. Avram 2007, 490, 492. About the site, see Panayotova et al. 2014c. Toncheva 1967, 173. Radulescu – Scorpan 1975, 34. De Boer – Stronk 2002. Excavations of K. Panayotova and M. Daskalov in 2012–2013. I am grateful for the possibility to illustrate the materials. 85 Panayotova et al. 2014c, 595. 77 78

252

Margarit Damyanov

Fig. 2   Imported vases from Archaic contexts with hand-made pottery on the island of St. Kirik, Apollonia Pontica (Sozopol) (drawings: M. Damyanov, S. Vasileva)

Fig. 3   Hand-made pottery from Archaic contexts on the island of St. Kirik, Apollonia Pontica (Sozopol) (drawings: M. Damyanov)

First Encounters and Further Developments

Fig. 4   Archaic amphorae from Urdoviza Peninsula (Kiten) (drawings: M. Damyanov)

Fig. 5   Hand-made pottery from Urdoviza Peninsula (Kiten) (drawings: M. Damyanov)

253

254

Margarit Damyanov

bilingual individuals (or groups) that lived in this contact zone (and beyond).86 A brief overview of these interactions with the deeper interior could be useful before a short return to the colonial territories in a later period, in search of support for the processes in the Archaic period. One of the ‘further developments’ of the Greek colonisation on the western Pontic coast was that the Thracians developed a taste for foreign goods. Thus, trade or other forms of exchange would be the most obvious interaction, illustrated by the penetration of Greek (recognisable items with provenance from the Aegean) imports into the interior. It will be sufficient just to trace the beginning of the process, which intensified in Classical and Hellenistic times. To the south of the Balkan peninsula, one should distinguish between the influx from the south and that from the east, but it would be safe to accept that the imports around the Bay of Burgas and its immediate hinterland, at least to present-day Karnobat (and even further to the west), arrived from the Pontic coast, through the agency of Apollonia; somewhat later, this Apollonian zone is outlined by the distribution of Heraclean amphorae.87 Imports started to appear possibly at the end of the 7th century BC,88 very soon after Apollonia’s foundation, and observations on the material from two adjacent sites near Karnobat indicate that they continued to arrive steadily, well into the 4th century BC.89 The picture to the north is less straightforward. A few isolated finds outside the immediate surroundings of Istros and Orgame illustrate the penetration of Greek imports in the very late 7th or early 6th centuries BC, but they come from burials at Ciulniţa90 and Sabangia91, which were probably Scythian, not Thracian. Otherwise, beyond the presumed early chora of Istros (and Orgame), imports (along with datable native sites) become visible after the middle of the 6th century BC.92 According to the available data, more imports started to penetrate the interior of present-day northeast Bulgaria only in the 5th century BC,93 and there is a strong possibility that at least some came from the Odrysian territories to the south, and not from the coast.94 The process was not unilateral and the Greeks could have adopted Thracian objects. One good example is the use of ‘Thracian-type’ fibulae in the necropolis of Apollonia in the 5th–3rd centuries BC (and, occasionally, in other Greek colonial necropoleis in the western Pontic region). They appear in several dozen graves, both female (more numerous) and male, and the comparison with fibulae from the Thracian interior revealed a technological group that was presumably of local manufacture in the colony. While insufficient per se to identify the buried as non-Greek, the use of fibulae indicate the adoption of certain fashions from the native surroundings; on the other hand, the small share of graves with fibulae could hint at more personal reasons (for example descent?).95 The mechanisms of this exchange or trade remain unknown, but it is conceivable that not only goods, but also people (Greeks) penetrated into the interior. For later times (from the 5th century BC onwards), the written sources have preserved names of eminent individuals who ventured to Thrace.96 Presumably, many more did not come from overseas, but from the colonies on the coast, and in less extraordinary circumstances. There is evidence of the presence of Greek artisans in Thracian setting, where they created monuments and objects for the na-

88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 86 87

On the spread of Greek literacy in Thrace in the Classical and Hellenistic periods, see Dana 2015, 245–253. Tzochev 2010, 99–100, pl. 56.2. Tzochev, 2010, 98; Georgieva – Nikov 2010; Tzochev 2011. Tzochev 2009, 124–125. Marinescu-Bîlcu et al. 2000; Teleaga 2008, 14–15, 55–56, 363. Simion 1994, 25, fig. 2, 29; Melyukova 2001, 20–22. Teleaga 2008, passim. See last in Stoyanov – Rusev 2011. Damyanov 2010, 267–268, fig. 175. Vasileva 2014. See Delev 2002.

First Encounters and Further Developments

255

tive aristocracy (see below). Eventually, this would lead to the hypothesis about (permanent?) Greek communities in the interior: the so-called ‘Pistiros inscription’97 and the numerous graffiti from the site at the village of Vetren.98 While its identification as ‘Pistiros’ in the inscription has been contested,99 one should also face the question, which Apollonia (Pontic or Aegean) is mentioned in the text, together with Maroneia and Thasos. While the general direction of the Graeco-Thracian relations, outlined in the inscription, seems to be to the south, only Apollonia Pontica would be a match of the two important northern Aegean poleis. The tombstone of an Apolloniates (from Apollonia Pontica?), discovered nearby, adds to the controversy.100 This whole topic, however, is a subject beyond the scope of this text. Related to the previuos issue, technologies were another thing that found its way from the colonies into Thrace, gradually changing the appearance of the Thracian culture. Some of these influences are harder to trace – for example, in construction and architecture – as most examples (mainly monumental graves and tombs) from the interior date from the 5th century BC and later. In fact, in some cases – e.g. with some of the tumuli in the necropolis around Kaloyanovo (better known as the Duvanli necropolis)101 – one cannot but presume the actual presence of Greek (or Greek-trained) stonecutters, builders and other artisans, as nothing else could explain the perfect execution without any preceding evolution. This pattern will persist in the following centuries, down to the Late Classical and Early Hellenistic times, when exceptional monuments like the ‘Pistiros inscription’ and the inscription from Seuthopolis reveal a whole new level of Greek-Thracian interactions. Unfortunately, these phenomena are not (yet) to be observed in the areas closer to the Black Sea, at least before the later 4th century BC, which could be due to the state of research or to the location of the commissioners of monumental tombs. Here again, one should face the opposition Aegean vs. Pontic influence, although it probably did not matter that much after a certain point. Only relatively late, the influence of the colonies is betrayed by a curious structure like the tomb at Smyadovo in northeastren Bulgaria, close to Odessos, with its very Greek inscription: ‘Gonimase(dze), wife of Seuthes’.102 One problem in this argumentation would be the exceptionality and paucity of the so far documented examples of monumental architecture. Something rather more common, like pottery, could be more revealing in several aspects. After the pioneering article of P. Alexandrescu on the Greek models of Thracian vases,103 new research is shedding light on the penetration and adoption of the potter’s wheel in Thrace and the origins of the so-called ‘Thracian gray ware’.104 Alexandrescu was following a lead from the materials from Istros, but identifying Aeolian prototypes105 of ‘Thracian’ shapes traced contacts to the Aegean and Anatolia, without excluding the Pontic colonies and particularly Apollonia as possible intermediaries in the process.106 Lately, the transfer, use and replication of Aeolian monochrome ware shapes was explicitly linked to the Milesian colonisation in the Black Sea,107 indicating the important role of the Pontic colonies for the distribution of this technology to the Thracian interior. The case

Velkov – Domaradzka 1994; Demetriou 2012, 161–162; Graninger 2012, 101–102. E.g. Domaradzka 1999, 356–357. 99 See the discussion in “Dossier: nouvelles perspectives pour l’étude de l’inscription de Pistiros”, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 123, 1999, 246–371; Demetriou 2012, 158–160; Tzochev 2015, 417–418. The alternative interpretation is that Pistoros was on the Aegean coast, and the fortified urban site at Vetren was a Thracian residence, where a copy of the inscription was kept. 100 IGBul III.1, 1067–1068; Velkov – Domaradzka 1994, 7. 101 Kisyov 2005, 61–74, pls. XXI–XXVIII. 102 Atanasov – Nedelchev 2002. An alternative reading of the incription is provided by Dana 2015, 246–247. 103 Alexandrescu 1977. 104 See Tsonchev 1959. 105 Alexandrescu 1972; Nikov 1999. 106 Bozkova – Nikov 2009, 48–49, 52. 107 Handberg 2013. 97 98

256

Margarit Damyanov

of Istros, with a well-attested production already in the 6th century BC,108 is clear-cut and the presumed existence of a 6th century BC workshop that manufactured such pottery at Beidaud109 – a native site some 25km from Istros – could indicate the mechanisms of distribution in and beyond the chora. The well-attested presence of Aeolian grey wares in Apollonia110 indicates the role it played in the distribution of monochrome wheel-made pottery in the Thracian interior, where its penetration accompanied the earliest imports in the region of Karnobat.111 The role of Odessos for the region between Dobrudzha to the north and the coast to the south of the Balkan range remains poorly understood. The so far published 6th century BC imports are limited to an oinochoe in the necropolis at Dobrina, some 30km to the west of Odessos.112 However, another development in the Getic necropoleis in the region could betray the influence of the Greek apoikia. Four decades ago, Bernhard Hänsel identified three spatial and chronological groups of graves at Ravna, close to Dobrina,113 distinguished by the funerary structures (pits or stone cists) and the share of the wheel-made pottery. He dates the beginning of the latest phase, with cists and wheel-made pottery, to the beginning of the 5th century BC. Despite the lack of specialised research, it would be logical to presume that some of the pottery was manufactured in Odessos114 and that it also played a role in the transfer of the technology, which gave birth to the ‘Gray Thracian Ware’ of the 5th century BC and later.115 Contact Zones and Phenomena As illustrated above, there were multiple and far-reaching effects of the Greek colonisation on the Black Sea coast. It should be remembered that in the Thracian interior, especially to the south of the Balkan range, it is difficult to tell apart these developments from the same phenomena coming from the Aegean coast. The situation is more straightforward on the coast, in the colonies’ immediate surroundings – their chorai. There, as commented above, the evidence suggests coexistence of Greeks and natives from a very early period. The Archaic settlements in the territory of Istros, such as Tariverde, would be the best example, but one cannot exclude the presence of natives in the city itself. Unfortunately, the lack of written records for that early period fails to corroborate independently such a conclusion. However, in Istros, written and archaeological evidence do support each other in later periods. Mixed materials were discovered in Early Hellenistic contexts in Nuntaşi, close to Tariverde,116 and Thracian pottery is still found in the temenos of Istros.117 This time, it would be difficult to explain away this pottery with the absence of local ceramic production in Istros. It is much more probable that it betrayed the presence of its carriers – the Thracians. A few Hellenistic inscriptions – explicit documents, issued by the polis – seem to support this possibility. They illustrate the intricate and often hostile relations between Istros and the surrounding natives. The honorary decree of Agathokles is most revealing. There were ‘oaths and treaties’ between Greeks and natives and sometimes the pillaging Thracians demanded

110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 108 109

See Coja – Dupont 1979. Dupont – Lungu 2010; Dupont et al. 2010. Nikov 2012. Nikov 2009, 121–122; Georgieva – Nikov 2010, 142–149. Alexandrescu 1976, 118, no. 12. Hänsel 1974. Alexandrescu 1977, 136–137. Bozkova – Nikov 2009, 52. Domaneanţu 1993, 68–69, figs. 6, 12. Alexandrescu 2005, 385–387.

First Encounters and Further Developments

257

tribute.118 More important, however, is the mention of ‘barbarians’ that sought shelter in the city in troubled times and joined the defenders.119 It would not be too bold to assume that these non-Greeks lived in the chora, where there are archaeological clues. Are we allowed to transfer this reality to earlier periods, e.g. to the Archaic period? If we leave for a moment the western Pontic coast, the whole situation around Istros is very similar to the one that is related in the famous Olbian decree of Protogenes, dated also to the Hellenistic period. It provides a detailed description of the Greek colonial community – with citizens and foreigners (other Greeks) in the city, oiketeia (dependent population?) in the chora, and mixellenes in the border areas.120 The last group defies all other explanations but an ethnic mixing (resulting from mixed marriages) of Greeks and non-Greeks in and around the colonies.121 Curiously enough, it seems to be a somewhat independent community. The Olbian mixellenes find a good parallel in the migades Hellenes in the area of Dionysopolis, mentioned by Ps.-Skymnos.122 In the same region, Pliny123 places the oppida of the Scythae aroteres, one of which is Rhocobae. A 3rd century BC inscription from the temple of the Pontic Mother of Gods in Dionysopolis mentions a vineyard at Rhokole that was donated to the goddess by a certain Diodoros.124 Apparently, Rhokole/Rhocobae belonged to the chora of the polis, and there are again indications of non-Greeks or people of mixed origin living there (still, one should have in mind the meagre nature of the evidence). All these glimpses of the Hellenistic realities are priceless, but late. However, Olbia seems to offer the tempting possibility to trace these developments to an earlier period and the Kallipidai of Herodotus125 that were ‘Helleno-Scythians’; they were immediate neighbours of the Greeks and, just as the mixellenes, the phrasing suggests at least some degree of hybridity.126 The dozens of settlements in the Archaic (and later in the Classical and Hellenistic) chora of Olbia reveal a mixed material record with a varying share of non-Greek pottery.127 While it would seem that evidence to support the coexistence of Greeks and natives in and around the western Pontic colonies is still tenuous, more small pieces of the puzzle could be added: for example, the presence of presumably Thracian names on tombstones from Apollonia, always accompanied by Greek names,128 and the rare occurrence of hand-made jars in the necropolis. In the latter case, such vessels are never used as grave goods (in few cases as cinerary urns), but significantly appear in the so-called ‘ritual fireplaces’ (remains of funerary or commemorative feasts), along with the usual Greek cooking pots (Fig. 6). They come to illustrate again the ‘availability’ of hand-madе pottery of non-Greek tradition in Apollonia down to the Hellenistic period, while its infrequent use could be due to preferences (which would be more revealing about the users’ identities) or to necessity. It should be stressed again that whatever mechanism accounts for the hand-made jars in the very Greek-looking necropolis of Apollonia, they are symptomatic of the colonial situation, involving both Greeks and non-Greeks. To the same group of evidence belong the Thracian pottery in the phrourion of Albeşti129 and

120 121 122 118 119

123

126 127 128 124 125



129

ISM I, 15; Pippidi 1975a, 31–55. ISM I, 15, 42–44. IOSPE I² 32, B 15–21. Damyanov 2003, 256–258. Ps.-Scymnos 756–757. Pliny’s Natural History, 4, 18. Lazarenko et al. 2010, 31–32. Herodotus, 4, 17. Damyanov 2003, 254–256. Kryzhitskij et al. 1989, 57–61, 127–134. IGBul I², 426 (Apsinthio), 430 (Paibine), 438 (Diskotos), 440 (Basstakileo), 441 (Samantos). In his new monograph on Thracian onomastics, D. Dana has discarded some of the names (Dana 2015, L, n. 210); see also Dana 2015, 252. Buzoianu – Bărbulescu 2008, 205–217, pls. L–LIII, LXXXI–LXXXIV.

258

Margarit Damyanov

Fig. 6   Pottery from a ritual fireplace in the Early Hellenistic necropolis of Apollonia Pontica (Sozopol) (drawings: M. Damyanov)

the Hellenistic pit sanctuary at Durankulak in the territory of Kallatis.130 Then, there were treaties between the Greek poleis and local dynasts, such as Sadala and his ancestors131 or Kotys.132 Conclusions The conclusion can begin with a very brief discussion of the terms ‘Greek colony’, ‘Greek colonists’, etc. These are common technical terms and their use would avoid creating neologisms, such as apoikisation and apoikists (or other anglicised derivatives of ancient Greek words). However, they could also be misleading on more than one level, as ‘colonists’ would describe adequately the first generation or two, but centuries later Istrians or Apollonians had the right to consider themselves just as ‘native’ as the surrounding Thracians. The study of the Greek colonisation should envision different scenarios, depending on many unknowns: in the first place, the demography (the numbers of Greeks and Thracians) and the level of social and political organisation of the natives. In the (almost) empty landscape of later 7th century BC northern Dobrudzha, not that numerous Milesians could have created a ‘zone of stability’, strengthened by successive groups of additional settlers that attracted various non-Greeks to settle around. The story would have been quite different in regions inhabited by a more or less organised local population. Unfortunately, the later 7th – early 6th century BC situation on the coast to the

Todorova 2007, 185–217. IGBul I², 307. 132 IGBul I², 389. 130 131

First Encounters and Further Developments

259

south of the Balkan range remains unclear. Apart from dolmens (most of them disturbed) and a few reported settlements away from the coast, the region of Strandzha remains unexplored. There is not a single excavated and published major site within easy reach of any of the colonies. Sites like Sozopol, Kostadin Cheshma near Debelt, and especially Nesebar/Mesambria seem to suggest a hiatus between the Early Iron Age habitation and the coming of the Greeks. Then, there are traces of early exchange and of penetration of Thracians in or around the apoikiai – possibly in a manner that was not dissimilar from the events in northern Dobrudzha. The city of Mesambria of Dorian origin appeared relatively late – in the late 6th century BC, when Herodotus locates the Thracian Nipsaoi in its vicinity. An Apollonian reaction seems plausible, as this Ionian city had its own interests on the northern coast of the Bay of Burgas.133 Thus, friendly relations with the local Thracians would have been an advantage, but remain only a guess and the ancestors of the Thracian dynast (?) Sadala cannot be traced that far back. Kallatis presents a particularly interesting case: there is nothing substantial to support a foundation in the 6th century BC, making the alternative date in the beginning of the 4th century BC (in the time of Amyntas III, father of Philip II) quite appealing.134 Compared to the 7th or the 6th century BC, it was quite another thing to found a colony in a period of a way more developed Thracian society: If we are to believe Thucydides, Odrysians controlled this area in the 2nd half of the 5th century BC.135 In this case, one could expect agreements between Greeks and Thracians – or a military confrontation, which in its turn would require a larger group of colonists. The situation is tantalisingly intriguing, but there are no written sources to shed light on it. After this initial period that is poorly understood, the combined evidence for the Late Classical and Hellenistic period seems sufficient to make the case of the Graeco-Thracian coexistence on the western Pontic shores – in terms of actual cohabitation of Greeks and Thracians in the colonies or at least in their territories. This coexistence brought forth unprecedented phenomena, among which most probably bilingual individuals and whole communities, as well as groups of mixed descent. In the absence of data, it is difficult to assign these people specific social status,136 while it would be safe to conclude that they were part of the larger ‘colonial’ situation. These developments did not happen overnight, warranting retrospection to earlier times. Thus, it is tempting to see in the sherds of hand-made pottery in the Archaic layers of the Greek colonies the hint of what remains untold. References Ailincai 2013 S.-C. Ailincai, Începturile epocii fierului în Dobrogea, Studii şi cercetari de istorie veche şi arheologie 64, 3–4, 2013, 223–292. Alexandrescu 1972 P. Alexandrescu, Un groupe de céramique fabriquée а Istros, Dacia XVI, 1972, 113–131. Alexandescu 1976 P. Alexandrescu, Pour une chronologie des VIe–IVe siècles, Thraco-Dacica II, 1976, 117–126. Alexandrescu 1977 P. Alexandrescu, Les modeles grecs de la céramique thrace tournée, Dacia XXI, 1977, 113–137.

Anchialo, a foundation of Apollonia, probably appeared already in the 6th century BC – the archaeological material from Urdoviza (see above) supports the early date of such undertakings. 134 Avram et al. 2004, 934. 135 Thucydides, 2, 96–97. 136 As in Pippidi 1975b. 133

260

Margarit Damyanov

Alexandrescu 2005 P. Alexandrescu, La céramique, in: P. Alexandrescu (ed.), Histria VII. La zone sacrée d’époque grecque (Bucarest 2005) 329–411. Alexandrescu – Morintz 1982 P. Alexandrescu – S. Morintz, A propos de la couche précoloniale de Mesambria, Pontica. Studii şi materiale de istorie, arheologie şi muzeografie 15, 1982, 47–55. Alexandrov 2004 S. Alexandrov, The earliest Mycenaean imports in Bulgaria, in: J. Bouzek – L. Domaradska (eds.), The Culture of Thracians and their Neighbours, British Archaeological Reports International Series 1350 (Oxford 2004) 47–49. Archibald 1998 Z. Archibald, The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace. Orpheus Unmasked (Oxford 1998). Atanasov – Nedelchev 2002 Г. Атанасов – Н. Неделчев, Гонимаседзе. Жената на Севт и нейната гробница, in: Р. Гичева – К. Рабаджиев (eds.), Πιτύη. Изследвания в чест на проф. Иван Маразов (Sofia 2002) 550–557. Avram 1996 A. Avram, Modes de contacts entre grecs et gètes à Histria à l’époque archaïque, in: O. Lordkipanidzé – P. Lévêque (eds.), Sur les traces des Argonautes. Actes du 6e Symposium de Vani (Colchide) 22–29 Septembre 1990, Annales Littéraires de l’Université de Besançon 613 (Paris 1996) 241–251. Avram 2007 A. Avram, Das Territorium von Istros in archaischer Zeit, in: J. Cobet – V. von Graeve – W.- D. Niemeier – K. Zimmermann (eds.), Frühes Ionien. Eine Bestandsaufnahme, Milesische Forschungen 5 (Mainz am Rhein 2007) 487–497. Avram 2012 A. Avram, Le rôle des epoikoi dans la colonisation grecque en mer Noire. Quelques études de cas, Pallas 89, 2012, 197–215. Avram et al. 2004 A. Avram – J. Hind – G. Tsetskhladze, The Black Sea area, in: M. Hansen – T. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis (Oxford 2004) 924–973. Balabanov 1999 П. Балабанов, Тракийски ритуални ями край с. Дебелт, Бургаско, Археология XL, 3–4, 1999, 62–77. Baralis 2008 A. Baralis, The chora formation of the Greek cities of Aegean Thrace. Towards a chronological approach to the colonization process, in: P. G. Bilde – J. H. Petersen (eds.), Meeting of Cultures. Between Conflict and Coexistence, Black Sea Studies 8 (Aarhus 2008) 101–130. Baralis – Lungu 2015 A. Baralis – V. Lungu, Stratégies coloniales et réseaux d’occupation spatiale gètes sur le littoral de la Dobroudja du Nord. Les acquis du Programme ANR Pont-Euxin, in: G. Tsetskhladze – A. Avram – J. Hargrave (eds.), The Danubian lands between the Black, Aegean and Adriatic seas (7th century BC – 10th century AD). Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress on Black Sea Antiquities (Belgrade, 17–21 September 2013) (Oxford 2015) 369–384. Blavatskaya 1952 Т. Блаватская, Западнопонтийские города в VII–I в. до н.э. (Moscow 1952). Boardman 1991 J. Boardman, Early Greek pottery on Black Sea sites?, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 10, 3, 1991, 387–390. Bouzek 2007 J. Bouzek, Thracian thalassocracy. Fact or fiction, in: I. Lazarenko (ed.), Ancient Civilisations and the Sea. International Conference in Honour of Prof. Michail Lazarov, Varna, 13th–15th October 2004, Acta Musei Varnensis V (Varna 2007) 109–120. Bozhinova et al. 2013 E. Bozhinova – R. Jung – H. Mommsen, Dragojna. Eine spätbronzezeitliche Höhensiedlung in den bulgarischen Rhodopen mit importierter mykenischer Keramik, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 125/2010, 2013, 45–97.

First Encounters and Further Developments

261

Bozkova 2009 А. Божкова, Късноархаичен керамичен фрагмент от Несебър (или още за основаването на Месамбрия), in: Д. Аладжова (ed.), Сборник в памет на проф. Велизар Велков (Sofia 2009) 143–147. Bozkova – Delev 2012 A. Bozkova – P. Delev, Archaic pottery with painted geometric decoration from south-western Bulgaria, in: Μ. Τιβέριος – Β. Μισαηλίδου-Δεσποτίδου – Ε. Μανακίδου – Ά. Αρβανιτάκη / M. Tiverios – V. Misailidou-Despotidou – E. Manakidou – A. Arvanitaki (eds.), H κεραμική της αρχαϊκής εποχής στο Βόρειο Αιγαίο και την περιφέρειά του (700–480 π.Χ.) / Archaic Pottery of the Northern Aegean and its Periphery (700–480 BC), Proceedings of the Archaeological Meeting Thessaloniki 19–22 May (Thessaloniki 2012) 69–78. Božkova – Nikov 2009 A. Božkova – K. Nikov, La céramique monochrome en Thrace et ses prototypes anatoliens. Problèmes de chronologie, in: P. Dupont – V. Lungu, Actes du Colloque international « Les productions céramiques du Pont-Euxin à l’époque grecques » (Bucarest, 18–23 Septembre 2004), Il Mar Nero VI/2004–2006, 2009, 47–55. Buzoianu – Bărbulescu 2008 L. Buzoianu – M. Bărbulescu, Albeşti. Monografie Archeologică I (Constanţa 2008). Coja – Dupont 1979 M. Coja – P. Dupont, Histria V. Ateliers céramiques (Bucarest, Paris 1979). Damyanov 2003 M. Damyanov, On the local population around the Greek colonies in the Black Sea area (5th–3rd centuries BC), Ancient West & East 2, 2, 2003, 253–264. Damyanov 2006 M. Damyanov, Notes on the development of Odessos and its vicinity until Early Hellenistic Times, Talanta XXXVI– XXXVII/2004–2005, 2006, 289–308. Damyanov 2010 M. Damyanov, Greeks and natives in the region of Odessos, in: Treziny 2010, 265–276. Dana 2014 D. Dana, Onomasticon Thracicum. Répertoire des noms indigènes de Thrace, Macédoine Orientale, Mésies, Dacie et Bithynie, Mελετήματα 70 (Athens 2014). Dana 2015 D. Dana, Inscriptions, in: J. Valeva – E. Nankov – D. Graninger (eds.), A Companion to Ancient Thrace (Chichester 2015) 243–264. Danov 1947 Хр. Данов, Западният бряг на Черно море през древността (Sofia 1947). De Boer 2008 J. de Boer, Phantom-Mycenaeans in the Black Sea, Talanta XXXVIII–XXXIX/2006–2007, 2008, 277–302. De Boer – Stronk 2002 J. de Boer – J. Stronk, Two Greek emporia south of Apollonia Pontica, Talanta XXXII–XXXIII/2000–2001, 2002, 233–238. Delev 2002 P. Delev, Some Greeks in Thrace, in: A. Fol (ed.), Thrace and the Aegean. Proceedings of the Eight International Congress of Thracology, Vol. 1 (Sofia 2002) 301–309. Demetriou 2012 D. Demetriou, Negotiating Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean. The Archaic and Classical Greek Multiethnic Emporia (Cambridge 2012). Dimitriu 1966 S. Dimitriu, Cartierul de locuinţe din zona de vest a cetătei, în epoca arhaică (Săpături 1955–1960), Histria. Monografia arheologica II (Bucarest 1966) 19–131.

262

Margarit Damyanov

Dimitrov et al. 1982 Б. Димитров – К. Порожанов – А. Орачев, Пристанищата на Аполония и Месамбрия, in: Ал. Фол (ed.), Тракийски Паметници. Том 3: Мегалитите в Тракия, част 2. Тракия Понтика (Sofia 1982) 438–458. Domaneanţu 1993 C. Domaneanţu. Un sanctuaire hellénistique du site de Nuntasi II (comm. d’Istria, dép. de Constanţa), Dacia NS 37, 1993, 59–78. Domaradzka 1999 L. Domaradzka, Monuments épigraphiques de Pistiros, Bulletin de Correspondance Héllenique 123, 1, 1999, 347–358. Domaradzka 2005 L. Domaradzka, Greek Classical and Hellenistic graffiti from Thrace (6th/5th – 3rd c. B.C.), in: T. Stoyanov – S. Angelova – I. Lozanov (eds.), Stephanos archaeologicos in honorem Professoris Liudmil Getov, Studia Archaeologica Universitatis Serdicensis, Suppl. IV (Sofia 2005) 296–307. Doncheva 2011 D. Doncheva, Ein Blick von Norden. Einflüsse der mykenischen Welt auf den thrakischen Raum, in: F. Blakolmer – C. Reinholdt – J. Weilhartner – G. Nightingale (eds.), Österreichische Forschungen zur ägäischen Bronzezeit 2009. Akten der Tagung am Fachbereich Altertumswissenschaften der Paris-Lodron-Universität Salzburg vom 6. bis 7. März 2009 (Vienna 2011) 81–95. Doncheva 2012 D. Doncheva, The northern “journey” of Late Bronze Age copper ingots, in: E. Paunov – S. Filipova (eds.), Ηρακλέους Σωτήρος Θασίων. Studia in honorem Iliae Prokopov sexagenario ab amicis et discipulis dedicata (Veliko Turnovo 2012) 671–714. Dupont – Lungu 2010 P. Dupont – V. Lungu, Beidaud. Un cas d’acculturation potière dans l’hinterland gète, in: Treziny 2010, 493–498. Dupont et al. 2010 P. Dupont – V. Lungu – G. Simion, Une officine de céramique tournée de type grec en milieu gète? Le cas de Beidaud, in: P. Dupont – V. Lungu (eds.), Synergia pontica & aegeo-anatolica (Galaţi 2010) 181–226. Fol 1982a A. Fol (ed.), Thracia Pontica I (Sofia 1982) Fol 1982b A. Fol, La Thrace et les Mers. Thracia Pontica. Aperçu general, in: Fol 1982a, 9–15. French 1982a D. French, Mycenaeans in the Black Sea?, in: Fol 1982a, 19–30. Frost 1982 H. Frost, Stone anchors as clues to Bronze Age trade routes, in: Fol 1982a, 280–289. Gavriljuk 2010 N. Gavriljuk, Handmade pottery, in: N. A. Lejpunskaja – P. G. Bilde – J. M. Hojte – V. V. Krapivina – S. D. Kryžickij (eds.), The Lower City of Olbia (Sector NGS) in the 6th Century BC to the 4th Century AD. Volume 1, Black Sea Studies 13 (Aarhus 2010) 335–354. Georgieva – Nikov 2010 Р. Георгиева – К. Ников, Ранни трако-елински контакти (по археологически данни от Карнобатско), in: Р. Георгиева – Т. Стоянов – Д. Момчилов (ред.), Югоизточна България през ІІ–І хилядолетие пр. Хр. (Varna 2010) 142–157. Gimatzidis 2002 Σ. Γιματζίδης, Ο αποικισμός της Θάσου: Η επανεξέταση της κεραμικής πρώιμων φάσεων της αρχαίας πόλης, Το Αρχαιολογικό Εργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη 16, 2002, 73–81. Grammenos – Petropoulos 2003 D. Grammenos – E. Petropoulos (eds.), Ancient Greek Colonies in the Black Sea, Publications of the Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece 4 (Thessaloniki 2003).

First Encounters and Further Developments

263

Grammenos – Petropoulos 2007 D. Grammenos – E. Petropoulos (eds.), Ancient Greek Colonies in the Black Sea 2, British Archaeological Reports International Series 1675 (Oxford 2007). Graninger 2012 D. Graninger, Documentary contexts for the ‘Pistiros Inscription’, Electrum 19, 2012, 99–110. Gyuzelev 2008 M. Gyuzelev, The West Pontic Coast between Emine Cape and Byzantion during the First Millennium BC (Burgas 2008). Handberg 2013 S. Handberg, Milesian ktiseis and Aeolian potters in the Black Sea region, in: M. Manoledakis (ed.), Exploring the Hospitable Sea. Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Black Sea in Antiquity, held in Thessaloniki, 21–23 September 2012, British Archaeological Reports International Series 2498 (Oxford 2013) 1–18. Hänsel 1974 B. Hänsel, Zur Chronologie des 7. bis 5. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. im Hinterland von Odessos an der westlichen Schwarzmeerküste, Praehistorische Zeitschrift 49, 1974, 193–217. Hannestad 2007 L. Hannestad, Handmade or wheel-made. A note on the issue of a northern Pontic cultural koine, in: A. Bresson – A. Ivantchik – J.-L. Ferrary (eds), Une koinè pontique. Cités grecques, sociétiés indigènes et empires mondiaux sur le littoral nord de la mer Noire (VIIe s. a.C – IIIe s. p.C.) (Bordeaux 2007) 141–147. Hermary et al. 2010 A. Hermary – K. Panayotova – A. Baralis – M. Damyanov – A. Riapov, Apollonia du Pont (Sozopol). La nécropole de Kalfata (Ve–IIIe s. av. J.-C.), Bibliothèque d’archéologie méditerranéenne et africaine 5 (Paris 2010). Hiller 1991 S. Hiller, The Mycenaeans in the Black Sea, in: R. Laffineur – L. Basch (ed.), Thalassa. L’Egée préhistorique et la mer, Aegaeum 7 (Liège 1991) 207–221. IGBul I² G. Mihailov, Inscriptiones graecae in Bulgaria Repertae, Vol. I. Inscriptiones orae Ponti Euxini (Sofia 1970). IGBul III.1 G. Mihailov, Inscriptiones graecae in Bulgaria Repertae, Vol. III.1. Inscriptiones inter Haemum et Rhodopem repertae: Territorium Philippopolis (Sofia 1961). IGBul V G. Mihailov, Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae, Vol. V. Inscriptiones novae, addenda et corrigenda (Sofia 1997). Ilieva 2009 P. Ilieva, “G 2-3 ware” and the non-Greek population of the North Aegean coast. Some preliminary notes on its distribution pattern and contextual characteristics, in: Z. Bonias – J. Perreault (eds.), Greeks and Thracians in Coastal and Inland Thrace During the Years Before and After the Great Colonization. Proceedings of the International Symposium, Thasos, 26–27 September 2008 (Thasos 2009) 109–121. Ilieva 2013 P. Ilieva, G 2-3 ware. The Sub(proto)geometric tradition of the northeastern Aegean, in: P. Adam-Veleni – E. Kefalidou – D. Tsiafaki (eds.), Κεραμικά Εργαστήρια στο Βορειοανατολικό Αιγαίο (8ος – αρχές 5ου αι. π.Χ.) / Pottery Workshops in Northeastern Aegean (8th – early 5th c. BC). Scientific Meeting AMTh 2010 (Thessaloniki 2013) 123–132. Ilieva 2014 P. Ilieva, Regional standardization and local variation. The case of the North Aegean G 2-3 ware, in: A. Kotsonas (ed.), Understanding Standardization and Variation in Mediterranean Ceramics (Mid-2nd to Late 1st Millennium BC) (Leuven, Paris, Walpole, MA 2014) 85–96. Ilieva et al. 2014 P. Ilieva – Δ. Τσιαφάκη – Ν. Τσιρλιγκάνης – Α. Σακαλής – Ν. Καζάκης, G 2-3 Ware από τον βορειοελλαδικό χώρο. Αποτελέσματα αρχαιομετρικής έρευνας 2008–2011, Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 24/2010, 2014, 565–574.

264

Margarit Damyanov

IOSPE I² V. Latyshev, Inscriptiones orae septentrionalis Ponti Euxini Graecae et Latinae, Vol. I². Inscriptiones Tyrae, Olbiae, Chersonesi Tauricae aliorum locorum a Danubio usque ad Regnum Bosporanum (St. Petersburg 1916). Isaac 1986 B. Isaac, The Greek Settlements in Thrace Before the Macedonian Conquest, Studies of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society 10 (Leiden 1986). ISM I D. Pippidi, Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris graecae et latinae, I. Inscriptiones Histriae et viciniae (Bucarest 1983). Ivanov 1969 T. Ivanov (ed.), Nessèbre. Volume I (Sofia 1969). Ivanov et al. 1985 Z. Ivanov – D. Dimov – Chr. Pimpirev – N. Kouneva, Les résultats préliminaires de l’analyse petrographique des ancre en pierre et des jas du littoral bulgare de la mer Noire, in: M. Lazarov (ed.), Thracia Pontica II (Sofia 1985) 135–150. Juganaru 2005 G. Juganaru, Cultura Babadag I (Tulcea 2005). Juganaru 2008 G. Juganaru, Cultura Babadag. Repere cronologice, in: S.-C. Ailincai (ed.), Omagiu lui Gavrilă Simion la a 80-a aniversare (Tulcea 2008) 132–139. Karadzinov 2010 И. Караджинов, Ранна гръцка рисувана керамика от средното течение на Марица и Тунджа in: Р. Георгиева – Т. Стоянов – Д. Момчилов (eds.), Югоизточна България през ІІ–І хилядолетие пр. Хр. (Varna 2010) 158–180. Karadzinov 2012 И. Караджинов, Фрагмент от „чаша с птици” от Драма-Кайряка, Bulgarian e-Journal of Archaeology / Българско е-Списание за Археология 2, 2, 2012, 25–35. Kerschner 2006 M. Kerschner, Zum Beginn und zu den Phasen der griechischen Kolonisation am Schwarzen Meer. Die Evidenz der ostgriechischen Keramik, Eurasia Antiqua 12, 2006, 227–250. Kisyov 2005 K. Kisyov, Thrace and Greece in Ancient Times. Classical Tumuli in the Municipality of Kaloyanovo (Plovdiv 2005). Kiyashkina et al. 2012 P. Kiyashkina – A. Bozkova – T. Marvakov, A Guide to the Collections of the Archaeological Museum of Nessebar (Nessebar 2012). Krebs 1997 S. Krebs, Greek colonisation and agriculture in Dobruja, in: J. M. Fossey (ed.), Antiquitates Proponticae, Circumponticae et Caucasicae II, Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Archaeology and History of the Black Sea, McGill University, 22–24 November 1994 (Leiden, Boston 1997) 47–65. Kryzhitskij et al. 1989 С. Крыжицкий – С. Буйских – А. Бураков – В. Отрешко, Сельская округа Ольвии (Kiev 1989). Lazarenko et al. 2010 I. Lazarenko – E. Mircheva – R. Encheva – N. Sharankov, The temple of the Pontic Mother of Gods in Dionysopolis, in: E. Petropoulos – A. Maslennikov (eds.), Ancient Sacral Monuments in the Black Sea (Thessaloniki 2010) 13–62. Lazarov 2009 М. Лазаров, Древното корабоплаване по Западното Черноморие (Varna 2009). Lemos 2012 I. Lemos, A northern Aegean amphora from Xeropolis, Lefkandi, in: Π. Αδάμ-Βελένη – Κ. Τζαναβάρη (eds.), Δινήεσσα. Τιμητικός τόμος για την Κατερίνα Ρωμιοπούλου (Thessaloniki 2012) 177–182.

First Encounters and Further Developments

265

Leshtakov 2007 K. Leshtakov, The Eastern Balkans in the Aegean economic system during the LBA. Ox-hide and bun ingots in Bulgarian lands, in: I. Galanaki – H. Tomas – Y. Galanakis – R. Laffineur (eds.), Between the Aegean and Baltic Seas. Prehistory Across Borders, Aegaeum 27 (Liège, Austin 2007) 447–458. Manucu-Adameşteanu 2003 M. Manucu-Adameşteanu, Orgame, in: Grammenos – Petropoulos 2003, 341–388. Marchenko 1988 К. Марченко, Варвары в составе населения Березани и Ольвии во второй половине VII – первой половине I в. до н.э. (Leningrad 1988). Marinescu-Bîlcu et al. 2000 S. Marinescu-Bîlcu – E. Renţa – G. Matei, Les recherches archéologiques de sauvetage de Ciulnitza, le department de Ialomitza (1994–1997). Le tumulus I, in: V. Lungu (ed.), Pratiques funéraires dans l’Europe des XIIIe–IVe s. av. J.-C. Actes du IIIe Colloque international d’archéologie funéraire, Tulcea 1997 (Tulcea 2000) 149–165. Melyukova 2001 А. Мелюкова, Новые данные о скифах в Добрудже (к вопросу о “Старой Скифии” Геродота), Российская археология 4, 2001, 20–32. Minchev 2003 A. Minchev, Odessos, in: Grammenos – Petropoulos 2003, 209–278. Minchev 2007 А. Минчев, Одесос през елинистическата епоха (Varna 2007). Mirchev 1962 М. Мирчев. Раннотракийският могилен некропол при с. Равна, Известия на археологическия институт ХХV, 1962, 96–162. Mirchev 1965 М. Мирчев, Тракийският могилен некропол при с. Добрина, Известия на Народния музей Варна 1 (16), 1965, 33–70. Nawotka 1994 K. Nawotka, Melsas, the founder of Mesambria?, Hermes 122, 1994, 320–326. Nawotka 1997 K. Nawotka, The Western Pontic Cities. History and Political Organization (Amsterdam 1997). Nedev – Panayotova 2003 D. Nedev – K. Panayotova, Apollonia, in: Grammenos – Petropoulos 2003, 95–155. Nikov 1999 K. Nikov, “Aeolian” Bucchero in Thrace?, Archaeologia Bulgarica III, 2, 1999, 31–42. Nikov 2009 К. Ников, Трапезна керамика, работена на колело, in: Д. Момчилов – Р. Георгиева (eds.), Спасителни археологически проучвания по трасето на АМ „Тракия“. Лот 5, обходен път на град Карнобат, км 6+400 – 6+800 (Varna 2009) 108–123. Nikov 2012 K. Nikov, Grey Monochrome Pottery from Apollonia Pontica (Veliko Tarnovo 2012). Ognenova – Dimitrov 1982 Л. Огненова – Б. Димитров, Въведение в проблематиката на Тракия Понтика, in: Ал. Фол (ed.), Тракийски Паметници. Том 3: Мегалитите в Тракия, част 2. Тракия Понтика (Sofia 1982) 431–437. Ognenova-Marinova 1986 L. Ognenova-Marinova, Mesambria et le monde thrace entre le VIIe et le Ve s. av. n. è., in: M. Lazarov (ed.), Thracia Pontica III (Sofia 1986) 238–244.

266

Margarit Damyanov

Ognenova-Marinova 1991 L. Ognenova-Marinova, La “bria” thrace d’après les recherches archéologiques à Nessèbre, in: M. Lazarov – M. Tatcheva – Ch. Angelova – M. Georgiev (eds.), Thracia Pontica IV (Sofia 1991) 133–136. Oppermann 2004 M. Oppermann, Die westpontischen Poleis und ihr indigenes Umfeld in vorrömischer Zeit (Langenweißbach 2004). Orachev 2007 А. Орачев, Проучвания върху морската история и археология на Левия Понт. 1: Каменните блокове с отвори от Българското Черноморие, Известия на народния музей Варна 43 (57), 2007, 9–39. Panayotova et al. 2014а К. Панайотова – М. Дамянов – М. Чачева, Спасителни археологически проучвания в некропола на Аполония (VІ–ІV в. пр. Хр.) в кв. Харманите, ПИ 67800.502.413 и ПИ 67800.502.414 от землището на гр. Созопол, Археологически открития и разкопки през 2013 г. (Sofia 2014) 267–270. Panayotova et al. 2014b К. Панайотова – М. Дамянов – М. Чачева, Спасителни археологически проучвания в некропола на Аполония (VІ–ІV в. пр. Хр.) в кв. Харманите, ПИ 67800.502.410 и ПИ 67800.502.424 от землището на гр. Созопол, Археологически открития и разкопки през 2013 г. (Sofia 2014) 270–273. Panayotova et al. 2014c K. Panayotova – M. Damyanov – D. Stoyanova – T. Bogdanova, Apollonia Pontica: The Archaic temenos and settlement on the island of St. Kirik, in: J. M. Àlvarez – T. Nogales – I. Rodà (eds.), Centro y periferia en el mundo clásico / Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World. Proceedings XVIIIth International Congress of Classical Archaeology (Mérida 2014) 41–44. Pavlopoulou 1994 A. Pavlopoulou, Myth and cult of founder-heroes in the Greek colonies of Thrace, in: V. Papoulia – M. Meraklis – C. Syrneonidis – T. Korres – K. Hatzopoulos – P. Hidiroglu (eds.), Thrace (Athens 1994) 115–133. Pippidi 1975a D. Pippidi, Istros et les Gétes au IIe siècle. Observations sur le décret en l’honneur d’Agathoclès, fils d’Antiphilos, in: D. M. Pippidi, Scythica Minora. Recherches sur les colonies Grecques du littoral Roumain de la Mer Noire (Bucarest, Amsterdam 1975) 31–55. Pippidi 1975b D. Pippidi, Le problème de la main d’oevre agricole dans les colonies grecques de la Mer Noire, in: D. M. Pippidi, Scythica Minora. Recherches sur les colonies Grecques du littoral Roumain de la Mer Noire (Bucarest, Amsterdam 1975) 65–80. Porozhanov 1989 К. Порожанов, Датировка на каменните котви с отвори от Българското Черноморие – постижения и проблеми, Археология ХХХI, 1, 1989, 6–15. Preshlenov 2003 H. Preshlenov, Mesambria, in: Grammenos – Petropoulos 2003, 157–208. Raban 2000 A. Raban, Three-hole composite stone anchors from a medieval context at Caesarea Maritima, Israel, The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 29, 2, 2000, 260–272. Radulescu – Scorpan 1975 A. Radulescu – C. Scorpan, Rezultatele preliminare ale săpăturilor arheologice din Tomis (Parcul Catedralei), Pontica. Studii şi materiale de istorie, arheologie şi muzeografie 8, 1975, 9–54. Reho 2005 M. Reho, Céramique attique à figures noires et rouges, in: Velkov 2005, 30–50. Shalganova – Gotsev 1995 T. Shalganova – A. Gotsev, Problems of research on the Early Iron Age, in: D. Bailey – I. Panayotov (eds.), Prehistoric Bulgaria (Madison, WI 1995) 327–343.

First Encounters and Further Developments

267

Simion 1994 G. Simion, La population de la region du Bas-Danube aux VIIe–Ve siècles av. J.-C., Старинар ХLIII–XLIV (1992– 1993), 1994, 23–40. Solovyov 1999 S. Solovyov, Ancient Berezan. The Architecture, History and Culture of the First Greek Colony in the Northern Black Sea, Colloquia Pontica 4 (Leiden, Boston, Cologne 1999). Stolba 2002 V. Stolba, Handmade pottery, in: L. Hannestad – V. Stolba – A. Sceglov (eds.), Panskoye I. Vol. 1. The Monumental Building U6 (Aarhus 2002) 180–200. Stoyanov – Rusev 2011 Т. Стоянов – Н. Русев, Ранни гръцки импорти от района на Попово, Bulgarian e-Journal of Archaeology / Българско е-Списание за Археология 1, 1, 2011, 137–143. Stronk 1990 J. Stronk, A Thracian thalassocracy?, Talanta XX–XXI/1988–1989, 1990, 65–72. Teleaga 2008 E. Teleaga, Griechische Importe in den Nekropolen an der unteren Donau. 6. Jh. – Anfang des 3. Jhs. v. Chr. (Rahden/ Westf. 2008). Todorova 2007 H. Todorova, Durankulak. A territorium sacrum of the goddess Cybele, in: Grammenos – Petropulos 2007, 175–238. Toncheva 1967 Г. Тончева, Архаични материали от Одесос, Известия на археологическия институт ХХХ, 1967, 157–179. Tòth 2002 J. Tòth, Composite stone anchors in the ancient Mediterranean, Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 53, 2002, 85–118. Treziny 2010 H. Treziny (ed.), Grecs et indigènes de la Catalogne à la Mer Noire. Actes des rencontres du programme européen Ramses 2 (2006–2008), Bibliothèque d’archéologie méditerranéenne et africaine 3 (Paris 2010). Tsonchev 1959 Д. Цончев, Сивата тракийска керамика в България, Годишник на народния археологически музей Пловдив 3, 1959, 93–133. Tzochev 2009 Ч. Цочев, Транспортни амфори, in: Д. Момчилов – Р. Георгиева (eds.), Спасителни археологически проучвания по трасето на АМ „Тракия“. Лот 5, обходен път на град Карнобат, км 6+400 – 6+800 (Varna 2009) 124–148. Tzochev 2010 Ch. Tzochev, Between the Black Sea and the Aegean. The diffusion of Greek trade amphorae in Southern Thrace, in: D. Kassab Tezgör – N. Inaishvili (eds.), PATABS I. Production and Trade of Amphorae in the Black Sea. Actes de la Table Ronde Internationale de Batoumi et Trabzon, 27–29 Avril 2006 (Paris 2010) 97–101. Tzochev 2011 Ch. Tzochev, Archaic amphora import from Thracian sites around the Bay of Burgas, in: Ch. Tzochev – T. Stoyanov – A. Bozkova (eds.), PATABS II. Production and Trade of Amphorae in the Black Sea II. Acts of the International Round Table held in Kiten, Nessebar and Sredetz, September 26–30, 2007 (Sofia 2011) 73–86. Tzochev 2015. Ch. Tzochev, Trade, in: J. Valeva – E. Nankov – D. Graninger (eds.), A Companion to Ancient Thrace (Chichester 2015) 412–425. Vasileva 2014 M. Vasileva, Fibulae from Apollonia Pontica, Archaeologia Bulgarica XVIII, 1, 2014, 35–63. Velkov 1980 V. Velkov (ed.), Nessèbre II (Sofia 1980).

268

Margarit Damyanov

Velkov 2005 V. Velkov (ed.), Nessèbre III (Burgas 2005). Velkov – Domaradzka 1994 V. Velkov – L. Domaradzka, Kotys I (383/382–359 av. J.-C.) et l’emporion Pistiros de Thrace, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 118, 1994, 1–15. Venedikov 1963 И. Венедиков (ed.), Аполония. Разкопките в некропола на Аполония през 1947–49 г. (Sofia 1963). Venedikov 1980 I. Venedikov, La Mesambria thrace, in: Velkov 1980, 7–22.

Iron Age Cultural Interactions, Plant Subsistence and Land Use in Southeastern Europe Inferred from Archaeobotanical Evidence of Greece and Bulgaria Soultana Maria Valamoti1 – Eugenia Gkatzogia2 – Ivanka Hristova3 – Elena Marinova4 Abstract: This paper brings together old and new archaeobotanical evidence from 20 archaeological sites from Iron Age contexts spanning from the end of the 2nd millennium BC up to the end of the 4th century BC in northern Greece and southern Bulgaria. The sites are Karabournaki, Thessaloniki Toumba and Polichni in central Macedonia in northern Greece and Bresto, Malenovo, Dolno Cherkovishte, Kapitan Andreevo, Svilengrad and Dana Bunar in the region of south Bulgaria. A variety of cereals and pulses, already cultivated since Neolithic and Bronze Age times, are identified as potential culinary ingredients in both regions, yet the list of crops from northern Greece includes a wider diversity than that from the Bulgarian sites, especially regarding the fruit remains. Continuities and discontinuities of plant ingredients in space and time are discussed in relation to potential taphonomic biases. This new evidence from the region indicates that during the Iron Age this part of southeastern Europe shared common traditions in terms of the plant species consumed, with some differences already visible during the Late Bronze Age. Keywords: archaeobotany, culinary choice, Iron Age cuisine, arboriculture, plant food imports, Aegean, Thrace

Introduction Iron Age agriculture in southeastern Europe has been little explored – unlike other parts of Europe – and likewise little is known about the area’s plant economy and cuisine in terms of its plant ingredients. Cuisine can be revealing for identities, contacts and differentiation within and among communities. Thus, we will attempt an approach of regional culinary trajectories within the wider context of southeastern Europe – in particular, northern Greece and Bulgaria – based on a recently available archaeobotanical record. We will present and discuss the results of 20 Iron Age sites in northern Greece and Bulgaria. Eight of the sites are located in northern Greece, three unpublished5 and five published,6 and 12 sites are in Bulgaria, five7 in process of publication and eight8 already published (Fig. 1). The northern Greek sites discussed in this presentation are located in the region of central Macedonia. The Bulgarian sites discussed here are situated in the southern part of the country – ten in the Thracian plain and two in the Strymon/Struma valley.

3 4 1 2



5



6



7 8

Department of Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece; [email protected]. Department of Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece; [email protected]. Department of Archaeology, Faculty of History, Sofia University, Bulgaria; [email protected]. Center for Archaeological Sciences, University of Leuven & Royal Belgian Institute for Natural Sciences, Brussels, Belgium; [email protected]. The three unpublished sites are currently under study as part of E. Gkatzogia’s PhD thesis, see Gkatzogia – Valamoti 2013 and Valamoti – Gatzogia 2010 for preliminary results. Published results in the area of northern Greece come from the following five sites: Kastanas: Kroll 1983. Agios Mamas: Becker – Kroll 2008. Assiros: Halstead – Jones 1980. Krania Pierias: Margaritis 2007. Sindos/Anchialos: studied by M. Mangafa, in Tiverios 1996. Hristova et al. 2017. The other published sites from Bulgaria are the following: Bresto: Athanassov et al. 2015. Koprivlen: Popova 2005b. Malko Tranovo: Tonkova – Bozkova 2008. Svilengrad: Popova 2006; Popova 2008. Kumsala: Tonkova – Savatinov 2001. Dvora: Tonkova – Savatinov 2001. Vratitsa and Krastina: Popova 2005a.

270

Soultana Maria Valamoti – Eugenia Gkatzogia – Ivanka Hristova – Elena Marinova

Fig. 1   Map of northern Greece and Bulgaria showing location of twenty Iron Age archaeobotanical assemblages discussed in the text (modified after Hristova et al. 2017)

These 20 sites span from the 11th to 4th centuries BC. In southern Greece, the equivalent centuries correspond to the Protogeometric, Geometric, Archaic and Classical periods, during which the evolution of city-states is in progress. The evidence from our study area will be discussed within the wider context of southeastern Europe, including the Aegean, in order to explore the cultural interactions, innovations, and regional and supraregional patterns of the Iron Age plant economy. Iron Age Habitation in Southeastern Europe Settlement pattern in the study region follows similar trajectories towards the development of settlement hierarchy and population increase, although regional differences in types of habitation and intra-settlement spatial organisation are observed. In northern Greece, Early Iron Age habitation is characterised, from the 10th century BC onwards and especially during the 8th century BC, by demographic increase expressed in the establishment of new extended settlements, or the horizontal expansion of pre-existing Late Bronze Age tells in a settlement type known as ‘trapeza’/ table, some of which formed substantial areas of occupation (Fig. 2).9 Small, flat agricultural sites near and around the tables and the development of settlements on hilly/mountain areas form new elements of habitation of the landscape.10 A number of settlements in central Macedonia in northern Greece might have formed loose aggregations sharing common identities and a sense of belonging.11 This was probably the case with the ‘city’ of Thermi in the Thermaic Gulf, where several settlements developed to be later unified in the 4th century BC by Kassander in the city of Thessaloniki.12 To this group of settlements probably belonged the sites discussed here in detail: Karabournaki, Thessaloniki Toumba and Polichni. During the Iron Age, organised settlement planning is observed with discrete spaces for domestic, industrial and communal activities showing well-organised communities.13

9



12 13 10 11

Andreou – Kotsakis 1986; Andreou – Kotsakis 1994; Soueref 2004; Soueref 2009; Koukouli-Chrisanthaki 2014; Andreou forthcoming. Kotsakis 1989; Kotsakis – Andreou 1992; Wardle 1997; Soueref 2004. E.g. Wardle 1997; Soueref 2004; Kotsakis 2008; Andreou forthcoming. Tiverios 1997; Soueref 2003; Soueref 2007. Hänsel 1989; Andreou – Kotsakis 1996, 370–371; Soueref 2004; Soueref 2007; Wardle – Wardle 2007; Soueref 2009; Koukouli-Chrisanthaki 2014, 163.

Iron Age Cultural Interactions, Plant Subsistence and Land Use in Southeastern Europe

271

Fig . 2 Photo of the prehistoric settlement of Thessaloniki Toumba: arrow shows the tell part of the settlement and encircled area corresponds to the expansion in the form of a ‘trapeza’/table (Site photograph after Rey 1917–1919)

Between the 8th and 6th centuries BC, slow socio-economic processes, already visible during the Late Bronze Age – e.g. clusters of settlements with internal hierarchical systems, led to an increased inequality and social stratification forming afterwards, in the Late Iron Age, ‘state’ institutions framed by local authorities and regional principalities that controlled wealth and mobilised labour and resources .14 At the same time, there is increasing evidence for contacts with the rest of the Mediterranean, visible in ceramic imports and the foundation of colonies by southern groups in the coastal parts of the region during the 8th century BC .15 In Bulgaria, based on limited excavation data, settlement pattern is characterised by increasing settlement density from the start of the Early Iron Age (11th–10th century BC) and dominated mainly by short-lived settlements in southern Bulgaria. The settlement pattern in the Early Iron Age on the territory of Bulgaria shows a hierarchy among the settlements (main settlements and satellites), and most probably specialisation in different fields of economic activity (metallurgy, ceramic production, etc.), although agriculture and stock-breeding were the main occupation of the prehistoric population of Bulgaria . Transhumant economy, based on stock-breeding with seasonal movements, may well have been practised .16 Architecture is represented mainly by ‘meagre dwellings’. Social stratification is a slow process, following the Late Bronze Age traditions it reaches its peak in the middle of the 1st millennium BC. Sites on high peaks were, on rare occasions, protected by defensive walls of large stones. During the later Iron Age centuries (7th–6th century BC), the first fortified, bigger settlements and cities emerged.17 After the end of the 8th century

14 15

16 17

Kotsakis – Andreou 1992; Andreou 2001; Soueref 2004; Kotsakis 2008; Andreou forthcoming. E.g. Tiverios 1999; Tiverios 2004; Tiverios 2007; Tiverios 2009a; Gimatzidis 2011a; Gimatzidis 2011b; KoukouliChrisanthaki 2014. Alexandrov – Nikov 2007; Popov 2007. Alexandrov – Nikov 2007; Athanassov – Krauß 2015; Athanassov – Stockhammer in this volume.

272

Soultana Maria Valamoti – Eugenia Gkatzogia – Ivanka Hristova – Elena Marinova

BC, contacts with adjacent regions (Near East and the Aegean) could be clearly traced thanks to finds of imported objects (ceramics, jewellery). The foundation of Greek colonies, mainly on the Black sea coast (end of the 8th to the 6th century BC), intensifies the process of the Greek influence on the Iron Age cultures of Bulgaria. In both Greece and Bulgaria, Iron Age cemeteries were organised in tumuli, representing in some cases ‘clan’ burials, as well as in flat cemeteries, where a variability in burial practice and wealth is observed.18 The Archaeological Sites The eight sites from northern Greece discussed here are Kastanas, Nea Philadelphia, Agios Mamas, Karabournaki, Krania, Sindos, Polichni and Thessaloniki Toumba. Of these, Karabournaki, Polichini and Thessaloniki Toumba are presented here in more detail. Karabournaki during its Iron Age occupation phases, succeeding perhaps a Bronze Age occupation for which little is known, is situated on the coast of the Thermaic Gulf in the north Aegean. It is a settlement of an indigenous population with no evidence for being a colony or a colonial trade station. Yet, the numerous imports suggest that it was a cosmopolitan port during the Iron Age, where amphorae and other pottery types from the eastern Aegean indicate imports of wine and olive oil as well as drinking sets. The site comprises a network of dug out pits – some of which are found in pairs, sometimes with an opening connecting each other. Pits form the main Iron Age architectural feature of the site and contain a wide range of finds, including pottery, bones, destroyed cooking facilities, plant remains, the remains of pottery making activities, etc. Other settlement remains are the rectangular and stone built houses that were partially preserved and dated to the Archaic period.19 Thessaloniki Toumba, also considered a ‘native’ site, during the Iron Age evolved into a trapeza site, while occupation on top of the Bronze Age tell continued.20 Polichni, to the north/ northwest of both Toumba and Karabournaki, is yet one more of the many Iron Age sites situated around the Thermaic Gulf.21 This site, like Toumba and Karabournaki, was also a native settlement that, unlike Sindos further to the west,22 had restricted contacts with the central and south Aegean during the 8th century BC. Twelve archaeological sites from Bulgaria are considered in the current paper. With the exception of Bresto and Koprivlen, all other sites are field pit sites located in the Thracian plain of southeastern Bulgaria. Bresto is situated in the Struma Valley and Koprivlen in Mesta Valley in southwestern Bulgaria. Their time span is in the interval between the 12th to the 1st half of the 4th century BC.23 The Iron Age pit fields are one of the most common traces of human occupation in the Thracian plain and one of the main sources of archaeological information for that period. The pit-field sites differ in the number of pits, their size and shape. Some of the pits are quite rich in archaeological and archaeobiological (botanical, zoological, and in some cases anthropological) material, which gives reason to some archaeologists to connect the pits with rituals24 or interpret them as storage facilities. At the same time, numerous pits contain materials that could be interpreted as refuse remains25 and could even be related with the disposal of refuse from specific activities, like cooking.26

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 18 19

Wardle 1997; Gergova 2007; Kisiov 2009; Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 2014. E.g. Tiverios 2009b; Tsiafakis 2010. For Thessaloniki Toumba see Andreou – Εfkleidou 2007. For Thessaloniki trapeza/table see Soueref 2001. Karliambas et al. 2009. Tiverios 2009c; Gimatzidis 2010. Athanassov – Stockhammer in this volume. Georgieva 1999; Tonkova – Savatinov 2001. Popov 2007. For a recent interpretation of the contents of an Iron Age pit in northern Greece see Tiverios et al. 2013.

Iron Age Cultural Interactions, Plant Subsistence and Land Use in Southeastern Europe

273

Iron Age Vegetation in Southeastern Europe: the Pollen Record Pollen diagrams from the region under study indicate that by the 10th century BC, deforestation, already gradually visible during the course of the Late Bronze Age, was characterising significant parts of the landscape.27 The dense mixed oak forests of the Neolithic were long gone as a result of diversification and intensification of agropastoral activity and a population increase, which is attested by the proliferation of settlements as mentioned above in both northern Greece and Bulgaria. More specifically, during the Iron Age, anthropogenic indicators concern mainly pasture and it seems that the upper tree line was artificially lowered in order to extend the high mountain pastureland.28 Around 500–400 BC, human impact on the vegetation of south Bulgaria becomes clearly pronounced and continuous on a large scale; this is also visible in adjacent areas.29 Sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa), walnut (Juglans regia) and plane tree (Platanus orientalis) were introduced into northern Greece around 3000 BP30 and there is positive evidence for their presence in Bulgaria, too, around the same time. Recent palynological evidence indicates that chestnut (Castanea sativa) and walnut (Juglans regia) survived the glaciation in some Bulgarian mountains, expanding and becoming more prominent in the pollen records around 3000 BP due to human agency and presumably new subsistence strategies involving expansion into mountainous terrain and a gradual introduction of arboriculture.31 High percentages of Vitis-pollen in northern Greece indicate its systematic cultivation at the beginning of the 1st millennium BC.32 Its presence, however, fluctuates from region to region.33 In Bulgaria, Vitis-pollen from the Thracian plain shows peaks from the Late Bronze Age onwards,34 which could also be a sign of grapevine cultivation in the Thracian plain. Plant Macro-Remains from Iron Age Settlements in Southeastern Europe The available archaeobotanical record from the 20 sites from Iron Age Greece and Bulgaria offers an opportunity to investigate, for the first time, crop cultivation, arboriculture and the use of wild plants together with trends over time, regional differences and similarities in agriculture and plant food ingredients. Cereals The evidence on cereals for the Greek sites shows that the most common species is six-row hulled barley found at all eight sites in many samples, often as pure concentrations of grain. Free-threshing wheat (Triticum aestivum/durum), is represented mainly by grains and less so by rachis internodes and is also encountered at many of the sites under study. The latter has not been found as a pure crop and is usually found mixed with grains of other cereals, with barley for example, as is the case with the pit fills at Karabournaki. Among glume wheats, important, especially at Karabournaki, is einkorn (T. monococcum), which is represented mainly by glume bases

For Bulgaria see: e.g. Tonkov et al. 2008; Marinova et al. 2012; Connor et al. 2013. For southern Greece see: e.g. Kouli 2012; Lazarova et al. 2012. For northern Greece see: e.g. Bottema 1974; Athanasiadis 1975; Athanasiadis 1988; Αthanasiadis et al. 1998. 28 For Bulgaria see: Marinova et al. 2012. For northern Greece see: Athanasiadis 1975; Bottema 1982; Athanasiadis 1988. 29 Athanasiadis, 1975; Gerasimidis – Athanasiadis 1995, 113; Αthanasiadis et al. 1998, 173; Marinova et al. 2012. 30 Bottema – Woldring 1996, 243, 257, 260. 31 Marinova et al. 2012; Tonkov – Possnert 2014. 32 Bottema 1982, 257–289; Bottema – Woldring 1996, 260; Αthanasiadis et al. 1998, 175; Bottema 2000, 41. 33 Athanasiadis et al. 1998. 34 Chapman et al. 2009. 27

274

Soultana Maria Valamoti – Eugenia Gkatzogia – Ivanka Hristova – Elena Marinova

(Fig. 3), for sure a crop in this site. At Polichni, emmer prevails; it is found both as grain and chaff but always, however, in small numbers, mixed with other crops. New glume wheat, spelt (T. spelta) and two-row hulled barley are present only in very low numbers, and therefore their significance as crops cannot be evaluated on present evidence. Millet, a wellknown Bronze Age crop for both study regions,35 is not so frequent at Iron Age sites from Greece, yet some sites have yielded rich caches, as is the case at Kastanas, Kalapodi36 and Fig. 3    Einkorn wheat glume bases and spikelet forks from KarAnchialos.37 Cereals constitute the abournaki (7th–6th century BC) (© S. M. Valamoti and E. Gkatzogia) most prominent crop category among the archaeobotanical assemblages from the Bulgarian sites. Most popular among them in all sites are the hulled wheats (especially einkorn), followd by barley and millet (Panicum miliaceum), whose presence in Iron Age Bulgaria as a crop is clearly indicated. The processing of cereals/pulses for food is evidenced from Bulgaria. A few porridge/bread like fragments with preserved cereal pericarp and an amorphous charred matter resembling bread/ gruel or fruit flesh is found in one of the pits from the site of Kapitan Andreevo (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4   Evidence for food preparation at Kapitan Andreevo: micrograph by scanning electron microscopy of part of a type of bread/gruel or fruit flesh (© I. Hristova, PLANTCULT Project)

Valamoti 2013; Marinova – Valamoti 2014. Kroll 1983; Kroll 1993. 37 Studied by late Maria Mangafa, in Tiverios 1996. 35 36

Iron Age Cultural Interactions, Plant Subsistence and Land Use in Southeastern Europe

275

Pulses The predominant pulses at the Greek sites are bitter vetch (Vicia ervilia) and lentils (Lens sp.) and, less so, grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.), all three found as pure caches. Other pulse species present in Iron Age deposits that are presented here – whose significance in Iron Age diet and economy cannot be estimated due to their small quantities – are chickpea (Cicer arietinum), common pea (Pisum sativum) and Celtic bean (Vicia faba). In Bulgaria, pulses are also presented in the archaeobotanical record, but they are found in very low amounts. Most common are lentil (Lens culinaris Medik), bitter vetch (Vicia ervilia L.) and grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.). Rich concentrations of bitter vetch and lentils and less so of grass pea suggest their deliberate cultivation and consumption. Peas are cultivated in Bulgaria but limited finds in northern Greece could be a result of archaeological preservation and retrieval. In central Greece, however, rich concentrations of peas from Xeropolis-Lefkandi38 show that peas were grown in the region. Limited evidence for the other species found does not allow for an evaluation of their significance for Iron Age communities of the north. Oil Plants A wide range of oil plants has been encountered, mainly at the sites situated in northern Greece. Lallemantia sp. is present by a few seeds at Agios Mamas, Polichni and Karabournaki. It is represented by only a few seeds, which renders interpretation of the sporadic finds problematic. At Polichni, 42 seeds have been found in total, at Karabournaki less than ten and at Thessaloniki Toumba only one probably identified as Lallemantia.39 Yet, these flimsy remains could be an indication of cultivation, given the limited chances of preservation of oil-rich seeds in charred archaeobotanical assemblages.40 Only a few seeds of Lallemantia have been retrieved in Dolno Cherkovishte (Early Iron Age) and Dana Bunar (Late Iron Age). As Lallemantia is not part of the natural vegetation of Europe and its oil-rich seeds are vulnerable to charring, it is more likely that the seeds correspond to a cultivated crop rather than a crop weed. Lallemantia, originally appearing in the Early Bronze Age in northern Greece41 of central Asian/Anatolian origin, becomes later established further north in the Balkans, at sites such as Feudvar,42 Hissar43 and Dabene-Sarovka.44 More prominent are the seeds of gold of pleasure (Camelina sp.), found in an impressive concentration at Kastanas. Gold of pleasure (Camelina sp.) is also represented by a few seeds at Agios Mamas and Karabournaki, at the latter site possibly by a small seeded type of gold of pleasure (Camelina sativa) or by the native species of Camelina microcarpα.45 In Bulgaria, linseed and gold of pleasure (Fig. 5) are found as cultivated crops. Linseed (Linum usitatissimum) has been found at Kastanas and Agios Mamas but is absent from the other Greek sites examined here. Another potential oil plant is opium poppy (Papaver somniferum), represented at these sites by a few seeds and a capsule segment (Fig. 6). No opium poppy is reported for the time being from Bulgaria. The olive (Olea europaea) is detected at Iron Age sites from northern Greece, represented only by very few finds at Thessaloniki Toumba from a pit dating to the 6th century BC (Fig. 7) and from the late Geometric/early Archaic level at Krania (c. 700 BC),46 while a rare find is the single stone of olive (Olea europea L.) found at the site of Kapitan Andreevo in Bulgaria (see discussion below).

40 41 42 43 44 45 46 38 39

Livarda – Kotzamani 2006. In a sample dating around 8th century ΒC (personal communication with the excavators). Märkle – Rösch 2008. Jones – Valamoti 2005. Kroll 1998. Medović 2012. Marinova – Valamoti 2014. The problem of distinction between these two species has been discussed in Riehl 1999, 93. Margaritis 2007, 123, 125; on the chronology of the site see Gimatzidis 2017.

276

Soultana Maria Valamoti – Eugenia Gkatzogia – Ivanka Hristova – Elena Marinova

Fig. 5   Seed of gold of pleasure from Bresto (EIA, 11th–8th cent. BC.), scale 1mm (© E. Marinova)

Fig. 6   Capsule segment of opium poppy with seeds attached from Karabournaki (7th–6th century BC) (© S. M.Valamoti and E. Gkatzogia)

When oil plants are considered, some differences are observed in the range of species between northern Greece and Bulgaria. A more striking difference, however, is between the northern and the southern Aegean sites where, in the latter, olives are frequently found from the end of the Neolithic through to the Iron Age.47 Whereas in prehistoric northern Greece during the Neolithic and the Bronze Age, the olive is totally absent in contrast to a rich variety of alternative oil-rich seeds.48 Therefore, it seems that the extremely sporadic Iron Age finds of olive in the north Aegean reflect different traditions dating back to the Late Bronze Age. Fruits and nuts A wide range of fruits and nuts have been retrieved from Iron Age deposits in the study area, although it is not always possible to distinguish arboriculture from harvests from wild trees and shrubs. The range of species identified at northern Greek and Bulgarian sites comprise blackberry (Rubus fruticosus), strawberry (Fragaria vesca), fig (Ficus carica), grapevine (Vitis vinifera), Cornelian cherry (Cornus mas), hazel (Corylus avelana), pear (Pyrus sp.), plum (Prunus sp.), and a few finds of pomegranate (Punica granatum), melon (Cucumis melo) and watermelon (Citrullus lanatus).49 From Greece, only a few finds of hazel are encountered from a pit dating to the Geometric period in Krania50 and from Archaic strata (7th century BC) in Heraion of Samos,51 whereas almond (Amygdalus communis) is detected only in southern Greece.52 Furthermore, possibly pistachio has been identified at Azoria in Crete, in the southern Aegean.53 The most prominent fruit in both areas is the grape. The northern Greek finds of grape are numerous and comprise also grape pressings, found at Karabournaki and less so at Thessaloniki

For olive finds from southern Greece see an overview from Near Eastern and Aegean sites: Riehl – Nesbitt 2003. For Iron Age Greece: Megaloudi 2006. For Protogeometric Greek sites see overview including new data from Roman Villa Dionysus, Knossos: Livarda 2012. For Iron Age Lefkandi: Livarda – Kotzamani 2006. For Iron Age Eretria: Margariti 2013. For Azoria: Haggis et al. 2004; Haggis et al. 2011. For Neolithic and Bronze Age Crete: recently overviewed archaeobotanical data by Livarda – Kotzamani 2006; for a key study with olives in Neolithic Crete: Sarpaki 1999. 48 Jones – Valamoti 2005; Valamoti 2009; Andreou et al. 2013. 49 For pomenagrate (Punica granatum) see Margaritis 2007 (Krania). For melon (Cucumis melo) see Kroll 1983; Kroll 1984 (Kastanas) and for watermelon (Citrullus lanatus), if indeed the seeds belong to this species, see Margaritis 2007 (Krania). 50 Margaritis 2007. 51 Kučan 1995. 52 Kučan 1995; Livarda 2012. 53 E.g. in Azoria: Haggis et al. 2011, 11. 47

Iron Age Cultural Interactions, Plant Subsistence and Land Use in Southeastern Europe

Fig. 7   Grape pips from Karabournaki (© S. M. Valamoti and E. Gkatzogia)

277

Fig. 8   Grape pressings from Karabournaki (© S. M. Valamoti and E. Gkatzogia)

Toumba. These finds suggest the preparation of a fermented beverage, probably wine, continuing a tradition that goes back to the Late Neolithic and 5th millennium BC Dikili Tash.54 A continued prominence of grape pips is also observed in the archaeobotanical record from northern Greece at Late Bronze Age sites such as Kastanas, Assiros, Thessaloniki Toumba, Agios Mamas and Aggelochori.55 The grape finds from Karabournaki consist of thousands of pips and skins (Figs. 7–8). A rich concentration of more than 1000 pips from a 6th century BC pit from Thessaloniki Toumba has been recognised as corresponding to cultivated varieties and a few pips belonging to feral grapes56. An association of locally made amphorae and local wine has been suggested on the basis of finds from Karabournaki.57 At Bulgarian sites grape pips occur frequently but in very low numbers. Thus, although the largest percentage of fruit finds at the Thracian plain sites are those of grape vine remains, no wine pressings or an increase in grape pip remains over time is reported. Fig, another typical Mediterranean species, is known from Greek Neolithic sites and continues through to the Bronze Age and the Iron Age. Fig has been found at many Bulgarian sites, like Bresto (Fig. 9), Malenovo, and Dana Bunar. Although this plant does not belong to the natural vegetation of Bulgaria, archaeobotanical evidence from the area dates its consumption back to the early Neolithic.58 Almond (Amygdalus communis), another Mediterranean element of interest in our exploration of fruit and nut exploitation, is only encountered at southern Greek sites. No finds of almonds are reported from Bulgaria and the north Aegean to date, but, considering the specific structures studied from the Bulgarian Iron Age, it is difficult to say whether the almonds were really less popular in the area or if only Fig. 9   Fig fruitlett (mineralised) from the available archaeobotanical record from pits is responBresto (EIA, 12th–8th century BC), scale 1 mm. (© E. Marinova) sible for this picture.

56 57 58 54 55

Valamoti et al. 2007; Valamoti 2015. Kroll 1983; Jones et al. 1986; Mangafa et al. 1998; Becker – Kroll 2008; Valamoti 2010. Mangafa et al. 1998; Mangafa – Kotsakis 1996, 415–417. Tiverios et al. 2005, 192; Valamoti 2005. See Thanheiser 1997.

278

Soultana Maria Valamoti – Eugenia Gkatzogia – Ivanka Hristova – Elena Marinova

Cultivation Practices and the Iron Age Landscape The available archaeobotanical evidence shows a wide range of field crops and fruits/nuts grown and we can envisage areas dedicated to their cultivation, interspersed with grazing areas and perhaps fallow. Unfortunately for the Greek sites, no information can be provided at present on agricultural practice, as the weed seeds are currently under study. Ancient sources of the transition of Early Iron Age to Archaic periods, during which Hesiod wrote Works and Days, refer to practices such as fallow and rotation,59 but, to present, no solid archaeobotanical finds are yet available from either our study area or the southern sites. Evidence on cultivation practices in the Thracian plain in southeastern Bulgaria suggests that some sites were located near open and stony places. This is indicated by the presence of plants like Dasypyrum cf. villosum, Stipa sp. and Thaeniaterum sp. Further direct evidence of shrubland and disturbed habitats due to anthropogenic activity is also frequently provided by the archaeobotanical assemblages found in the pits. The most common weeds found are: Chenopodium album, Galium sp., Lolium sp., Polycnenum arvense, Polygonum aviculare, Portulaca oleraceae. Most of them are rather aggressive resistant species – some of them resist salinity and drought. They colonise areas of already destroyed natural vegetation and enter the cultivated fields as weeds; they can, therefore, be used as indicators of open cultivated areas. Agriculture, Culinary Traditions and Identities in Iron Age Southeastern Europe Archaeobotanical evidence from southeastern Europe is rather limited. Therefore, aspects of culinary identities in the region, formed on the basis of plant food ingredients, have to await future research. Yet, the data presented in this paper are sufficient to draw a coarsely grained picture and point towards paths for future exploration. The range of crops used during the Iron Age in Greece and Bulgaria is very similar in many aspects, although regional differences are also observed which are discussed in this section. As regards cereals, finds suggest the continuation of glume wheats and barley cultivation in both regions – a long tradition going back to the Early Neolithic period. The same is largely true for millet, which appears to occur more frequently at Bulgarian sites. Differential levels of consumption, ways of cooking and use (e.g. food or fodder), as well as taphonomic factors may be responsible for the patchy distribution of millet in the study area during the Iron Age. Yet, even if not ubiquitous, the available millet finds suggest that its cultivation continued into the Iron Age, perhaps increasingly so, if the isotopic results obtained from human bones from northern Greece60 are due to millet intake rather than the consumption of animals grazing on C4 plants. Free-threshing cereals, nearly absent from northern Greek Neolithic sites61 and present only in parts of Bulgarian ones,62 are encountered at some Bronze Age sites63 – a situation that continues during the Iron Age in the Thermaic Gulf. In some parts of Greece, Geometric and Archaic periods finds of free-threshing wheat are abundant in terms of frequency and as dense concentrations.64 At some sites they appear among the main crops, whereas at others they are almost absent

Hesiod Works and Days, 463–464; for an interpretation of Hesiod verse’s see Semple 1928, 70; Isager – Skydsgaard 1992, 22. 60 Triantaphyllou 2001. 61 Valamoti 2009. 62 Marinova – Valamoti 2014; Popova 2009. 63 Jones et al. 1986; Valamoti 2009; Valamoti 2010. 64 For past overviews see: Kroll 2000; Megaloudi 2006. For a more recent one for the Protogeometric period see: Livarda 2012; rich concentrations were found in Kalapodi, see Kroll 1993. Very frequent and numerous are in Karabournaki, see Gkatzogia – Valamoti 2013 and in Krania, see Margaritis 2007. 59

Iron Age Cultural Interactions, Plant Subsistence and Land Use in Southeastern Europe

279

or in small quantities.65 According to Kroll, free-threshing wheat becomes important during the Iron Age in Greece.66 We do not know, however, whether the free-threshing wheats were of the durum or bread wheat type as the grains of these wheat species are difficult to distinguish in the archaeobotanical record. While it is possible that the cultivation of bread wheat could have been related to new ways of cereal transformation into food, bread making should not necessarily be linked to bread wheat, as bread can be prepared from different wheat and other cereal species.67 In economic terms, as pointed out by colleagues, free-threshing cereals present certain advantages by being easier to process, less bulky in storage and more suitable to transfer and trade.68 According to archaeobotanical studies conducted in Greek colonies and native Elymian sites in western Sicily, free-threshing wheat was probably traded and imported from indigenous Elymian sites to the coastal Greek colony of Selinunte.69 Furthermore, free-threshing wheat is easier to process and provides food for an increasing population.70 Thus, it is probably during the Iron Age that the social and economic conditions favouring their cultivation emerged. In the north Aegean this indeed coincides with indications for increased population levels and large settlements compared to Late Bronze Age.71 Hulled wheats keep their importance during the Early Iron Age in the territory of Bulgaria. Only sporadic finds of free-threshing wheat are found in Bulgarian sites, except for the site Bresto, from where a free-threshing wheat concentration, indicating storage, was recovered. The second half of the Iron Age is the transitional period when free-threshing wheat replaces the hulled ones. This has also been observed for Greek colonies of the Black sea, where free-threshing wheats are the prevailing cereals, especially in Crimea.72 It is very likely that Greek colonisation encouraged and even introduced free-threshing wheat cultivation in various locations, an issue that deserves further exploration combining archaeobotanical and textual evidence that refers to grain imports from regions such as Crimea. Comparing our results73 to evidence from the eastern and central Mediterranean, we notice differences in the representation of free-threshing and glume wheats. For the Near East, Riehl and Nesbitt suggest that even if glume wheats are so important from the Neolithic onwards, in the Iron Age “they are mostly uncommon or virtually absent, having been replaced by increased cultivation of free-threshing macaroni or bread wheat”.74 This contrasts the continued cultivation of hulled wheats during the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age in the northern Aegean and Bulgaria, where einkorn and emmer are still important crops. Could the continuation of glume wheats in Iron Age northern Greece and Bulgaria result from a culturally prescribed culinary preference? This may also have been the case with emmer cultivation in Egypt, which continued until Hellenistic times. The timing of the introduction of free-threshing cereals in our study area could have been greatly influenced by Greek colonisation. However, this issue deserves further study.

E.g. in Iolkos seeds of free-threshing wheat are in very small quantities, see Jones 1982. The same picture is encountered in Delphi, see Luce et al. 2009 and in Kastanas, see Kroll 1983, in Lefkandi even if not yet fully studied, but based on preliminary results they seem absent, see Livarda – Kotzamani 2006. 66 Kroll 2000. 67 Contra Sallares 1991, 319–320. 68 Pashkevich 1997; Halstead 2012, 26; Livarda 2012, 18. 69 Stika et al. 2008, 147. In the Greek settlement of Selinunte, free-threshing wheat was the dominant cereal compared to its limited presence in Elymian Monte Polizzo. Nevertheless, according to the authors, “the surroundings of Monte Polizzo are much more suitable for local production of free-threshing wheat than the Selinountine region” (Stika – Heiss 2013, 83). For further arguments of the suggested interpretation based on palaeoenvironmental evidence see this last publication. 70 Halstead 2012, 26; Livarda 2012, 18. 71 Andreou – Kotsakis 1994, 25. 72 Pashkevic 1997. 73 For key studies of Iron Age Greek colonies and native sites from Sicily see Stika et al. 2008; Stika – Heiss 2013. For an overview for Iron Age Near Eastern archaeobotanical evidence see Riehl – Nesbitt 2003. 74 Riehl – Nesbitt 2003, 305. 65

280

Soultana Maria Valamoti – Eugenia Gkatzogia – Ivanka Hristova – Elena Marinova

Despite common trends, differences can also be identified in the range of oil plants used in the wider study area. Compared to finds from Iron Age sites in the south of Greece, the olive, which frequently occurs in archaeobotanical assemblages there, is nearly absent from the north. The few exceptions of sporadic finds correspond in all likelihood to imports from the south, highlighting contacts with that area. Although the olive remains practically absent from the available northern Greek and Bulgarian record during the Iron Age, other plants, potentially used for oil, like opium poppy and Lallemantia, continue the Late Bronze Age traditions of the region. Some interesting conclusions have emerged from our analysis about fruits. Overall, the archaeobotanical record from the study region shows that differences between the two regions exist with regard to fruit and nut exploitation, e.g. hazelnuts are more prominent at Bulgarian sites while the reverse is true for the grapevine, which is never found in dense concentrations or as pressed grapes in Bulgaria. Thus, at present, this region is lacking evidence for grape cultivation and processing related potentially to wine-making, unlike a long tradition in grape-pressing and wine making in the north Aegean with roots in the Neolithic. This is in contrast with the picture recently available from Greek colonies in the western Mediterranean and in particular the Iberian Peninsula. There, our colleagues observe that the sporadic occurrence of the grape vine in Neolithic and Bronze Age contexts transforms into a very prominent presence after colonisation. The numerous remains of the grape vine there reflect the introduction of the systematic cultivation of the grape vine and of wine making in the western Mediterranean.75 No such trend is visible in the archaeobotanical record of Thrace and the Black Sea regions during the Iron Age. This might reflect different types of interaction and economic activity between the colonies and indigenous people. Fig is very prominent in the north Aegean, unlike Bulgarian sites. The evidence from Bulgaria suggests that fig was consumed in the Iron Age, yet it is unclear if its cultivation was introduced to the region or if figs, rich in sugar with a long shelf life, were imported from further south from areas along the Aegean shoreline. Alternatively, it could have been spread through humans in earlier prehistory, as figs are known from the Neolithic. In the Thracian plain and southern parts of Strymon Valley, unlike other Mediterranean species, fig can thrive in the region once introduced. Other Iron Age elements of southern Greece, like the almond and the olive, are rare in both the north Aegean and Bulgaria and seem to acquire importance a few centuries after Greek colonies are established in the region. The role of arboriculture in the Late Iron Age and the Archaic period76 is visible in the works of Homer; for example, in the Odyssey,77 the vineyards of Laertes78 and Meleagros79 are mentioned. In the Works and Days, Hesiod describes the operations of vintage in autumn and the production of sun-dried wine.80 It is also well documented in Linear B tablets from the south during the Late Bronze Age, in relation to fig, grape vine and olive cultivation.81 In northern Greece, arboriculture may have its roots in the Final Neolithic, according to recent archaeobotanical finds from Dikili Tash.82 By the Iron Age, it may well have constituted an important element of the landscape and agricultural production. What is evidenced in our data is the near absence of the olive – a typical Mediterranean species. The olive is absent from northern Greece in the preceding Neolithic and Bronze Ages.83 The find of an olive stone from Early Iron Age Kapitan Andreevo suggests imports from the

77 78 79 80 81 82 83 75 76

Buxó 2008. See Hanson 1992, 160–161; Hanson 1995, Chapter 2; Donlan 1997, 650, 654–655. Hom. Od. 9, 108; 24, 246–247. The ‘orchatos’ of Laertes and of Alkinos (Hom. Od. 9, 108; 24, 246–247, 336–344) is a row of trees. Hom. Il. 9, 577; 20, 184–185. Hes. Op. 612–617. Palmer 1995; Palmer 2001. Valamoti 2015. Valamoti 2009.

Iron Age Cultural Interactions, Plant Subsistence and Land Use in Southeastern Europe

281

south. The same we can envisage for northern Greece since few finds of olive stones have been found at Iron Age Thessaloniki Toumba84 (Fig. 10) and Krania.85 In most of the cases, archaeobotanical records from the south of Greece yielded olive stones accompanied by grape pips and figs.86 These three typical Mediterranean fruit species were most likely cultivated in the southern parts of the Aegean and parts of the eastern Mediterranean in the 1st millennium BC, however, they do not appear as a ‘package’ further north. The olive is limited to the southern part of the Aegean, while fig and grape, although present in the north Aegean and parts of its hinterland, become scarce in Bulgaria. Almonds, another element of Mediterranean vegetation and Fig. 10    Olive stone from Thessaloniki Toumba diet, are absent for the time being from our (6th century BC) (© S. M. Valamoti and E. Gkatzogia) study area. The finds of almonds in special burial contexts at the Necropolis of Messambria in Bulgaria may suggest that these were introduced later as imports from the south, holding perhaps a special symbolic position in relation to the afterlife. Greek colonies could have played a role in introducing Mediterranean foodstuffs into the north Aegean and Thracian hinterland. Maritime as well as mainland routes could have brought products from the south via intensive exchange networks. Colonies from Euboea, Corinth and the Cyclades in the north Aegean and especially strong Euboean influences around the Thermaic Gulf and in Chalkidiki probably played a part in the introduction of the olive to the north. As olives are absent throughout the Neolithic and the Bronze Ages in the region, it would be very interesting to see if the foundation of Greek colonies in the north boosted the introduction of olive cultivation to ‘native’ Iron Age communities and the landscape of the north Aegean. Despite the lack of adequate archaeobotanical data for comparisons, one line of evidence may support our working hypothesis we put forward here: that olive cultivation could have been introduced through the foundation of colonies. In a later period, from the 4th/ 3rd centuries BC onwards, local cultivation of the olive and olive oil production are clearly evidenced based on finds from northern Greek sites such as Vrasna87 and Platania,88 which clearly show local cultivation of the olive and olive oil production. Olives are found in Near Eastern, western Sicilian Iron Age89 and western Mediterranean (Spain) contexts, although any potential influence by Greek colonies remains obscure. At present, however, we lack published archaeobotanical information from actual Greek colonies in our study area. Bulgaria is beyond the climatic limits for olive cultivation and it is most likely that olives reached the hinterland through trading networks, perhaps as a luxury foodstuff. In the north Aegean, regions with a milder climate, like Chalkidiki and Thasos, could have offered new niches for the introduction of olive cultivation. Anthracological studies from Iron Age assemblages

Gkatzogia forthcoming. Margaritis 2007. 86 For a synthesis on the archaeobotanical data of the Protogeometric, Geometric and Archaic periods see Megaloudi 2006. For Villa Dionysus in Knossos and an overview of recent archaeobotanical data from Greece during the Protogeometric period see Livarda 2012. For Lefkandi see Livarda – Kotzamani 2006. For the sanctuary of Apollo Daphnophoros in Eretria see Margaritis 2013. 87 Adam-Veleni – Mangafa 1996. 88 Margaritis – Jones 2008a; Margaritis – Jones 2008b. 89 E.g. Riehl – Nesbitt 2003; Stika et al. 2008; Buxó 2008. 84 85

282

Soultana Maria Valamoti – Eugenia Gkatzogia – Ivanka Hristova – Elena Marinova

could shed light in the investigation of the timing of olive cultivation in the north Aegean and the processes that led to the introduction of this new tree crop. To this end, both finds from indigenous sites and colonies are much needed. Such finds will further clarify whether olive was indeed introduced as a cultivated plant or as an already-processed food produce, i.e. pickled olives. In terms of culinary preferences and identities, the Iron Age in the study area appears to be largely a continuation of Late Bronze Age traditions, with an increase in scale of land use for agropastoral activities in both regions studied here. Contacts with the south, known from other categories of material evidence, are also visible in the archaebotanical record and are indicated by imports of Mediterranean foods to the north Aegean hinterland. Differences between north and south Aegean regions begin to emerge and we plan to further investigate them. Greek colonisation emerges through our study as a crucial factor for the introduction of new crops into our study region, as has already been suggested, due to the increased importance of free-threshing wheat to the north Aegean and the Black Sea regions, as well as the introduction of the olive to the north Aegean and its hinterland. Conclusions The available evidence examined here, placed in its wider regional context, suggests that complex socioeconomic factors and regional interactions led to agricultural and possibly culinary changes. These changes in the range of field and tree crops occurring in historic times do not occur on a similar scale in southeastern Europe or the eastern and western Mediterranean. This suggests that the different trajectories followed were the outcome of variable socioeconomic processes influencing culinary choices and agricultural production. Our first attempt to jointly examine the evidence from Iron Age Greece and Bulgaria has produced promising results which will be further refined with the consideration of more data from both regions in the near future. Acknowledgements: We wish to thank Stefanos Gimatzidis, Magda Pieniążek and Sıla Votruba for their invitation to participate to the session Archaeology across Past and Present Borders: Fragmentation, Transformation and Connectivity in the North Aegean and the Balkans during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age, held under the 20th Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists in Istanbul, 10–14 September 2014. We are also grateful to Tassos Bekiaris and Nikos Katsikaridis for their help with Figures 1, 2 and 6.

References Adam-Veleni – Mangafa 1996 Π. Αδάμ-Βελένη – Μ. Μαγκαφά, Αρχαίο Eλαιοτριβείο στα Βρασνά Νομού Θεσσαλονίκης, in: Ελιά και Λάδι, Πρακτικά του 4ου Τριημέρου Εργασίας, 7–9 Μαΐου 1993, Καλαμάτα (Athens 1996) 92–104. Adam-Veleni – Tzanavari 2009 Π. Αδάμ-Βελένη – Κ. Τζαναβάρη (eds.) To Aρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και τη Θράκη, 20 Χρόνια Επετειακός Τόμος (Thessaloniki 2009). Alexandrov – Nikov 2007 Ст. Александров – Кр. Ников, Формиране на тракийската култура, in: В. Николов – Кр. Ников (eds.), Древните цивилизации в българските земи (Sofia 2007) 18–25. Andreou 2001 S. Andreou, Exploring the patterns of power in the Late Bronze Age settlements of Northern Greece, in: K. Branigan (ed.), Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age (Sheffield 2001) 160–173. Andreou forthcoming Σ. Ανδρέου, Μετά την Τούμπα. Σχέσεις και ιδέες σε κατάσταση ρευστότητας στις κοινωνίες της Μακεδονίας κατά το τέλος της 2ης και τις αρχές της 1ης χιλιετίας π. Χ., in: Η αντίπερα όχθη. Κοινωνικός χώρος και ιδεολογία στις προϊστορικές κοινότητες. Ημερίδα στη μνήμη του Γ. Χ. Χουρμουζιάδη. 22 Μαΐου 2015. Αριστοτέλειο Πανεπιστήμιο Θεσσαλονίκης. Τμήμα Ιστορίας και Αρχαιολογίας, Τομέας Αρχαιολογίας (forthcoming).

Iron Age Cultural Interactions, Plant Subsistence and Land Use in Southeastern Europe

283

Andreou – Efkeidou 2007 Σ. Ανδρέου – Κ. Ευκλείδου, Η ανασκαφή στην Τούμπα Θεσσαλονίκης το 2006 και 2007, Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 21, 2007, 255–262. Andreou – Kotsakis 1986 Σ. Ανδρέου – Κ. Κωτσάκης, Διαστάσεις του χώρου στην Κεντρική Μακεδονία. Αποτύπωση της ενδοκοινοτικής και διακοινοτικής χωροοργάνωσης, in: Σ. Δρούγου – Χ. Σαατσόγλου-Παλιαδέλη – Μ. Τιβέριος (eds.), Αμητός. Τιμητικός τόμος για τον Μ. Ανδρόνικο (Thessaloniki 1986) 57–87. Andreou – Kotsakis 1994 S. Andreou – K. Kotsakis, Prehistoric rural communities in perspective. The Langadas survey project, in: P. N. Doukelis – L. G. Mendoni (eds.), Structures rurales et sociétes antiques (Paris 1994) 17–25. Andreou – Kotsakis 1996 Σ. Ανδρέου – Κ. Κωτσάκης, Η προϊστορική Τούμπα Θεσσαλονίκης. Παλιά και νέα ερωτήματα, Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 10, 1996, 369–387. Andreou et al. 2013 S. Andreou – C. Heron – G. Jones – V. Kiriatzi – K. Psaraki – M. Roumbou – S. M. Valamoti, Smelly barbarians or perfumed natives? An investigation of oil and ointment use in Late Bronze Age northern Greece, in: S. Voutsaki – S. M. Valamoti (eds.), Diet, Economy and Society in the Ancient Greek World. Towards a Better Integration of Archaeology and Science. Proceedings of the International Conference held at the Netherlands Institute at Athens, 22–24 March 2010, Pharos Supplement 1 (Leuven 2013) 173–185. Athanasiadis 1975 N. Athanasiadis, Zur postglazialen Vegetationsentwicklung von Litochoro Katerinis und Petouli Trikalon (Griechenland), Flora 164, 1975, 99–132. Athanasiadis 1988 Ν. Αθανασιάδης, Η ανάλυση Γύρης και η σημασία της από ιστορικο-αρχαιολογική άποψη με βάση τα δεδομένα διαγράμματος της από το Βαρυκό Λιτόχωρου, Επιστημονική επετηρίδα του Τμήματος Δασολογίας και Φυσικού περιβάλλοντος, Αριστοτέλειο Πανεπιστήμιο Θεσσαλονίκης 31 (Thessaloniki 1988) 143–152. Athanasiadis et al. 1998 Ν. Αθανασιάδης – Α. Γερασιμίδης – Σ. Παναγιωτίδης, Η άμπελος στα διαγράμματα γύρης της Βόρειας Ελλάδας και η σημασία της από ιστορικοαρχαιολογική άποψη, in: Αμπελοοιονική Ιστορία στο χώρο της Μακεδονίας και της Θράκης. Πρακτικά Ε’ Τριήμερο Εργασίας, Νάουσα, 17–19 Σεπτεμβρίου 1993 (Athens 1998) 170–183. Athanassov – Krauß 2015 B. Athanassov – R. Krauß, Der Ostbalkanraum zwischen mediterranen Hochkulturen und dem südöstlichen Europa in der Spätbronzezeit, in: G. von Bülow (ed.), Kontaktzone Balkan (Bonn 2015) 63–79. Athanassov et al. 2015 B. Athanassov – I. Kulov – P. W. Stockhammer, Siedlungen der späten Bronze- undfrühen Eisenzeit in Südwestbulgarien: Vorbericht zu den deutsch-bulgarischen Forschungen 2012 im Struma- und Mestatal, Eurasia Antiqua 18/2012, 2015, 113–152. Becker – Kroll 2008 C. Becker – H. Kroll, Das prähistorische Olynth. Ausgrabungen in der Toumba Agios Mamas 1994–1996. Ernährung und Rohstoffnutzung im Wandel, Prahistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 22 (Rahden/Westf. 2008). Bottema 1974 S. Bottema, Late Quaternary Vegetation History of Northwestern Greece (PhD Diss., University of Groningen, Groningen 1974). Bottema 1982 S. Bottema, Palynological investigations in Greece with special reference to pollen as an indicator of human activities, Palaeohistoria 24, 1982, 257–289. Bottema – Woldring 1996 S. Bottema – H. Woldring, Antropogenic indicators in the pollen record of the Eastern Mediterranean, in: S. Bottema – G. Entjes-Neiborg – W. van Zeist (eds.), Man’s Role in the Shaping of the Eastern Mediterranean Landscape (Rotterdam 1996) 231–264.

284

Soultana Maria Valamoti – Eugenia Gkatzogia – Ivanka Hristova – Elena Marinova

Bottema 2000 S. Bottema, The Holocene history of walnut, sweet-chestnut, manna-ash and plane tree in the Eastern Mediterranean, in: J.-M. Luce (ed.), Paysage et alimentation dans le monde grec. Les innovations du premier millénaire av. J.C., Pallas. Revue d’études antiques 52, 2000, 35–59. Buxó 2008 R. Buxó, The agricultural consequences of colonial contacts on the Iberian Peninsula in the first millennium B.C., Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 17, 2008, 145–154. Chapman et al. 2009 J. Chapman – E. Magyari – B. Gaydarska, Contrasting subsistence strategies in the Early Iron Age? New results from the Alföld plain and the Thracian plain, Bulgaria, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 28, 2, 2009, 155–187. Connor et al. 2013 S. E. Connor – S. A. Ross – A. Sobotkova – A. I. R. Herries – S. D. Mooney – C. Longford – I. Iliev, Environmental conditions in the SE Balkans since the last Glacial Maximum and their influence on the spread of agriculture into Europe, Quaternary Science Reviews 68, 2013, 200–215. Donlan 1997 W. Donlan, The Homeric economy, in: I. Morris – B. Powell (eds.), A New Companion to Homer. Mnemosyne Supplement 163 (Leiden, New York, Köln 1997) 649–667. Georgieva 1999 Р. Георгиева, Обредни ями (края на ІІ–І хил. пр. н. е.), in: Р. Георгиева – Т. Спиридонов – М. Рехо (ed.), Етнология на траките (Sofia 1999) 165–183. Gerasimidis – Athanasiadis 1995 A. Gerasimidis – N. Athanasiadis, Woodland history of northern Greece from the Mid Holocene to recent time based on evidence from peat pollen profiles, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 4, 1995, 109–116. Gergova 2007 Д. Гергова, Погребалните обреди на траките, in: В. Николов – К. Ников (eds.), Древните цивилизации в българските земи 6.00лв (Sofia 2017) 61–71. Gimatzidis 2010 S. Gimatzidis, Die Stadt Sindos. Eine Siedlung von der späten Bronze- bis zur Klassischen Zeit am Thermaischen Golf in Makedonien, Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 26 (Rahden/Westf. 2010). Gimatzidis 2011a S. Gimatzidis, Counting sherds at Sindos. Pottery consumption and construction of identities in the Iron Age, in: S. Verdan – T. Theurillat – A. Kenzelmann Pfyffer (eds.), Early Iron Age Pottery. A Quantitative Approach. Proceedings of the International Round Table organized by the Swiss School of Archaeology in Greece, Athens, November 28–30, 2008, British Archaeological Reports International Series 2254 (Oxford 2011) 97–110. Gimatzidis 2011b S. Gimatzidis, The Northwest Aegean in the Early Iron Age, in: A. Mazarakis (ed.), The ‘Dark Age Revisited’. Acts of an International Symposium in Memory of William D. E. Coulson. University of Thessaly, Volos, 14–17 June 2007, Vol. 1 (Volos 2011) 957–970. Gimatzidis 2017 Σ. Γιματζίδης, Πρώιμοι ελληνικοί εμπορικοί αμφορείς και οικονομία στο Βόρειο Αιγαίο, in: D. Mulliez (ed.), Θάσος. Μητρόπολη και αποικίες. Πρακτικά του διεθνούς συμποσίου στη μνήμη Μαρίνας Σγούρου, Θάσος, 21–22 Σεπτεμβρίου 2006 / Thasos. Métropole et colonies. Actes du symposion international à la mémoire de Marina Sgourou, Thasos, 21–22 septembre 2006), Recherches franco-helléniques 5 (Athens 2017) 259–292. Gkatzogia forthcoming E. Gkatzogia, Iron Age Societies in Central Macedonia through the Archaeobotanical Remains. Culinary Habits, Land Uses and Space Use (PhD Diss., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki forthcoming). Gkatzogia – Valamoti 2013 E. Gkatzogia – S. M. Valamoti, An archaeobotanical investigation of Iron Age societies in central Macedonia, northern Greece, in: S. M. Valamoti – F. Bittmann (eds.), 16th International Work Group for Palaeothnobotany, 17–22 June 2013, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Abstract. Online (last accessed 4 Sept. 2015).

Iron Age Cultural Interactions, Plant Subsistence and Land Use in Southeastern Europe

285

Haggis et al. 2004 D. C. Haggis – M. S. Mook – M. C. Scarry – L. M. Snyder – W. C. West, Excavations at Azoria 2002, Hesperia 73, 3, 2004, 339–400. Haggis et al. 2011 D. C. Haggis – M. S. Mook – R. D. Fitzsimons – C. M. Scarry – L. M. Snyder – W. C. West, Excavations in the Archaic civic buildings at Azoria in 2005–2006, Hesperia 80, 1, 2011, 1–70. Halstead – Jones 1980 P. Halstead – G. Jones, Appendix: Bioarchaeological remains from Assiros Toumba, Annual of the British School at Athens 75, 1980, 265–267. Halstead 2012 P. Halstead, Food production, in: P. Erdkamp (ed.), Cultural History of Food in Antiquity (800 BCE–500 CE). Vol. 1 (London, New York 2012) 24–27. Hanson 1992 V. D. Hanson, Practical aspects of grape-growing and the ideology of Greek viticulture, in: B. Wells (ed.), Agriculture in Ancient Greece. Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens (Stockholm 1992) 161–166. Hanson 1995 V. D. Hanson, The Other Greeks. The Family Farm and the Agrarian Roots of Western Civilization (New York 1995). Hänsel 1989 B. Hänsel, Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshugel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens, 1975–1979. Die Grabung und der Baubefund, Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 7 (Berlin 1989). Hristova et аl. 2017 I. Hristova – J. Atanassova – E. Marinova, Plant economy and vegetation of the Iron Age in Bulgaria. Archaeobotanical evidence from pit deposits, Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 9, 7, 2017, 1481–1494. Isager – Skydsgaard 1992 S. Isager – J. E. Skydsgaard, Ancient Greek Agriculture. An Introduction (London, New York 1992). Jones 1982 G. Jones, Cereal and pulse remains from Protogeometric and Geometric Iolkos, Thessaly, Ανθρωπολογικά 3, 1982, 75–78. Jones et al. 1986 G. Jones – K. P. Wardle – P. Halstead – D. Wardle, Crop storage at Assiros, Scientific American 254, 3, 1986, 96–103. Jones – Valamoti 2005 G. Jones – S. M. Valamoti, Lallemantia, an imported or introduced oil plant in Bronze Age northern Greece, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 14, 4, 2005, 571–577. Karliambas et al. 2009 Γ. Καρλιάμπας – Γ. Βουζαρά – Σ. Χατζητουλούσης, Ανασκαφικές έρευνες στην τράπεζα της Πολίχνης κατά το 2009, Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 23, 2009, 237–246. Kisiov 2009 К. А. Кисьов, Погребални практики в Родопите (края на II–I хил. пр. Хр.) (Plovdiv 2009). Kotsakis 1989 K. Kotsakis, The Langadas Basin Intensive Survey. First preliminary report. The 1986 season, Εγνατία 1, 1989, 3–14. Kotsakis 2008 Κ. Κωτσάκης, Η προϊστορική Μακεδονία, in: Ίδρυμα Μουσείου Μακεδονικού Αγώνα, 2008. Online (last accessed 28 June 2015). Kotsakis – Andreou 1992 Κ. Κωτσάκης – Σ. Ανδρέου, Επιφανειακή έρευνα Λαγκαδά. Περίοδος 1992, Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 6, 1992, 349–356.

286

Soultana Maria Valamoti – Eugenia Gkatzogia – Ivanka Hristova – Elena Marinova

Koukouli-Chrisanthaki 2014 Χ. Κουκούλη-Χρυσανθάκη, Η αρχαιολογική έρευνα στην Μακεδονία της Πρώϊμης Εποχής του Σιδήρου. Απολογισμός και προοπτικές, in: Ε. Στεφανή – Ν. Μερούσης – Α. Δημουλά (eds.), Εκατό Χρόνια Έρευνας στην Προϊστορική Μακεδονία 1912–2012. Πρακτικά Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου, Αρχαιολογικό Μουσείο Θεσσαλονίκης, 22–24 Νοεμβρίου 2012 (Thessaloniki 2014) 153–177. Kouli 2012 K. Kouli, Vegetation development and human activities in Attiki (SE Greece) during the last 5,000 years, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 21, 4–5, 2012, 267–278. Kroll 1983 H. Kroll, Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshügel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975–1979. Die Pflanzenfunde, Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 2 (Berlin 1983). Kroll 1984 H. Kroll, Bronze Age and Iron Age agriculture in Kastanas, in: W. Van Zeist – W. A. Caspari (eds.), Plants and Ancient Man. Studies in Palaeoethnobotany. Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium of the International Work Group for Palaeoethnobotany (Rotterdam 1984) 243–246. Kroll 1998 H. Kroll, Die Kultur- und Naturlandschaften des Titeler Plateaus im Spiegel der metallzeitlichen Pflanzenreste von Feudar. In: B. Hänsel – P. Medović, Feudvar. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in einer Mikroregion am Zusammenfluss von Donau und Theiss, Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 13 (Kiel 1998) 305–317. Kroll 1993 H. Kroll, Kulturpflanzen von Kalapodi, Archäologischer Anzeiger 1993, 161–182. Kroll 2000 H. Kroll, Agriculture and arboriculture in Mainland Greece, in: J.-M. Luce (ed.), Paysage et alimentation dans le monde grec. Les innovations du premier millénaire av. J.C., Pallas. Revue d’études antiques, 52, 2000, 61–68. Kučan 1995 D. Kučan, Zur Ernährung und dem Gebrauch von Pflanzen im Heraion von Samos im 7. Jahrhundert v. Chr., Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 110, 1995, 1–64. Lazarova et al. 2012 M. Lazarova – A. Koutsios – N. Kontopoulos, Holocene vegetation history of the Kotihi lagoon (northwest Peloponnesus, Greece), Quaternary International 261, 2012, 138–145. Livarda 2012 A. Livarda, The archaeobotanical evidence of the Late Bronze Age and Proto-Geometric occupation under the Roman Villa Dionysus, Knossos, Crete, and an overview of the Proto-Geometric data of Greece, Annual of the British School at Athens 107, 2012, 189–209. Livarda – Kotzamani 2006 A. Livarda – G. Kotzamani, Plant lore in ‘Dark Age’ Greece. Archaeobotanical evidence from Lefkandi, Euboea. Literal sources and traditional knowledge combined, in: Z. F. Ertuğ (ed.), Ethnobotany: At the Junction of the Continents and the Disciplines. Proceedings of the IVth International Congress of Ethnobotany (ICEB 2005), 21–26 August 2005, Istanbul, Turkey (Istanbul 2006) 1–3. Luce et al. 2009 J.-M. Luce – P. de Marinval – L. Karali – C. Renault-Miskovsky – S. Thiébaut – M. F. Billot, L’aire du pilier des Rhodiens (fouille 1990–1992) à la frontière du profane et du sacré, Fouilles de Delphes II / Topographie et architecture 13 (Athens 2009). Märkle – Rösch 2008 T. Märkle – M. Rösch, Experiments on the effects of carbonization on some cultivated plant seeds, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 17, 2008, 257–263. Mangafa et al. 1998 Μ. Μαγκαφά – Κ. Κωτσάκης – Σ. Ανδρέου, Αμπελοκαλλιέργεια στην προϊστορική Μακεδονία. Τα δεδομένα της προϊστορικής Τούμπας Θεσσαλονίκης, in: Αμπελοοιονική Ιστορία στο χώρο της Μακεδονίας και της Θράκης. Πρακτικά Ε’ Τριήμερου Εργασίας, Νάουσα, 17–19 Σεπτεμβρίου 1993 (Athens 1998) 158–169.

Iron Age Cultural Interactions, Plant Subsistence and Land Use in Southeastern Europe

287

Mangafa – Kotsakis 1996 M. Mangafa – K. Kotsakis, A new method for the identification of wild and cultivated charred grape seeds, Journal of Archaeological Science 23, 3, 1996, 409–418. Margaritis 2007 E. Margaritis, Archaeobotanical investigations at the Geometric site of Krania, southern Pieria in Macedonia, Greece, Talanta 38/39, 2007, 123–132. Margaritis 2013 E. Margaritis, Annexe 3: archaeobotanical analysis. Seed assemblage from the refuse pit Fo221, in: S. Verdan (ed.), Le Sanctuaire D’ Apollon Daphnéphoros à l’époque Géométrique. Eretria XXII. Fouilles et recherches, Vol. I (Gollion 2013) 267–279. Margaritis – Jones 2008a E. Margaritis – M. K. Jones, Crop-processing and Olea europaea L. Ethnographic and experimental approaches for the interpretation of charred olive remains, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 17, 2008, 381–392. Margaritis – Jones 2008b E. Margaritis – M. K. Jones, Olive oil production in Hellenistic Greece. The interpretation of charred olive remains from the site of Platania, Macedonia, Greece, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 17, 2008, 393–401. Marinova et al. 2012 E. Marinova – S. Tonkov – E. Bozilova – I. Vajsov, Holocene anthropogenic landscapes in the Balkans. The palaeobotanical evidence from southwestern Bulgaria, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 21, 2012, 413–427. Marinova – Valamoti 2014 E. Marinova – S. M. Valamoti, Crop diversity and choices in the prehistory of South Eastern Europe. The archaeobotanical evidence from Greece and Bulgaria, in: A. Chevalier – E. Marinova – L. Pena-Chocarro (eds.), Plants and People. Choices and Diversity Through Time (Oxford 2014) 64–74. Medović 2012 A. Medović, Late Bronze Age plant economy at the early Iron Age hill fort settlement Hissar?, Rad Muzeja Vojvodine 54, 2012, 105–118. Megaloudi 2006 F. Megaloudi, Plants and Diet in Greece from Neolithic to Classical Periods. The Archaeobotanical Remains, British Archaeological Reports International Series 1516 (Oxford 2006). Palmer 1995 R. Palmer, Wine and Viticulture in Linear A and B texts of the Bronze Age Aegean, in: P. E. McGovern – S. J. Fleming – S. H. Katz (eds.), The Origins and Ancient History of Wine (New York 1995) 269–285. Palmer 2001 R. Palmer, Bridging the gap. The continuity of Greek agriculture from the Mycenaean to the Historical Period, in: D. W. Tandy (ed.), Prehistory and History. Ethnicity, Class and Political Economy. Institute of Policy Alternatives of Montreal (Montreal 2001) 41–84. Pashkevich 1997 G. Pashkevich, Early farming in the Ukraine, in: J. Chapman – P. Dolukhanov (eds.), Landscapes in Flux. Central and Eastern Europe in Antiquity (Oxford 1997) 263–273. Popov 2007 Хр. Попов, Аспекти на тракийската археолокия на късната бронзова и желязната епоха в България, in: В. Николов – Кр. Ников (eds.), Древните цивилизации в българските земи (Sofia 2007) 26–36. Popova 2005a Цв. Попова, Анализ на археоботанични останки на обекти от I хил. пр. Хр., Археологически открития и разкопки през 2004, 2005, 161–164. Popova 2005b Tz. Popova, Paleobotanical and anthracological analysis from the Koprivlen site (Gotze Delchev district), in: J. Bouzek – L. Domaradzka (eds.), The Culture of Thracians and Their Neighbours. Proceedings of the International Symposium in Memory of Prof. Mieczyslaw Doamradzki, with a Round Table “Archaeological Map of Bulgaria”, British Archaeological Reports International Series 1350 (Oxford 2005) 99–102.

288

Soultana Maria Valamoti – Eugenia Gkatzogia – Ivanka Hristova – Elena Marinova

Popova 2006 Цв. Попова, Растителни останки от ямно светилище от желязната епоха при Свиленград, in: В. Николов – Г. Нехризов – Ю. Цветкова (eds.), Спасителни археологически разкопки по трасето на жп линия Пловдив – Свиленград през 2004 г. (Veliko Tarnovo 2006) 518–520. Popova 2008 Цв. Попова, Археоботаничен анализ на растителни останки от обекта при Свиленград, in: В. Николов – Г. Нехризов – Ю. Цветкова (eds.), Спасителни археологически разкопки по трасето на ЖП линия Пловдив – Свиленград през 2005 г. (Veliko Tarnovo) 550–555. Popova 2009 Цв. Попова, Палеоботанически каталог на местоположения и проучени растителни останки на територията на България (1980–2008), Интердисциплинарни изследвания ХХ–ХХI (Sofia 2009) 71–166. Rey 1917–1919 L. Rey, Observations sur les premiers habitats de Macédoine. Recueillies par le Service Archéologique de l’Armée d’Orient 1916–1919 (Région de Salonique), Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 41–43, 1917–1919. Riehl – Nesbitt 2003 S. Riehl – M. Nesbitt, Crops and cultivation in the Iron Age Near East. Change or continuity, in: B. Fischer – H. Genz – E. Jean – K. Köroğlu (eds.), Identifying Changes. The Transition from Bronze to Iron Ages in Anatolia and its Neighbouring Regions (Istanbul 2003) 301–312. Riehl 1999. S. Riehl, Bronze Age Environment and Economy in the Troad. The Archaeobotany of Kumtepe and Troy, BioArchaeologica 2 (Tübingen 1999) 1–206. Sallares 1991 R. Sallares, The Ecology of the Ancient Greek World (London 1991). Sarpaki 1999 A. Sarpaki, The archaeobotanical study of Tzambakas House, Rethymno, Crete, in: Y. Tzedakis – H. Martlew (eds.), Minoans and Mycenaeans, Flavours of their Time (Athens 1999) 40–41. Semple 1928 E. C. Semple, Ancient Mediterranean Agriculture, Agricultural History 2, 2, 1928, 61–98. Soueref 2001 Κ. Σουέρεφ, Τούμπα Θεσσαλονίκης 2001. Εντός και Εκτός των ορίων του Αρχαίου Οικισμού, Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 15, 2001, 241–247. Soueref 2003 Κ. Σουέρεφ, Ανατολική παραθερμαϊκή ζώνη, 6ος–2ος αιώνας π.Χ., Θεσσαλονικέων Πόλις 12, 2003, 29–61. Soueref 2004 Κ. Σουέρεφ, Η Πρώιμη Εποχή του Σιδήρου στην Ανατολική Παραθερμαϊκή ζώνη. Φάσεις της Πρώιμης Εποχής του Σιδήρου στην Τράπεζα της Τούμπας Θεσσαλονίκης, in: N. Xρ. Σταμπολίδης – A. Γιαννικουρή (eds.), Το Αιγαίο στην Πρώιμη Εποχή του Σιδήρου. Πρακτικά του Διεθνούς Συμποσίου, Ρόδος 1–4 Νοεμβρίου, 2002 (Athens 2004) 317–326. Soueref 2007 Κ. Σουέρεφ, Mια πιθανή εισαγωγή στην αρχαϊκή Μακεδονία, in: Ancient Macedonia VII / Aρχαία Mακεδoνία VII. Macedonia from the Iron Age to the Death of Philipp II. Papers read at the Seventh International Symposium held in Thessaloniki, October, 14–18, 2002 (Thessaloniki 2007) 651–674. Soueref 2009 Κ. Σουέρεφ, Τούμπα Θεσσαλονίκης. Aνασκαφές στην τράπεζα και το αρχαίο νεκροταφείο, in: Adam-Veleni – Tzanavari 2009, 345–358. Stika et al. 2008 H. P. Stika – A. G. Heiss – B. Zach, Plant remains from the Early Iron Age in western Sicily. Differences in subsistence strategies of Greek and Elymian sites, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 17, Suppl. 1, 2008, 139–148.

Iron Age Cultural Interactions, Plant Subsistence and Land Use in Southeastern Europe

289

Stika – Heiss 2013 H.-P. Stika – A. G. Heiss, Seeds from the fire. Charred plant remains from Kristian Kristiansen’s excavations in Sweden, Denmark, Hungary and Sicily, in: S. Bergerbrant – S. Sabatini (eds.), Counterpoint. Essays in Archaeology and Heritage Studies in Honour of Professor Kristian Kristiansen, British Archaeological Reports International Series 2508 (Oxford 2013) 77–86. Thanheiser 1997 U. Thanheiser, Botanische Funde, in: S. Hiller – V. Nikolov (eds.), Karanovo. Die Ausgrabungen im Südsektor 1984– 1992, Österreichisch-bulgarische Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in Karanovo 1 (Vienna 1997) 429–454. Tiverios 1996 Μ. Τιβέριος, Επτά χρόνια (1990–1996) αρχαιολογικών ερευνών στη διπλή τράπεζα της Αγχιάλου-Σίνδου. Ο αρχαίος οικισμός, Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και τη Θράκη 10Α, 1996, 407–425. Tiverios 1997 Μ. Τιβέριος, Οι ιστορικοί χρόνοι στην περιοχή της Θεσσαλονίκης πριν από την ίδρυσή της, in: I. K. Chasiotis (ed), Τοις Αγαθοίς Βασιλεύουσα. Θεσσαλονίκη. Ιστορία και Πολιτισμός. Α’ τόμος (Thessaloniki 1997) 79–87. Tiverios 1999 Μ. Τιβέριος, Kάρες στο μυχό του Θερμαϊκού Κόλπου, in: Ancient Macedonia VI / Aρχαία Mακεδoνία VI. Papers read at the Sixth International Symposium held in Thessaloniki, October 15–19, 1996. Julia Vokotopoulou in memoriam (Thessaloniki 1999) 1175–1181. Τiverios 2004 Μ. Τιβέριος, Οι πανεπιστημιακές ανασκαφές στο Καραμπουρνάκι Θεσσαλονίκης και η παρουσία των Φοινίκων στο Βόρειο Αιγαίο, in: N. Xρ. Σταμπολίδης – A. Γιαννικουρή (eds.), Το Αιγαίο στην Πρώιμη Εποχή του Σιδήρου. Πρακτικά του Διεθνούς Συμποσίου, Ρόδος 1–4 Νοεμβρίου, 2002 (Athens 2004) 295–303. Tiverios 2007 Μ. Τιβέριος, Πρώιμος ευβοϊκός αποικισμός της Χαλκιδικής, in: Ancient Macedonia VII / Aρχαία Mακεδoνία VII. Macedonia from the Iron Age to the Death of Philipp II. Papers read at the Seventh International Symposium held in Thessaloniki, October, 14–18, 2002 (Thessaloniki 2007) 1–22. Tiverios 2009a M. Tiverios, Greek colonisation of the Northern Aegean, in: G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Greek Colonisation. An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas II (Leiden, Boston 2009) 1–154. Tiverios 2009b Μ. Τιβέριος, Η πανεπιστημιακή ανασκαφή στο Καραμπουρνάκι Θεσσαλονίκης, in: Adam-Veleni – Tzanavari 2009, 385–396. Tiverios 2009c Μ. Τιβέριος, H «διπλή» τράπεζα Αγχιάλου, in: Adam-Veleni – Tzanavari 2009, 397–407. Tiverios et al. 2005 Μ. Τιβέριος – Ε. Μανακίδου – Δ. Τσιαφάκη, Ανασκαφικές έρευνες στο Καραμπουρνάκι κατά το 2003, Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και τη Θράκη 17/2003, 2005, 191–197. Tiverios et al. 2013 M. Tiverios, – E. Manakidou – D. Tsiafaki – S. M. Valamoti – T. Theodoropoulou – E. Gatzogia, Cooking in an Iron Age pit in northern Greece: an interdisciplinary approach, in: S. Voutsaki – S. M. Valamoti (eds.), Diet, Economy and Society in the Ancient World. Towards a better Integration of Archaeology and Science. Proceedings of The International Conference held at the Netherlands Institute at Athens, 22–24 March 2010, Pharos Supplement 1 (Leuven 2013) 205–213. Tonkov et al. 2008 S. Tonkov – E. Bozilova – E. Marinova – H. Jüngner, History of vegetation and landscape during the last 4000 years in the area of Straldzha mire (Southeastern Bulgaria), Phytologia Balcanica 14, 2, 2008, 158–191. Tonkov – Possnert 2014 S. Tonkov – G. Possnert, Mire Gyola, Belasitsa Mountain (south-western Bulgaria), Grana 53, 4, 2014, 312–314.

290

Soultana Maria Valamoti – Eugenia Gkatzogia – Ivanka Hristova – Elena Marinova

Tonkova – Savatinov 2001 M. Tonkova – S. Savatinov, Thracian Culture of the Late Iron Age, “Maritsa – Iztok”, Archaeological Research 5 (Radnevo 2001) 95–126. Tonkova – Bozkova 2008 М. Тонкова – А. Божкова, Ямно светилище при с. Малко Тръново, Чирпанско, in: Ст. Александров – Д. Стоянова (eds.), По пътища на времето. Каталог към изложба (31 март – 30 април 2008) (Sofia 2008) 32–33. Triantaphyllou 2001 S. Triantaphyllou, A Bioarchaeological Approach to Prehistoric Cemetery Populations from Central and Western Greek Macedonia, British Archaeological Reports International Series 976 (Oxford 2001). Tsiafakis 2010 D. Tsiafakis, Domestic architecture in the northern Aegean. The evidence from the Ancient settlement of Karabournaki, in: H. Tréziny (ed.), Grecs et Indigènes de la Catalogne à la Mer Noire. Actes des rencontres du programme européen, Ramses 2 (2006–2008), Bibliothèque d’Archéologie Méditerranéenne et Africaine 3 (Paris 2010) 379–388. Valamoti 2005 Σ. Μ. Βαλαμώτη, Αρχαιοβοτανικά δεδομένα από το Καραμπουρνάκι. Μια προκαταρκτική έκθεση των ευρημάτων, Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και τη Θράκη 17/2003, 2005, 201–204. Valamoti 2009 Σ. Μ. Βαλαμώτη, Η αρχαιοβοτανική έρευνα της διατροφής στην Προϊστορική Ελλάδα (Thessaloniki 2009). Valamoti 2010 Σ. Μ. Βαλαμώτη, Η Ανθρώπινη δραστηριότητα στο Αγγελοχώρι μέσα από τα φυτά και τις χρήσεις τους. Η συμβολή των αρχαιοβοτανικών δεδομένων, in: E. Stefani (ed.), Αγγελοχώρι Ημαθίας, Οικισμός της Ύστερης Εποχής Χαλκού, 1 (Thessaloniki 2010) 171–197. Valamoti 2013 S. M. Valamoti, Millet, the late comer. On the tracks of Panicum miliaceum in prehistoric Greece, Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 8, 1, 2016, 51–63 (online first 2013). doi: 10.1007/s12520-013-0152-5. Valamoti 2015 S. M. Valamoti, Harvesting the wild? Exploring the context of fruit and nut exploitation at Neolithic Dikili Tash, with special reference to wine, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 24, 1, 2015, 35–46. Valamoti et al. 2007 S. M. Valamoti – M. Mangafa – Ch. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki – D. Malamidou, Grape-pressings from northern Greece. The earliest wine in the Aegean?, Antiquity 81, 2007, 54–61. Valamoti – Gatzogia 2010 S. M. Valamoti – E. Gatzogia, Plant remains from an Iron Age pit at Karabournaki, northern Greece, in: 15th Conference of the International Work Group for Palaeoethnobotany, May 31 – June 5, 2010, Wilhelmshaven, Germany. Programme and Abstracts, Terra Nostra. Schriften der GeoUnion Alfred-Wegener-Stiftung (Berlin 2010) 186. Wardle 1997 K. Wardle, The Prehistory of Northern Greece. A geographical perspective from the Ionian Sea to the Drama Plain, in: Αφιέρωμα στον N. G. L. Hammond, Παράρτημα Μακεδονικών 7 (Thessaloniki 1997) 509–541. Wardle – Wardle 2007 K. A. Wardle – D. Wardle, Assiros Toumba. A brief history of the settlement, in: H. Todorova – M. Stefanovich – G. Ivanov (eds.), The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory. Proceedings of the International Symposium Strymon Praehistoricus. Kjustendil-Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria), Serres-Amphipolis (Greece), 27.09–01.10.2004, In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul 2 (Sofia 2007) 469–479.

The Edge of an Era: Changing Aspects in the Southeast Balkans Towards the End of the 2nd Millennium BC Denitsa Nenova1 Abstract: In a period when complex systems of social life and urbanised structures were already well-established in the Aegean-Anatolian Bronze Age, the southeast corner of the Balkans, commonly known as Thrace, seems to have remained unaffected by such advanced mechanisms.2 “The presence of some seemingly similar elements”3 between those regions has provoked scholars to pursue shared contacts as well as synchronised cultural encounters. Misplacing the research focus from a thorough examination of the local Thracian particularities, along with the lack of systematic research, has restricted a comprehensive understanding of the internal social patterns. Moreover, the existing partition of the area among three Balkan countries (Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey) and the repeated amendments to borders throughout the 20th century has already set conditions defining the limited nature of the archaeological investigations. Given the fact that modern political divisions do not certainly coincide with any prehistoric social pattern, this paper aims to approach the Late Bronze Age in Thrace from an alternative contextual and geographical perspective. Keywords: Late Bronze Age, Thrace, spatial pattern, intra-regional, borders, diversity

Introduction The discipline of archaeology often needs to operate on a variety of scales ranging from local to regional, national and international levels. The localised variability, known as spatial heterogeneity, that undermines global conclusions on patterns and distribution is usually a matter of scale.4 In Thrace, the essence of the problem lies in the constant fluctuations in the area between at least two out of the three countries (Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey) at any one time. Consequently, specific political conditions have discouraged supra-regional research across the borders. In particular, the type of archaeology practised in each of these countries contrasts significantly to that practised by its neighbours, according to each country’s ideological and political settings.5 In other words, three different national and nationalist archaeologies have thereby made their impact on the archaeological investigations in the overall area.6 The discrepancies born thereafter have caused not only practical difficulties and miscommunication across borders, but have also influenced the level of objectivity in recognising any social pattern, while tracing modern geopolitical divisions. In an attempt to awaken national consciousness, a ‘centralised ideology’7 was developed in Bulgarian archaeology, maintaining strong links between the naturally divided lands on both sides of the Balkan Mountains, forcing the formation of cultural groups and emphasising ‘transbalkan’ cultural horizons.8 As for Turkish archaeology, the divide between the traditional Islamic framework and the western model after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire9 led to accentuating

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2

Institute of Archaeology, University College London, UK; [email protected]. Andreou et al. 1996. Özdoğan 2003. Harris 2006. Arnold 1996; Banks 1996. Bailey 1998. Todorova 1992, 1106; Todorova 1994. Bonev 1988, 55. Pamuk 1987; Özdoğan 2003, 113.

292

Denitsa Nenova

the formation and development of indigenous Anatolian cultures, while little attention was paid to the coastal areas and even less to the European hinterland. Similarly, in Greece, for a large period of time, attention was directed primarily towards the main centres of the Classical past and the ‘Megali Idea’,10 forcing the zone around this problematic frontier out of sight as a result. Thus, Thrace appeared divided into three politically conditioned archaeological zones, each of them seeking to connect local research to the south Aegean, Anatolian or central European Late Bronze Age cultural spheres. Background Despite the risks associated with an uncritical drift into geographical determinism, the area under study offers an opportunity to approach the region on a different, cross-border, scale.11 In this regard, it is also important to stress that Thrace consists of large river valleys and mountain passes, which abruptly divides the area into several sub-regions and prompts different living environments and movement conditions.12 Placed strategically at the crossroads of Europe and Asia (Fig. 1), the area has proven a both tempting object of conquest and a passageway. The Straits, Bosporus and Dardanelles, have routinely played a double role as both a dividing corridor between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, and a connecting link between the two continents. All this has generated a predisposition to the existence of local as well as interregional routes, being both culturally and climatically transitional between the Mediterranean and central Europe and what we now call the geographical characteristics of the south Balkans.13 Important communication crossroads have been formed since early prehistoric times.14 Natural routes link the Upper Thracian Plain and the north Aegean through the valleys of Mesta (Gr. Νέστος), Maritsa (Gr. Έβρος, Tr. Meriç) and the Black Sea littoral via the Straits.15 Traditionally assuming that ancient roads followed the most convenient routes, having favourable physical and geographical features,16 it is also rational to suspect cultural factors of the humans’ choice across the landscape.17 A maritime route between the north Aegean and the Danube Valley has been proposed to explain the distribution of oxhide ingots and stone anchors.18 The evident concentration of Late Bronze Age bronze weaponry in the western part of the Rhodope Mountains19 suggests that some goods were carried through the Rhodope passes. Further west, the Axios Valley was seen as a main route joining south with north and leaving to the Valley of Struma the role of a secondary route.20 Following the so-defined local geopolitical conditions in the recent and in the more-distant past, the Late Bronze Age research in Thrace has often taken a course pursuing direct connections with the south Aegean and western Anatolia,21 where, by the latter part of the 2nd millennium BC, a complex system of political and economic relations emerged along side the growth of major socially-stratified urban centres.22 However, large sections of the north Aegean coast and its hin-

Petrakos 1982, 1987; Skopetea1988; Kofos 1997. Besides Thrace, parts of Greek Macedonia are also included in the analysis, mainly as a reference. 12 Mainsch – Neffe 1987; Archibald 1998; Leshtakov 2006, 146. 13 Pounds 1969. 14 Leshtakov 2007. 15 Batakliev 1942; Delchev 1965, 7–12; Nikolova 1999; Leshtakov 2006, 144. 16 Theodossiev 2000, 16. 17 Maran 2007, 4. 18 Velkov 1963; Lazarov 1975, 43–57; Leshtakov 2007. Cf. also Damyanov in this volume. 19 Panayotov 1980; Panayotov 1981; Bonev 1988; Leshtakov 2011. 20 Theocharis 1971. 21 Lichardus et al. 1996. 22 Özdoğan 2007. 10 11

The Edge of an Era

293

Fig. 1   Map of the area under study; relative geographic description of Thrace (© D. Nenova)

terland show little sign of taking up the analogous organisation type and lifestyle,23 and instead were probably represented by more traditional social structures of sedentary, nomadic or seminomadic nature. In a larger chronological context, by the beginning of the Bronze Age, the eastern Balkans became peripheral to a core area of a distinctively Bronze Age cultural sphere that was developing in central Anatolia.24 Stone architecture, sophisticated defensive systems, locally-produced wheel-made pottery, prestige objects, and artefacts of intensive or regular trade were all absent in the lands of what is now Bulgaria. This pattern seems to have largely continued into the 2nd millennium BC, considering that there are substantial chronological problems associated with the beginning and the nature of the Late Bronze Age. The chronology of the Bronze Age in Thrace is plagued by some uncertainty, mainly in regards to a) the dates of the start and the end of the Late Bronze Age,25 b) synchronisation of local pottery sequences with those from Anatolia and the southern Aegean and c) insufficient number of local radiocarbon dates compensated with a subsequent reliance on Aegean imports for dating.26 Part of the chronological problem also relates to the assumption of a tripartite system dividing the Bronze Age into early, middle and late,27 following analogies from Crete, continental Greece, the Cyclades and Anatolia. Keeping in mind the reservations arising from the above, the material in the current paper can be roughly coordinated

Andreou et al. 1996; Andreou 2001. Özdoğan 2003. 25 The current research does not extend to the beginning of the Early Iron Age and does not include pottery of types traditionally associated with that period. 26 Jung – Weninger 2004, 209. 27 Katincharov 1975; Borislavov 1999; Leshtakov 2002; Leshtakov 2006. 23 24

294

Denitsa Nenova

within a wider span between the early and the late phase of the Late Bronze Age or 1700/1610– 1100/1080 BC according to a more recent chronological table designed for Macedonia.28 A further inconvenience is the major variation in the extent of archaeological investigation, which has led to serious data gaps across the landscape that hamper spatial analysis in particular. The presence of several under-investigated zones across the area has led to a patchwork of interpretations that are hard to compare. For example, the archaeological research along the lower Maritsa Valley and the southwest Black Sea coast is at an initial stage. Work in northern Greece during the 2nd half of the 20th century concentrated more on Macedonia,29 offering well-stratified sites and a variety of imported goods,30 while considerably less attention was paid to Thrace.31 Site-scale data from Turkish Thrace appears even more problematic, where the considered ‘Balkan’ Late Bronze Age pottery style of the 2nd millennium BC, analogous to north and west Thrace and Macedonia, is currently not present.32 Nevertheless, bearing in mind this research background, it is still possible to trace distribution of ceramic elements and specific site types across the study area in attempt to address questions of variability and spatial patterning. Analysis of Site Distribution and Local Ceramics The analytic element of this research constitutes spatial examination of individual archaeological sites, with particular emphasis on understanding their varying character and distribution across the Thracian region, juxtaposed with the distribution of spatially sensitive pottery elements. The existing record of Late Bronze Age sites across Thrace can be classified into two main site categories: i) settlements and ii) cemeteries. The first category can be sub-divided into i) settlement mound (tell-site or toumba) and ii) ‘open settlement’. A third unusual type is a settlement with stone architectural remains that are otherwise very rare for the Late Bronze Age in the area. As a second category, Thracian cemeteries can be classified based on burial structure – i.e. i) flat cemeteries, ii) single burial mounds, iii) a group of burial mounds. The plotted distribution of settlement types exhibits clustering of open settlements between the eastern part of the Upper Thracian Plain, the eastern Rhodope and the middle/upper Struma watercourse on one hand; the settlement mounds, on the other, cluster into two groups i) in the Upper Thracian Plain and ii) in the plain of Drama (setting aside the large concentration of settlement mounds in Macedonia), while they are totally absent from the Rhodope Mountains and the Struma Valley (Fig. 2). The number of settlements with stone architecture is not sufficient to be tested formally, but their concentration in the middle Struma and Mesta Valley is noteworthy, as is their proximity to major water sources and elevated locations. Considering such dominant location spots combined with the presence of stone walls and the lack of evidence for intensive habitation, encouraged the suggestion that these sites were primarily defensive in character.33 Slightly larger, although still insufficient, is the number of discovered cemeteries, which allows us to retrace some generic patterning: a) flat cemeteries have been discovered almost exclusively in the Upper Thracian Plain; b) single burial mounds seem to be investigated mostly in the eastern Rhodope area; and c) necropoleis consisting of grouped burial mounds are distributed

30 31

Pavúk – Horejs 2012. For the entire paper, consider the Greek provinces of Macedonia, i.e. Ανατολική and Κεντρική Μακεδονία. Hochstetter 1984; Wardle 1977; Wardle 1997, 518; Andreou 2001, 163. French 1967; Theocharis 1971; Grammenos 1979; Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1980; Andreou – Kotsakis 1992; Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1992; Elster – Renfrew 2003; Valla 2007; Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 2008. 32 The so-called ‘Knobbed Ware’ and the pottery characteristic for Troy VIIb are being considered a result of a separate phenomenon, traditionally dated in the beginning of the Iron Age, and therefore are not included in the subject of the current article. 33 Stefanovich – Bankoff 1998, 273–279. Cf. also Athanassov – Stockhammer in this volume. 28 29

The Edge of an Era

295

Fig. 2   Comparative spatial distribution of tell-sites (settlement mounds) and ‘sanctuaries’ (© D. Nenova)

across the western part of the Rhodope Mountains.34 To be considered are also some dolmens and cist graves excavated in the eastern Rhodopes and Sakar.35 A hypothesis exists that the Thracian dolmens possibly originate in the Late Bronze Age,36 although these burial structures were traditionally robbed and reused multiple times before any archaeological research could take place and therefore their chronology cannot be ascertained. There is also a potential third site category, almost exclusively associated with the eastern Rhodope Mountains (Fig. 2). These sites have traditionally been interpreted as ‘sanctuaries’ or ‘peak-sanctuaries’37 and elsewhere considered as habitations.38 A site locational model reveals a clearly expressed choice of preferred landform for this type of site, situated mostly on ridges rather than solely on peaks.39 In fact, very few such sites were actually situated on the topmost peaks, but were instead established in places overlooking the landscape and inter-visible with other prominent points and site locations, which makes them clearly identifiable features in the landscape.40 Despite the ambiguous function of this site type, the narrow clustering of such loca-

Kissyov 1990; Kissyov 1993. It needs to be clarified that the distribution of dolmens includes also areas in Strandzha Mountain and the Edirne region. Nevertheless, the registered dolmens from those areas are dated exclusively to the Early Iron Age, roughly between the 11th and 8th centuries BC (see Erdoğu 2005, 144). 36 Leshtakov 2002. 37 Fol et al. 1982, 32–170; Domaradski 1986; Kissyov 1990a; Kissyov 1998, 64–74; Raduncheva 1998; Nekhrizov 2006. 38 Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1992, 820. 39 Nenova 2008. 40 This site type has also revealed a statistically significant correlation with proximity to limestone and marble beds (Nenova 2008), despite the fact that there is no evidence of limestone or marble construction on site, suggesting specific land choices and possible land markers. 34 35

296

Denitsa Nenova

tions suggests that they have carried a value specific to the local Late Bronze Age communities in the eastern Rhodope area. Furthermore, the number of ‘settlements’ and cemeteries in the area is much lower than the number of peak sites, which is noteworthy because the zone of the eastern Rhodopes is one of the most intensively explored in the entire region of Thrace. Therefore, three basic hypotheses could be suggested: a) the majority of peak sites were acting as temporary habitations; b) peak sites played the role of both, habitation and cult site;41 and c) the spots were primarily ‘sanctuaries’, which were repeatedly visited by local communities, which were otherwise mobile. A complementary way to address the spatial character of the appearance of local communities is to evaluate the distribution of some dynamic elements in the local pottery.42 The specifications of regional ceramics have been discussed in detail, most recently by Horejs.43 Here, by adding more information from the Thracian ‘inlands’, several features bearing pronounced spatial character will be discussed.44 The analysis45 involved in the current paper addresses some spatial relationships among a) a number of morphological elements, b) external surface treatment variability in some conventional vessel types as well as c) decoration techniques. A couple of micro-regional trends can be observed in the group of fine encrusted ware,46 showing relationships between external surface colour and surface treatment. Although in the analysis the colour was considered with caution, it still seems to bear some technological characteristics. Positive correlation can be observed between the group of the brown, beige and reddish colours on one hand, and a burnished external surface on the other. The examples of pottery with a polished and sometimes light-reflective surface47 appear related to grey, dark grey and black tones. These two potential technologically distinctive groups seem to have a pronounced spatial character, although the possibility of their chronological discrepancy is also not to be ignored. Of the studied sample, the former group (brown/burnished) outnumbers significantly the latter (black/polished) across the Chalkidiki48 Peninsula and its hinterland, merely entering the Rhodopes through some settlements in the plain of Drama, in order to appear again in the Upper Thracian Plain. In contrast, the pottery with a black-greyish coloured polished surface tends to cluster in the areas of the Rhodope and Sakar mountains and it is also found as in the middle Struma region (Fig. 3). In terms of decoration, there is not enough consistent data to encourage spatial analysis of specific decorative motifs.49 Nevertheless, some differences in the decorative technique attract attention. Overall, decoration on fine handmade ware and on vessels from the group of the encrusted pottery consists of incised lines and dotted elements50 and, rarely, plastic attachments on both burnished and polished vessels. However, a fine distinction can be observed macroscopically: on Chalkidiki a technique of pure incision with a rather thin, unsharpened tool with a U-shaped cross-section51 seems to prevail (Fig. 4.8b). Often, the incisions have mainly a supporting function, in that they hold a white or pinkish paste52 within them. Numerous parallel and crossed lines

The religious character of these sites is traditionally being assumed, because of the high-ground steep and rocky locations and not because of the presence of artefacts and features of unquestionably religious character. 42 Compare different approaches in Hodder – Hutson 2003. 43 Horejs 2007. 44 A detailed spatial analysis of both settlement patterns and pottery distribution is a part of a PhD research conducted by the author. 45 The methodology employed in this research is to be published elsewhere after the full completion of the study. 46 For types of ware see Horejs 2007, 57, fig. 13. According to Horejs’ group definition, this concerns mostly groups SFGV, FGIN and FPIN. 47 See full description of the technique in Bauer et al. 1993, 78. 48 Horejs 2007, 50, 57. 49 For variety of motifs see Leshtakov 1990 and Koukouli-Chryssanthaki 1992, 481, fig. 130; 131. 50 Horejs 2007, 50. 51 Horejs 2007, 71. 52 Horejs 2007, 71. 41

The Edge of an Era

297

Fig. 3   a) Comparative distribution of incised decoration (U-shaped incisions) and furchenstich; b) correlation plot displaying positive correlation between greyish-black surface and furchenstich decoration, and c) correlation plot displaying positive correlation between brown-reddish and incised decoration (U-shaped incisions) (© D. Nenova)

Fig. 4   LBA Pottery types with observed spatial significance: 1–3 Amphora types (1. Kamenska Čuka, after Stefanovich – Bankoff 1998, 302, fig. 29 A; 2. Exohi, after Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1992, 453, fig. 127, 1); 3. Stathmos Aggista, after Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1992, 453, fig. 127, 3; 4. ‘Kylix’ bowl a) with vertical handles (Kamenska Čuka, after Stefanovich – Bankoff 1998, 301, fig. 28 A); b) with plastic attachments (Devin, western Rhodope, drawing by the author), 5. Wishbone handled bowl (Toumba Thessalonikis, after Psaraki 2004); 6. Globular kantharos (Sandanski, after Alexandrov et al. 2007, 381, fig. 3d); 7. Kantharos (Zhelezino, eastern Rhodope, drawing by the author); 8. Decoration techniques – a) furchenstich, b) incised

298

Denitsa Nenova

were almost certainly intended to sustain the filling of a wider ‘painted’ band on top.53 Incisions of this type are also present in the areas of distribution of the greyish coloured polished ware, but the vast majority were executed differently. Sharp, V-shaped incisions executed in a technique known as ‘furchenstich’54 (Fig. 4.8a) is often applied and mostly associated with the grey-black surface (Fig. 3). The paste (mostly white) is very poorly preserved, but almost always present. It is possible that the associated workshops did not master the paste preparation and developed or adopted a technique to facilitate its attachment to the incisions. Besides the variability in the decoration technique, several pottery shapes also contain spatial character. The distribution of a few amphora types (mostly overlapping with types II A and B by Horejs)55 can be retraced, prevailing in Chalkidiki (Fig. 4.3), the western Rhodopes and the plain of Drama (Fig. 4.2). There is a third type (Fig. 4.1) that can be seen in the plain of Drama, although its discrete distribution spreads along the Struma Valley. Bowls with an ‘out-swinging’ rim,56 usually attributed with a tall foot and two or four vertical or horizontal handles or plastic attachments (Fig. 4.4a, 4b), covers approximately the same spatial range. The globular jar, also known as globular kantharos (Fig. 4.6, type IV by Horejs),57 which are emblematic for the Macedonian and the Thracian Late Bronze Age pottery repertoire, both decorated and plain, appears more widely scattered across the entire area and beyond.58 However, there is a local interpretation of the kantharos form (Fig. 4.7), almost exclusively associated with the eastern part of the Rhodope Mountains. The open bowls with attached wish-bone shaped handles59 (Fig. 4.5) are typical for the handmade fine ware on Chalkidiki60 and can be seen again more widely distributed in the Upper Thracian Plain (Fig. 5). A combination of elements and their spatial domination in particular places allows the distinction of at least five micro-regions in the study area (Fig. 6): a) In the eastern Rhodopes and Sakar (Zone 1), the unclear character of the ‘peak/rock’ sites traditionally defined as sanctuaries does not allow a more comprehensive interpretation, but it seems significant that the type has been registered almost exclusively in this area. Its distribution coincides with the centre of circulation of greyish-black polished pottery, the main concentration of encrusted ware with furchenstich incisions as well a local kantharos shape (Fig. 4.7). The existing evidence of mining activities during the 14th–11th centuries BC61 supports a hypothesis referring to the specific character of the Late Bronze Age communities in the eastern Rhodope area, which has been proposed before.62 Its characteristics could be examined further if new evidence addressing settlements, burial customs as well as the origin of the dolmen structures comes to light. b) Another zone (2) embraces the western part of the Rhodope Mountains and partially the plain of Drama, comprising the nucleus of the grouped burial-mounds. An amphora shape of the type shown in Fig. 4.2 was often used as an urn, usually in combination with a two or four handled bowl on a tall foot (Fig. 4.4a, 4b). From the encrusted ware, the U-shaped incisions seem to be preferred, although furchenstich incisions are also present. It has to be noted that in the western Rhodopes the number of burial mounds is significantly higher than the one of the recorded settlements. It is possible that, because of frequent looting attacks in the area, rescue excavation strategy has biased the record, forcefully prioritising disturbed burials. Therefore, although

55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 53 54

Horejs 2007, 71. Horejs 2007, 154, Abb. 99. Horejs 2007, 340. Horejs 2007, 78. 117, Abb. 61. See also Hänsel 1976, 80; Taf. II, Karte 2; Horejs 2007, 121, Abb. 61. See Horejs 2007, 103, Abb. 47, 48. Horejs 2007, 107, Abb. 52. Popov – Jockenhövel 2011, 277. Nekhrizov 1995; Nenova 2008. Panayotov 1980.

The Edge of an Era

299

Fig. 5   Spatial analysis assessing geographical variation of pottery elements: a) geographically weighted regression defining dissimilarity observed most significantly between the area of eastern Rhodope and Sakar on one hand and the rest of the region on the other; b) principal component analysis separating two main groups of elements, including brown/reddish, burnished ware and plain incised decoration on one side and grey-black polished ware with furchenstich decoration on the other (© D. Nenova)

Fig. 6   Proposed cultural zones: Zone 1 – eastern Rhodope Mountains, Zone 2 – western Rhodope Mountains and Drama Plain, Zone 3 – middle and upper Struma Valley, Zone 4 – Upper Thracian Plain, Zone 5 – transitional zone of Chalkidiki and its hinterland (© D. Nenova)

300

Denitsa Nenova

it is logical to associate most pottery types discovered in the graves with burial rituals, they could be present also in the local, more utilitarian pottery repertoire. Future evidence from Late Bronze Age settlements in the western Rhodopes would hopefully throw some light on this issue. Furthermore, the proximity and partial overlapping of the area with the distribution of bronze weaponry63 as well as the discovery of the richest burials from the Late Bronze Age in Thrace64 suggests that the western Rhodopean communities might have played a key part in the regional economic and social dynamics. c) A third micro-region (Zone 3) could be defined along the Struma Valley. The concentrated distribution of the tall footed bowl in this area and the pottery repertoire in its entirety65 show features close to the ceramics scattered along the Axios Valley,66 which are quite distinct from the ones discovered further inside Thrace. Despite the as yet limited record from this area, there is an evident occurrence of settlements with stone architecture of the type described above. Moreover, according to the proposed fortified character of those sites as well as their possibly short lifespan during the 13th–12th centuries BC,67 it seems rational to suggest an existence of a network of defensive settlements, separating the northern periphery of the Mycenaean world from inland Thrace and the rest of the Balkans. d) In the Upper Thracian Plain (Zone 4), the settlement pattern follows the advantages of the local environment, providing large river valleys traditionally linked to better subsistence and transportation. The most characteristic settlement type was the top of already existing settlement mounds followed by open settlements. The number of discovered cemeteries68 of this period are limited in number and therefore cannot contribute to the site pattern definition. The pottery assemblages are of varying character, but mostly associated more with the group of the brown, burnished ware, often undecorated and more rarely incised and incrusted, along with the existence of open shapes and sometimes attached wish-bone handles. e) As a separate regional unit, already quite distinct from the Thracian communities is considered the area of Chalkidiki and its hinterland (Zone 5). The entire pottery repertoire is rather diverse,69 rich and openly orientated to the south Aegean through the vast presence of local Aegeanising imitations as well as imported south Aegean pottery,70 which are rather rarely discovered in Thrace. However, the area is being considered transitional in many ways and contains elements than can be linked with inner Thrace. For instance, the combination of settlement mounds, the use of wish-bone handled bowls and preference towards brown, burnished and encrusted ware with U-shaped incisions is reminiscent of the distribution of similar components in the Upper Thracian Plain. Thus, it appears possible to suspect a connection between the societies inhabiting the large toumbas in Macedonia and the ones that occupied the very top of the earlier settlement mounds in the north. Whether this was a one-time transfer of cultural record or a regularly maintained contact remains unclear due to the serious chronological gaps in the Thracian Late Bronze Age data.

65 66 67 68 69

Leshtakov 2008. Stefanovich – Bankoff 1998. Hochstetter 1984; Andreou 2001; Andreou – Psaraki 2007; Horejs 2007. Jordanova – Kovaceva 1998; Stefanovich – Bankoff 1998, 255. Cf. Athanassov – Stockhammer in this volume. See most relevant example in Leshtakov et al. 2010 and Hristova 2011. Horejs 2007. The term Aegeanising, as opposed to Mycenaean or Minoan, has been used to indicate the existence of Aegeanstyle cultural traits in regions outside the core area of the Late Bronze Age cultures of the Aegean. See Daniel – Evans 1975, 729; Nicolakaki-Kentrou 2007; Gates 2011, 395; Lehmann 2013; Steel 2013, 41. 70 Horejs 2007, 339. 63 64

The Edge of an Era

301

Conclusions The aim of this paper was to propose an alternative way to look at the Late Bronze Age societies in Thrace, exploring issues of scale and spatial patterning. As a result, on the basis of the distribution described above, five spheres of cultural encounters have been proposed. Such dynamics and diversity within Thrace might have counterbalanced the relative isolation of the area throughout the Late Bronze Age. Despite the existence of some level of exchange or trade, the current evidence comprising patchy presence of imported goods does not support a hypothesis involving regular contact with either the south Aegean or Anatolia. Instead, it is more likely that a more coherent understanding of Late Bronze Age Thrace can be achieved by looking towards east and central Macedonia. This, in turn, could theoretically fill in the blanks regarding regional communication patterns. Future evidence might also potentially help reveal the ways Macedonian and Upper Thracian societies were interacting. Aknowledgements: This paper represents part of the author’s PhD research at UCL, Institute of Archaeology under the supervision of Dr. Andrew Bevan, Prof. Cyprian Broodbank and Prof. Todd Whitelaw. The author is also indebted to Prof. C. Morgan, Prof. S. Andreou and Prof. M. Özdoğan for providing generous access to materials, insightful comments and support.

References Alexandrov 2002 S. Alexandrov, The Late Bronze Age settlement at Koprivlen, in: P. Delev – D. Vulcheva (eds.), Koprivlen 1. Rescue Archaeological Investigations along the Gotse Delchev Drama Road (Sofia 2002) 63–82. Alexandrov et al. 2007 S. Alexandrov – V. Petkov – G. Ivanov, The Late Bronze Age necropolis in the town of Sandanski, in: Stefanovich et al. 2007, 375–389. Andreou 2001 S. Andreou, Exploring the patterns of power in the Bronze Age settlements of northern Greece, in: K. Branigan (ed.), Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age, Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology (London 2001) 160–173. Andreou – Kotsakis 1992 Σ. Ανδρέου – Κ. Κωτσάκης, Επιφανειακήέρευνα Λαγκαδά 1992, Το Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη 6, 1992, 349–356. Andreou – Psaraki 2007 S. Andreou – K. Psaraki, Tradition and innovation in the Bronze Age pottery of the Thessaloniki Toumba, in: M. Stefanovich et al. 2007, 425–428. Andreou et al. 1996 S. Andreou – M. Fotiadis – K. Kotsakis, Review of Aegean Prehistory V: The Neolithic and Bronze Age of Northern Greece, American Journal of Archaeology 100, 1996, 537–597. Archibald 1998 Z. Archibald, The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace. Orpheus Unmasked (Oxford 1998). Arnold 1996 B. Arnold, The past as propaganda. Totalitarian archaeology in Nazi Germany, in: R. Preucel – I. Hodder (eds.), Contemporary Archaeology in Theory. A Reader (Oxford 1996) 549–569. Bailey 1998 D. Bailey, Bulgarian archaeology. Ideology, sociopolitics and the exotic, in: L. Meskell (ed.), Archaeology under Fire. Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East (London 1998) 87–110. Banks 1996 I. Banks, Archaeology, nationalism and ethnicity, in: J. A. Atkinson – I. Banks – J. O’Sullivan (eds.), Nationalism and Archaeology (Glasgow 1996) 1–11.

302

Denitsa Nenova

Batakliev 1942 И. Батаклиев, Географски Връзки Между Беломорието и България, Беломорски преглед 1, 1942, 20–31. Bauer et al. 1993 I. Bauer – W. Endres – B. Kerhoff-Hader – H.-G. Stephan, Leitfaden zur Keramikbestimmung (Kallmünz 1993). Bonev 1988. А. Бонев, Тракия и Егейския свят през втората половина на II хилядолетие пр. н. н., Разкопки и проучвания 20 (Sofia 1988). Borislavov 1999 Б. Бориславов, Южна Тракия в Края а Бронзовата – Началото на Ранножелязната Епоха. Проблеми на Прехода (PhD Diss., Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohrdiski”, Sofia 2006). Daniel – Evans 1975. G. Daniel – J. D. Evans, The Western Mediterranean, in: I. E. S. Edwards – C. J. Gadd – N. G. L. Hammond – E. Soll­ berger (eds.), History of the Middle East and the Aegean Region c. 1380–1000, The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. II, Part 2, 3rd Edition, (Cambridge 1975) 713–772. Delchev 1965 А. Делчев, Река Марица като Плавателна Артерия в Миналото, Вести на Народния Музей Хасково 1, 1965, 7–12. Domaradski 1986. М. Домарадски, Раннотракийска керамика от култов обект в м. Скалетопри с. Црънча, Благоевградски окръг., Археология ХХVIII, 2, 1986, 10–23. Elster – Renfrew 2003 E. Elster – C. Renfrew (eds.), Excavations at Sitagroi. A Prehistoric Village in Northeast Greece (Los Angeles 2003). Erdoğu 2005 R. Erdoğu, Megalithic Monuments of Turkish Thrace (MA thesis, Durham University 2005). Online (last accessed 23 Jan. 2015). French 1967 D. French, Index of Prehistoric Sites in Central Macedonia (Athens 1967). Fol et al. 1982 А. Фол – В. Попов – В. Тъпкова-Заимова – К. Влахов (eds.), Тракийски паметници 3. Мегалитите в Тракия 2 (Sofia 1982). Galanaki et al. 2007 I. Galanaki – H. Tomas – Y. Galanakis – R. Laffineur (eds.), Between the Aegean and Baltic Seas. Prehistory across Borders. Proceedings of the International Conference “Bronze and Early Iron Age Interconnections and Contemporary Developments between the Aegean and the Regions of the Balkan Peninsula, Central and Northern Europe”, University of Zagreb, 11–14 April 2005, Aegaeum 27 (Liège, Austin 2007). Gates 2011 M.-H. Gates, Southern and southeastern Anatolia in the Late Bronze Age, in: S. R. Steadman – G. McMahon (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia (10,000–323 B.C.E.) (Oxford 2011) 393–712. Grammenos 1979 Δ. Γραμμένος, Τύμβοι της ΥΕΧ και άλλες αρχαιότητεςστην περιοχή Νευροκοπίου Δράμας, Αρχαιολογική Εφημερίς, Χρονικά, 1979, 26–71. Hänsel 1976 B. Hänsel, Beiträge zur regionalen und chronologischen Gliederung der älteren Hallstattzeit an der unteren Donau. Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes (Bonn 1976). Harris 2006 T. M. Harris, Scale as artifact. GIS, ecological fallacy, and archaeological analysis, in: G. Lock – B. Molyneaux (eds.), Confronting Scale in Archaeology (New York 2006).

The Edge of an Era

303

Hochstetter 1984 A. Hochstetter, Kastanas. Die handgemachte Keramik, Schichten 19 bis 1, Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 3 (Berlin 1984). Hodder – Hutson 2003 I. Hodder – S. Hutson, Reading the Past. Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology (Cambridge 2003). Horejs 2007 B. Horejs, Das Prähistorische Olynth. Ausgrabungen in der Toumba Agios Mamas 1994–1996. Die spätbronzezeitliche handgemachte Keramik der Schichten 13 bis 1, Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 21 (Rahden/Westf. 2007). Hristova 2011 R. Hristova, Late Bronze Age pottery from the site of Vratitsa, eastern Bulgaria. Definition, chronology and its Aegean affinities, 9 Mar. 2011, in: B. Horejs – P. Pavúk (eds.), Aegean and Balkan Prehistory. Online (last accessed 21 Jan. 2015). Jordanova – Kovacheva 1998 N. Jordanova – M. Kovacheva, Dating the fire in Kajmenska Chuka by the archaeomagnetic method, in: Stefanovich et al. 2007, 339–347. Jung – Weninger 2004 R. Jung – B. Weninger, Kastanas and the chronology of the Aegean Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age, in: T. Higham – C. Bronk Ramsey – C. Owen (eds.), Radiocarbon and Archaeology (Oxford 2004) 209–28. Katincharov 1975 Р. Катинчаров, Проучвания на бронзовата епоха в България (1944–1974), Археология ХVII, 2, 1975, 1–17. Kisyov 1990 К. Кисьов, Нови данни относно погребалния обичай през КБЕ в Средните Родопи, Известия на музеите от Южна България ХVI, 1990, 41–53. Kisyov 1990a К. Кисьов, Скални светилища в Родопите и Горнотракийската низина, представени с археологически материали и обекти от Смолянско и Пловдивско, in: Тракийскатакултура в Родопите и горните поречия наМарица, Места и Струма (Smolyan 1990) 67–74. Kisyov 1993 К. Кисьов, Погребални практики в Родопите (края на II–I хил. пр.н.е.) (PhD Diss., Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohrdiski”, Sofia 1993). Kisyov 1998 К. Кисьов, Археологически свидетелства, свързани с тракийските култови места и практики в Средните и ЗападнитеРодопи в периода края на II–I хил. пр. Хр, Rhodopica 1, 1998, 31–38. Kofos 1997 E. Kofos, Εθνική κληρονομιά και εθνική ταυτότητα, Θεσσαλονίκη, in: T. Veremis, Εθνική Ταυτότητα και Εθνικισμόςστη Νεότερη Ελλάδα (Athens 1997) 199–269. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1980 Χ. Κουκούλη-Χρυσανθάκη, Οικισμός τής Ύστερης Εποχής Χαλκού στον Σταθμό „Άγγίστας Σερρών“, Anthropologika 1, 1980, 54–85. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1992 Χ. Κουκούλη-Χρυσανθάκη, Πρωτοϊστορική Θάσος. Τα νεκροταφεία του οικισμού Καστρί, Δημοσιεύματα του Αρχαιολογικού Δελτίου 45 (Athens 1992) Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 2008 Ch. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Dikili Tash, village préhistorique de Macédoine oriental. Recherches franco-helléniques dirigées par la société archéologique d’Athènes et l’école française d’Athène (1986–2001) (Athens 2008). Lazarov 1975 М. Лазаров, Потъналата Флотилия (Varna 1975).

304

Denitsa Nenova

Lehmann 2013 G. Lehmann, Aegean-style pottery in Syria and Lebanon during Iron Age I, in: A. E. Killebrew – G. Lehmann (eds.), The Philistines and Other “Sea Peoples” in Text and Archaeology (Atlanta 2013) 265–328. Leshtakov 1990 К. Лещаков, Украса на къснобронзовата керамика от връх Алада в Източните Родопи, Археология 1, 1990, 1–17. Leshtakov 2002 K. Leshtakov, Some suggestions regarding the formation of the „Thracian Religion“ (In the light of new archaeological data from South Bulgaria), Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects 5, 2002, 19–51. Leshtakov 2006 К. Лещаков, Бронзовата епоха в Горнотракийската низина, Годишник на Софийския университет „Св. Климент Охридски“. Исторически фаакултет – специалност Археология 3 (Sofia 2006) 141–216. Leshtakov 2007 K. Leshtakov, The eastern Balkans in the Aegean economic system during the LBA. Ox-hide and bun ingots in Bulgarian Lands, in: Galanaki et al. 2007, 447–458. Leshtakov 2008 K. Leshtakov, New evidence on the LBA mortuary practices in South Bulgaria, in: O. Özbek (ed.), Funeral Rites, Rituals and Ceremonies from Prehistory to Antiquity. Proceedings of the International Workshop “Troas and its Neighbours” (Istanbul 2008) 69–82. Leshtakov 2011 L. Leshtakov, Late Bronze and Early Iron Age bronze spear- and javelinheads in Bulgaria in the context of southeastern Europe, Archaeologia Bulgarica XV, 2, 2011, 25–52. Leshtakov et al. 2010 К. Лешаков – Р. Христова – Й. Михайлов, Некропол от късната бронзова епоха при с. Вратица, община Камено, in: Р. Георгиева – Т. Стоянов – Д. Момчилов (eds.), Югоизточна България през II–I хилядолетие пр. Хр. (Varna 2010) 22–37. Lichardus et al. 1996 J. Lichardus – A. Fol – L. Getov – F. Bertemes – R. Echt – R. Katinčarov – I. K. Iliev, Bericht über die bulgarisch-deutschen Ausgrabungen in Drama (1989–1995), Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Komission 77, 1996, 5–106. Mainsch – Neffe 1987 I. Mainsch – I. Neffe, Botschaften aus der Eisenzeit, Geo 11, 2, 1987, 63–74. Maran 2007 J. Maran, Seaborne contacts between the Aegean, the Balkans and the Central Mediterranean in the 3rd millennium B.C. The unfolding of the Mediterranean world, in: Galanaki et al. 2007, 3–21. Nekhrizov 1995 G. Nekhrizov, Late Bronze Age Pottery in the eastern Rhodopes, in: D. Baily – I. Panayotov (eds.), Prehistoric Bulgaria, Monographs in World Archaeology 22 (Wisconsin 1995) 309–325. Nekhrizov 2006 Г. Нехризов, Керамичният Комплекс от Ранната Желязна Епоха в Източните Родопи (PhD Diss., NAIM-BAS, Sofia 2006). Nenova 2008 D. Nenova, Spatial patterns and interactions in the Rhodope Mountains at the end of the Bronze Age (MSc thesis, University College London, Institute of Archaeology, London 2008). Nicolakaki-Kentrou 2007. M. Nicolakaki-Kentrou, Affinities between the Aegeanizing mural motifs from Malkata’s Site K and contemporary textile iconography, in: J.-C. Goyon – C. Cardin (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Egyptologists, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 150 (Leuven 2007) 1381–1390. Nikolova 1999 L. Nikolova, The Balkans in Later Prehistory, British Archaeological Reports, International Series 791 (Oxford 1999).

The Edge of an Era

305

Özdoğan 2003 M. Özdoğan, The prehistory of northwestern Turkey, in: D. V. Grammenos (ed.), Recent Research in the Prehistory of the Balkans, Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece and the Archaeological Receipts Fund (Thessaloniki 2003) 329–368. Özdoğan 2007 M. Özdoğan, The Black Sea, the Sea of Marmara and Bronze Age archaeology. An archaeological predicament, in: M. Stefanocivh – Ch. Angelova (eds.), PRAE. In Honorem Henrieta Todorova (Sofia 2007) 203–214. Pamuk 1987 S. Pamuk, The Ottoman Empire and European Capitalism, 1820–1913. Trade, Investment, and Production (Cambridge 1987). Panayotov 1980 I. Panayotov, Bronze rapiers, swords and double axes from Bulgaria, Thracia 5, 1980, 173–198. Panayotov 1981 I. Panayotov, Problems of dating the Bronze Age in Bulgaria, Bulletin of the Ancient Orient Museum 3, 1981, 17–35. Pavúk – Horejs 2012 P. Pavúk – B. Horejs, Mittel-und Spätbronzezeitliche Keramik Griechenlands, Veröffentlichungen der Mykenischen Kommission 31 (Vienna 2012). Petrakos 1982 Β. Πετράκος, Δοκίμιογια την αρχαιολογική νομοθεσία (Athens 1982). Petrakos 1987 Β. Πετράκος, Iδεογραφία της εν Aθήναις Aρχαιολογικής Eταιρείας, Aρχαιολογική Eφημερίς 1987, 25–197. Popov – Jockenhövel 2011 H. Popov – A. Jockenhövel, At the northern borders of the Mycenaean world. Thracian gold mining from the Late Bronze and the Early Iron Age at Ada Tepe in the eastern Rhodopes, Anodos. Studies of the Ancient World 10/2010, 2011, 265–281. Pounds 1969 N. J. G. Pounds, Eastern Europe (Harlow 1969). Psaraki 2004 Κ Ψαράκη, Υλική και κοινωνική διάσταση του στιλ της κεραμικής: η χειροποίητη κεραμική της εποχής χαλκού από την Τούμπα Θεσσαλονίκης (PhD Diss., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki 2004). Raduncheva 1998 А. Радунчева, Скалното светилище до с. Давидково, Смолянско, Rhodopica 1, 1998, 9–19. Skopetea 1988 Έ. Σκοπετέα, Το Πρότυπο Βασίλειο και η Μεγάλη Ιδέα, όψεις του εθνικού προβλήµατος στην Ελλάδα (1830–1880) (Athens 1988). Steel 2013. L. Steel, Materiality and Consumption in the Bronze Age Mediterranean (New York 2013). Stefanovich – Bankoff 1998 M. Stefanovich – H. Bankoff, Kamenska Čuka 1993–1995, in: M. Stefanovich – H. Todorova – H. Hauptmann (eds.), In the steps of James Harvey Gaul 1. James Harvey Gaul in Memoriam (Sofia 1998) 353–360. Stefanovich et al. 2007 M. Stefanovich – H. Todorova – G. Ivanov (eds.), The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory. In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul 2 (Sofia 2007). Theodossiev 2000 N. Theodossiev, North-Western Thrace from the Fifth to First Centuries BC, British Archaeological Reports International Series 859 (Oxford 2000).

306

Denitsa Nenova

Theocharis 1971 D. Theocharis, Prehistory of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace, Ancient Greek Cities 9 (Athens 1971). Todorova 1992 M. Todorova, Historiography of the countries of Eastern Europe. Bulgaria, American Historical Review 97, 4, 1992, 1105–1117. Todorova 1994 M. Todorova, The Balkans. From discovery to invention, Slavic Review 53, 2, 1994, 453–482. Valla 2002 Μ. Βάλλα, Σωστική ανασκαφή σε νεκροταφείο ΥΕΧ στη Φαιά Πέτρα Σιδηροκάστρου, Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη 14, 2000, 99–108. Valla 2007 M. Valla, A Late Bronze Age cemetery in Faia Petra, east of the middle Strymon valley, in: Stefanovich et al. 2007, 359–372. Velkov 1963 В. Велков, Пътища в Западното Черноморие в доримската епоха, Известия на Варненското археологическо дружество 14 (Varna 1963). Wardle 1977 K. A. Wardle, Cultural Groups of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age in NW Greece, Godisnjak 15, 1977, 153–199. Wardle 1997 K. A. Wardle, The prehistory of northern Greece. A geographical perspective from the Ionian Sea to the Drama Plain, in: Αφιερωμα στον N. G. L. Hammond, Παραρτημα Μακεδονικων, αρ.7 (Thessaloniki 1997) 509–540.

The Making of Late Bronze Age Archaeological Cultures in Bulgaria Tanya Dzhanfezova1 Abstract: In certain regions, the study of a time period in terms of pre-defined ‘archaeological cultures’ is a traditional approach; this, in turn, is subject to a number of conventions. This paper takes as its subject such an example – the Late Bronze Age archaeological cultures in present-day Bulgaria. The analysis elaborates on the diversity of viewpoints, the application of variable notions and the reasons for the delineation of different variants. Since the primary data underlying the various conceptions of the age is of major importance, attention is focused not only on the individual approaches for definition of the cultures, but also on information which is considered as more neutral. Thus, issues regarding the chronology and the periodisation of the age are discussed as well, including the absolute, radiocarbon and archaeomagnetic dates known to present. The views on the Late Bronze Age archaeological cultures in the specified region are considered along with key factors that determine the characteristics of the local research. Their influence, as well as the specific tendencies noted in the review of opinions, is discussed in detail. Keywords: Late Bronze Age, archaeological cultures, Bulgaria, chronology

Introduction A study of the past that expands beyond the mere association between material culture, time and space would be expected to spread outside the culture-historical approach. The latter, never­ theless, dominates the archaeology of the study-region and has actually resulted in a number of views on Late Bronze Age in the specified area. These have been established as fundamental for any further research – the Late Bronze Age being examined mostly by attempts at characterisation of archaeological cultures. However, certain specifics that underlie these approaches and the objectivity of the available data are to be considered prior to any further attempt for trans-regional or interpretational studies. And since the major questions here are: what is the actual basis of our knowledge, and do we rely on firm data, the paper will elaborate on variable concepts of the Late Bronze Age cultures and their justification.2 The analysis of the background of the current views, the correspondence (if any) between postulated models and the nature of the available data results in questions, among which: What do we actually know about the study area? What do these ‘cultures’ mean and is the observed variability based on individual preference for specific theoretical approaches? Do the assumptions imply conceptual disparity or do the differences lie simply at the level of denomination? What are the main reasons for the wide diversity of the opinions and has their argumentation been critically analysed? Furthermore, can the available evidence be considered substantial or does it actually appear to be quite sparse or contradictory? Are the present chronological and cultural descriptions based on solid archaeological data? And could an analysis of the Late Bronze Age archaeology across past and present borders soften certain discrepancies or, due to the present state of the research, would these possibly be intensified, thus hampering more objective examinations? In or-



1 2

St. Cyril and St. Methodius University of Veliko Tarnovo, Bulgaria; [email protected]. This contribution discusses papers where more exact views on the archaeological cultures are offered. The comments are based on published data only (the text was submitted in 2015).

308

Tanya Dzhanfezova

der to answer these questions, comments on some of the chronological and periodisation schemes for the period (that are closely related to the suggested cultural areas) are necessary. The study region is considered as a major thoroughfare, despite comprising of geographic areas that are quite distinguishable from each other.3 It is seen as widely open towards adjacent regions, having no impassable barriers which would obstruct movements or the exchange of information: the Danube River Plain is connected with the Middle Danubian areas and is widely open towards the north-eastern steppes, whereas the southern territories are open towards the south along the river valleys and the mountain passes.4 This, together with the more intense study of the neighbouring areas in terms of archaeology, results most often in: a) consideration of the territory as a buffer zone, a contact area, a mediator (in various directions), or a periphery of the better-known regions established as cultural centres; and b) subordination of the suggested cultural schemes to the chronological and cultural patterns already established for adjacent territories5 – an association which cannot be always straightforward. The regional Late Bronze Age cultures and cultural groups have usually been placed in pre-defined chronological frameworks. This traditional approach is based on the beginning and the end of the period, which relies mainly on historical events known from other territories and observations valid for neighbouring regions. Regarding the chronology, there are very few absolute dates. Since these have not been previously critically assessed and, moreover, they are gained from sites considered as representing particular Late Bronze Age cultures, they will be reviewed in greater detail in Section 1. Furthermore, since the archaeological cultures in the focal region are usually seen as bearing specific chronological significance, it is essential to discuss the basis for their position in time, as well as the reliability of the information related to the periodisation of the Late Bronze Age in Bulgaria (Section 2). As the periodisations offered so far were also closely related to specific archaeological cultures, the views on these ‘cultural groups’ will be discussed in Section 3. Thus organised, the information allows for an evaluation of the grounds for further interpretations. Chronology and Dating: Temporal Endpoints Despite the fact that the Late Bronze Age chronological framework is broadly accepted, the beginning, the characterisation of distinct phases and the end of this period in the specified region are still to be considered uncertain. The published Late Bronze Age finds and contexts are mostly dated to the second half or the later phase of the period. From among the published Middle Bronze Age sites, very few are reliable; the latter are unequally distributed in space, being located mostly in south Bulgaria.6 However, no upper Middle Bronze Age horizons were preserved there and the definition of the Middle Bronze Age elsewhere may indeed be considered ambiguous. The study of this period in north Bulgaria is even more problematic – the presumption being that the Middle Bronze Age cultural development was similar to that of the territories located to the north of the Danube River.7 The scarce data available at the present stage cannot confirm the assumptions made in the specialist literature: while some authors underline the absence of finds corresponding to the Verbicioara type in north Bulgaria,8 others consider that at least the third Verbicioara phase can be defined.9

5 3 4

8 9 6 7

The approaches towards geographical regionalisation are quite variable. Dinev – Mishev 1980, 71, 104; Archibald 1998, 14; Leshtakov 2006, 144–146. Similarly, in terms of chronology, the Central European chronology is applied to the region of northwest Bulgaria (Fig. 2.15), the Lower Danube chronology – to the northeast Bulgarian region, the Troy sequence – for Thrace, and the stratigraphy of northern Greek sites – to the southwest Bulgarian areas (Leshtakov 2006, 152). Leshtakov 2006, 152. See Krauß 2006a, 8, 10–26. The Devetashka cave materials are referred to the Govora group by Krauß 2006a, 10. Alexandrov – Daskalov 2005.

The Making of Late Bronze Age Archaeological Cultures in Bulgaria

309

Apart from very few specific single sites with pottery shapes dated to the beginning of the Late Bronze Age,10 the time between the 18th and mid-16th centuries BC (which also includes the first phase of the Late Bronze Age) is archaeologically almost unknown.11 In addition, according to the radiocarbon dating results, it is marked by a “chronological hiatus”12 between the Middle and the Late Bronze Age; the latter, in turn, because of the state of the research, is difficult to substantiate. Similarly, the final Late Bronze Age stages, the very end of the period, the eventual transition and the very early phases of the Early Iron Age are not always clearly definable in terms of chronology or cultural content, especially across broader territories.13 The data published about a so-called Perperikon C layer represent a stylistically peculiar ceramic group, which combines elements characteristic of the two periods. Defined as material belonging to a transitional period, it is placed probably between 1100–1050 BC, or slightly earlier.14 This pottery, however, is indicated as specific on stylistic grounds alone, and its use as the one and only marker for the cultural dynamics during the suggested transitional period is yet to be thoroughly examined. Actually, the question about single elements that signal the new chronological period should be considered with caution. For example, the fluted decoration – usually seen as a definite indicator of the beginning of the Early Iron Age – may have appeared earlier, at least in some regions.15 Another major issue refers to the traditional expectation that the change of the age (or the transition between the ages) should be universal, i.e. it is uniformly manifested in time and space by the same element of pottery decoration and is systematically spread within distinct regions. The Absolute Dating: Convincing or Vague Radiocarbon Results? After all these problems in the definition of the relative Late Bronze Age chronology, the question is if the absolute dating results can be a more reliable tool. The very few published and currently accessible absolute dates from Late Bronze Age sites16 led to a conclusion that relative and absolute dating coincide, with a slight modification of the end of the Late Bronze Age for the region of northeast Bulgaria.17 The information, however, needs further examination. The published dates result from a conventional, beta counting dating technique applied to charcoal samples, i.e. most probably perennial material (the specific type of which had not been identified by a botanist). Missing information about the sampled type of wood also hinders the evaluation of a possible old wood effect. Furthermore, it is usually difficult to consider the results in relation to certain contexts or specific accompanying material. Reliable samples were not collected from consecutive layers, we lack consistent series of dates and Bayesian statistics have not been implemented. Factors that may affect the dating results (as well as a late protostoric/Hallstatt plateau) have not been thoroughly commented on, not to mention further verification of the dating by possible application of wiggle matching. An additional problem is the fact that single samples came from a few distant, not interrelated sites.

12 13 14

Leshtakov 2009, 62–63. Leshtakov 2006, 152. Görsdorf – Bojadžiev 1996, 121; Leshtakov 2006, 152. The work of B. Borislavov (Borislavov 1999) is focused on some of these aspects. The Late Bronze Age layer is dated to the end of the period (13th–12th century BC), and the beginning of the Early Iron Age is placed around 1050 BC (Leshtakov 2007, 92; Leshtakov 2009, 63). The dates are not a result of absolute dating techniques. 15 Similar suggestion with a reference to the Bulgarian finds is made in Alexandrov 2002, 77. Comparisons are usually based on the stratigraphy of Kastanas. 16 New AMS series of dates from consecutive layers and reliable contexts identified in professionally excavated sites (Ada tepe for example, see Popov – Nikov 2012) are yet to be published. 17 The common term ‘historical dating’ (Boyadzhiev 1995, 178, Tab. 4) probably refers to the Aegean system that was correlated with the Egyptian ‘historical’ chronology. 10 11

310

Tanya Dzhanfezova

In northwest Bulgaria, the site of Baley is considered as representative for the beginning of the Late Bronze Age.18 The earliest dated horizon of the settlement, however, yielded a result which has actually been placed in a number of calibration intervals between 1620 and 1400/1390 BC19 (Fig. 1.1). Some other dates are obtained for Durankulak-Golemiya ostrov – a settlement located in northeast Bulgaria that is seen as representative of the Coslogeni Culture. Those of them that are considered reliable (Bln 2569, 2570, 2571)20 are gathered from contexts belonging to the final stage of habitation on the site. They, however, are either placed in a calibration interval between 1130–1030 BC, thus setting the end of the Late Bronze Age Coslogeni Culture around 1100–1000 BC,21 or are estimated in wider ranges – suggesting possible variations within a span of 200 years22 (Fig. 1.2). These dates have often been uncritically referred to as a confirmation of the relative dating ranges suggested for the Late Bronze Age – the beginning of the period is set around 1600/1500 years BC and its end is slightly shifted to 1100/1000 BC.23 However, at this stage the application of single dates from two separate sites cannot actually serve as an adequate basis for reliable chronologies. Given the variability of the possible calibration ranges, other factors should also be taken into account, among which: the scanty information on the characteristics of the dated material, its provenance from isolated contexts and the lack of a set of dates from consecutive strata or single layer reliable contexts. The missing consistent series of dates, especially related to material culture features, and the impossibility for a statistical verification can also be regarded as limitation factors, making the correlation between these two outermost north Bulgarian zones difficult. A logical question emerges: How can we study cultural dynamics within chronologies estimated in such a way, or examine processes that may have variable pace and rhythm, or particularities of material culture in disparate (or even closely located) zones, if only such scanty evidence is available? Could we possibly apply the presently known ‘absolute’ results as a basis for a consistent chronology, a systematic correlation between various dates, sites and finds, or as a keystone of the tendencies in the development of material culture on regional and interregional scales? The answers are clear, especially if sites from south Bulgarian regions are also considered. Thus, attempts for correlation between distinct major Bulgarian areas from the north and the south are yet to be made. The presently available data for the southern sites (with one exception from the southwest Bulgarian area) is quite ambiguous. The dates that coincide with the estimated Late Bronze Age ranges are actually not related to evident Late Bronze Age contexts or to layers studied and published in detail. At this stage, the few results that concur with the traditional Late Bronze Age chronological framework are obtained from sites with uncertain stratigraphy, imprecise relative dating and ambivalent characteristics of the material. Due to the scarcity of the published data, these cannot be related to actual reliable Late Bronze Age contexts. One such example is known from Karasura24 – a charcoal sample, which is not associated with specific published finds characteristic of the analysed context. Given that its calibration falls between 1430 and 1130 BC (Fig. 1.4), it cannot be applied for further clarification or corrections. Similarly, two charcoal samples from Plovdiv-Evmolpia (Nebettepe)25 are also placed in the Late Bronze Age

Görsdorf – Bojadžiev 1996, 165. This settlement belongs to the Encrusted Pottery Culture (also known as Baley-Orsoya Culture). Although the ‘historical dating’ of the beginning of the Late Bronze Age is seen by the authors as confirmed by the single absolute date from Baley, it should be reminded that only the later stages of the Encrusted Pottery Culture development are presently known in the country. 19 Boyаdzhiev 1995, 177; Görsdorf – Bojadžiev 1996, 165; Şandor – Chicideanu 2003, 158. 20 This group is different from the ‘questionable’ set of dates from House 15. The latter context is evaluated as compromised in terms of absolute dating, since it is located close to the water and was periodically swept (Boyadzhiev 1995, 177); the results for it fall in the range of 1890–1320 calBC (Görsdorf – Bojadžiev 1996, 151). 21 Boyаdzhiev 1995, 177. 22 Görsdorf – Bojadžiev 1996, 151. 23 Boyаdzhiev 1995, 178, Tab. 4; see also note 17 here. 24 Görsdorf – Bojadžiev 1996, 168. 25 Görsdorf – Bojadžiev 1996, 161–163. 18

The Making of Late Bronze Age Archaeological Cultures in Bulgaria

1. Baley, NW Bulgaria

Earliest horizon, 14C date calibration ranges (one sample, charcoal, Bln 1577)

1620–1400 calBC

Boyadziev 1995, 177

1510–1475 calBC

Görsdorf – Bojadžiev 1996, 165

1460–1420 calBC

Görsdorf – Bojadžiev 1996, 165

±1σ 1515–1505 calBC

(OxCal v3.4)

Şandor-Chicideanu 2003, 158

±1σ 1500–1425 calBC

(OxCal v3.4)

Şandor-Chicideanu 2003, 158

±2σ 1530–1390 calBC

(OxCal v3.4)

Şandor-Chicideanu 2003, 158 C dates calibration: charcoal, seven samples (Görsdorf – Bojadžiev 1996, 150–151) and archaeomagnetic dating 14

2. Durankulak, NE Bulgaria 1510–1380 or 1340–1320 calBC

Bln 3530, House 15

1750–1600 or 1560–1530 calBC

Bln 3528, House 15

1890–1740 or 1710–1700 calBC

Bln 3529, House 15

2480–2280 or 2220–2210 calBC

Bln 3532, House 15

1110–1100 or 1060–910 calBC

Bln 2569, House 5b

1260–1050 calBC

Bln 2570, House 4a

1210–1020 calBC

Bln 2571, House 1

1302–986 BC AchMagnetic (midpoint 1144 calBC)

Kovacheva et al. 2014, 84

3. Kaymenska chuka, SW Bulgaria

14

C dates calibration, ca. 1σ 1400–1100 calBC (Stefanovich – Bankoff 1998, 268, 280–282, note 16) and archaeomagnetic dating

2960±50 BP

Stefanovich – Bankoff 1998

3140±90 BP

Stefanovich – Bankoff 1998

3040±60 BP

Stefanovich – Bankoff 1998

1230–1160 BC AchMagnetic

Jordanova – Kovačeva 1998, 341

1391–1130 BC AchMagnetic (midpoint – 1261 BC)

Kovacheva et al 2014, 84

4. Karasura, South Bulgaria 1430–1130 calBC

Charcoal sample, no LBA data Görsdorf – Bojadžiev 1996, 168

5. Plovdiv, South Bulgaria 1500–1480 calBC/1450–1310 calBC 1130–990/960–940 calBC

6. Evmolpia-Nebet tepe, Plovdiv, South Bulgaria 1100–1000 BC AchMagnetic (midpoint – 1050) 1500–1300 BC AchMagnetic (midpoint – 1400)

7. Vishegrad, South Bulgaria 1600–1400 BC AchMagnetic (midpoint – 1500)

8. Koprivlen, SW Bulgaria 1340/1330–1185/1180 BC / later horizon 1600–1510/1500 BC / earlier horizon

Charcoal sample, no LBA data Görsdorf – Bojadžiev 1996, 161–163 Görsdorf – Bojadžiev 1996, 161–163 Archaeomagnetic dating, no indicative LBA data Kovacheva et al. 2014, 84 Kovacheva et al. 2014, 84 Kiln, no indicative LBA data Kovacheva et al. 2014, 84 Mycenean pottery (Alexandrov 2005) Koprivlen I (≈ Late Helladic III B) Koprivlen II (≈ Late Helladic I–II)

Fig. 1   Published absolute dates about Bulgarian sites

311

312

Tanya Dzhanfezova

chronological framework (Fig. 1.5). These are single earlier dates from the samples collection and, besides this, are gathered from a horizon considered as belonging to the Early Iron Age. Again, there is no unequivocal characterisation of the finds and the ‘Late Bronze Age fit-dates’ alone cannot be considered relevant. Oddly enough, among the published dating results there are no Late Bronze Age range dates known from other sites established as cultural eponyms (Razkopanitsa, as one example).26 The construction of a chronological framework based on single dates from distant sites, the problematic descriptions of strata and archaeological materials and the lack of detailed information speak for an actual highly problematic dating strategy in Late Bronze Age Bulgaria. The Archaeomagnetic Dating. Cross-Check Verification or a Rough Estimation? The combination between various methods would, ideally, be expected to contribute to more accurate conclusions. But can the available archaeomagnetic results verify the radiocarbon dates? A site in southwest Bulgaria, Kaymenska chuka near Blagoevgrad, has yielded both 14C and archaeomagnetic dating results presented in detail. The comparative analysis on pottery has placed the site between the 14th–12th centuries BC and the dating material from a reliable context (a sealed level floor) allows for more precise dating of a stone wall ruin.27 The remains of the Late Bronze Age construction are placed between c. 1σ 1400–1100 calBC on the basis of three radiocarbon dates,28 whereas the archaeomagnetic dating results of burnt soil samples encompass the period between 1230–1160 BC (Fig. 1.3).29 With regard to the latter, however, some limitation factors are mentioned (among them only paleointensity being definitely used for the dating).30 In recent studies, the range for the same archaeomagnetic dates (analysed burnt soil) is defined between 1391 and 1130 BC, the midpoint being 1261 BC31 (14C dating was also applied as a reference for the archaeomagnetic results). It is also worth mentioning that this particular site has obviously specific cultural affiliation and its characteristics are not directly comparable to most of the presently known Bulgarian settlements. Thus, the reliability of the dates, corresponding to a wider Late Bronze Age framework, should also be considered according to the more specific dynamics in this area.32 A recent publication places another archaeomagnetic date from a sampled kiln in Durankulak between 1302 and 986 BC, with a midpoint at 1144 BC.33 It is referred to a 14C date from the same site (Bln 2571). The latter, however, actually falls between 1210–1020 BC,34 which also suggests ambiguity regarding the precise chronology (Fig. 1.2). Two other archaeomagnetic dates resulting from baked clay sampling from Evmolpia-Nebettepe are placed between 1100 and 1000 BC (with a midpoint at 1050 BC), and between 1500–1300 BC (with a midpoint at 1400 BC, see Fig. 1.6). Yet another one, from Vishegrad (sampled kiln dated to 1600–1400 BC with a midpoint at 1500 BC) is indicated as belonging to the Late Bronze Age (Fig. 1.7). The majority of dates actually refer to sites without established chronology and stratigraphy that need to be published in more detail. Furthermore, in this case, the cross-check with other dating sources implies that the

About the dates from Razkopanitsa, for example, see Görsdorf – Bojadžiev 1996, 163. Stefanovich – Bankoff 1998, 279, n. 16. Regarding specific ceramic features, however, some authors consider that certain typological elements from this site are chronologically earlier, extending back to the Middle Bronze Age (Krauß 2006а). 28 Stefanovich – Bankoff 1998, 268, 280–282, n. 16. 29 Jordanova – Kovačeva 1998, 341; Stefanovich – Bankoff 1998, 279. 30 Jordanova – Kovačeva 1998, 341. 31 Kovacheva et al. 2014, 84. 32 The reference to the site as related to monitoring or control of the traffic, trade, distribution, etc., perhaps showing Mycenaean interests as well (Stefanovich – Bankoff 1998, 279), would also imply the presence of some items and materials that are more peculiar, compared to the cultural characteristics known from other Bulgarian sites. 33 Kovacheva et al. 2014, 84. 34 Görsdorf – Bojadžiev 1996, 151. 26 27

The Making of Late Bronze Age Archaeological Cultures in Bulgaria

313

absolute dates rely on the available ‘archaeological data’,35 which is quite problematic for some of the sites. According to the presently available information, these absolute dating results cannot be considered as a practical tool for clarification of the Late Bronze Age chronology in the region.36 The published archaeomagnetic results cannot serve as a basis for definite conclusions regarding the Late Bronze Age, especially if the entire territory or country is considered. The same refers to the radiocarbon dates, which would otherwise be expected to result in more precise chronologies. Certain issues related to the general dating (and the sampling) strategies, the application of precise, up-to-date calibrations (including calibration curves) and specific software, and not least, the variability of the applicable ‘higher’ or ‘lower’ chronologies, have yet to be given careful consideration. Ceramic ‘Imports’ as Chronological Markers37 Imported fragments found in very few sites have also been used as a dating reference of individual stratigraphic layers. Thus, the dates suggested for Koprivlen are based on Mycenaean imports (and analogous Kastanas ceramic shapes) found in the later Koprivlen I layer. The early Late Helladic III B period is seen as a terminus post quem, thus synchronising Koprivlen I with the Late Helladic III B and Koprivlen II with the Late Helladic I–II period (Fig. 1.8).38 There are no absolute dating results from this site, and, despite the awareness of a possible chronological delay of the imports,39 the significance of these Aegean sherds for local chronology is difficult to estimate. Since a more precise date cannot be offered, the suggested chronological frameworks may still be considered broad. Apart from being very few, most of the ‘imported’ pottery fragments in Bulgaria are usually not precisely documented and evaluated.40 In southwest Bulgaria, there are three matt-painted sherds published from Kaymenska chuka, but no details were added.41 Other fragments identified as belonging to the Late Mycenaean or Protogeometric pottery have been reported for Levunovo,42 but we miss further data about these as well. A single fragment found near Kochan (Zaimova chuka) is defined as part of an amphora-like vessel, resembling imitations of Mycenaean pottery. Since the indicated outset of their production is seen in the Late Helladic III A–B period, this fragment – considered as evidence of contacts – is assigned to the Late Helladic III C period.43 On the other hand, the materials yielded by another site located in southern Bulgaria, Dragoyna, are defined as genuine imports of the Mycenaean LH IIIA1 style, but these finds come from re-deposited contexts.44 Imports characteristic of other neighbouring areas are mentioned for the region of southeast Bulgaria. These are fragments of Anatolian Grey Ware and Mycenaean pottery reported from Drama. Whereas the first group of sherds is considered as belonging to vases similar to specific ceramic types in Troy VІІа and VІІb, several fragments with painted decoration from the same

Kovacheva et al. 2014, 84. The general end-date proposed for the period, 1100/1000 calBC, appears also in recent studies (see Kostadinova-Avramova et al. 2014) despite the lack of new supporting data. 37 Here, only the imports of southern origin that have also been mentioned as dating reference will be considered. The numerous other aspects to be analysed with regard to the ‘imported’ pottery cannot be included in the present work. 38 Alexandrov 2002, 79; Alexandrov 2005. 39 Alexandrov 2005, 49. 40 See comments in Georgieva 2003. 41 Stefanovich – Bankoff 1998, 274, 278, fig. 15 A, b, p. 42 Domaradzki 1986, 100; Georgieva 2003, 166; Alexandrov 2005, 47. 43 Georgieva 2003, 166–167. 44 Bozhinova 2008, 50. Other fragments from southwest Bulgaria (Sandanski) that can be dated to the LH III C 1 period (1150–1100 BC) are related to the chronology of neighbouring regions based on specifics of certain vessels (and ‘imitations’). Their chronology, however, varies within a range of 100 years (see Alexandrov et al. 2007, 383). 35 36

314

Tanya Dzhanfezova

site are regarded as Mycenaean imports and consequently dated to the Late Helladic ІІІ В and С. The variable views on these fragments define them as genuine Mycenaean, Protogeometric, Geometric fragments, or even local imitations.45 The chronological reference extends from the Late Helladic III to the Geometric period,46 and what is more, these imports had not been related to stratigraphic data.47 Hence, they cannot be considered as a reliable chronological marker. In fact, these wares from Drama share nothing in common with the so-called Minyan or Mycenaean pottery. Rather, they belong to a distinctive local category of grey pottery dating to the Archaic period with close affinities to the Aeolian pottery or to several other categories of painted Archaic pottery of Aegean origin or type.48 Further fragments related to Anatolia are found in Vratitsa (southeast Bulgaria), in a compact deposit of vessels, interpreted as the waste area of a settlement from the Troy VI–VII period.49 The dating is based on a supposed ‘imported wheel-made pottery of the Troy VI style’ made somewhere in the region of northwest Anatolia, but not in Troy itself. The collection is considered as consisting of both true imports and imitations; but again, it is not associated with a settlement site or precise contexts. Small-size fragments, usually very few in number, are only mentioned in publications. They often occur in sites that are not thoroughly explored and published in detail, nor are they characterised as typical settlements (or settlements at all). All of them are located in southern Bulgaria, with the exception of Durankulak. The Durankulak pottery assemblage is defined as showing ‘Aegean influence’; but also as containing coarse wares characteristic for the Sabatinovka, Noua and Coslogeni Cultures and vessels with high handles typical for the entire complex Zimnicea-Plovdiv. Some kantharoi were also reported as having Aegean and Anatolian shapes, related to the LH III B2 and III C1 phases.50 The available data is quite vague and it is unclear if the description refers to general similarities. Therefore, it is impossible to make an evaluation based only on the published material. It is obvious that the quoted examples cannot serve as an absolute reference for the chronological position of a given site or stratum. Apart from being too vague, the data refers to single fragments. In most cases, specific contexts or relation to other finds are not defined. Whether these are actual imports, local imitations, foreign imitations of specific types that have reached the territory in question or something else is yet to be clarified, and the same applies to the interpretation of their presence in the specified regions and sites. As already commented with a reference to the temporal endpoints and the duration of the Late Bronze Age phases in Bulgaria, the presently available absolute dating results are not sufficient for the construction of reliable chronology and periodisation. At this stage, there is no firm data that would provide a precise chronology of the archaeological cultures (or their phases). Bearing this in mind, some of the suggested periodisation schemes will be considered below. Periodisation of the Late Bronze Age Generally, the Bronze Age periodisation for the present-day Bulgarian lands is mainly built around tri-partite models, but there is also a scheme based on conventional 14C dates only,51 and a four-partite pattern (which, however, includes an archaeologically ‘unknown period’).52 Since

47 48 49 50 51 52 45 46

Lichardus et al. 2002, 154. Lichardus et al. 2000, 154–157. Nikov 2001, 70. Stefanos Gimatzidis, personal communication. Leshtakov 2009, 62. The actual settlement had not been found. Todorova 1984, 71. Boyadzhiev 2003. Early Bronze Age (3200/3150–2550/2500 BC), Middle Bronze Age (2550/2500–2200/2000 BC), an ‘unidentified (?) period’ (2200/2000–1600/1500) and Late Bronze Age (1600/1500–1100/1000 calBC), see Leshtakov 2006, n. 14 (possibly related to the radiocarbon dating results).

The Making of Late Bronze Age Archaeological Cultures in Bulgaria

315

the end of the Middle Bronze Age is defined neither archaeologically nor through absolute dates, and a ‘concentration’ of Middle Bronze Age dates is seen as falling into the chronological range actually established for the Early Bronze Age,53 a 500–600 years chronological hiatus was postulated between the Middle Bronze and the beginning of the Late Bronze Age.54 This has resulted in peculiar solutions55 regarding the duration of the Bronze Age periods suggested on the basis of the 14C results only. Interestingly, all of these versions retain the Late Bronze Age chronological framework (the reliability of this scheme was commented on in Section 1).56 Despite these variants, however, the archaeological context related to the suggested figures remains unknown. As indicated above, the end-point dates for the Late Bronze Age sites at Durankulak (from the Coslogeni Culture) and Baley (from the Encrusted Pottery Culture) actually range between 1620 and 1000 BC; nevertheless, they are considered to confirm the placing of the Late Bronze Age between 1600/1500 and 1200/1100 BC57 – a conclusion which is actually yet to be verified. Approaches Towards Regional Periodisation Neither the grounds on which the beginning and the end of the period are established nor should the features that mark the transition and the new chronological stage be considered as very precise. The end of the period has often been defined by the appearance of a different Early Iron Age style of pottery, the arrival of the fluted and Buckelkeramik in Troy, as well as the dating of Troy VIIb2 itself. In the Bulgarian historiography, the views are mainly based on a ‘long chronology’, such as the high dates accepted for the Egyptian chronology. I. Panayotov, for example, claims that the Bronze Age periodisation in the country is centred on the possibility for ‘direct synchronisations’ with the better known areas, thus relying on cross-dating, calibration and reference to the historical chronology.58 Given the state of research in the country, however, such strong dependence on current foreign models of cultural development in distant territories, or on the changing opinions about certain chronological hallmarks, cannot be considered satisfactory. In view of the chronological range accepted for the very Late Bronze Age, the periodisation of the time-span between the 16th and the 12th/11th centuries BC has also most often been related to tri-partite patterns, and (more recently) to a Late Bronze Age model that consists of two periods – an earlier and a later one (see below). It should be reminded, however, that these are usually based on regional approaches, and a common synchronisation system that interrelates various areas in the territory of the country has yet to be developed. The traditional Late Bronze Age division into three periods – early, middle and late – is a structure that has even been applied in recent archaeometric studies as well,59 regardless of the actual lack of new data and the numerous issues related to absolute dates obtained in the past. The Bronze Age/Late Bronze Age traditional periodisations for the present-day Bulgarian lands had actually been broadly commented on in publications60 and will be considered in short here. Such

Boyаdzhiev 1995, 178; Görsdorf – Bojadžiev 1996, 121. Since the same tendency towards ageing of dates refers to some of the earlier, prehistoric periods, one should also consider the calibration curves applied by these authors. 54 Boyаdzhiev 1995, 178; Görsdorf – Bojadžiev 1996, 121; Leshtakov 2006, 152. 55 These imply a) a longer duration of the Early Bronze and the Middle Bronze Age (considered as most probable), b) a change of the absolute chronology for some of the periods, c) a division of the Bronze Age into four periods (the Late Bronze Age being the fourth) or d) a separation of one Early Bronze Age period, one transitional phase to the Late Bronze Age, and a Late Bronze Age (Boyadzhiev 2003, 23). 56 Such solutions cannot be considered effective. Furthermore, some authors place the beginning of the Late Bronze Age in northwest Bulgaria in the 16th century BC, whereas in south Bulgaria it is positioned in the 16th–15th century BC (see Panayotov 1975, 45). 57 Boyadzhiev 2003, 23. 58 Panayotov 1985, 71. 59 Kovacheva et al. 2014; Kostadinova-Avramova et al. 2014. 60 Panayotov 1980; Panayotov 1981; Panayotov 1985; Panayotov 1988; Panajotov 1989; Panayotov 1995; Panayotov – Vulcheva 1989; Panayotov – Vulcheva 2001. 53

316

Tanya Dzhanfezova

schemes characteristic of the so-called second historiographic period, the time after WWII,61 establish the Late Bronze Age ranges between 1600–1100 BC (V. Mikov), 1500–1200 BC (G. Georgiev), 1600/1500–1200/1150 BC (R. Katincharov), 1600/1500–12th century BC (I. Panayotov), or 1500–1200 BC (H. Todorova, who also takes the calibrated 14C dates into account).62 The idea that the Bronze Age cultures should be considered regionally63 resulted in a later scheme based on a different model.64 It is consistent with the geographical location of the region and the various nature, duration and intensity of its contacts with Anatolia, the Aegean, the Danube River valley and the northern Black Sea coast. Since a number of periods are actually reciprocal to individual archaeological cultures defined for the separate regions, the model will be discussed in more detail further below (Section 3). The relationship between areas and suggested cultures (considered identical to a certain period and an eponymous site)65 may also imply that, in this case, the concept of culture comprises the idea of time as its major feature. Going back to the periodisation schemes, the Encrusted Pottery Culture area, which includes part of northwest Bulgaria, is also associated with a three-partite scheme.66 Another periodisation, however, focused on the Late Bronze Age in southeast Bulgaria (Lower Tundzha River valley), includes two phases: an earlier one – Assenovets (synchronous to Tei IV, Kastanas IV, late Troy VI and VIIa) and a later one – Plovdiv-Čerkovna (synchronous to the end of the Kastanas IV, Kastanas V and Troy VIIb).67 This division was suggested on the grounds of pottery analysis where features such as the ‘Assenovets-Alada style’ vessels with incised or pricked decoration and wishbone handles were established as characteristic of the earlier period; and coarser ware, sometimes having plastic decoration, as signalling the later one.68 The discussed periodisation schemes clearly demonstrate the irregularity of the terrain research and the absence of a firm basis for exhaustive characterisation of the Late Bronze Age in the area. Metal ‘Treasure Horizons’ and Deposits Apart from the more traditional periodisation of the Late Bronze Age, attempts to affiliate the known material to chronological stages include the consideration of collective finds of ceramic vessels and metal deposits. Metal finds from north Bulgaria are initially separated into two major treasure horizons. The first (Sokol-Semerdzhievo, from the end of the 14th–13th century BC) is seen as related mainly to the regions of Muntenia and Moldova, whereas the second (Vurbitsa-Lessura) is seen as closely affiliated to Transylvania, comprising also ‘Bulgarian types’ of finds developed during this stage.69 A later scheme includes three ‘treasure horizons’ and collective metal deposits: 1) Sokol-Semerdzhievo (from the end of 14th–13th century BC); 2) Vurbitsa-Lessura (2nd half of the 13th–12th century BC); and 3) Essenitsa (11th century, probably reaching the 10th century BC as well).70 However, despite some attempts for periodisation made on such grounds, the metal types

Panayotov 1988, 158–160; Panayotov 1995, 243–247 with extensive bibliography on the topic. A review on the Iron Age periodisations up to the 1980 is offered in Tončeva 1980. 62 Panayotov 1985, 71; Panayotov 1995, 248. In his earlier publications, I. Panayotov also accepts a tripartite scheme (Panayotov 1989). 63 Panayotov 1988, 170. 64 Panayotov 1995, 248. 65 Panayotov 2003. 66 Shalganova 2005. 67 Lichardus et al. 2002, 137, 150. 68 Lichardus et al. 2002, 150. Other authors, however, consider the wishbone handles as a Middle Bronze Age element (see Krauß 2006a). Some preliminary publications of Late Bronze Age open settlements establish two habitation phases based on the characteristics of the pottery as well (Leshtakov 2010). 69 Panayotov – Donevski 1977, 136–137. 70 Panayotov 1980. 61

The Making of Late Bronze Age Archaeological Cultures in Bulgaria

317

and hoards themselves cannot be considered as direct indicators or be applied as features that allow the chronological definition of the ‘cultures’.71 The Contribution of Pottery? Similarly, ceramic vessel ‘deposits’ – mostly random finds without any known context and relation to a site or to a well-dated structure – are also being used as chronological markers or even as cultural eponyms. According to some authors, the vessel deposit of Govora (Fundeni-Govora), assigned to an earlier Late Bronze Age, is followed by a later stage designated as Zimnicea-Plovdiv (Čerkovna).72 The opinions about the Čerkovna cultural group (or culture) are actually quite variable.73 The finds that belong to the group often originate from locations that haven’t been systematically investigated and have no exact contexts. The focus on the decoration and the pottery ‘style’ establishes the Čerkovna group (sometimes also referred to as the Zimnicea-Plovdiv complex)74 as synchronous to Gărla Mare, Tei, Coslogeni and Govora,75 placing its end around 1100 BC. The vessels from Plovdiv, Čerkovna and Zimnicea are assigned to the same group,76 thus spreading the ‘style’ to both north and south Bulgarian regions. The opinions about the Plovdiv collective find itself are also quite variable.77 While some consider it correspondent to Čerkovna, others recognise it rather as a style that manifests a tendency towards unification of the Late Bronze Age pottery during the second half of the Late Bronze Age period in the entire territory of the eastern Balkans.78 The vessels found in the mentioned locations are broadly perceived as representing cultures, cultural complexes, cultural or chronological horizons or simply pottery styles. However, they are also considered as belonging to different Late Bronze Age periods (see below). ‘Stylistic observations’ on the vessels from Čerkovna, Plovdiv and Essenitsa have thus resulted in a differently designed ‘relative chronology’: a) the Čerkovna finds were defined as the oldest, synchronous to Tei III–IV, Noua and Sabatinovka and dated to the 14th–13th century BC; b) the vessels from Plovdiv and Zimnicea referred to a later stage, dated to the 13th century BC; whereas c) the Essenitsa pottery was seen as the latest collective find, which belongs to the end of the 13th and the beginning of the 12th century BC.79 In summary, due to objective factors, such as the lack of sites with stratigraphy covering the mid-18th–12th centuries BC, there are issues to be solved regarding the dating, the characterisation and the study of the period both in the micro regions and over the broader areas. The presently available data – applied as fundamental for chronologies, periodisation and cultural affiliation – is actually based mainly on certain features of ceramic vessels.80 Quite often, the chronology in Bulgarian archaeology is defined according to analogies with sites and material in neighbouring countries, and the pottery style alone is also being applied as a marker of new periods. In this regard, it is the ceramic typology that is commonly used as the main tool for characterisation of material and definition of archaeological cultures. The primary research tasks can usually be seen in the formulation of a typological scheme, which contains data about the spatial spread and, if

Panayotov 1985, 80. This widespread view (see for example Palincaş 2007, 234), is one of the various opinions regarding the Govora-Fundeni or the Verbicioara and Tei characterisation. 73 Hänsel 1976; Krauß 2006a; Krauß 2006b. 74 Hänsel 1976, 76–77. 75 Hänsel 1976, 86–87. 76 After Hochstetter 1982, 108. More recently the Plovdiv-Zimnicea-Cerkovna (PZC) complex was mentioned in Bozhinova 2012, 52. 77 Detev 1964. 78 Panayotov 1985, n. 85. 79 Nikolov – Zhekova 1982, 90. 80 Systematic observations on their typology as integral classification are often missing. 71 72

318

Tanya Dzhanfezova

possible, the chronological sequence of certain features. Still, when the Plovdiv or Plovdiv-Zimnicea pottery is considered as a separate group with cultural or chronological meaning (or both), not to mention the issue with its duration, what would these undecorated plain vessel shapes point to when such are found (even in smaller percentage) in other ‘cultural areas’? And, is it actually possible to distinguish between various ‘cultural groups’ according to the presence or the lack of decoration? If we take into account the present typological schemes describing the Late Bronze Age ceramics, it becomes clear that the approaches (even when referred to pottery from adjacent sites) vary greatly from author to author. Furthermore, features traditionally assigned to the Late Bronze Age pottery actually reveal a more complex chronological distribution. Thus, for example, the wishbone or the Assenovets style handles, usually considered characteristic of the Late Bronze Age, are actually being dated even back to the Early Bronze Age III as well.81 The latter demonstrates the ambiguity of applying one single feature in order to define chronological and cultural affiliation. Similar is the situation with decorative elements and techniques – such as the types of channelled or incised decoration (and their percentage per layer or site), the protuberances and other elements – usually considered as chronological markers. These actually have representatives in more than one period only and could also be related to dynamics that have variable regional characteristics and pace of development or spread. Late Bronze Age Archaeological Cultures in Present-Day Bulgaria Although characterisation of Late Bronze Age cultures appears as the central topic, the issue cannot be considered resolved. The various published opinions are usually not substantiated; rather, they refer to designation of territories as cultural regions (and not necessarily to a theoretical background). Furthermore, very few scholars have commented so far on the interpretative potential of this concept.82 The chronological review shows a lack of systematic archaeological methods and theoretical approaches. The features considered as key-elements for the characterisation of an archaeological culture remain indeterminate. Thus, the present impression is that the construct of the archaeological cultures is intuition-based, rather than theoretically-based. Leading trends in world archaeology have been set aside, placing the focus on the description and the chronology of the artefacts.83 In this context, contemporary studies on ‘hot or cold understandings’84 about certain archaeological concepts cannot yet be effectively applied to the archaeological cultures addressed in this contribution. General Tendencies The terms most often used in Bulgarian scholarship with reference to the regional cultural phenomena are ‘archaeological culture’ and ‘cultural group’ (which is very close to the definition of Gustaf Kossinna), as well as the widely used description ‘ethno-cultural community’.85 Single

Leshtakov 1992; Leshtakov 2003. Leshtakov, as one, excluded the ethnic component in the concept of ‘archaeological culture’, suggesting that a ‘culture’ may indicate the presence of various groups and the existence of diverse specifics of the material culture that still function in common environment as a unified system that is based on certain ‘structure-defining elements’(Leshtakov 2009, 58). 83 As in other countries, cf. Palincaş 2006, 10; Palincaş 2012, 14. 84 Sørensen 2014. 85 The definition ‘ethno-cultural community’ is considered as linguistic evidence for the differentiation between ‘archaeological culture’ and ‘ethnos’ (Cf. Panayotov 1985, 69). The term, however, may be an example of just the opposite tendency. 81 82

The Making of Late Bronze Age Archaeological Cultures in Bulgaria

319

sites – and just the pottery found there – or broader regions that lack excavated stratified settlements were also defined as representing archaeological cultures. Despite some criticism expressed already in the 1980s,86 there are an increasing number of such examples. In general, the substance of the Late Bronze Age archaeological cultures is barely treated in the local discourse, which has been dominated by theoretical approaches originating in Soviet archaeology.87 Seen as a theoretic-cognitive category that reflects the chronological and spatial limits of the studied complexes, the concept comprises ‘archaeological types’ that are associated (and can be distinguished from others as well) within a system of mutual interrelations.88 The main attention is focused on the definition of the archaeological culture as a static system that cannot be equivalent to the dynamic cultural development in the past. Despite this awareness, however, the observations on the Late Bronze Age in present-day Bulgaria were not based on a solid theoretical background. Some scholars have been influenced by hierarchical models that were widely applied in Russian archaeology; these are constructed by units that are based on artefact types, i.e. imply the principle of seriation.89 Despite that, the suggested Late Bronze Age cultures in Bulgaria are not elaborated on the basis of interrelated and hierarchically organised elements, nor are they actually grounded on any other specific theory. During the pre-WWII period, several migrationist and diffusionist approaches dominated archaeological interpretation, whereas the post-war time was characterised by the ‘dialectical materialism’ that established archaeology as a historical sub-discipline, and examined the material culture in a historical context.90 The overemphasis on migration as a factor in the cultural development was a major weak point of the pre-WWII research period – a time characterised also by a limited scale of fieldwork, mechanical interpretations based on the view about the origin of the Indo-Europeans, etc.91 Material culture specifics were usually perceived as a result of diffusion, population movements (including smaller scale mobility) and migrations, also implying an ‘ethnic element’ of the archaeological cultures. It is interesting to note, on the one hand, that common features between Bulgarian ‘archaeological cultures’ and those to the north of the country were considered as the result of people‘s movements. Generally, the reasons for these migrations from the north to the south were not always explained. On the other hand, similarities between the archaeological material culture of Bulgaria and the regions to the south were traditionally regarded as the outcome of ‘external influence’ and trade contacts. This difference is based on the assumption about the higher cultural development of the southern areas on the one hand, and an overestimation of transhumant mobility of the northern and north-eastern areas on the other. Already in the 1960s, I. Venedikov suggested a somewhat different view, which, again, is based on migrations, but this time the focal groups originated from regions located to the northwest of Bulgaria.92 Regardless of the direction of such movements, however, the Late Bronze Age dynamics were usually related to the later Thracian history. Thus, the culture-historical approach that formed the basis for the development of the National Archaeology93 shaped the archaeological research on the Bronze Age in Bulgaria as well. As for the so-called ‘Thracian ethnogenesis’, the idea about the gradual ‘Indo-Europeanisation’ of the autochthonous population usually relies

Panayotov 1985, 69. The views of Soviet scholars (Bochkarev, Klejn, Zaharuk, Gening, Masson) can be traced in several papers of Panayotov, see e.g. Panayotov 1984; Panayotov 1997. 88 Panayotov 1985, 69–70. 89 See Trigger 1989, 240–241. 90 See Panayotov 1985. 91 Panayotov 1975, 26; Panayotov 1995, 245. The collective finds consisting of metal objects and the treasures are seen as markers for migration as well (Panayotov 1978, 82). 92 Venedikov 1960, 541–543. 93 See chapter ‘National Archaeologies’ in Trigger 1989. 86 87

320

Tanya Dzhanfezova

on linguistic data. Certain claims that some processes have taken place during the Bronze Age are based on linguistic grounds or ethnonyms that usually date to much later periods. In this sense, the Moesi tribe has been taken as the one that had formed the final Indo-European appearance of this territory.94 Additionally, toponyms (including hydronoms) are used as evidence that the Thracian ancestors inhabited the Thracian lands already in the Early Neolithic. Despite the fact that some authors do not take the ‘Thracian’ or ‘pre-Thracian’ origin of these tribes for granted, the lack of alternative interpretations helped the ‘Thracian’ theories maintain their dominance for a long period of time. Thus, notwithstanding the many contradictions, the conclusion is that “... on the basis of a relatively compact autochthonous population inhabiting mainly the Upper Thracian valley, all main ethnogenetic processes in Thrace include the participation of Indo-European migration elements in the Neolithic, especially in the later Chalcolithic, and to some extent in the Bronze Age ...”.95 Furthermore, during the Bronze Age, the population of the ancient Thracian lands gradually assumed a national identity, thus validating the term pre-Thracians and making it applicable for the 3rd–2nd millennium BC. Pre-Thracians were consecutively followed by the Thracians, who allegedly appeared in the very end of the 2nd millennium BC. In short, the ethnogenetic processes were seen by some as covering the time between the Early Neolithic and the Early Iron Age – a period when the Indo-European population gradually assumed a Thracian identity (which also included Thracian language). One of the most popular arguments in these discussions derives from the Homeric poems and the idea that the end of the Bronze Age is related to the Trojan War, in which a great number of Thracian tribes took part on the side of Troy.96 The combination between archaeological, linguistic and anthropological data related to the ethnogenesis of the Thracians suggests that the interpretation of the archaeological material was influenced by the ideas about a Thracian origin,97 thus making the Late Bronze Age an “early Thracian period”.98 Sometimes even the Neolithic and the Chalcolithic were also perceived as pre- or proto-Thracian periods.99 Since the Late Bronze Age was considered a time of consolidation of the Thracian tribes, the term ‘proto-Thracians’ was used as a reference to Bronze Age groups of allegedly autochthonous population and newcomers.100 Furthermore, several stages in the formation of the Thracian ethnos have been reconstructed: the first stage dates from the Chalcolithic to the Middle Bronze Age; the second includes the Late Bronze Age and the transition to the Early Iron Age; and the final, third phase, dating to the Early Iron Age, was related to major migration movements.101 A widely spread opinion considered the transition from the Late Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age as the first stage of the Thracian ethnogenesis.102 Still, authors such as V. Mikov viewed the migrating new tribes as bearers of the Early Bronze Age cultures, and emphasised the discontinuity between the Chalcolithic and the Bronze Age, assuming that the change in the culture is due to the change of population.103 In summary, contradictory past theories in Bulgarian archaeology imply migrations, but at the same time they also support the autochthonous character of the Thracians. These refer not only to the Bronze Age, but also to the Chalcolithic or the Neolithic period as a starting point of such processes, claiming that the early groups of population should be linked to the later Thracian tribes.104

As result of subsequent movements, the same tribe could have allegedly reached Upper Mesopotamia (Fol 1981, 112–113). 95 Georgiev et al. 1981, 117. 96 Georgiev et al. 1981, 118–119. 97 See Panayotov 1975, 28. 98 Among the numerous other authors see Spiridonov 1999, 19. 99 Spiridonov 1999, 12. 100 Spiridonov 1999, 12, 17. 101 Panayotov 1978, 83. The author’s hypothesis was based on the study of metal artefacts. 102 See Panayotov 1975, 27, 38. 103 See Panayotov 1975, 31, 33 about V. Mikov. According to I. Panayotov such ‘historical data’ are obsolete (Panayotov 1975, 27). 104 See Panayotov 1975, 27–29; Spiridonov 1999, 12. 94

The Making of Late Bronze Age Archaeological Cultures in Bulgaria

321

From this short review it is clear that modern archaeological theory or complex approaches were not reflected in the process of definition of Late Bronze Age cultures in the area of present-day Bulgaria. ‘Archaeological Cultures’ in Bulgaria Despite numerous methodological problems in their definition, the ‘archaeological cultures’ still form the starting point for discussions on the Bronze Age archaeology in Bulgaria. This section presents a synopsis of these phenomena and their definition, and also shortly discusses their interpretive potential (Fig. 2). The Encrusted Pottery Culture in northwest Bulgaria was already defined in a very early period. It was first known as Novo Selo Culture, spread along the Danube and reaching the Iskar River to the east (Fig. 2.1).105 Due to the specific pottery and characteristic burial rites, it was referred to the so-called Danubian Culture already known outside Bulgaria.106 The ‘Novo Selo Culture’ designation was based on the greater number of archaeological materials found in Novo Selo; in contrast to the sparse finds known from other Bulgarian sites by then. Supposedly, this also aimed at presenting a local denomination of the Late Bronze Age culture in the region of northwest Bulgaria. Despite the traditional reference to movements of various tribes as an explanation of material culture specifics, this time the question about the ethnic group related to this culture had been left open due to the lack of solid data.107 Notwithstanding its various names, and despite its contrarily described territorial range, the Encrusted Pottery Culture has always been included in the reconstruction processes of regional archaeological narratives. According to Toncheva108 (Fig. 2.2), it was the outcome of major migrations during the 15th century BC.109 Along with the Ezerovo I B in northeast Bulgaria and the Razkopanitsa Culture in south Bulgaria, the Novo Selo Culture was dated to an earlier Late Bronze Age period (15th–14th century BC). Another, later Late Bronze Age phase that comprises the period from the 2nd half of the 13th to the end of the 12th century BC characterised the entire northeast region up to the Iskar River as being under the influence of the Noua culture. This was suggested despite the otherwise remote territorial range of Noua. For this later stage, on the other hand, a local Noua-Coslogeni ‘cultural variant’ was postulated for the region of Dobrudzha without any specific argumentation. The same later phase in northwest Bulgaria was associated with Novo Selo II Culture, whereas a continuous development of a ‘local culture’ was suggested for southern Bulgaria.110 However, detailed studies were missing and these classifications are conjectural since they were not based on solid archaeological evidence. At a later stage, Toncheva put forward the concept of ‘Thracia Pontica’ to define a large area over the whole eastern part of the country.111 Northwest Bulgaria was still related to the last phase of the Late Bronze Age Novo Selo Culture, whereas Dobrudzha and northeast and southeast Bulgaria were assigned to the Yagnilo-Coslogeni Culture, and south Bulgaria was assigned to the Assenovets Culture (Fig. 2.3).112 In this scheme, Tei and Verbicioara were excluded. The charac-

Mikov 1970, 48. An early publication of Chilingirov describes the materials as similar to those found in neighbouring regions, but does not propose a distinguished culture with a Bulgarian eponymous site (Chilingirov 1911). 107 Although resettlements, migrations and movements of various tribes across the country on their way to Anatolia were suggested, the bearers of the Middle Danubian Culture were considered unknown and thus a relation between the Novo Selo Culture and a specific ethnic group was not established (Mikov 1970, 58–59). 108 Tončeva 1974, 1980. Note that the earlier article (1974) is dedicated to the origin of the ‘Thracians’. 109 Tončeva 1974, 80. 110 Tončeva 1974, 81. 111 Tončeva 1982, 176. 112 Tončeva 1982, 181. The Early Iron Age culture is seen as a continuation of some of these cultures (Tončeva 1974, 81–82). 105 106

322

Tanya Dzhanfezova

1 Novo Selo Culture (Mikov 1970) 2 Archaeological cultures indicated by G. Toncheva (Tončeva 1974; Tončeva 1980). 1. Northwest Bulgaria: a) 15–14 c. BC: Novo Selo Culture; b) End of the Late Bronze Age: Novo selo II Culture; 2. Northeast Bulgaria: a) 15–14 c. BC: Ezerovo Ib Culture; b) End of the Late Bronze Age: Noua-Coslogeni Culture; 3. South Bulgaria: a) 15–14 c. BC: Razkopanitsa Culture; b) End of the Late Bronze Age: continuation of the local culture 3 Archaeological cultures indicated by G. Toncheva (Tončeva 1982). 1. Northwest Bulgaria, last phase of the Late Bronze Age: Novo Selo Culture; 2. Dobrudzha, northeast and southeast Bulgaria: Yagnilo-Coslogeni Culture; 3. South Bulgaria: Assenovets Culture 4 Archaeological cultures indicated by H. Todorova (Todorova 1982). 1. Northwest Bulgaria: Žuto Brdo-Gărla Mare; 2. Central north Bulgaria and Thrace: Zimnicea-Plovdiv (and Yambol); 3. Northeast Bulgaria: Plovdiv-Zimnicea and probably Tei; 4. Dobrudzha (Black Sea coastal area): Coslogeni 5 Archaeological cultures indicated by A. Bonev (Bonev 1983). 1. Northwest Bulgaria: Novo Selo Culture; 2. Thrace, north and northeast Bulgaria: Plovdiv-Zimnicea-Razkopanitsa VII-Cerkovna Culture and Tei, Coslogeni and Srubnaya Cultures 6 Cultural phenomena indicated by A. Bonev (Bonev 2003). 1. Carpathian-Danubian horizon, early Thracian cultural range; 2. Trans-Balkan Late Bronze Age horizon; 3. Aegean early Thracian cultural range 7 Archaeological cultures indicated by I. Panayotov (Panayotov 1985; Panayotov – Vulcheva 1989; Panayotov – Vulcheva 2001). 1. Northwest Bulgaria: Baley-Orsoya; 2. Central north Bulgaria: a) Verbicioara and Tei IV–V; b) Plovdiv Zimnicea; 3. Northeast Bulgaria: a) Verbicioara and Tei (or Tei only) phases IV–V; b) Coslogeni, Noua, Essenitsa, (Zimnicea-Plovdiv); 4. Thrace: a) Razkopanitsa VII-Assenovets; b) Plovdiv-Zimnicea (end of Bronze Age – beginning of the Early Iron Age) (for Verbicioara and Tei IV–V Cultures in central-north and northeast Bulgaria see Panayotov 1995, 248. The other publications of the author refer to these cultures mostly in terms of chronology) 8 Archaeological cultures indicated by Y. Boyadzhiev (Boyadzhiev 1995). 1. Baley-Orsoya; 2. Coslogeni-Sabatinovka-Noua; 3. Razkopanitsa VII-Assenovets, Zimnicea-Plovdiv-Cerkovna 9 Archaeological cultures indicated by T. Shalganova (Shalganova 2005). 1. Baley-Orsoya; 2. Plovdiv-Zimnicea-Assenovets-Cerkovna; 3. Razkopanitsa VII-Assenovets 10 Cultural groups and cultures suggested by B. Hänsel (Hänsel 1976). Gărla Mare, Govora, Tei, Noua, Coslogeni, Čerkovna. Čerkovna (in red) spreads over vast Bulgarian territories 11 Cultural groups and archaeological cultures suggested by R. Krauß (Krauß 2006b). Gărla Mare, Čerkovna, and Coslogeni (Čerkovna in red). 1. Northwest Bulgaria: Gărla Mare; 2. Central north Bulgaria and south Bulgaria: Čerkovna (from the Lower Danube area to the Aegean coast, including vessels from the Rhodope Mountains). Čerkovna pottery style = Plovdiv-Zimnicea nomination; 3. Northeast Bulgaria: Coslogeni; amalgamation of Čerkovna and Coslogeni elements; 4. South Bulgaria: Čerkovna (and an earlier phase of the Čerkovna group) 12 Archaeological cultures in south Romania mentioned in Comori 1995. 1. Gărla Mare; 2. Verbicioara; 3. Tei; 4. Coslogeni 13 Archaeological cultures indicated by N. Bolohan (Bolohan 2005). 1. Žuto Brdo-Gărla Mare; 2. Verbicioara; 3. Tei; 4. Coslogeni-Yagnilo; 5. Zimnica-Plovdiv (Čerkovna) and Assenovets finds 14 Southwest Bulgarian cultural areas (Dinchev – Alexandrov 1985; Alexandrov 2002; Alexandrov et al. 2007). 1. Central west Bulgaria; 2. Koprivlen Culture; 3. Rhodope Mountains 15 Synchronisations and benchmarks for major Bulgarian regions. Northwest: central European chronology; Northeast: north Danubian chronology; Southeast Bulgaria including the Upper Thrace valley: Troy; Southwest: continental Greece

Fig. 2   Archaeological cultures suggested by various authors

The Making of Late Bronze Age Archaeological Cultures in Bulgaria

323

teristics of Yagnilo, on the other hand, were not specified (and the site is yet to be published in detail). The Coslogeni Culture, dated to the later Late Bronze Age in previous publications of the author,113 now characterises the entire Late Bronze Age chronological frame in the region. Additionally, the Plovdiv-Zimnicea unit was not taken into consideration despite the fact that these two sites were already published. Todorova assigned the Coslogeni Culture to the region of Dobrudzha, and the northwest area to the Žuto Brdo-Gărla Mare (Encrusted Pottery) Culture, whereas north central Bulgaria and Thrace are related to Zimnicea-Plovdiv (Fig. 2.4).114 Moreover, in south Bulgaria she also envisaged the Plovdiv-Zimnicea Culture and a new one – Yambol Culture. Northeast Bulgaria was characterised by Plovdiv-Zimnicea (but also probably Tei?), and thus Coslogeni was spread over the coastal area of Dobrudzha only.115 This model establishes quite large areas as belonging to a common culture (and not just a pottery style) – Zimnicea-Plovdiv, the relation of which with the rest of the cultures is not being specified. With regard to the entire northeast region of the Balkan Peninsula, some later interpretations of the author referred to a simultaneous end of an alleged ‘pastoral subsistence’ during the 13th–12th centuries BC and a final sedentification of the population, which could be a similar process to the case of the Late Bronze Age Sabatinovka, Noua and Coslogeni north Pontic cultures.116 A tendency towards material culture unification and even a formation of a common Late Bronze Age Balkan-north Anatolian ‘complex’ was suggested for the 14th–13th century BC – a time seen as a period of integration processes that have taken place in the whole eastern Balkan area.117 The beginning of the 13th century BC was marked as the time of the final settlement of the ‘nomadic tribes’ in Dobrudzha and the emergence of the Coslogeni Culture.118 This culture, on the other hand, as we know it in Durankulak, was established as a Black Sea variant of Coslogeni. For the formation of the latter contributed alleged influences from southern, Late Mycenaean ‘elements’ that were thought to have reached the region through maritime trade.119 Other researchers relate Thrace, north and northeast Bulgaria to a ‘Plovdiv-ZimniceaRazkopanitsa VII-Čerkovna Culture’, but also to the Tei, Coslogeni and Srubnaya Cultures, which again represent a number of variants assembled together without any clear and sound definition (Fig. 2.5).120 Furthermore, Bonev considers three very broad cultural complexes that comprise the cultures mentioned above: a Carpathian-Danubian early Thracian horizon, a Trans-Balkan Late Bronze Age horizon and an Aegean-early Thracian cultural sphere (Fig. 2.6).121 The interrelation between these formations had not been specified. A periodisation of the Bronze Age based on regional studies (see Section 2 here) had also been suggested.122 It included cultures and cultural phases established in neighbouring territories, thus suggesting similar cultural development in Bulgaria. This proposal, however, is difficult to be supported by solid data even today. According to Panayotov (Fig. 2.7), the Late Bronze Age in

115 116 117 113 114



118

121 119

120



122

Tončeva 1974, 1980. Todorova 1982, 51. Todorova 1982, Abb. 2. Todorova 1984, 67. This ‘complex’ was seen as comprising a number of ‘cultures’ and regions, the full list of which is present in Todorova 1984, 68 (the territorial and the chronological ranges of some of these being variable). Todorova 1984, 69. She also specifies a second forming stage of the Thracian ethnos (and Thracian koine), which ends towards the beginning of the 13th century BC. Two large Bulgarian regions were seen as belonging to a common culture – Zimnicea-Plovdiv. Todorova 1984, 71. Bonev 1983; Bonev 2003. Some of these cover the same areas (Bonev 2003, 11–30, 31–55). A. Bonev abides by the tri-partite chronology developed by B. Hänsel (Bonev 2003, 57–82). Panayotov 1985; Panayotov 2003, 27, 29.

324

Tanya Dzhanfezova

northwest Bulgaria could be defined as the Baley-Orsoya Culture.123 The territorial range of the culture, however, was sometimes assigned to northwest Bulgaria, instead of being confined to the narrow strip of land along the Danube River, which actually was characteristic of the territorial range of the Encrusted Pottery Culture. Again, the border areas of northwest Bulgaria were described as zones of cultural interrelations. North central124 and northeast Bulgaria were chronologically associated with Verbicioara and Tei Cultures (phase IV and V), followed by Plovdiv-Zimnicea in north central Bulgaria and the Coslogeni, Noua, and Essenitsa (Zimnicea-Plovdiv) in the northeast. Here, Zimnicea-Plovdiv was regarded as marking the end of the Late Bronze Age and the transition to the Early Iron Age. Although the two regions were not studied in detail, they still were seen as areas of strong cultural connections.125 The broader region of Thrace, on the other hand, was associated with the Late Bronze Age Razkopanitsa VII-Assenovets Culture; chronologically followed by Plovdiv-Zimnicea, which marks the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Early Iron Age. Due to the state of the research, no Late Bronze Age periods or cultures have been determined for the Sofia Plain and the Struma River valley. Despite the presence of excavated sites in the region of the Rhodope Mountains, an internal periodisation was not considered possible.126 Thus, only two specific cultures – Baley-Orsoya and Razkopanitsa VII-Assenovets (which precedes the Zimnicea-Plovdiv stage)127 – were established. The northeast areas, on the other hand, were characterised as belonging to the Coslogeni, Noua and Sabatinovka (which covers only the second half of the Late Bronze Age). This cultural regionalisation was more or less the outcome of a very scanty archaeological record with most of the reference sites (even the eponymous ones) remaining mostly unpublished. Quite often the observations refer to single settlements and cemeteries (or single burials), and if for the region of northwest Bulgaria a settlement and a cemetery were specified as eponymous sites, this was not suggested for the south Bulgarian zones. In some cases, sites situated in distant locations were used to characterise the entire region. Zones that have not been studied in detail were suggested to represent ‘contact areas’. Whereas further sub-regionalisations were assumed as possible in some areas, especially in northeast Bulgaria, other broad regions in south Bulgaria were defined by single archaeological cultures (e.g. Razkopanitsa VII-Assenovets). Some authors recognise the territory of the Baley-Orsoya group to the northwest and the Coslogeni-Noua-Sabatinovka Culture in the northeast part of the country (Fig. 2.8).128 South and southeast Bulgaria are seen as comprising the Razkopanitsa VII-Assenovets Culture and the group Zimnicea-Plovdiv-Čerkovna. The latter group, however, is defined for the north Bulgarian regions as well, where cultural influence of the Verbicioara and Tei Cultures was also expected. We again witness a slight variation of previously suggested cultures and a tendency towards mechanical synthesis of available data. This is evidenced by a later, slightly alternated scheme that considers the Baley-Orsoya, Plovdiv-Zimnicea and Coslogeni Cultures; the last being located to the Black Sea coast region.129

Panayotov 1985, a scheme repeated also in many later publications of this author, including Panayotov 2003; Panayotov – Vulcheva 1989, 2001. In fact, ‘Baley-Orsoya Culture’ actually corresponds to the Encrusted Pottery Culture in Bulgaria. As its previous denomination ‘Novo Selo’ referred to location that was not investigated by systematic archaeological research; here, the settlement of Baley and the cemetery of Orsoya, studied in the course of regular excavations, were preferred as eponyms for the culture. The encrusted decoration of the vessels was not considered sufficient argument for the designation of Late Bronze Age ‘Encrusted Pottery Culture’ (Panayotov 1985, 78, n. 67). 124 This narrow area was seen as: a) relatively independent; b) representing a ‘contact zone’ between the cultures established in northwest and northeast Bulgaria; or c) showing a relation to the Verbicioara and Tei Cultures. As the region is poorly studied, cultural eponyms were not suggested for central north Bulgaria (see Panayotov 2003, 29). 125 Previous cultural schemes suggested for northeast and central north Bulgaria were not accepted by Panayotov, as these referred to cultures that actually are dated from the mid-14th century BC onwards (see Panayotov 1985, 79). 126 Panayotov 1995, 248. 127 Certain issues have been indicated (Zung 1989), but the designation of the common culture was not questioned. 128 Boyadzhiev 1995, 174. 129 Görsdorf – Boyadžiev 1996, 107, Abb.1. 123

The Making of Late Bronze Age Archaeological Cultures in Bulgaria

325

Another proposition, most probably influenced by the studies of A. Bonev (Fig. 2.9), locates the Encrusted Pottery Culture to the northwest, the Razkopanitsa VII-Assenovets (in south Bulgaria) and yet another variant – the Plovdiv-Zimnicea-Assenovets-Čerkovna Culture in south and north Bulgaria. The Lower Danube River Encrusted Pottery Culture (previously designated also as Novo Selo, Baley-Orsoya as we have seen above) is considered as part of the north Balkan Late Bronze Age cultural complex that consists of archaeological cultures with similar characteristics.130 Based on the study of B. Hänsel (Fig. 2.10), the broad Čerkovna group (located in north central Bulgaria, but actually seen as being spread across the Lower Danube and the Aegean coastal area) was also suggested in more recent studies, along with Gărla Mare (to the northwest), and the Čerkovna and Coslogeni Cultures in northeast Bulgaria (Fig. 2.11).131 In northeast Bulgaria, an amalgamation of contemporaneous elements of the Čerkovna and Coslogeni Cultures is assumed, whereas the earlier phase of this ‘culture’ is supposed to be present in southern Bulgaria. It is interesting to note that, on the one hand, the ‘ceramic group’ corresponded to the Plovdiv-Zimnicea signature in Romania and also included vessels from the Rhodope Mountains. On the other, it was defined as a ‘culture’ that spreads across the whole eastern part of the Balkans (thus interfering with the two other suggested cultures) – observations that actually require further argumentation. With regard to the northern Bulgarian regions, a number of views based on the presumed territorial range of the Tei, Verbicioara or Govora-Fundeni Cultures were also suggested. Whereas some authors considered the spread of only some Romanian cultures across the Danube River (for example Tei or Coslogeni, Fig. 2.12),132 others suggested a considerably wider territorial range of certain cultural phenomena (Fig. 2.13).133 As for south Bulgaria, some recent studies established a cultural differentiation within the Rhodope Mountain areas.134 Furthermore, an independent culture – Koprivlen, based on two specific sites and a cemetery – was proposed for the middle Struma and Mesta valleys (Fig. 2.14).135 According to others, however, these areas were influenced by the Brnjica Culture known in Serbia.136The ambiguity and complexity of such cultural characterisations is clearly evident when taking into account more relevant views and making more attempts to comprehend their argumentation.137 The views on the definition of archaeological cultures in Bulgaria discussed in this section show clearly a number of discrepancies. The research was sometimes related to pre-defined schemes, lacking a systematic approach and sufficient data. Although there was no doubt about the definition of the Encrusted Pottery Culture (the variability of opinions being mainly referred to its denomination), this is not observed with regard to other cultures, for example Tei and Verbicioara, sometimes applied for the characterisation of north Bulgarian regions. Even those authors who accept that the Verbicioara and Tei Cultures are present to the south of the Danube River as well, do not comment on whether or not this should be regarded as another parallel development, as result of their territorial widening across the river. The opinions about these cultures in Romania are quite variable – some researchers question the differentiation between a fourth and a fifth phase of Verbicioara and Tei, as well as their subdivision into ‘5a’ and ‘5b’ stages and even consider the two cultures as representing one common cultural phenomenon.138 Northeastern Bul-

132 133 134 135

Shalganova 2005. Krauß 2006b. See Kitov – Alexandrov 1999, Comori 1995. Bolohan 2005. For example Leshtakov 2009. Alexandrov 2002. As for the cemetery near Sandanski, its investigated area revealed only the graves of children and consequently it is not clear if the site can be used as the background for definition of an archaeological culture. 136 Stojic 2006. Even the collective find from Plovdiv has been considered as the easternmost example of pottery, similar to that of the Brnjica Culture. 137 A detailed review on the suggested archaeological cultures per region will be considered elsewhere. 138 Among the others see Hänsel 1976, 54, 57; Palincaş 1996, 281; Şandor-Chicideanu 2003, 200. 130 131

326

Tanya Dzhanfezova

garia is understood by various authors in terms of entanglements of different cultures. Although Coslogeni is mentioned most often, its precise territorial spread and relation to other cultures139 have not been discussed in detail. As for south Bulgaria and the Razkopanitsa VII-Assenovets Culture, the issues resulting from the scarce archaeological documentation have already been underlined. Wide Bulgarian areas are related to Plovdiv-Zimnicea. The latter was defined as a ‘culture’, a ‘phenomenon’, a ‘ceramic group’ or a ‘pottery style’ and was also named as Plovdiv-Zimnicea-Razkopanitsa VII-Čerkovna, Plovdiv-Zimnicea-Assenovets-Čerkovna or Zimnicea-Plovdiv-Čerkovna, etc. According to the various opinions, it spreads across: a) north central Bulgaria and Thrace; b) south, southeast Bulgaria and Thrace; c) Thrace, north and northeast Bulgaria; or d) south, southeast and also north Bulgaria.140 Sometimes Plovdiv-Zimnicea is regarded as showing a tendency towards unification of the ceramic style during the second half of the Late Bronze Age141 (and the same refers to the Čerkovna group as well). If so, however, the question about its relationship with specific Late Bronze Age cultures, as well as the characteristics of these cultures within such large area, remains open. Conclusive Remarks Although in the study region the understanding of the Late Bronze Age communities and their interaction has basically been shaped by the characterisation of the Late Bronze Age archaeological cultures, this concept has not been specifically explained. One can only infer that it is conceived as a recurrent assemblage of types with continuous distribution in space.142 The criticism levelled at culture-historical archaeology in other Balkan countries143 is not present in the Late Bronze Age studies in Bulgaria and a firm theoretical background is missing, pointing to an intuitive use of the term. Cultures are often defined according to stylistic features of pottery assemblages alone. Resemblance to archaeological materials found in neighbouring countries and regions is often the basis for cultural characterisations of broad Bulgarian areas as well. Observations on stylistic or typological specifics of a few artefacts from unreliable contexts are also applied to define ‘archaeological cultures’ or entire chronological periods. When information about some Bulgarian regions is insufficient, these are sometimes considered as ‘contact zones’ or zones that demonstrate interrelations between better studied cultures. The application of a single criteria further hampers the perception of the culture’s complex and dynamic phenomena. Variable existing denominations refer to ‘archaeological cultures’, ‘cultural groups’, ‘ceramic groups’, ‘cultural complexes’, ‘cultural horizons’ and others. Along with the tendency to name archaeological cultures on the basis of highly intuitive classifications and scanty data, a correspondence between the designations of cultures suggested by various authors is usually missing. Some archaeological cultures (and eponymous sites) are postulated despite the lack of supporting published information. Thus, limited or controversial data may be applied for definition of their duration, territorial range and possible interrelations. Although the ceramic archaeological material is applied for periodisations and cultural characterisations, an outline of the pottery considered typical for a given culture is often missing. Existing pottery classifications may not even be comparable due to the variable descriptive approaches preferred by the authors. Large Bulgarian areas have been defined as belonging to a common

Tei, as one example, see also Alexandrov et al. 1998. ‘Thrace’ usually refers to the Upper Thracian valley located in South Bulgaria. 141 Panayotov – Vulcheva 1989; Panayotov – Vulcheva 2001. 142 I.e. the definition of the archaeological culture according to Childe 1929. 143 For example Palincas 2006, 35 about Romanian studies. 139 140

The Making of Late Bronze Age Archaeological Cultures in Bulgaria

327

‘culture’ on the basis of ceramic vessels found in single sites, cemeteries (even a specific area of a cemetery) or collections from isolated contexts such as pits. The various views on identical archaeological material, on the other hand, may result in diverse denominations, fluctuating territorial and chronological ranges and, consequently, a possibly asynchronous set of incompatible definitions. The present state borders should not be considered to have acted as cultural barriers, but the uncritical introduction of models that were developed in neighbouring countries cannot be assumed as acceptable either. However, characterisations of some cultural phenomena in the country are sometimes made according to such schemes. A well-grounded chronological framework and a periodisation based on firm data and absolute dating results are still a desiteratum. Given the scarce reliable data and the lack of excavated multi-layer settlements, the study of the Late Bronze Age culture is jeopardised when based on single artefacts or types. In terms of chronology, despite the issues related to the present state of research, direct typological comparisons between Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age finds are still applied as indicators of continuity or discontinuity. The same refers to postulations about changes of the settlement pattern or ‘statistical’ observations, which should be considered on a firmer basis and tested by future reliable data. Late Bronze Age archaeological cultures in Bulgaria were more or less defined by certain Bulgarian authors who have mainly worked in the 1980s and the 1990s. The specifics of the field research and some of the published data explain some of the discrepancies discussed above. However, recent long-term and interdisciplinary fieldwork projects in Bulgaria may present solid evidence and operate as starting points for a new discussion. This paper does not suggest to completely reject the concept of ‘archaeological cultures’ or some of the cultures commented above. It rather appeals for a more systematic research of Late Bronze Age material culture in the study-region and further wishes to warn against any attempt for interpretation with evidence from ill-defined classifications or data that is not critically assessed. Acknowledgements: The editors of the present volume and N. Palincaş are warmly acknowledged for their comments on the text.

References Alexandrov 2002 Ст. Александров, Селище от късната бронзова епоха край с. Копривлен, in: А. Божкова – П. Делев (eds.), Копривлен 1. Спасителни археологически проучвания по пътя Гоце Делчев-Драма, 1998–1999 г. (Sofia 2002) 61–82. Alexandrov 2005 St. Alexandrov, The earliest Mycenaean pottery imports in Bulgaria, in: J. Bouzek – L. Domaradzka (eds.), The Culture of Thracians and their Neighbours. Proceedings of the International Symposium in Memory of Prof. Mieczyslaw Domaradzki, British Archaeological Reports International Series 1350 (Oxford 2005) 47–49. Alexandrov et al. 1998 St. Alexandrov – N. Sirakov – E. Petkov – B. Gajdarska, Trial excavations of a Bronze Age site near Tutrakan, northeast Bulgaria, Archaeologia Bulgarica 2, 3, 1998, 7–30. Alexandrov et al. 2007 St. Alexandrov – V. Petkov – G. Ivanov, The Late Bronze Age necropolis in the town of Sandanski, southwest Bulgaria, in: H. Todorova – M. Stefanovich – G. Ivanov (eds.), The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory. Proceedings of the International Symposium Strymon Praehistoricus. Kjustendil-Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria), Serres-Amphipolis (Greece), 27.09–01.10.2004, In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul 2 (Sofia 2007) 373–387. Alexandrov – Daskalov 2005 Ст. Александров – М. Даскалов, Спасителни археологически проучвания на обекти от ІІ хил.пр. Хр. до село Антимово, община Видин, Археологически открития и разкопки през 2004 г., 2005, 83–84.

328

Tanya Dzhanfezova

Archibald 1998 Z. Аrchibald. The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace (Oxford 1998). Bolohan 2005 N. Bolohan. The Danube, Balkans and Northern Aegean. Trade routes, influences and buffer zones in the Late Bronze Age, in: R. Laffineur – E. Greco (eds.), Emporia. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference / 10e rencontre égéenne internationale. Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14–18 April 2004, Aegaeum 25 (Liège, Austin 2005) 161–178. Bonev 1983 А. Бонев, Тракийските земи и формациите Троя-VІ и Троя-VІІ (обща характеристика и взаимни връзки), Векове 2/3, 1983, 22–31. Bonev 2003 А. Бонев, Ранна Тракия. Формиране на тракийската култура – края на второто-началото на първото хилядолетие пр. Хр., Разкопки и проучвания ХХХІ (Sofia 2003). Borislavov 1999 Б. Бориславов, Южна Тракия в края на бронзовата – началото на ранножелязната епоха. Проблеми на прехода. Автореферат на дисертация за получаване на образователна и научна степен ‘доктор’ (Sofia 1999). Boyadzhiev 1995 Y. Boyadzhiev, Chronology of prehistoric cultures in Bulgaria, in: D. Bailey – I. Panayotov (eds.), Prehistoric Bulgaria. Monographs in World Archaeology 22 (Madison, WI 1995) 149–191. Boyadzhiev 2003 Я. Бояджиев, За някои проблеми на хронологията и периодизацията на бронзовата епоха от територията на България, Studia Archaeologica, І, Сборник в памет на д-р Петър Горбанов (Sofia 2003) 20–26. Bozhinova 2008 E. Bozhinova, The beginning of the Iron Age in Thrace. Archaeological evidences and questions of chronology, in: D. Brandherm – M. Trachsel (eds.), A New Dawn for the Dark Age? Shifting Paradigms in Mediterranean Iron Age Chronology, Proceedings of the XVth Congress of UISPP, 4–9 September 2006, British Archaeological Reports Internatinal Series 1871 (Oxford 2008) 45–57. Bozhinova 2012 E. Bozhinova, Thrace between east and west. The Early Iron Age cultures in Thrace, in: A. Çilingiroğlu – A. Sagona (eds.), Anatolian Iron Ages 7. The Proceedings of the Seventh Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium Held at Edirne, 19–24 April 2010, Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 39 (Leuven, Paris, Walpole, MA) 51–71. Childe 1929 G. V. Childe. The Danube in Prehistory (Oxford 1929). Chilingirov 1912 [1911] А. Чилингиров, Предисторични находища край Дунава, отъ Тимокъ до Витъ, Известия на Българското археологично дружество 2, 1912, 147–174. Comori 1995 Comori, ale epocii bronzului din România / Treasures of the Bronze Age in Romania. Exchibition catalogue Muzeul Naţional de Istorie a României (Bucarest 1995). Detev 1964 П. Детев, Колективна находка от глинени съдове в Пловдив, Археология 6, 4, 1964, 66–70. Dinev – Mishev 1980 Л. Динев – К. Мишев, България. Кратка география (Sofia 1980). Dinchev – Alexandrov 1985 В. Динчев – Ст. Александров, Археологически обекти в западните краища на Софийски окръг, Студентски проучвания, т. VІІ-1, Софийски университет, Исторически факултет, Клуб за научно творчество на младежта (Sofia 1985) 261–315.

The Making of Late Bronze Age Archaeological Cultures in Bulgaria

329

Domaradzki 1986 M. Domaradzki, Sanctuaires Thraces du IIe–Ier Millénaire av.n.é., Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 25, 1986, 89–104. Fol 1981 А. Фол, Етнически произход на населението на Балканския полуостров, in: История на България в четиринадесет тома, 1. Първобитнообщинен и робовладелски строй. Траки (Sofia 1979) 110–117. Georgiev et al. 1981 В. Георгиев – А. Фол – Г. Георгиев, Произход на траките, in: История на България в четиринадесет тома, 1. Първобитнообщинен и робовладелски строй. Траки (Sofia 1979) 117–118. Georgieva 2003 Р. Георгиева, Керамиката от ранната желязна епоха в Югозападна България и феноменът ‘Цепина’ / The Early Iron Age pottery from Southwestern Bulgaria and the ‘Tsepina’ phenomenon, in: D. Mitrevski (ed.), Pyraichmes 2 (Kumanovo 2003) 159–196. Görsdorf – Bojadžiev 1996 J. von Görsdorf – J. Bojadžiev, Zur absoluten Chronologie der bulgarischen Urgeschichte. Berliner 14C-Datierungen von bulgarischen archäologischen Fundplätzen, Eurasia Antiqua 2, 1996, 105–173. Hänsel 1976 В. Hänsel, Beiträge zur regionalen und chronologischen Gliederung der älteren Hallstattzeit an der unteren Donau, Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 16 (Bonn 1976). Hochstetter 1982 A. Hochstetter, Spätbronzezeitliches und früheisenzeitliches Formengut in Makedonien und im Balkanraum, in: B. Hänsel (ed.), Südosteuropa zwischen 1600 und 1000 v. Chr., Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 1 (Berlin 1982) 99–118. Jordanova – Kovačeva 1998 N. Jordanova – M. Kovačeva, Dating the fire in Kamenska Čuka by the archaeomagnetic method, in: Stefanovich et al. 1998, 339–347. Kitov – Alexandrov 1999 Г. Китов – Ст. Александров, Къснобронзов подмогилен комплекс при с. Дойренци, Ловешко / Late Brоnze Age complex under a barrow near Doirentzi, district of Lovech, Археологически вести / Archaeological Novelties 1, 1999, 6–8. Kovacheva et al. 2014 M. Kovacheva – M. Kostadinova-Avramova – N. Jordanova – Ph. Lanos – Y. Boyadzhiev, Extended and revised archaeomagnetic database and secular variation curves from Bulgaria for the last eight millennia, Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 236, 2014, 79–94. Kostadinova-Avramova et al. 2014 M. Kostadinova-Avramova – M. Kovacheva – Y. Boyadzhiev, Contribution of stratigraphic constraints of Bulgarian prehistoric multilevel tells and a comparison with archaeomagnetic observations, Journal of Archaeological Science 43, 2014, 227–238. Krauß 2006a R. Krauß, Indizien für eine Mittelbronzezeit in Nordbulgarien, Archaeologia Bulgarica 10, 2006, 3–26. Krauß 2006b R. Krauß, Die Prähistorische Besiedlung am Unterlauf der Jantra vor dem Hintergrund der Kulturgeschichte Nordbulgariens / Праисторията по долното течение на Янтра на фона на културната история на Северна България, Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 20 (Rahden/Westf. 2006). Leshtakov 1992 К. Лещаков, Изследвания върху бронзовата епоха в Тракия. Сравнителна стратиграфия на селищните могили от ранната бронзова епоха в Югоизточна България, Годишник на Софийския университет ‘Св. Климент Охридски’, Исторически факултет 84–85, 1992, 5–118. Leshtakov 2003 K. Leshtakov, The Thracian Settlement at Assara (Constantia) near Simeonovgrad, Известия на ИМ Хасково 2 (Haskovo 2003) 33–86.

330

Tanya Dzhanfezova

Leshtakov 2006 К. Лещаков, Бронзовата епоха в Горнотракийската низина, Годишник на Софийския университет ‘Св. Климент Охридски’, Исторически факултет, специалност Археология 3, 2006, 141–216. Leshtakov 2007 К. Лещаков, Керамика с белези на прехода от КБЕ към РЖЕ по данни от последните разкопки на Перперикон, in: Древна и модерна Тракия. Юбилеен сборник с доклади и съобщения от научна конференция с международно участие, посветен на 70-годишнината на ст.н.с. д-р Христо Буюклиев (3–4 ноември 2006), Известия на Старозагорския исторически музей ІІ (Stara Zagora 2007) 85–99. Leshtakov 2009 K. Leshtakov, The second millennium BC in the northern Aegean and the adjacent Balkan lands. Main dynamics of the cultural interaction, in: Z. I. Bonias – J. Y. Perreault (eds.), Greeks and Thracians. Acts of the International Symposium ‘Greeks and Thracians along the coast and in the Hinterland of Thrace during the years before and after the great colonization’ Thasos, 26–27 September 2009 (Thasos 2009) 53–82. Leshtakov 2010 К. Лещаков, Спасителни разкопки на обект 18 А, м. Бозаджийската кория, землище на с. Чокоба, община Сливен (АМ „Тракия“ – ЛОТ 3. КМ 270+300 – 270+500), Археологически открития и разкопки през 2009 г. (Sofia 2010) 129–131. Lichardus et al. 2000 J. Lichardus – A. Fol – L. Getov – F. Bertemes – R. Echt – R. Katinčarov – I. Iliev, Forschungen in der Mikroregion von Drama (Südostbulgarien). Zusammenfassung der Hauptergebnisse der bulgarisch-deutschen Grabungen in den Jahren 1983–1999 (Bonn, 2000). Lichardus et al. 2002 J. Lichardus – R. Echt – I. Iliev – Ch. Christov, Die Spätbronzezeit an der unteren Tundža und die ostägäische Verbindungen in Südostbulgarien, Eurasia Antiqua 8, 2002, 135–184. Mikov 1970 В. Миков, Материали от последния период на бронзовата епоха в Северозападна България, Археология 1970, 48–63. Nikolov – Zhekova 1982 В. Николов – В. Жекова, Колективна находка на керамични съдове от късната бронзова епоха в с. Есеница, Варненски окръг, Известия на Народния музей Варна 18, 33, 1982, 87–92. Nikov 2001 K. Nikov, Cultural interrelations in the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age, ‘Maritsa-Iztok’, Archaeological Research 5 (Radnevo 2001) 69–82. Palincaş 1996 N. Palincaş, Valorificarea arheologică a probelor 14C din fortificaţia aparţinând Bronzului târziu de la Popeşti (jud. Giurgiu), Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche şi Arheologie / Etudes et Recherches d’Histoire Ancienne et d’Archéologie 47, 3, 1996, 239–288. Palincaş 2006 N. Palincaş, On power, organisation and paradigm in Romanian archaeology before and after 1989, Dacia 50, 2006, 7–56. Palincaş 2007 N. Palincaş, Contacts with the Aegean and their social impact in the Late Bronze Age in the Lower Danube, in: I. Galanaki – H. Tomas – Y. Galanakis – R. Laffineur (eds.), Between the Aegean and Baltic Seas. Prehistory Across Borders. Proceedings of the International Conference, Bronze and Early Iron Age Interconnections and Contemporary Developments between the Aegean and the Regions of the Balkan Peninsula, Central and Northern Europe, University of Zagreb, 11–14 April 2005, Aegaeum 27 (Liège 2007) 231–240. Palincaş 2012 N. Palincaş, Investigating Bronze Age social organisation in the Lower Danube region. The case of the Žuto Brdo-Gărla Mare area, Istros 18, 2012, 13–38. Panayotov 1975 И. Панайотов, За хронологията и периодизацията на бронзовата епоха в българските земи, Исторически преглед 6, 1975, 24–46.

The Making of Late Bronze Age Archaeological Cultures in Bulgaria

331

Panayotov 1978 И. Панайотов, За ранните етапи в генезиса на траките, Thracia Antiqua 3 (Sofia 1978) 78–88. Panayotov 1980 I. Panayotov, Bronze rapiers, swords and double axes from Bulgaria, Thracia 5 (Sofia 1980) 173–198. Panayotov 1981 I. Panayotov, Problems of Dating the Bronze Age in Bulgaria, Bulletin of the Ancient Orient Museum 3 (Tokyo 1981) 17–35. Panayotov 1984 И. Панайотов, За формирането на раннобронзовите култури в българските земи, Археология 2–3, 1984, 7–14. Panayotov 1985 И. Панайотов, По въпроса за културите на бронзовата епоха в българските земи, in: Сто години НАМ-Пловдив 2 (Plovdiv 1985) 69–86. Panayotov 1988 I. Panayotov, Studies on the Bronze Age in the Bulgarian lands (Historiographic notes), Thracia 81, 1988, 157–175. Panajotov 1989 I. Panajotov, Zur Chronologie und Periodisierung der Bronzezeit in den heutigen bulgarischen Gebieten, Thracia 9, 1989, 74–103. Panayotov 1995 I. Panayotov, The Bronze Age in Bulgaria. Studies and problems, in: D. Bailey – I. Panayotov (eds.), Prehistoric Bulgaria, Monographs in World Archaeology 22 (Madison, WI 1995) 243–252. Panayotov 1997 И. Панайотов, Погребалните обреди в археологията. Понятия, структура и описание, тълкуване, in: И. Гацов (ed.), Човекът зад находките. Археологията днес и утре (Sofia 1997) 26–36. Panayotov 2003 И. Панайотов, Проблеми на периодизацията на бронзовата епоха в българските земи, Studia Archaeologica І, Сборник в памет на д-р Петър Горбанов (Sofia 2003) 20–26. Panayotov – Donevski 1977 И. Панайотов – П. Доневски, Съкровище от късната бронзова епоха от с. Сокол, Силистренско, Известия на народния музей Варна 13, 1977, 131–142. Panayotov – Vulcheva 1989 И. Панайотов – Д. Вълчева, Археологическите култури от късната бронзова епоха в българските земи, Векове 18, I, 1989, 5–15. Panayotov – Vulcheva 2001 И. Панайотов – Д. Вълчева, Археологическите култури от късната бронзова епоха в българските земи и разпространението на рапирите, мечовете и двойните брадви, in: Палеобалканистика и старобългаристика. Втори есенни четения “професор Иван Гълъбов”, Велико Търново, 14–17 ноември 1996 г. (Veliko Tarnovo 2001) 469–478. Popov – Nikov 2012 Хр. Попов – Кр. Ников, Ада тепе и тайните на древното рударство / Ada Tepe and the Secrets of Ancient Mining (Sofia 2012). Şandor-Chicideanu 2003 М. Şandor-Chicideanu, Cultura Žuto brdo-Gârla mare. Contribuţii la cunoaşterea epocii bronzului la Dunǎrea Nijlocie şi Inferioarǎ (Cluj-Napoca 2003). Shalganova 2005 Т. Шалганова, Изкуство и обред на бронзовата епоха. Култура на инкрустираната керамика по Долен Дунав, МИФ Монографии 3 (Sofia 2005).

332

Tanya Dzhanfezova

Sørensen 2014 M. L. Stig Sørensen, The archaeological culture concept. Hot or cold understandings, in: H. Alexandersson – A. Andreeff – A. Bünz (eds.), Med hjärta och hjärna. En vänbok till professor Elisabeth Arwill-Nordbladh (Göteborg 2014) 247–258. Spiridonov 1999 Т. Спиридонов, Селища, in: Р. Георгиева – T. Спиридонов – M. Рехо, Етнология на траките (Sofia 1999) 12–34. Stefanovich – Bankoff 1998 М. Stefanovich – H. Bankoff, Kamenska Čuka 1993–95. Late Bronze Age site in Southwest Bulgaria. Preliminary findings, in: Stefanovich et al. 1998, 255–338. Stefanovich et al. 1998 M. Stefanovich – H. Todorova – H. Hauptmann (eds.), James Harvey Gaul In Memoriam, In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul I (Sofia 1998). Stojić 2006 M. Stojić, Regional characteristics of the Brnjica cultural group, Starinar 54, 2006, 73–84. Todorova 1982 H. Todorova, Zur Chronologie der bulgarischen Urgeshichte, in. A. Aspes (ed.), Il Passaggio dal Neolitico all’eta del Bronzo nell’Europa Centrale e nella regione Alpina. Problemi cronologici e terminologici. Atti del X Simposio internazionale sulla fine del Neolitico e gli inizi dell’età del Bronzo in Europa, Lazise-Verona 6–12 Aprile 1980 (Verona 1982) 45–52. Todorova 1984 Х. Тодорова, Добруджа през Преходния период и през бронзовата епоха (края на V хил. пр.н.е. – началото на ХІІ в. пр. н.е., История на Добруджа 1, 1984, 56–71. Tončeva 1974 G. Tončeva, Sur l’origine des Thraces (à la lumière des nouvelles recherches archèologiques), Thracia 3, 1974, 77–85. Tončeva 1980 G. Tončeva, Chronologie du Hallstatt ancien dans la Bulgarie de nord-est, Studia Thracica 5 (Sofia 1980). Tončeva 1982 G. Tončeva, Thracia Pontica a l’age de Bronze récent, in: A. Fol (ed.), Тракия Понтика І. Първи международен симпозиум. Обща тема „Черно море и средиземноморския свят“, Созопол, 9–12 октомври 1979 / Premier symposium international. Thème generale: “La Mer Noire et le Monde Mediterranéen”, Sozopol, 9–12 octobre 1979 (Sofia 1982) 176–182. Trigger 1989 B. Trigger. A History of Archaeological Thought (Cambridge 1989). Venedikov 1960 И. Венедиков. Произходът на траките, Езиковедско-етнографски изследвания в памет на академик Стоян Романски (Sofia 1960) 525–543. Zung 1989 Л. Зунг, Проблеми на къснобронзовата култура Разкопаница-Асеновец в Южна България, Археология 21, 1, 1989, 1–5.

Settlements or Sanctuaries? Interpretational Dilemma Concerning 2nd–1st Millennium BC Sites in Bulgaria Elena Bozhinova1 Abstract: The article discusses several types of sites from the 2nd and 1st millennia BC that are often regarded as places with predominantly cultic functions; they are called peak sanctuaries and pit sanctuaries. This ‘sanctuary theory’ that was invented in the 1980s gained vast popularity and dominates archaeological interpretation in Bulgaria even today. The information from excavations at these sites was used to reconstruct Thracian religious beliefs, practices, organisation and evolution. According to the sanctuary theory, the evidence that explains the ritual character of a mountain site is found in the location (the choice of a prominent mountain peak for practising rituals) and its morphology with specific types of features (enclosing walls, central buildings, piles of stones and mounds of ashy soil, pits, hearths, impressive natural rocky formations and carvings, etc.) and artefacts found at it (pottery sherds, miniature objects, spindle whorls, loom weights, grinding stones, tools, jewelry, coins). Ritual activities dedicated to solar deities are usually reconstructed at the mountain sites. Each of these criteria is discussed in the article and different interpretations of both location and morphology has been suggested. It suggests that the hilltop sites had residential, defensive, production and economic functions, rather than just religious ones. A reassessment of the information by ancient authors supports such a thesis. Recent excavations at some key sites in mountainous south Bulgaria (Ada tepe, Dragoyna and Kuş kaya) that were carried out in a greater scale during the last two decades has brought significant evidence to light that demonstrates a non-ritual function. The new approach allows for a reconsideration of the religious purpose of the occupation at wellknown sites, such as Gluhite kamani, Perperek and Nebet tepe. Again, according to the sanctuary theory, pits are regarded as remains of rituals based on the similarity with features found in burial tumuli and the information by ancient authors about libations made in the ground. Therefore, nearly all other excavated pits found in any type of site are traditionally recognised as testimony for ritual activities, and sites with numerous pits are seen as pit sanctuaries. The artefacts found in the pits are similar to the ones found at the mountain sites, but are all regarded as an indication for practising rituals dedicated to chthonic deities. A different approach in interpreting pit complexes is offered in the article. Pits are regarded as being used as places to store provisions, or as part of architecture (post holes, trenches, lower parts of dwellings), or even with other functions. The primary purpose of digging a pit and then its filling in at the end of its use are regarded as different acts. Sites with numerous pits and other types of negative features are explained as remains of short-term habitation, where the upper part of the structures (dwellings with wattle-and-daub or wooden constructions) were destroyed or situated apart from the excavated area. The available data allows for the reconstruction of a pattern with settlements located on rocky peak locations in the mountain regions and short-lived settlements in the plains areas. Residential centres were the sites with long-term habitation, with a variety of structures and more elaborate architecture. Sites for the performance of religious praxis can be seen within the residential areas, most probably at central common places, but also at natural rock sites. It is supposed that some pits within settlements were used for ritual practices as well. Keywords: Late Bronze Age, Iron Age, hilltop sites, rock sites, pits, sanctuaries, settlement pattern

According to a recent trend in Bulgarian Bronze and Iron Age archaeology, several types of sites dating to the second half of 2nd and 1st millennia BC are often regarded as places with predominantly cultic functions and are called peak sanctuaries and pit sanctuaries.2 Even though some of these sites were initially interpreted as fortresses and settlements and the cultic interpretation was a later hypothesis, the new theory gained fast popularity and was applied to nearly all sites of



1 2

Regional Archaeological Museum – Plovdiv, Bulgaria; [email protected]. The problematic issue discussed here concerns the Late Bronze Age (16th–12th centuries BC), Early Iron Age (11th– 6th centuries BC) and the Late Iron Age (5th–1st centuries BC), according to the archaeological periodisation system in Bulgaria.

334

Elena Bozhinova

these types. The rather vague criteria for the interpretation of an archaeological site in Bulgaria as cultic were defined on the basis of limited archaeological research. Despite the fact that these criteria do not generally differ from the ones used to explain residential or other functions, they are usually presented as proof of the cultic character of any site, even those registered only by field survey. Thus, the growing number of sanctuaries led to the reconstruction of archaeological landscapes full of peak sanctuaries in the mountain regions and pit sanctuaries in the plains areas, and a negligible number of settlements. This recent trend in Bulgarian archaeology went so far as to name as sanctuary any site that yielded a small number of pits or demonstrated some prominent natural rock formation with a few sherds of pottery around it.3 The hypothesis about the cultic functions of a number of sites led to further reconstructions of Thracian religion suggesting: a three-stage organisation of the sacred area with separated functions and levels of access,4 a regulated system of sacred places,5 a high-level of organisation of the ritual practices, a spatial separation of the sacred areas from the profane ones, an existence of a particular social group devoted completely to the religious activities,6 and even a definition of regions with religious functions such as “Sacred Mountains”.7 Pits are understood as places where cults of fertility and the home practised, but also as rituals referring to trade, agriculture and building activities; deities such as the Thracian Great Mother Goddess, Hekate or Hermes are claimed to have been worshipped in the pit sanctuaries.8 Religious reforms are detected on the basis of the archaeological features’ development. A religious innovation is seen at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age when ditches (roundels) perceived as typical features of Early and Middle Bronze Age sanctuaries were replaced by the mountain peak sanctuaries as a result of a new religious concept where the chthonic deities were displaced by solar ones.9 The foundation of many new places recognised as sacred and a reorganisation of the sacred area toward a more elaborate one at about the 6th–5th centuries BC are taken as another important religious shift in Thrace.10

The article is based on the results of archaeological research and the following discussions in Bulgaria for the last 20 years. Grounds for observation are the excavations and field surveys held in the country and published as preliminary reports in the annual volumes of Археологически открития и разкопки (Archaeological Finds and Excavations). A recent study about the Early Iron Age in the Rhodopes Mountains present statistic data regarding 91 settlement sites contra 63 cultic ones; these numbers do not include sites with rock-cut features, although they are all regarded as structures related to ritual activities (Dimitrova 2015, table 2). The literature about the Thracian sanctuaries is enormous. General discussions on the cultic sites during 2nd–1st millennia BC in Bulgaria are the topic of a lot of studies (Domaradzki 1986; Kisiov 1990; Georgieva 1991; Fol 1993; Domaradzki 1994; Gotzev 1994; Kisiov 1998; Domaradzki 2002; Leshtakov 2002; Balabanov 2002; Gotzev 2003; Tonkova 2003; Gotzev 2005; Nekhrizov 2005; Raduncheva 2005; Kostova 2006; Fol 2007; Gotzev 2008; Hristov 2009; Shalganova 2012; Varbanov 2013, 29–43; Bayrakov 2015; Bayrakov 2016). At the same time, complete publications of archaeological excavations at both mountain sites and pit complexes are very few. The pit complexes are the sites of Bagachina (Bonev – Alexandrov 1996), Radnevo (Savatinov 1997), Koprivlen (Valcheva 2002, 102–123), Svilengrad (Nekhrizov – Tzvetkova 2008; Nekhrizov – Tzvetkova 2012) and Sexaginta Prista (Varbanov 2013), and are published in detail. The sites of Kostadin cheshma at Debelt (Balabanov 1999), Durankulak (Burrow 1994), Gledachevo (Tonkova 2003) are studied to a greater extent but partially published. Only preliminary publications are available about the mountain sanctuaries of Babyak (Domaradzki 1999; Tonkova – Gotzev 2008a, with literature), Levunovo (Domaradzki 1986, 97–103; Domaradzki 1994; Domaradzki 1999, 15, 17, 64–75, 83–84), Tzrancha (Domaradzki 1986; Domaradzki et al. 1999, 60–64), Alada (Leshtakov 1984), Troyan – Turlata (Hristov – Gotzev 2003), Ada tepe (Nekhrizov – Mikov 2002; Nekhrizov 2005a, 169–173), Aul kaya (Nekhrizov 2008), Perperek (Leshtakov 2007; Ovcharov et al. 2011), Tatul (Ovcharov et al. 2008), western Rhodopes Mountain sites (Gotzev 2005 with literature; Hristov 2009; Bayrakov 2016 with literature; Gergova 2014), etc. 4 Domaradzki 2002, 65–67. 5 Gotzev 2003, 10. 6 Kostova 2006, 40–46. 7 Hristov 2002, 233; Bayrakov 2015, 14–15. 8 Balabanov 2002, 543–545; Tonkova 2003, 483 with literature. 9 Kostova 2006, 44. 10 Domaradzki 2002, 66, 74. 3



Settlements or Sanctuaries?

335

The cultic interpretation about the function of both highland and lowland sites started in the mid-1980s. Until that time, sites at mountain peaks had been interpreted traditionally as fortified settlements. Pits, on the other hand, were found on the fringe of settlements and were considered as nothing more than trash deposits. Geographically, both types of sites are located mainly in south Bulgaria, with the hilltop sites predominating in the Rhodope Mountains.11 This distribution pattern also reflects the larger number of excavations in south Bulgaria; meanwhile, similar sites appear also to the north of the Stara Planina mountain range. Thus, if we follow the sanctuary theory, we have to accept that longlasting cults that include worshipping gods at mountain peaks and other rituals at pit complexes must have been extensively practised in the lower parts of Bulgaria, northern Greece, European Turkey and in southern parts of Romania. For Romania, a ritual use of pits has also been postulated.12 Sites with pit complexes came to the focus of archaeological research also in European Turkey and in northern Greece.13 The Thracian hilltop sites are usually compared with Bronze Age peak sanctuaries in Crete;14 despite the huge cultural and geographical distance between the two regions, the different level of social and political organisation, and the general lack of shared material culture during the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age. It is questionable how the alleged Thracian sanctuaries appeared in the Rhodope Mountains as the outcome of such contacts and became popular already from the Late Bronze Age onwards, while the majority of the Greek sanctuaries reappear in the Greek mainland only after the late 8th century BC. The research at the Early Iron Age hilltop site of Tsouka in the Greek part of the Rhodope Mountains and its interpretation as a farming place have not been taken into consideration in the relevant debate in Bulgaria, despite the convincing arguments presented and the similarity of the site’s location and morphology with others studied in the country.15 The question that arises is whether religious life really dominated the Late Bronze and Iron Age eastern Balkan cultural landscape, or do we have an overinterpretation of archaeological data? This paper aims to present an alternative approach to the interpretation of the hilltop sites and pit complexes. Evidence from recent excavations at sites interpreted as sanctuaries points to their non-religious function as settlement sites. The Hilltop and Rock Sites16 The sites of Babyak, Tzrancha (western Rhodope Mountains) and Levunovo (south-west Bulgaria) were the ones used to define criteria for distinguishing between settlement and sanctuary sites.17 These sites were reported and accepted beyond any doubt as sanctuaries, even though all

Cf. Nenova in this volume. Sîrbu 1995. 13 For an overview see Gimatzidis forthcoming; the excavation results of the Turkish sites have been only preliminarily published: Erim-Özdoğan et al. 2004. Sites with pits studied in sites in northern Greece are gathered and analysed by Ilieva forthcoming. 14 Domaradzki 2002, 60; Gotzev 2003, 21–22. 15 Efstratiou 1993. 16 Mountain peaks and prominent rocky sites are usually treated separately as two distinct types of sites. Apart from their location and morphology, however, these sites share common features. Since the discussion regarding their function raises identical questions about both types, in the current article they are considered together and, in order to avoid wordiness, ‘mountain-’, ‘peak-’ and ‘rock sanctuaries’ are used as synonymous. 17 A first typology of the mountain sanctuaries together with their main features was initially published by Naidenova 1986, but the theory is developed after archaeological excavations by Domaradzki 1986; Domaradzki 1994; Domaradzki 1999, 15–19; Domaradzki 2002 and further applied and worked out by Kisiov 1990; Gotzev 1994; Kisiov 1998; Leshtakov 2002, 37–49; Gotzev 2003; Gotzev 2005; Nekhrizov 2005; Gotzev 2008; Shalganova 2012; recent review on the research history is presented in Bairyakov 2012. 11

12

336

Elena Bozhinova

three of them have been only partly investigated with a few trenches. Successive excavations were carried out at Babyak only, although still limited in scope. The established criteria were further used and applied to a number of other sites. The evidence that explains the ritual character of a site is found in the location (the choice of a prominent mountain peak for practising rituals) and its morphology with the specific types of features (enclosing walls, central buildings, piles of stones and mounds of ashy soil, pits, hearths, impressive natural rocky formations and carvings, etc.) and artefacts found at it. These criteria do not, however, present a consistent basis to argue for a cultic function of the sites discussed and should not exclude other interpretations: Location The so-called peak sanctuaries are usually located at prominent highland sites and are often distinguished by outstanding natural rock formations. Herodotus’ hint about the largest shrine of Dionysus in the highest mountain18 is literally taken as evidence for the cultic function of rocky peak sites. Cliffs are associated with the Goddess-mother and regarded as sacred for the Thracians in a Mediterranean ritual context.19 Arguments against the interpretation of the highland sites as settlement sites are the present lack of water sources and the difficult access to them.20 The habitation at a prominent peak location could have served different purposes and its choice may have resulted out of a plethora of motives. High mountain peaks are most suitable to host a fortress for strategic reasons. Small fortifications at an elevated location or even high peaks without fortification could have a strategic role as part of a larger defensive system. Studies on the settlement pattern during Late Bronze and Early Iron Age indicate that highland sites were preferred for residential places in the mountainous areas of the eastern Balkans21 and were located near roads usually following passes through the mountain.22 The location of most of these sites allows for visual communication. Climate conditions could be one of the reasons for the preference of higher rocky locations as dwelling places, when the low terrains are prone to flooding. It is the climate again that mostly influences water source availability, but also geological events and processes like earthquakes can cause displacement of the water veins. The lack of springs today inside the inhabited area of the Dragoyna site is explained geologically as being the result of such a displacement. Prominent cliffs enable a site to be easily found amidst forest regions. Considering the mobility of the population during the Bronze and Iron Ages and an environment with dense wooded areas, points of reference that are visible from a distance could explain choosing a high prominent location for situating a settlement and especially larger regional centres. Natural phenomena, such as impressive rock formations, could be regarded in the same sense, as a memorable signs in the landscape. The most prominent locations with available life-sustaining resources were in use during different periods of time.23 It is probable that several rocky sites may have witnessed ritual practices, which, however, does not mean an exclusive religious function. The specific cliff being accepted as sacred and a testament for a god’s protection does not reject other interpretations such as the residential character of a site, on the contrary, such beliefs may have been desirable prerequisites for a foundation of a settlement. The need for refuge and protection would also explain the choice of a site with difficult access for settlement. Keep in mind the physical abilities of the ancient people as compared to those of the modern archaeologists, and then access would not seem that difficult.

20 21 22 23 18 19

Hdt. 7, 111, 2. Domaradzki 2002, 59–60; Shalganova 2012, 162. Gotzev 2003, 23; Gotzev 2008, 221; Bayriakov 2016, 57. Bozhinova 2009, 114–118; Popov 2009, 34–36. Gotzev 2003, 20, 29–30; Gotzev 2008, 225. Perperek and Gluhite Kamani, that are discussed below, are some of the most representative sites.

Settlements or Sanctuaries?

337

Morphology The enclosing walls are thought to have separated the sacred space from the surrounding profane area.24 The forms of the walls studied so far, in terms of technique and size, indicate a defensive function of the sites rather than an imagined ritual one. Walls were also built to prevent sliding down if the terrain was steep.25 It is also possible that, for some meager features, the function of fencing was to keep domestic animals confined in an area or simply to delineate the borders of a property.26 Sanctuaries may of course be territorially defined by enclosures that could have also a defensive character, but the walls as such cannot be taken as evidence for the cult function of a site without any other indications. Similarly, the general interpretation of a site as a sanctuary is used as basic evidence for interpreting excavated buildings as temples or other edifices for practising rituals. Buildings that differ from ordinary dwelling structures are recognised as such and are usually the only ones excavated at a site.27 A building with a special function for rituals and other activities common for the whole society could well be also part of any settlement, or even a fortress. The best example is the sanctuary of the Great Samothracian Deities within the residential area of the Odrysian capital of Seuthopolis (4th–3rd centuries BC).28 A sanctuary with a temple from the Classical period has been excavated recently at the site of Krastevich, which, similarly to Seuthopolis, follows Greek models.29 The splendid large building in close vicinity of the tumuli dated to the Classical period is probably a temple.30 These monuments indicate that temples in the Aegean type had been known and built in Thrace for the period after the 6th century BC. At the same time, single buildings excavated at mountain sites could have various interpretations depending on the general specifics of a site – as a house structure of a farm (the Early Iron Age site of Tsouka in the south part of the Rhodope Mountains31), a residence of a ruler (a 4th century BC residence at Kozi Gramadi in Sredna Gora Mountain32), a communal place for storing provisions (a Late Bronze Age feature at Dragoyna in the Rhodopes Mountain33), construction with specific defensive functions or others. Altars for offerings are usually recognised in natural or carved stones or rocks, different types of hearths, ash piles or a similar structure, even pits. A stone-cut altar is found at a location with rocks at the village of Chokoba, where the only artefacts found include a limited number of pottery sherds.34 Altars from the Hellenistic period are known also from Seuthopolis.35 At the same time, numerous other features are interpreted as altars only because the site that they belong to is predefined as ritual. Natural rocks at high locations with traces of fire or ash piles could have had many different functions and may not necessarily be always interpreted as altars, especially when specific indications are missing. The so called “ash layers”, “ash altars” and “ash piles” – known

Domaradzki 1994, 69–96; Domaradski 2002, 65–66; Leshtakov 2002, 38; Gotzev 2005, 161; Hristov 2009, 14; Bayriakov 2015, 38. 25 Such a wall was revealed at one of the residential zones of Ada tepe, Popov et al. 2015, 55. 26 Efstratiou 1993, 169–171. 27 Special purpose of some buildings is seen in the site of Levunovo and Demir Baba Teke at Sborianovo (Domaradzki 2002, 71–72). A building with water-and-daub construction at the Belite kamani site close to the village of Startzevo, western Rhodopes, is interpreted as a temple (Kisiov 1998, 34). Some constructions dated to later periods in other western Rhodope Mountain sites are understood as temples (Gergova 2014), however, whether or not they belong to this interpretation remains uncertain, since detailed publications of their constructions and accompanying artefacts as well as the general characteristics of the sites is not yet complete. 28 Dimitrov 1984, 16; Domaradski 2002, 71. 29 Madzharov – Tacheva 2015; Madzharov in print. 30 Domaradski 2002, 62 and literature. 31 Efstratiou 1993, 170. 32 Hristov – Stoyanova 2011. 33 A possible interpretation to store communal provisions is suggested for the only sheltered space inside highly defended area at the peak of Malka Dragoyna (Bozhinova 2014, 51–52). 34 Banov 1986. 35 Dimitrov 1957, 2, 67–70. 24

338

Elena Bozhinova

as “zolʿnik” in Ukrainian archaeology – can be interpreted in many other ways36 than as the burnt debris of a sacrifice. Hearths are evidence for habitation when they are parts of dwelling structures or even when they are outside of buildings. The decorated hearths (escharae) are found also in indubitable settlement contexts (Seuthopolis), and are usually regarded as parts of houses where domestic cults were practised.37 There are many sanctuaries from the following Roman period, where temples and altars are clearly recognised.38 Some monuments dated to the Classical and Hellenistic periods at Krastevich and Seuthopolis suggest that temples and altars of Aegean type must have also existed at some Bulgarian sites. A number of rock-cut formations are seen as direct indications for practising rituals, they include: ‘solar discs’, channels, ‘thrones’, stairs, ‘steps’, natural caves, ‘altars’ and ‘relieves’. Natural signs on rocks are interpreted as artificial formations with ritual symbolism or function.39 Today, most of them are proved to be absolutely natural or to belong to later periods, even modern times.40 Pits, ash layers, rock carvings or stone piles are regarded as “deposits of votive offerings”.41 All these structures could, however, also be alternatively interpreted according to the specific character of each site. Most striking are the piles of stones that are regarded as intentional, and the ‘offerings’, among which pottery sherds are most frequent, are placed with no order among the stones. Judging from my personal experience, piles of stones were simply formed after the destruction of stone structures, most often common buildings. The variability in form and size of these stone piles is a result of the different types and functions of the buildings they used to belong to and the way they were destroyed. The attribution of a ritual purpose to a shapeless feature of a pile of stones seems an unconvincing hypothesis. Artefacts which are regarded as offerings consist mainly of pottery sherds, clay, metal and bone miniature objects, rounded sherds, spindle whorls, loom weights, grinding stones, sometimes tools and jewelry, even coins.42 Some uncommon artefacts, such as tools or jewellery that are comparatively rare, are considered offerings of special ritual practices. All of the listed artefacts can be found in any other type of site – such as settlements, fortresses, and cemeteries – and thus they cannot be taken as evidence for a sanctuary as the sole function of a site. Furthermore, the occurrence, or lack thereof, of some common finds such as the ceramic bowls and animal bones was also related to a cult function of sites. The rarity of ceramic bowls43 could be a result of the diet of a particular community or the preference for wooden vessels for their meals. Bowls are usually uncommon in the ceramic repertoire of the Late Bronze Age in Bulgaria and the form of the bowl with an inverted rim appears gradually at the end of the 2nd millennium BC, becoming emblematic for the Iron Age. The absence of this pottery type at a site should be considered a chronological indicator.44 The occurrence of particular artefacts such as portable altars with decoration or specific pottery groups such as the so-called Cepina Wares are related to local cult practice in the western Rhodope Mountains.45 Since these artefacts have limited territorial distribution, it is more likely

38 39 40 36 37

43 44 41 42

45



Pieniążek-Sikora 2009, 160–168. Čičikova 1975; Krasteva 2011, 289–292. Venedikov – Fol 1980; Valchev 2011, 11–16. Naidenova 1986, 17–20; Domaradzki 2002, 70–71; Hristov 2009, 11; Shalganova 2012; articles in Markov 2012. Most exemplary are the ‘solar discs’ that were widely accepted as evidence for practicing rituals at rocky locations but recently proved to have been made in modern times (Gospodinov – Gospodinov 2008). Domaradski 2002, 69–70; Nekhrizov 2005, 155; Tonkova 2005, 165–170; Tonkova 2007, 54–56. Domaradski 2002, 72–73; Leshtakov 2002, 40; Tonkova 2005, 170–176; Tonkova 2007, 56–63; Tonkova 2008. Nekhrizov et al. 2012, 228. A chronological reason for the absence of the bowls with inverted rim in the Gluhite kamani assemblage is pointed by Y. Dimitrova (Dimitrova 2015, 250). Tonkova – Gotzev 2008b, 191–192; Georgieva 2003, 173–175.

Settlements or Sanctuaries?

339

that they are featuring a distinct archaeological cultural landscape in the region instead of being part of special ritual practice. The most common ritual practice allegedly recognised in all sanctuaries is a ‘ritual breaking of ceramic vessels’ and evidence for this are common pottery sherds. It is unduly remarked that vessels break at any place and time and sherds are the most common artefacts at any archaeological site. Of course, I do not reject the ritual practice of breaking ceramic vessels, which was definitely taking place in many cultures and in different periods, but considering pottery sherds as proof for the ritual character of a structure and, in general, of a site is highly conjectural, when other evidence is missing. The lack of animal bones46 could be due to the acidity of the soil as well as their further use for making glue or other products. The high acidity of the soil is the main reason for the few remains of bones and the cause of their poor preservation at Dragoyna. It is to be noted that the observations on the lack of bones at many sites are based on limited excavation surfaces and could also be a result of the fact that bone discard did not happen equally intensively all over a settlement. Key-sites The brief analysis of the criteria used for the interpretation of a site as ‘peak sanctuary’ is indicative of their ill-defined definition. Recent excavations at some key-sites in mountainous south Bulgaria that were carried out on a greater scale during the last two decades brought to light significant evidence that demonstrated a non-ritual function. The site of Ada tepe at a mountain peak is the most notable example. Rescue excavations began due to modern mining activities and the site was first interpreted as a sanctuary that functioned at least from the Late Bronze Age until the Hellenistic period.47 Subsequently larger scale excavations presented evidence for massive mining activities during the whole period of the Late Bronze Age and also brought to light residential areas, some of them enclosed by fortification walls.48 The settlement that was located at the highest summit was continuously inhabited without break until the first centuries of the Early Iron Age. The excavations offered, however, not any data for mining activities during the later occupation period. Further research showed that Ada tepe was not the only region where metal production and casting took place.49 Dragoyna is a high peak with prominent rocky formations at a strategic location between the Rhodope Mountains and the Hebros Valley (Figs. 1–2). The site comprises an extended occupation territory, massive fortifications and spatial organisation around central places that must have been available for public activities.50 It is the largest one among other contemporary sites in the region. These specifics, together with imports and precious objects among the artefacts found during excavations, suggest it had the role of a regional centre. It is not excluded that rituals were also practised, especially in the public space, but the lack of indisputable evidence makes this suggestion conjectural. The excavations’ results prove intensive inhabitation for a period of about 15 centuries, between the 16th and 3rd centuries BC, although seasonal occupation and short-term abandoning are possible for some periods. Abundant metal resources are probably the reasons for its prosperity since the Late Bronze Age. Enlargements and declines in the inhabited area’s size, occupation of new terrains adjusted for settling, changes in the fortification system together with the moving of the central area of the site reveal the dynamics of its role and function through the ages.

Nekhrizov 2005, 157. The site has been registered during field survey by G. Nekhrizov, who was the director of the first part of the excavations in the area over the top of the hill (Nekhrizov – Mikov 2002). 48 A second stage of the excavations was directed by H. Popov. Preliminary results are published in Popov – Jockenhövel 2011; Popov – Nikov 2014; Popov et al. 2015. 49 Popov et al. 2011. 50 Bozhinova 2007; Bozhinova 2014. 46 47

340

Elena Bozhinova

Fig. 1   Dragoyna, view to the site (photo: C. Apostolov)

Fig. 2   Dragoyna, view to the eastern part of the site (photo: C. Tzotchev)

Settlements or Sanctuaries?

341

The theory of Dragoyna functioning as a sanctuary was proposed following the traditional understanding of mountain sites as sanctuaries.51 The hypothesis that the site was not a normal settlement is based on the difficulty of accessing the location from modern roads. If residential functions of the site are excluded, then such a big sanctuary would require a dense network of settlements and other habitation places around in order to maintain such a prominent religious centre and host the numerous pilgrims that had left behind the enormous number of artefacts and structures at the mountain peak. A thorough field survey in the region shows no settlements in close vicinity to the Dragoyna peak, but there is a dense network of sites located on other peaks in the surrounding mountains with a closest distance of about 5km. All of them are situated in such a way as to maintain visual line of sight between each other. These sites, most of which are fortified by walls and have similar characteristics, draw the settlement pattern of this mountain region.52 Kuş kaya is another peak with prominent high cliffs on its top that was chosen as a habitation site during the Late Bronze Age, the Early Iron Age and the Roman period (2nd–3rd centuries AD). The highest platform that is naturally fortified is used for a settlement. A few buildings with similar plans and wattle-and-daub construction over stone-bases that date to the Late Bronze and the Early Iron Age were excavated. Artefacts in some of the buildings suggest that pottery was locally produced.53 The architecture is similar to another settlement – at the mountain peak of Vishegrad – that has a long-term habitation and was fortified probably no later than the Hellenistic period.54 These two sites prove the residential function of strategic mountain peaks with prominent locations. Often, such places continue to be inhabited during later periods. The architecture specifics and the variability of artefacts, together with the fortifications, suggest the sites had the function of regional centres. The site of Kuş kaya is comparable also with the one at Aul kaya, again located in the eastern Rhodopes. Settlement areas occupied the peak at both sites; at a terrace below the peak a massive fortification wall was built with huge stones during the Early Iron Age. Despite the common features shared by the two sites, they are usually interpreted in a different way – Kuş kaya as a settlement and Aul kaya as a sanctuary.55 This is a good example of the biases in the interpretation of highland sites in Bulgaria. Another site under current excavation is the mountain peak of Gluhite kamani. It is the most prominent peak in a large region where niches, stairs and other features are cut into the monumental rocks. It is inhabited most intensively during the Transitional period between the Bronze and the Iron Ages, the Early Iron Age, the Late Iron Age, Late Antiquity (4th–6th centuries AD) and the Mediaeval period (11th–12th centuries AD).56 The excavations revealed a thick layer with the remains of constructions of meager architecture and hearths dated to the Transitional period and the Early Iron Age. The pottery assemblage has the specific trait of a small number of bowls, which is interpreted as resulting from the type of activities here, namely ritual drinking and feasting and libations. This, along with the seasonal occupation of the site, is a reason to confirm the ritual use of the place – a hypothesis from the very first registration of the site because of the rock-cut niches.57 The niches share the same territory of occurrence with other rock-cut features such as tombs, which may indicate their date of the Early Iron Age.58 Cutting niches in the rock must have been a short-lasting practice limited to the eastern Rhodopes region. Based on the repeatable size, form, and traces of cutting we can conclude that the niches were made by skilled craftsmen. The

53 54 51 52

57 58 55 56

Leshtakov 2002, 25, fig. 1. Bozhinova 2009, 115–120; Andonova – Bozhinova 2010; Bozhinova – Andonova 2015. Popov 2009. The site of Vishegrad was excavated in the 1970s, i.e. before the invention of the sanctuary theory and was interpreted as a residential hilltop site (Dremsizova-Nelchinova 1984). Nekhrizov 2008. Nekhrizov et al. 2012, 223. Nekhrizov et al. 2012, 227–229; latest results is presented in Nekhrizov – Tzvetkova 2015. Venedikov 1976, 109; Delev 1982, 415–423; Nekhrizov et al. 2012, 228–229 with literature.

342

Elena Bozhinova

Fig. 3   Rock-cut niches at Ivanov kamak, Dragoyna region (photo: A. Andonova)

necessity of not only specific skills in stone-cutting but also in alpinist techniques support a thesis that these features were made by a restricted group of craftsmen. The organisation of the niches in groups and some cases of unfinished ones are in favour of their serial production. The lack of variability in forms shows not any evolutionary development, which may mean that niche-cutting must have been practised within a short period of time. The lack of any sufficient interpretation, until now, together with their superficial similarity with Anatolian rock-carvings fostered theories about their ritual function,59 although firm evidence is lacking. The exact date of these niches between the Chalcolitic and the Early Iron Age remains unknown and the answer to this problem is to be found in the stratigraphic evidence provided by the better excavated sites. Prominent sites, such as the ones discussed here, attracted settlement or other uses of the space through the ages, which could hardly help to solve the problem. Gluhite Kamani is such a case. At this site, the niches’ contemporaneity with the Iron Age settlement at the site is still under question. Additionally, niches alone cannot be regarded as an indicator for the ritual function of the location during the period in which the settlement was established. The new evidence demands a reconsideration of the sites previously and widely perceived as sanctuaries. Nebet tepe, located in the city of Plovdiv (ancient Philippopolis), is one of the most popular such sites (Figs. 3–4). It is part of a settlement that became a significant regional and extra-regional centre for most of the historical periods; it is located next to the Maritza (the

59

Vassileva 2012, 55.

Settlements or Sanctuaries?

343

Fig. 4   Plovdiv (Philippopolis), map of the site with plan of the Roman city and Late Bronze Age and Iron Age habitation sites. 1–3. Trihalmie (the Three hills). 1. Nebet tepe. 2. Dzhambaz tepe. 3. Taxim tepe. 4. Dzhandem tepe (after Bozhinova – Hristeva 2015, fig. 1 and Bozhinova – Hristeva 2016, fig. 1)

ancient Hebros) River, in the close vicinity of the Rhodope Mountains and with natural volcanic hills that are visible from a distance and are appropriate for fortifying.60 The centre of the habitation area is Nebet tepe, the highest part of the largest hill.61 Results of excavations here held between 1935 and 1972 are insufficiently published and discrepant. The first investigators published a stratigraphy with house type structures for the Bronze and Iron Age occupation, while later research claimed to reveal palaces and massive fortification for these periods. One eschara that was found next to the fortification wall was used as the main evidence for the ritual functions of the site since the Bronze Age. Nevertheless, convincing archaeological evidence that provides support for such an interpretation is missing, the site continued to be interpreted until nowadays as an extra-regional sanctuary.62 The topography of the city, together with the numerous and various

A Thracian settlement had been renamed Philippopolis after Philip II in 342 BC and the city remained most popular with this name during the next Roman period and the Middle Ages. Last review on the Iron Age inhabitation in Plovdiv is presented in Bozhinova – Hristeva 2015, 132–134, 142–144. 61 The largest hill named Trihalmie (the Three hills) is composed of three culminations (Nebet tepe, Dzhambaz tepe and Taksim tepe). It is not the highest one among all the seven hills there but it is most suitable for inhabitation with its flat large ridge and being situated just next to the Maritza riverbank and is inhabited since the Chalkolithic period until modern times with short intermissions. 62 Domaradski 1999, 24; Kisiov 2004, 37. The largest excavations there are held by A. Peikov who interpreted Nebet tepe as a sanctuary since the Early Bronze Age. These results are rejected by all the other investigators as being absolutely unfounded (Popov 2002, 93–109 with review on the discussion). Solely Peikov’s general interpretation of the site as a sanctuary, paradoxically, is widely accepted, though the arguments are considered as groundless. 60

344

Elena Bozhinova

Fig. 5   Nebet tepe, Plovdiv, aerial view to the acropolis (photo: M. Konstantinov)

data for the subsequent Roman period, suggests that Dzhendem tepe, the highest hill in the area, was the most probable place for the performance of rituals during earlier periods.63 The case of Plovdiv is rather complex because the low areas were also inhabited. The excavated structures that date to the pre-Roman times are mainly pits from the Late Bronze Age and the Classical and Hellenistic periods, which are again interpreted as the remains of ritual activities (Figs. 5–6).64 Thus, according to the sanctuary theory, there is: a) an extra-regional rock sanctuary at the top of Nebet tepe; b) another sanctuary at Dzhendem tepe; and c) a necropolis and several ritual pits in the foot-hills and around them. Considering all this information one may ask, where did the people who practised all these rituals at the sites of Philippopolis live? Is it possible that a large group of people maintaining such a big sanctuary and practising rituals so actively left so little traces of domestic activity? Numerous sites have been interpreted as sanctuaries although the available archaeological data is too scarce to suggest a function other than common settlement. Such a site is Perperek, situated again at a prominent rocky peak, where a fortress was built in the Late Roman period and the Mediaeval Age. It was already inhabited by the Chalcolithic period, and later in the Late Bronze and the Iron Age. The site became popular as a “big cultic center for all the Thracians”,

For the character of the habitation at Dzhendem tepe during the Roman period see Gotcheva 1985; most recent research is by Raycheva 2014, with literature. 64 Leshtakov 2002, 32. The observations at Plovdiv are based on 15 rescue excavations conducted in different parts of the site under the direction of the author of the current paper over the last six years. Pits dating to the Classical and Hellenistic periods were interpreted as part of dwelling structures (Bozhinova – Hristeva 2015, 143–144). 63

Settlements or Sanctuaries?

345

Fig. 6   A pit in Plovdiv (27 Mitropolit Panaret Str.), Hellenistic period (photo: E. Bozhinova)

“a large temple complex” and “rock-cut palace sanctuary”.65 Although the data from larger scale excavations does not reveal much about the early habitation phases, the site kept the interpretation of a sanctuary in accordance with the popular view about the cultic character of this type of monuments. Artefacts of the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age, found in the crevices that have not been disturbed in later periods, were regarded as votive offerings deposited on purpose as part of an alleged special ritual.66 Pits (usually called bothroi) and hearths are indiscriminately interpreted in the same direction. Altars are recognised in dubious structures and contexts.67 Perperek is a good example of the interpretation biases discussed here: it is considered as a sanctuary mainly due to its location, at the top of a rocky prominent peak, which allegedly served the

Naidenova 1986, 21–23; Fol – Ovcharov 2002. Leshtakov 2007, 86–88. 67 Ovcharov et al. 2011. 65 66

346

Elena Bozhinova

practice of imaginary ritual ceremonies. The circular argument goes on like this: since this is a sanctuary, archaeological artefacts and contexts that were yielded during excavations must also be the remains of ritual activities; in turn, these supposed rituals are used as a basis to reconstruct the much-celebrated Thracian religious practices. Literary Evidence Literary evidence can also contribute to a better understanding of the mountain sites and also offer an alternative interpretation from the one usually adopted by historians engaged in the so-called Thracian studies. Herodotus’ information about the sanctuary of Dionysus shaped the interpretation of all mountain sites as sanctuaries: “It is they who possess the place of divination sacred to Dionysus. This place is in their highest mountains; the Bessi, a clan of the Satrae, are the prophets of the shrine; there is a priestess who utters the oracle, as at Delphi; it is no more complicated here than there”.68 A sanctuary of the Heros Rhesus is mentioned by Philostratus. It had a miraculous altar at which animals went by themselves to be scarified voluntarily.69 Furthermore, Philostratus comments on the dense population of the region: “Rhodopê is extremely populous, and many villages surround the sanctuary”.70 This source is used to confirm a widely-accepted theory for a settlement system centralised around sanctuaries.71 The information about the famous – in Greek literature – Thracian sanctuary of Dionysus as “no more complicated” is perhaps a hint that these sites may hardly be archaeologically distinguishable. A site with an altar and a scatter of sherds may confirm this, as is the case of Chokoba or other remarkable natural phenomena with a small number of artefacts found at them. The function of shrines and sanctuaries at some prominent peaks should be regarded as a certain fact. However, most of the mountain sites cannot be recognised as such just because of their notable locations and morphology. Instead, they were most probably short-term and highly eroded settlements. The most prominent sites with massive fortification walls and other structures were occupied for centuries. These sites combined residential, defensive, political and economic functions – Ada tepe and Dragoyna are the most exemplary. In this context, it would be also expected that some of these sites played the role of religious centres, where rituals were practised in their public space but also at natural phenomena in the vicinity. The Pit Complexes The case of ‘pit sanctuaries’ is very similar to that of the ‘mountain sanctuaries’, as far as the criteria for their interpretation is concerned. Pits occur as single structures or in groups (‘pit complexes’) in, under and around burial mounds as well as within or next to settlements.72 Pits that are dug in, under and around the burial mounds and contemporaneous with them are regarded as part of the burial or mortuary rituals. Some of them, though, could be a result of activities related to the construction of the tumulus itself, rites accompanying the funerals and post funeral commemoration rituals, etc.73 Distinguishing the different uses of these pits archaeologically is often impossible since the ‘offerings’ were mostly organic material that could very well have also been common daily waste.

70 71 72

Hdt. VII, 111, 2 (transaltion by Godley 1920). Philostr. Her. 17, 3–6. Philostr. Her. 17.5 (translation by Berenson Maclean – Bradshaw Aitken 2002). Domaradski 2002, 18. Pits are analysed comprehensively as ritual structures for first time by Georgieva 1991, which study lies in the base of all further research in this direction. Recent review on the problem is to be found in Balabanov 2002; Tonkova 2003, 479–483; Nekhrizov – Tzvetkova 2012, 177–179; Varbanov 2013, 29–41 with literature. 73 Cf. Hdt. 5, 8, 1; Hdt. 6, 38, 1. 68 69

Settlements or Sanctuaries?

347

Pit complexes have been studied to a larger extent in Bulgaria since the 1990s, after numerous larger scale rescue excavations.74 The excavated complexes date mostly to the Iron Age, but the phenomenon extend chronologically in earlier and later periods as well.75 Hearths, platforms of pebbles, areas with a concentration of wall plaster and ashy soils are usually regarded as structures related to the pits and, as such, are interpreted as remnants of ancient rituals.76 Hearths, but also larger pits, are commonly interpreted as sacrifice places.77 In some cases, the area with a pit complex is defined by a ditch. The concentration of many pits in a place, the lack of structures with certain utilitarian character and the similarities with the pits in tumuli led to their interpretation as sanctuaries. Specific rituals dedicated to chthonic deities are usually imagined and attributed to the digging of a pit and its successive filling. The large number of pit complexes excavated until now in Bulgaria led to the culture-historical conclusion that they are typical features of the Thracian culture. The forms and sizes of the pits vary. The bigger pits are often piriform in shape with a larger diameter at the lower parts. They were filled with soil, ash, charcoals and other organic material, often deposited in layers. Sometimes the pit’s sides are coated with clay and in some cases they are ‘sealed’ at a level with clay plaster. There are different layers in the fill that are understood as an indication of longer and deliberate deposition activities. The quality of the finds is similar to the ones known from the so-called mountain peak sanctuaries, which also include fragments of clay plaster, animal bones and grains. Animal and human skeletons, or parts of them, are usually regarded as evidence for sacrifices.78 A closer unbiased view may present an alternative interpretation for the function of the pits and pit complexes. We know that the settlement architecture during the 2nd–1st millennia BC consisted mainly of wattle-and-daub or just meager wooden structures, which cannot easily survive modern agricultural activity if they are situated in the uppermost layers of a flat site. Thus, hollow structures such as the pits that can easily escape destruction are the sole indicators left to witness the use of the space. Some larger pits with horizontal (flat) bottoms could be the lower parts of dwellings. This type of construction is already registered in the plains regions of the country, but also seems to be quite popular in the mountainous areas.79 Pits inside residential areas could be dug for storage or as part of a larger construction, such as postholes, a basement of a room, shelter, walls’ foundations, etc., however, their exact function is sometimes difficult to define archaeologically.80 The variability in the locations, forms and fillings of pits suggest a variety of functions. The digging and the filling of a pit should be regarded as two separate processes that are not necessarily connected. Pits could be dug as part of specific ritual practices that could include libations to gods.81 However, this activity does not explain the construction of a large and well-formed pit; instead, one would expect a swiftly dug pit that would leave few and archaeologically no

Some of the most emblemathic and well-studied sites are Bagachina, Koprivlen, Gledachevo and Svilengrad (see Note 3). Rousse and Radnevo (see Note 3) were partially excavated but also published in detail. 75 Leshtakov 2002, 32, 38; Tonkova 2003, 482. 76 Varbanov 2013, 32–36 with literature. 77 Tonkova 2003, 488–490. 78 Leshtakov 2002, 40; Tonkova 2003, 499–502. 79 Such constructions dated to the Early Iron Age have been studied in different parts of the country: the sites of Ovcharovo, Pshenichevo, Karnobat-Bada bunar, Glavan, Gorno Cherkovishte-Karabeglik in the plains region of south Bulgaria, Vishegrad in the Rhodope Mountains and the Shumen fortress in north Bulgaria (the sites are listed in Bozhinova 2011, 48 with literature). The type of partially dug-out dwellings is considered typical for certain prehistoric periods and most appropriate for so-called open settlements, especially when a settlement is founded at a new, virgin territory (Boyadzhiev 2013, 70–79). The 2nd and 1st millennia BC settlements in the plains regions of Bulgaria are of the same architectural type with partially dug-out houses. For similar types of Bronze Age architecture in the north Black Sea region see Pieniążek-Sikora 2009, 59–149. 80 For pits as part of dwelling constructions, their variations and archaeological records see Boyadzhiev 2013, 90–93. 81 Georgieva 1991, 6 with literature; Balabanov 2002, 543. 74

348

Elena Bozhinova

discernable traces. A more plausible interpretation would be that they were conceived as storage facilities. The ancient written sources tell about the use of pits for storage; a pit is even used as a measuring unit for grain. Millet was part of the dowry that the king Kotys I gave after his daughter’s marriage to Iphicrates.82 The measure of the grain is described as “a pit with millet”. Thus, an established standardisation, or at least the rubrics of the size (and form) of a pit for storing grain, could be supposed to have existed. The shape of a pit with an enlarged lower part and coated sites is most suitable for this purpose.83 The short-time usage is characteristic of these pits, which would explain their appearance in large numbers. Parts or whole skeletons of animals, such as bulls, sheep, horses etc., found in pits could be regarded as stored provisions. If stored meat spoils, it is easiest to bury it, as further use of the pit for keeping products would be impossible. When a pit is out of use, it has to be filled in order to secure the area. The fillings could be of any kind of waste – earth and stones or other useless materials. The interpretation of “a buried house” for pits filled with wall plaster seems rather conjectural. The old postulate of understanding pits as trash deposits is to be reconsidered, as it is hard to believe that special pits were made to keep garbage in during the ancient times,84 but is not in contradiction with the filling of a pit with unneeded material. Even the remains of a ritual practice, such as ash, charcoals, etc., may be buried and returned back into the earth after they had fulfilled their cause. Pits could, after all, also be used as graves for animals. Human skeletons are nearly always found in pits in extraordinary positions, which seem to suggest an unusual and suffering death. These cases may have been an exception to the common burial rites that reflects a particular social status and therefore they were not given a place in the communities’ necropoleis. This would also explain the suffering death they endured. А specific ritual of “burying people alive” described by Herodotus is of Persian origin.85 It is possible that similar rituals are practised by the Thracians and some are to be found in the archaeological records. The death itself is a kind of a ritual – especially the violent ones – but to regard all the burials and parts of human skeletons found in pits as sacrifices is too conjectural. Another story about Crusaders having been killed and buried in pits in Philippopolis is indicative of the mortuary variability in crisis periods and offers an alternative interpretation to the theories about human sacrifices in the Thracian pit complexes.86 It is a paradox pointed out by Domaradzki that, “pits found in the so-called pit sanctuaries can be defined as cultic only on the basis of their location.”87 The situation is similar to what can be described as ‘Catch 22’. The site of Koprivlen with a few occupation phases and dynamic development reflected in its stratigraphy and architecture is, on the one hand, understood as a settlement for the Late Bronze Age and Archaic and Classical periods. On the other hand, it is supposed to have functioned as a sanctuary during the Early Iron Age (10th–8th centuries BC) due to its extensive pit complex dating to this period.88 The large number of pit complexes dating to the 1st millennium BC sites in the territory of what is today thought to have been ancient Thrace can be regarded as a specific cultural feature closely connected to and resulting from the economic activities of the Thracian communities. A comparison with later periods elaborates this function. Numerous pits with a mainly storage function were also dug during the Mediaeval period in clearly residential areas of Philippopolis.89

Anaxandr. Ath, Fr. 4, 131b–c The probable use for storing provisions of some pits dated to the 6th–5th centuries BC with ethnographic parallels is convincingly suggested by Gimatzidis forthcoming and Hristova forthcoming. 84 Nikolov 2011, 20–21; Varbanov 2013, 30. 85 Hrd. 7, 114, 2. 86 Ex Ricardi Pictaviensis Chronica (ed. G. Waitz) MG. SS XXVI, 74–86. 87 Domaradzki 2002, 68. 88 Bozhkova – Delev 2002. 89 Pits were much used as storage facilities, but also as lavatories, etc. during the whole Mediaeval and the succeeding Ottoman period (15th–19th centuries AD). 82 83

Settlements or Sanctuaries?

349

Generally, the pit complexes fit well into our concept of an Iron Age settlement, when they are understood as part of lightweight constructed buildings where provisions were stored. A large number of pits found in settlement sites such as Plovdiv,90 Pistiros,91 etc.92 confirm this. Pits dug at mountain sites can be explained in a similar way. The evidence does not exclude the use of the pits for ritual practice; however, this also does not mean that their primary use must be seen in a cultic context. Rituals inside residential areas were undoubtedly practised. Evidence for them can be found in the escharae and other hollow structures within residential buildings. The period before the 6th century BC, namely the Late Bronze and the Early Iron Age, is characterised with short-lived settlements. Urban centres are clearly missing. Fortification is also a rare feature. The general picture is a scattered settlement pattern of a rural type, lacking complex state organisation and consisting of mobile communities. All this finally raises the question about whether these communities did really create and maintain numerous extra-mural sanctuaries. Conclusion The current stage of archaeological research allows us to recognise a nucleated settlement system in the plains (Philippopolis, Seuthopolis, Kabyle, etc.93), as well as in the mountains of south Bulgaria (Dragoyna, Perperek). Some sites reveal other types of settlements with imposing buildings within a small, fortified area, restricted for prominent communities or members (Kozi Gramadi,94 Koprivshtica95). Some complexes in the valleys developed economic activities of agricultural nature.96 The new evidence reveals a complicated settlement system with a great variety of settlement types and uses of their space. Most ordinary places, such as smaller villages, farms and temporary settlements, are supposed to be numerous, but have left meager traces on the ground. Places for practising rituals are to be sought in cult-like-buildings or other central structures in residential areas, but also at smaller prominent rocky, cave, spring, etc. sites beyond the inhabited areas.97 Rituals were part of daily life in prehistory and ancient societies and many archaeological features record this. The making of a fire itself could be a ritual, and the hearth could be regarded as a cult structure rather than a profane one. But fire is also a part of daily life and thus not every hearth can be regarded as an altar, not every building with a hearth as a temple, and not every site with these features as a sanctuary. Claiming nearly every single pit to be a ritual one, just because there is evidence about libation acts in the ground and because some negative features can hardly find utilitarian explanation, remains rather hypothetical. The same holds true about the interpretation of pit complexes as sanctuaries, since the pits are supposed to be places for rituals, as well as the regarding of any traces of habitation at a mountain peak with prominent rocks as a sanctuary. The character of any human activity at a site is to be revealed after large-scale surveys and excavations. Still, it would be hard to conclude, with the current amount of evidence we have,

Bozhinova – Hristeva 2015, 142–143 with literature. Pits found in Pistiros are regarded as part of a residential occupation (Archibald 2002, 112–116) but also as a part of an area used for ritual activities (Lazov 2007, 28; Gotzev 2013, 23). 92 Sites in the vicinity of the villages of Zavoi (Bakarzhiev 2010) and Kapitan Andreevo (Popov – Grozdanova 2008), which share some common features with the pit complexes, are interpreted by their excavators as settlements. Their similarity to the pit complexes is to be noted. 93 Popov 2002, 293–305. 94 Hristov 2011; Hristov 2012. 95 Agre – Dichev 2012. 96 Agre – Dichev 2015a; Agre – Dichev 2015b. 97 Similar activities were practised until modern times in Bulgaria at a place called “obrok”, that are often located at natural phenomena. 90 91

350

Elena Bozhinova

whether a shelter was used by ordinary people or by a cult-specialist, and whether a hearth was used to warm the room, prepare food in it, or to make offerings to deities, or everything together. The uncertainty of the available archaeological data and the scarce literary sources, as shown, leave the ritual functions of most sites as just an assailable hypothesis. The proposed model of a settlement pattern, where a sanctuary has a centralising role and settlements and necropoleis are situated around, remains uncertain, as long as there is no archaeological data to confirm this. There is no excavated site, until now, that has undoubtedly proved to have the function of a sanctuary. The newly-excavated types of sites, such as metallurgical centres (Ada tepe), residential places (Kozi Gramadi), and farm places (Tsouka), present a complicated settlement system that is rather different than the sanctuary model. The theories about a system of sacred places, high-level of organisation of the ritual practices, territorial separation of the sacred areas from the profane ones, an existence of a particular social group devoted completely to the religious activities, threeranged organisation of the sacred area and religious reforms still do not find enough support in the archaeological data. Why did the sanctuary theory become so popular and widely accepted in Bulgaria during the last 30 years? Is it just because it is more attractive and populism prevails even over science? It was in 1986 when Mieczysław Domaradzki first introduced the sanctuary theory in Bulgaria. He was educated in Poland and was influenced by the central European trends in archeology, especially on the treatment of the ritual practices in what is known as the Celtic world. The new thesis was widely accepted and elaborated by his assistants, who were the next leading generation in Bulgarian archaeology. In the last few years, a similar trend can be seen among the prehistoric and the mediaeval sections of Bulgarian archeology. Neolithic pits, traditionally understood as partly dug-in types of dwellings, are now also perceived as ritual structures.98 Ritual connotations are assigned also to Mediaeval pits99 with no consideration of contemporary literary evidence. The problem is very similar, if not identical, to the one discussed in the current article. Repeated use of one and the same location during remote archaeological periods is often regarded as an extraordinary memory for a sacred meaning of a place, instead of explaining it with similar climatic environment and obtainable resourses that led to a choice of a same location by different communities over the ages.100 This paper does not attempt to overall challenge and criticise the theory about the dominance of sanctuaries in the archaeological landscape of Bulgaria. It is beyond any doubt that religious beliefs and ritual practices shaped social relations and cultural identity in Bulgaria exactly as in any other pre- and proto-historic landscape. However, it is certainly an attempt to demonstrate how generalisations and oversimplifications can bias and distort the archaeological record and its interpretation. References Agre – Dichev 2012 Д. Агре – Д. Дичев, Археологически разкопки на тракийски укрепен дом в м. „Смиловене” в землището на гр. Копривщица, Археологически открития и разкопки през 2011 г., 2012, 168–169. Agre – Dichev 2015a Д. Агре – Д. Дичев, Археологически разкопки на укрепен владетелски дом в м. Татар маша край с. Княжево, община Тополовград, Археологически открития и разкопки през 2014 г., 2015, 205–208.

Nikolov 2011; the ritual interpretation of the Neolithic negative structures is argued in Boyadzhiev 2013 where they are explained with the specifics of the house architecture in the open settlements that is determined of the peculiarities of the terrain. 99 Melamed 2013. 100 Locations with habitation during Early Bronze Age, Early Iron Age and Mediaeval Period and others occupied during Late Neolithic period and Classical and Early Hellenistic period are most frequent. 98

Settlements or Sanctuaries?

351

Agre – Dichev 2015b Д. Агре – Д. Дичев, Археологически разкопки на укрепен дом в м. Голата нива край с. Синеморец, община Царево, Археологически открития и разкопки през 2014 г., 2015, 213–215. Andonova – Bozhinova 2010 А. Андонова – Е. Божинова, Теренно археологическо проучване в землищата на с. Буково, община Първомай и с. Ночево, община Черноочене, Археологически открития и разкопки през 2009 г., 2010, 662–665. Archibald 2002 Z. H. Archibald, Underground deposits. Pit No. 9 and the ‘field’ of pits, in: Pistiros II. Studia Hercynia VII, 2002, 111–128. Bayrakov 2012 Д. Байраков, Проблеми на проучването на планинските светилища в Западните Родопи, in: Юбилейна национална научна конфе – ренция с международно участие „Човекът и Вселената“, 6–8 октомври 2011 г. (Smolyan 2012) 265–274. Bayrakov 2015 Д. Байряков, Планински светилища в Южна Тракия (PhD Diss., Sofia University, Sofia 2015). Bayriakov 2016 Д. Байряков, Планински светилища в Родопите, in: П. Делев (ed.), Συμπόσιον. Сборник в памет на проф. Димитър Попов (Sofia 2016) 50–75. Bakardzhiev 2010 С. Бакърджиев, Спасителни археологически проучвания на обект № 12 (селище от ранножелязната епоха). ЛОТ 4, км 286+110 – 286+260 по трасето на АМ Тракия, землище на село Завой, община Тунджа, област Ямбол, Археологически открития и разкопки през 2009 г., 2010, 149–152. Balabanov 1999 П. Балабанов, Тракийски ритуални ями край с. Дебелт, Бургаска област, Археология 39, 1999, 3–4, 62–76. Balabanov 2002 П. Балабанов, Ритуальные ямы как универсальный элемент общения с богами в Древней Фракии и Скифии, in: Fol 2002, 541–546. Banov 1986 П. Бънов, Скално светилище при с. Чокоба, Сливенски окръг, Археологически открития и разкопки през 1986 г., 1987, 90–91. Berenson Maclean – Bradshaw Aitken 2002 Flavius Philostratus, On Heroes. Translated with an Introduction and Notes by Jennifer K. Berenson Maclean and Ellen Bradshaw Aitken, Writings from the Greco-Roman World 3. Society of Biblical Literature (Atlanta 2002). Bonev – Alexandrov 1996 А. Бонев – Г. Александров, Багачина. Селище от каменно-медна епоха и тракийски култов център (ІІІ–І хилядолетие пр. Хр.) (Montana 1996). Bouzek – Domaradzka 2005 J. Bouzek – L. Domaradzka (eds.), The Culture of Thracians and their Neighbours. Proceedings of the International Symposium in Memory of Prof. Mieczyslaw Domaradzki, with a Round Table “Archaeological Map of Bulgaria”, British Archaeological Reports International Series 1350 (Oxford 2005). Boyadzhiev 2013 Я. Бояджиев, Открити селища и селищни могили – причини за различията в селищното и жилищното устройство, Bulgarian e-Journal of Archaeology / Българско е-Списание за Археология 3, 2013, 67–98. Online (last accessed 18 May 207). Bozhinova 2007 E. Bozhinova. The Bronze and Iron Age Site of Dragoyna, 14 June 2007, in: B. Horejs – P. Pavúk (eds.), Aegean and Balkan Prehistory. Online (last accessed 18 May 2017).

352

Elena Bozhinova

Bozhinova 2009 Е. Божинова, Данни за селищната система в рида Драгойна въз основа на теренни археологически обхождания, Известия на регионалния исторически музей – Благоевград, 5, 2009, 112–123. Bozhinova 2011 Е. Божинова, Археологическо проучване на селище от ранната желязна епоха и късния халколит в м. Карабеглик, с. Г. Черковище, Казанлъшко, Проблеми и изследвания на тракийската култура 5, 2011, 43–69. Bozhinova 2014 Е. Божинова, Крепостта на връх Драгойна от II–I хил. пр. Хр. Стратиграфия, хронология и интерпретация (резултати от археологическите проучвания 2004–2012 г.), Известия на Регионален археологически музей – Пловдив 12, 2014, 45–89. Bozhinova – Andonova 2015 Е. Божинова – А. Андонова, Теренни археологически издирвания в рида Драгойна, землища на с. Воден и Езерово, общ. Първомай, Археологически открития и разкопки през 2014 г., 2015, 832–836. Bozhinova – Hristeva 2015 Е. Божинова – С. Христева, Пловдив през класическия период (Археологически проучвания на ул. „Граф Игнатиев” № 22), Проблеми и изследвания на тракийската култура 7, 2015, 132–159. Bozhinova – Hristeva 2016 Е. Божинова – С. Христева, Филипопол през ранния елинистически период по археологически данни, Проблеми и изследвания на тракийската култура 8, 2016, 159–195. Bozhkova – Delev 2002 A. Bozhkova – P. Delev (eds.), Koprivlen I. Rescue Archaeological Excavations along the Gotze Delchev – Drama Road 1998–1999 (Sofia 2002). Burrow 1994 J. Burrow, The different types of ritual pits in Durankulak and their contents, Thracia Pontica 6, 1994, 1, 69–72. Čičikova 1975 М. Чичикова, Жертвеники Элинистической эпохи в Фракии, Studia Thracica 1, 1975, 180–195. Delev 1982 П. Делев, Проблеми на тракийските мегалитни паметници, in: А. Фол (ed.), Тракийски паметници 3. Мегалитите в Тракия 2. Тракия Понтика (Sofia 1982) 398–427. Dimitrov 1957 Д. П. Димитров, Към въпроса за религията на траките от ранноелинистическата епоха, Исторически преглед ХІІІ, 2, 1957, 65–81. Dimitrov 1984 Д. П. Димитров, Тракийският град Севтополис, Севтополис І (Sofia 1984) 11–17. Dimitrova 2015 Я. Димитрова, Културно развитие на Родопите през ранната желязна епоха (по археологически данни) (PhD Diss., National Archaeological Institute and Museum, Sofia 2015). Domaradzki 1986 M. Domaradzki, Sanctuaries thraces du IIe–Ier millénaire av. n. è, Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 25, 1986, 89–103. Domaradzki 1994 M. Domaradzki, Les lieux de culte thraces (deuxième moitié du IIe–Ier mil. аv. J.-C.), Хелис / Helis III, 1 ,1994, 69–108. Domaradzki 1999 М. Домарадски, Светилища. Паметници на тракийската култура по горното течение на р. Места, Разкопки и Проучвания XXVI (Sofia 1999) 15–19, 60–75. Domaradzki 2002 М. Домарадски, Тракийски култови места (втората половина на II–I хилядолетие пр. Хр.), in: Сборник изследвания в чест на професор Атанас Милчев, Studia Archaeologica Supplementum II (Sofia 2002) 57–85.

Settlements or Sanctuaries?

353

Domaradzki et al. 1999 М. Домарадски и колектив, Паметници на тракийската култура по горното течение на река Места, Разкопки и проучвания XXVI (Sofia 1999). Dremsizova-Nelchinova 1984 Ц. Дремсизова-Нелчинова, Тракийската крепост край с. Вишеград, Кърджалийско, Thracia 6, 1984, 104–133. Efstratiou 1993 N. Efstratiou, The archaeology of the Greek uplands. The Early Iron Age site of Tsouka in the Rhodope Mountains, Annuals of the British School at Athens 88, 1993, 135–171. Erim-Özdoğan et al. 2004 A. Erim-Özdoğan – F. Aksaç – M. A. Işin, Tekirdağ menekşe çatağı, doğu çatak kazızı, Kazı sonuçları toplantısı 25, 2/ 2003, 2004, 421–434. Fol 1993 В. Фол, Скалата, конят, огънят. Ранна тракийска обредност (Sofia 1993). Fol 2002 A. Fol (ed.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Thracology, Thrace and the Aegean (Sofia 2002). Fol 2007 В. Фол, Скални топоси на вяра в Югоизточна Европа и в Мала Азия през древността, Studia Thracia 10, 2007. Fol – Ovcharov 2002 V. Fol – N. Ovcharov, Thracian Rock-Cut Palace Sanctuary. Preliminary report, in: Fol 2002, 845–856. Georgieva 1991 Р. Георгиева, Обредни ями в Тракия (края на ІІ–І хил. пр. н.е.), Археология 1, 1991, 1–11. Georgieva 2003 Р. Георгиева, Керамиката от ранната желязна епоха в Югозападна България и феноменът “Цепина”, Пирахме / Pyraichme 2, 2003, 159–185. Gergova 2014 Д. Гергова, Приноси към сакралната архитектура на бесите в светлината на изследванията в района на Велинград, История 22, 5, 2014, 556–569. Gimatzidis forthcoming S. Gimatzidis, Pit Complexes and Corpses. Reshaping mortuary practice in the Balkans, in: Proceedings of the Conference “Thracian Archaeology” – 30 Years Department of Thracian Archaeology, NIAM-BAS, November 21–24, 2013 (forthcoming). Godley 1920 Herodotus. With an English Translation by A. D. Godley (London 1920). Gospodinov – Gospodinov 2008 К. Господинов – Н. Господинов, Отново за тъй наречените „слънчеви дискове” в Сакар, Археологически и исторически проучвания в Новозагорско 2, 2008, 204–219. Gotcheva 1985 З. Гочева, Религиозният живот във Филипопол през римската епоха, in: 100 г. Народен археологически музей Пловдив 2, 1985, 102–114. Gotzev 1994 A. Gotzev, New data about Thracian cult practices in the West Rhodopa Mountain in the I millenium BC, in: P. Roman – M. Alexianu (eds.), Relations Thraco-Illyro-Helléniques. Actes du XIVe Symposium National de Thracologie (à participation internationale). Băile Herculane, 14–19 Septembre 1992 (Bucarest 1994) 266–274. Gotzev 2003 А. Гоцев, Проучване на тракийски култови центрове от I хилядолетие пр. н.е. в Западни Родопи (по археологически данни), in: В. Марков – А. Гоцев – А. Янков (eds.), Сакралното пространство в Древна Тракия (Blagoevgrad 2003) 7–46.

354

Elena Bozhinova

Gotzev 2005 A. Gotzev, Contributions to the study of the Thracian cult practices of the 1st millennium B.C. in the western Rhodopes, in: Bouzek – Domaradzka 2005, 159–161. Gotzev 2008 А. Гоцев, Проучвания на тракийските светилища в Западните Родопи, in: Tonkova – Gotzev 2008a, 194–235. Gotzev 2013 А. Gotzev, Squares B 23 and B 24 and the organization of the defence system, in: J. Bouzek – L. Domaradzka – A. Gotzev – Z. H. Archibald (eds.), Pistiros V. Excavations and Studies (Prague 2013) 23–25. Hristov 2002 I. Hristov, Mountainous Thrace – 1st Millennium BC. Problems and trends of investigation, in: Fol 2002, 231–236. Hristov 2009 И. Христов, Светилища на древните траки в Родопите. Добростан – Градище (Veliko Tarnovo 2009). Hristov 2011 И. Христов / I. Hristov (ed.), Кози грамади. Проучване на одриска владетелска резиденция и светилища в Средна гора VІІІ–І в. пр. Хр. Tom 1 / Kozi Gramadi. Studies of an Odrysian Ruler’s Residence and Sanctuaries in Sredna Gora Mt. 8th–1st Centuries BC. Vol. 1 (Sofia 2011). Hristov 2012 И. Христов / I. Hristov (ed.), Кози грамади. Проучване на одриска владетелска резиденция и светилища в Средна гора VІІІ–І в. пр. Хр. Tom 2 / Kozi Gramadi. Studies of an Odrysian Ruler’s Residence and Sanctuaries in Sredna Gora Mt. 8th–1st Centuries BC. Vol. 2 (Sofia 2012). Hristov – Gotzev 2003 И. Христов – А. Гоцев, Проучване на ткарийското светилище в м. Турлата край Троян, Археология 44, 3, 2003, 21–30. Hristov – Stoyanova 2011 И. Христов – Д. Стоянова, Монументална сграда, in: Hristov 2011, 81–115. Hristova forthcoming Р. Христова, За две по-особени ями от обект в м. Бадъ бунар в района на гр. Карнобат, in: Proceedings of the Symposium “Pits and Pit Complexes in Ancient Thrace” in New Bulgarian University, Sofia (Bulgaria), November 21st–22nd 2009 (forthcoming). Ilieva forthcoming П. Илиева, За ямите и техния контекст (ямни съоръжения от І-во хил. пр. Хр. на територията на днешна северна Гърция между долните течения на Вардар и Марица), in: Proceedings of the Symposium “Pits and Pit Complexes in Ancient Thrace” in New Bulgarian University, Sofia (Bulgaria), November 21st–22nd 2009 (forthcoming). Kisiov 1990 К. Кисьов, Скални светилища в Родопите и Горнотракийската низина, представени с археологически материали и обекти от Смолянско и Пловдивско, in: Тракийската култура в Родопите и горните поречия на Марица, Места и Струма (Sofia 1990) 67–74. Kisiov 1998 К. Кисьов, Археологически свидетелства, свързани с тракийските култови места и практики в Средните и Западните Родопи в периода края на ІІ–І хил. пр. Хр., Rhodopica 1, 1998, 31–38. Kisiov 2004 К. Кисьов, Тракийската култура в региона на Пловдив и течението на р. Стряма през втората половина на І хил. пр. Хр. (Sofia 2004). Kostova 2006 К. Костова, Свещени места и ритуални структури от бронзовата епоха в древна Тракия (ІІІ–ІІ хил. пр. Хр.). Типология и проблеми на интерпретацията (PhD Diss., Sofia University, Sofia 2006). Krasteva 2011 З. Кръстева, Бележки върху огнищата – олтари „есхари”, откривани в селища от Елинистическата епоха в Тракия, Collegium Historicum 1, 271–294.

Settlements or Sanctuaries?

355

Lazov 2007 G. Lazov, Building 1 (Fieldwork 1989–2006) and Building 2 in the Emporion Pistiros, and the area NW of them, in: J. Bouzek – L. Domaradzka – Z. H. Archibald (eds.), Pistiros III. Excavations and Studies (Prague 2007) 20–29. Leshtakov 1984 К. Лещаков, Сондажни проучвания на връх Алада в Кърджалийски окръг, Археологически открития и разкопки през 1983 г., 1984, 47–48. Leshtakov 2002 K. Leshtakov, Some suggestions regarding the formation of the “Thracian religion” in the light of new archaeological data from South Bulgaria, in: L. Nikolova (ed.), Material Evidence and Cultural Pattern in Prehistory. contributions to the Theory and History of the Household and Burial Customs, Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects 5 (Salt Lake City, Sofia, Karlovo 2002) 19–51. Leshtakov 2007 К. Лещаков, Керамика с белези на прехода от КБЕ към РЖЕ по данни от последните разкопки на Перперикон, Древна и модерна Тракия. Известия на Старозагорския исторически музей 2, 2007, 85–99. Madzharov in press М. Маджаров, Светилище и храм от V в. пр. Хр. при с. Кръстевич, община Хисаря, Проблеми и изследвания на тракийската култура 9 (in press). Madzharov – Tacheva 2015 М. Маджаров – Д. Танчева, Археологически разкопки на светилище и храм от V–III в. пр. Хр. при с. Кръстевич, Община Хисаря, Археологически открития и разкопки през 2014 г., 2015, 217–220. Markov 2012 V. Markov (ed.), Megalithic Monuments and Cult Practices (Blagoevgrad 2012). Markov et al. 2003 В. Марков – А. Гоцев – А. Янков (eds.), Сакрално пространство в Древна Тракия (Blagoevgrad 2003). Melamed 2013 К. Меламед, Обредни ями от Седларе, Момчилградско, Археология 54, 2, 2013, 80–92. Naidenova 1986 В. Найденова, Скалните светилища в Тракия, in: Поселищен живот в Тракия. Втори симпозиум 6–9 октомври 1986 (Jambol 1986) 15–29. Nekhrizov 2005 G. Nekhrizov, Cult places of the Thracians in the Eastern Rhodope Mountains (end of the 2nd–1st millennium B.C.), in: Bouzek – Domaradzka 2005, 153–158. Nekhrizov 2005a Г. Нехризов. Керамичният комплекс от ранната желязна епоха в Източните Родопи (PhD Diss., National Archaeological Institute and Museum, Sofia 2005). Nekhrizov 2008 Г. Нехризов, Тракийско светилище “Аул кая” при с. Долно Черковище, Хасковско, Археологически открития и разкопки през 2007, 2008, 130–134. Nekhrizov – Mikov 2002 Г. Нехризов – Р. Миков. Спасителни археологически проучвания на обект „Ада тепе” при гр. Крумовград през 2001 г., Археологически открития и разкопки през 2001, 2002, 42–44. Nekhrizov – Tzvetkova 2008 Г. Нехризов – Ю. Цветкова, Ритуални ями от желязната епоха при Свиленград, in: В. Николов – Г. Нехризов – Ю. Цветкова (eds.), Спасителни археологически разкопки по трасето на железопътната линия Пловдив – Свиленград през 2005 г. (Велико Търново 2008) 331–493. Nekhrizov – Tzvetkova 2012 G. Nekhrizov – J. Tzvetkova, Ritual pit complexes in Iron Age Thrace: The case study of Svilengrad, in: A. Çilingiroğlu – A. Sagona (eds.), Anatolian Iron Ages 7. Proceedings of the Seventh Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium held at Edirne 19–24 April 2010, Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Suppl. 39 (Leuven 2012) 177–209.

356

Elena Bozhinova

Nekhrizov – Tzvetkova 2015 Г. Нехризов – Ю. Цветкова. Скален комплекс Глухите камъни, Археологически открития и разкопки през 2014 г., 2015, 161–165. Nekhrizov et al. 2012 G. Nekhrizov – L. E. Roller – M. Vassileva – J. Tzvetkova – N. Kecheva, Gluhite Kamani. Old Questions and New Approaches, Thracia 20. In Honour of the 40th Anniversary of the Institute of Thracology (Sofia 2012) 215–233. Nikolov 2011 В. Николов, Неолитни ямни светилища, Археология 52, 1, 2011, 7–24. Ovcharov et al. 2008 Н. Овчаров – К. Лещаков – З. Димитров – Д. Коджаманова, Ранните периоди в историята на светилището при Татул, Археология 49, 1–4, 2008, 34–45. Ovcharov et al. 2011 Н. Овчаров – З. Димитров – К. Лещаков, Тракийски алтари от Перперикон, Проблеми и изследвания на тракийската култура 5, 2011, 24–42. Pieniążek-Sikora 2009 M. Pieniążek-Sikora, Untersuchungen zur Architektur. Eine Studie im Grenzgebiet zwischen Südosteuropa und Kleinasien von der ausgehenden Bronzezeit bis zum Beginn der Eisenzeit (PhD Diss., Eberhard Karls University Tübingen 2009). Popov 2002 Х. Попов, Урбанизация във вътрешните райони на Тракия и Илирия през VІ–І век преди Христа (Sofia 2002). Popov 2009 Х. Попов, Куш кая. Характеристики на обетаването през късната бронзова и ранната желязна епоха, Археология 1–2, 2009, 21–39. Popov – Grozdanova 2008 Х. Попов – Г. Грозданова, Спасителни разкопки на ямно поле от желязната епоха и ранносредновековно селище при с. Капитан Андреево (обект № 27 км. 312+750 – 313+070 по трасето на железопътна линия Пловдив – Капитан Андреево), Археологически открития и разкопки през 2007 г., 2008, 163–167. Popov – Jockenhövel 2011 H. Popov – A. Jockenhövel, At the northern borders of the Mycenaen world. Thracian gold mining from the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age at Ada Tepe in the Eastern Rhodopes, Anodos. Studies of the Ancient World 10, 2010, 265–282 Popov – Nikov 2014 Х. Попов – К. Ников, Спасителни археологически проучвания на златодобивен рудник от късната бронзова епоха Ада тепе, община Крумовград, Археологически открития и разкопки през 2013, 2014, 118–121. Popov et al. 2011 H. Popov – A. Jockenhövel – Z. Tsintsov – S. Iliev, Montanarchäologische Forschungen in den Ostrhodopen, Südostbulgarien, in: V. Nikolov – K. Bachvarov – H. Popov (eds.), Interdisziplinäre Forschungen zum Kulturerbe auf der Balkanhalbinsel (Sofia 2011) 253–290. Popov et al. 2015 H. Popov – K. Nikov – A. Jockenhövel, Ada Tepe (Krumovgrad, Bulgarien) – ein neu entdecktes spätbronzezeitliches Goldbergwerk im balkanisch-ägäischen Kommunikationsnetz, in: G. von Bulow (ed.), Kontaktzone Balkan. Beitrage des internationalen Kolloquiums „Die Donau-Balkan-Region als Kontaktzone zwischen Ost-West und Nord-Sud“ vom 16.–18. Mai 2012 in Frankfurt a. M. (Bonn 2015) 45–62. Rabadzhiev 1996 К. Рабаджиев, Гробницата на тракийския владетел, Годишник на Софийския университет, Исторически факултет. Studia Archaeologica 2, 1995, 115–134. Raduncheva 1998 А. Радунчева, Скалното светилище до с. Давидково, Смолянско, Rhodopica 1, 1998, 9–19.

Settlements or Sanctuaries?

357

Raduncheva 2005 А. Радунчева, За датата на основаване и активно функциониране на светилището Перперек и на системата от скални светилища в Родопите и извън тях, in: The rock-cut sacred places of the Thracians and other Palaeo-Balkan and Ancient Anatolian Peoples, Conference – Stara Zagora (Bulgaria), 2nd–6th November 2005. Resumes. Online (last accessed 18 May 2017). Raycheva 2014 М. Райчева, Бележки върху локализацията на неокорния храм във Филипопол, Годишник на Регионален археологически музей – Пловдив ХІІ, 2014, 233–246. Savatinov 1997 С. Саватинов, Комплекс от ями от късната желязна епоха в м. „Старото селище” край град Раднево, in: Б. Борисов – Р. Георгиева (eds.), Марица Изток. Археологически проучвания 4 (Radnevo 1997) 9–53. Shalganova 2012 Т. Шалганова, Тракийските планински и скални светилища, in: В. Ганева (ed.), Херотопия на Древна Тракия (Sofia 2012) 161–191. Sîrbu 1995 V. Sîrbu, Un nouveau type de monuments sacrés chez les Geto-Daces, Acta Musei Napocensis 32, 1, 1995, 313–330. Tonkova 2003 M. Tonkova, Late Iron Age pit-sanctuaries in Thrace. The contribution of the studies at Gledacevo, Thracia XV, 2003, 479–504. Tonkova 2005 M. Tonkova, Les depots d’offrandes du deuxième âge du fer dans le sanctuaire thrace de Babjak, le Rhodope occidental, in: Bouzek – Domaradzka 2005, 163–186. Tonkova 2007 М. Тонкова, Депа за дарове и дарове от късножелязната епоха от светилището при Бабяк, Западни Родопи, Годишник на Националния археологически музей 11, 2007, 51–85. Tonkova 2008 М. Тонкова, Дарове от късножелязната епоха на светилището при Бабяк, in: Tonkova – Gotzev 2008a, 95–119. Tonkova – Gotzev 2008a М. Тонкова – А. Гоцев (eds.), Тракийското светилище при Бабяк и неговата археологическа среда (Sofia 2008). Tonkova – Gotzev 2008b М. Тонкова – А. Гоцев, Светилището при Бабяк. Заключение, in: Tonkova – Gotzev 2008a, 190–193. Valchev 2011 И. Вълчев, Извънградските светилища в римската провинция Тракия (І–ІV век) (PhD Diss., Sofia University, Sofia 2011). Valcheva 2002 D. Valcheva, Pit sanctuary, in: Bozhkova – Delev 2002, 102–123. Varbanov 2013 В. Върбанов, Тракийски ямен комплекс в Русе – стратиграфия, съставни елементи, интерпретация и хронология, in: В. Върбанов (ed.), Sexaginta Prista. Тракийски ямен комплекс 1 (Veliko Tarnovo 2013), 29–56. Venedikov 1976 И. Венедиков, Скални гробници, in: И. Венедиков – А. Фол (еds.), Тракийски паметници 1. Мегалитите в Тракия (Sofia 1976) 82–127. Venedikov – Fol 1980 И. Венедиков – А. Фол (eds.), Тракийски паметници 3. Тракийски светилища (Sofia 1980). Vassileva 2012 M. Vassileva, Thracian and Phrygian rock-cut tombs. A comparative overview, in: Markov 2012, 44–57.

‘Ada Tepe Late Bronze Age Gold Mine’ Project: Between Borders Hristo Popov1 – Krasimir Nikov2 Abstract: The text presents the development and the future perspectives of a project dedicated to the investigation of a previously unknown gold mine from the Late Bronze Age. The site, discovered accidentally during modern geological investigations, provided the opportunity for conducting large-scale archaeological investigations, completed by the end of 2015. The investigations in the field yielded evidence about various technological processes related to ancient gold mining, about the specifics of the site’s habitation, the social structure and the contacts of the community that in the Late Bronze Age exploited the gold mine on Ada Tepe peak in the eastern Rhodopes. The diverse and rich results that were obtained from this unusual site offer good opportunities for a more precise elaboration of various scientific fields within the frames of an international cooperation. Among them, there are issues concerning the paleoenvironment, the absolute and relative chronologies, the inter-regional economic and cultural contacts in this area of the Mediterranean, etc. For such topics, Ada Tepe Project could serve as a scientific platform within the framework of a long-term research strategy. Keywords: Ada Tepe, Late Bronze Age, northern Aegean, gold mining, mining archaeology, interdisciplinary approach

Investigating an ancient gold mine is a very rare professional chance. Overcoming the various obstacles and turns of the excavation at Ada Tepe was and is possible due to the efforts of a great many people. For this reason, having in mind the responsibility we bear to them and the site itself, we would try to present in brief some of the main results from the investigations in the field and to make them fit within a Balkan supra-regional and transcultural context. We would like to trace – ‘between borders’ (as it is the slogan of the present volume – after the title of the session, held in Istanbul in September 2014) – directions and perspectives that we think could provide a broader context and meaning of this fascinating site. The realisation of the archaeological excavations on Ada Tepe peak in the eastern Rhodopes, is a direct result of the intensive geological surveys in the area that started already in the 1990s. After an international company detected considerable deposits of gold-bearing ores with several major exposures in the immediate surroundings of Krumovgrad, it began intensive geological surveys and probing, and later applied for a mining concession. One of the richest sectors is located on the higher parts of Ada Tepe peak (495m, at about 3km to the southwest of Krumovrad), a fact that prompted the rescue investigations. Initially, only the top of the peak was excavated, where a team led by G. Nehrizov (NIAM-BAS) investigated a stone enclosure, some 14.5m in diameter, and various structures (fireplaces, platforms of beaten clay, storage facilities, etc.) within and out of the enclosure, and in strata that were lying beneath the level of the wall’s foundation.3



1



2



3

Thracian Archaeology Department, National Institute of Archaeology with Museum, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, [email protected], [email protected]. Thracian Archaeology Department, National Institute of Archaeology with Museum, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, [email protected], [email protected]. Nekhrizov – Mikov 2002, 42–43; Nekhrizov 2003, 67–68; Nekhrizov 2006, 140–141.

360

Hristo Popov – Krasimir Nikov

The History of the Ada Tepe Excavations and a Short Overview of Research on Ancient Mining in Bulgaria The investigations were carried out, with interruptions, during several campaigns in 2000–2006. The chronological limits of the materials that were discovered gradually widened to span a period from the later stages of the Late Bronze Age (the last centuries of the 2nd millennium BC) to the end of the Hellenistic period (1st century BC). The entire site was interpreted as a sanctuary that was located on the very top of Ada Tepe, and the enclosure was considered a temenos. Similar structures are known from other places in Thrace and they invariably date from the Late Iron Age to the last five centuries before our era.4 Bulgarian archaeology lacks a strong tradition of investigating traces of ancient mining and the technological activities that were directly related to it. The mountain archaeology and the accompanying interdisciplinary studies have been an underdeveloped niche for a long time. Such a phenomenon is surprising, having in mind the fact that the existing empirical base could provide excellent opportunities for a very different state of research. After the initial strong push, given in the mid-1970s by the large-scale investigations of Evgenij Chernykh, dedicated mainly to the copper deposits in present-day Bulgaria and revealing numerous ancient mines with huge scientific potential (much more far-reaching than the often-mentioned Ai Bunar),5 the impetus faded. For a long time, the problems of the ancient mining and metallurgy in these parts of the Balkan Peninsula were discussed only theoretically, without adding any new specific evidence. Regarding borders, one could see clear differences on both sides of modern political borders. In modern Greece, since the 1980s, several projects were carried out that were aimed at investigating ancient mining, especially in the northern Aegean area. These are the investigations on the island of Thasos, on the Chalkidike Peninsula, in the area of the presumed Skapte Hyle near present-day Kavala, etc.6 In northwestern Asia Minor, in relation to the Troy Project, planned mountain archaeological field prospections took place.7 To what extent the situation from the Bulgarian side of the border remained tabula rasa is illustrated by a 1994 publication by Gerhard Weisgerber and Ernst Pernicka8 that analysed the deposits of precious metals in the northern Aegean area: not a single site is mentioned to the north of the Bulgarian-Greek border. The mountains are the same, the metallogenic zones are the same, and often the ore deposits are the same (situated on both sides of the border). However, the situation remains completely unknown and there is no new evidence; this lack of information cannot but prevent overcoming the scientific borders. Ada Tepe is close to a modern political border. Although situated deep into the mountains, the distance to the northern Aegean coast is not great, and the more or less hilly landscape of this part of the Rhodopes does not present a natural border that is hard to overcome (Figs.1–2). After the first rescue excavations, a hypothesis gained strength in the observations of both geologists and archaeologists – that there are traces of ancient mining on the peak.9 However, there were no dedicated investigations in the field to confirm it. After an invitation by G. Nehrizov,10 Hristo Popov and Stanislav Iliev undertook the first such investigations in 2005. Already the first results provided grounds to presume that the traces of ancient mining could be dated broadly to the Late

6 7 8 9

Domaradzki 1994, 76–78, figs. 1–2. Chernikh 1978, 17–73. Pernicka 1987, 607–612; Wagner – Weisgerber 1988; Photos et al. 1989; Andreou – Vavelidis 2014, 452–455, fig. 1. Pernicka et al. 2003, 533–585. Weisgerber – Pernicka 1995. Želev-Hasson 2002, 58; Želev 2007, 205. 10 We take the occasion to express our gratitude to G. Nehrizov for the opportunity to start working on Ada Tepe. The first trench excavations were carried out after the completion of a specialisation in mining archaeology in Germany in 2003–2004, and this was the first ancient mine I encountered in present-day Bulgaria. I am deeply grateful to my professors in Münster and Bochum – Albrecht Jockenhövel, Andreas Hauptmann, Thomas Stöllner, and Ünsal Yalçin (H.P.). 4 5

‘Ada Tepe Late Bronze Age Gold Mine’ Project: Between Borders

Fig. 1   Localisation of Ada Tepe: the northern Aegean coast and southern Thrace (© S. Iliev, RMH Haskovo)

Fig. 2   Digital elevation model, based on airborn laser scanning of the microregion of Ada Tepe and Krumovgrad (© E. Cherkezova, NIGGG-BAS)

361

362

Hristo Popov – Krasimir Nikov

Fig. 3   The entrance of a small gallery on the southwestern slopes of Ada Tepe. Investigations in 2005 (© H. Popov, NIAM-BAS)

Bronze and Early Iron Ages.11 The dating was relative, based on pottery fragments found in a small gallery on the southwestern slope and in layers of mine dumps in the immediate proximity (Fig. 3). Nonetheless, at this initial stage there was almost no information about the real scale of the ancient mining, its main technological specifics, and the everyday life of the population that practised it. This is hardly surprising, having in mind that the investigated area on the southwestern slopes was very small and could not serve as a representative sample to provide an overall preliminary picture for the entire site. Such a picture was obtained three years later, in 2008–2009,12 when a small Bulgarian-German project, supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, served as a framework for a complete field survey for identifying traces of ancient mining. The latter were mapped and described and trench excavations were undertaken at various places on the slopes in order to shed light on some initial questions about the mining and ore-processing zones and the presumed habitation in the mine’s immediate vicinity. It was established that in the upper parts of the peak, on some 140,000 square metres on all of its slopes, there are traces of activities related to mining and processing of the ore. Then, the hypothesis emerged that some of the archaeological structures could be the remains of the settlements of the population that mined gold here in the Late Bronze Age. The forested and occasionally very steep terrain considerably impeded the field investigations. The unexpected and impressive, regarding the size of the site, results of the campaigns in 2008–2009 created a conflict between the ambition of the investing mining company to obtain

Popov – Iliev 2006, 154–155. Popov et al. 2011, 271–284.

11

12

‘Ada Tepe Late Bronze Age Gold Mine’ Project: Between Borders

363

a concession for modern mining and the necessities of a large-scale and inevitably prolonged archaeological investigation. Certainly, it was a difficult situation. On one hand, what was at stake were the millions that were already invested in the project, as well as the permanent high unemployment in this part of the country. On the other, there was this major discovery and the rare opportunity to investigate an important archaeological site that by no means could be considered ordinary or conventional. Eventually, with the mediation of the Bulgarian Ministry of Culture and with the help of prominent international scholars, a compromise was reached that took into consideration the interests of both sides.13 An important decision was made: the site should be investigated following the highest international standards in order to ensure the best possible documentation, as modern mining would inevitably destroy most of the preserved traces of ancient mining. It should be noted that the framework agreement that was signed laid the beginning of a good cooperation, with the investing company responsibly honoring its commitments. A joint exhibition was organised to present the preliminary results, and after the completion of the work in the field, the investor provided support for the processing of the huge amount of materials that was accumulated.14 The large-scale rescue archaeological investigations that were provided for by the framework agreement modified largely the scope of the fieldwork. Between 2010 and 2015, four prolonged field campaigns were undertaken (with an interruption in 2014). The work continued for eight months each year, with a team of 20–25 archaeologists and a labor force of up to 100 workers. Interdisciplinary experts were also involved. In 2010, K. Nikov joined as a co-director of the large team. The results that accumulated through the years could be grouped in several main trends, each one with its own specifics. Early Gold Mining Naturally, one of the leading themes concerns gold. It was the original reason for the earliest human activity on the peak in the middle of the 2nd millennium BC, and accounts for the majority of the archaeological structures between 380 and 495m – the area of the sedimentary rocks with gold-bearing ores. The geological specifics of the site have been commented upon on several occasions in publications in the past few years.15 It is more important here to present the possibilities for analysis and interpretation that the site provided – regarding the history and technology of mining and ore processing, and the specialisation of a specific craft in the later Prehistory. Until 20 years ago, it was often stated that up to the Greek Classical period (i.e. the middle of the 1st millennium BC) the gold in the ancient world was mostly extracted from alluvial, i.e. secondary deposits,16 and only then a technological breakthrough happened, leading to a gradual transition to extraction from primary lode deposits that are undoubtedly more difficult to exploit. In the last ten years, indisputable field evidence gradually emerged of earlier gold extraction from lode deposits. At Ada Tepe, where the gold was undoubtedly mined from veins in the rock, the upper chronological limit of this technological advance in the Aegean region has been moved with about a thousand years – to the early 15th century BC. Another site that has helped revise this chronology at an interregional scale is Sakdrisi in southern Georgia, where the earliest gold mining is dated

We take the occasion to express our deep gratitude to our colleagues and friends Albrecht Jockenhövel, Ernst Pernicka, Thomas Stöllner, Hartmut Matthäus, and Reinhard Jung for their quick and professional reaction and for submitting without delay their opinions to the Ministry of Culture of Republic of Bulgaria, emphasising the importance of the site for European Prehistory and insisting for its thorough investigation (H.P.). 14 We are grateful to Iliya Garkov and Alex Nestor for their understanding, and for the help and support through the years. 15 Milev et al. 2007; Želev 2007 (with references). 16 Muhly 1983; Weisgerber – Pernicka 1995. 13

364

Hristo Popov – Krasimir Nikov

much earlier – to the late 4th – early 3rd millennium BC.17 Adding the recently published evidence by R. and D. Klemm about early gold mining from the Old Kingdom period in the desert of southern and south-eastern Egypt,18 we can safely conclude that the known dates of exploitation of lode deposits in various parts of the Old World gradually become earlier. This makes perfect sense, having in mind the copious data about much earlier extraction of copper from lode deposits (including on the Balkans). For the Aegean region in the 3rd millennium BC, Siphnos and Laurion provide evidence for silver mining from load deposits.19 Technologically, there are no obstacles or specific requirements that would prevent an equally early gold extraction from primary sources. Avoiding speculative qualifications as ‘unique’ or ‘one of a kind’, it could be claimed that sites like Sakdrisi and Ada Tepe bring new dynamics to the topic and update the available information about early gold extraction from lode deposits. Taking into account the objective circumstances, it would be hardly surprising if in future years the data about the Aegean and the eastern Balkans undergo a thorough update and offer earlier dates than the 2nd millennium BC. Ada Tepe in the Regional Context The opportunity for informational breakthrough that was provided by Ada Tepe is related to the possibility to analyse structures and traces of activities that are situated within a large territory and belong to various functional stages of the technological chain, from the initial ore extraction, through ore processing, to manufacturing of half-finished and finished products. Although rescue investigations required shortened terms that could have negative effects, the site also reveals the benefits from the necessity to work on a large surface that is excavated not selectively, but rather in its entirety and following a staged plan. The preliminary field surveys and the full-scale excavations revealed several main types of archaeological structures related to ancient mining (Figs. 4–6). First, there are numerous mine dumps that contain fractured rock materials, broken stone tools and sometimes fragments of household pottery from the everyday life of the people that exploited the deposits. Two main types of mine dumps could be distinguished: 1. Dumps related to the initial mining and separation of the extracted ore; and 2. Dumps that were a direct result from the secondary processing and the production of ore concentrate. Taking into account the functional differences between the two types, extraction sites could be identified in the first case, and in the second – processing sites to which the ore was transported and then processed. At present, it could be claimed that the majority of the main technological stages of the production chain took place on the spot or in the immediate proximity of the ore deposit. The richness and diversity of the mountain archaeological results20 also raise numerous questions regarding the general specifics and the functioning of the Late Bronze Age mine. Chronology is one such topic. At present, based on the obtained absolute dates and the analysis of the materials that allow for establishing a relative chronology, it could be stated that the deposit’s exploitation started about the beginning of the 15th century BC and continued to at least the 12th or the middle/second half of the 11th century BC.21 The ongoing analysis of the materials indicates that, at least for the moment, the upper chronological limit is much clearer than the lower. The ambiguity of the latter is related to a number of basic questions: when did mining end?; was this end abrupt or gradual?; and what were the reasons for this discontinuation (technological, demographic, socio-political, etc.)? Was there a connection with the global processes and changes that occurred at the end of the Late Bronze Age in the entire eastern Mediterranean, or was

19 20 21 17 18

Stöllner – Gambashidze 2011, 193, fig. 6; Stöllner 2014, 75–88, fig. 7. Klemm – Klemm 2013, 6–11, 179–192. Weisgerber 1985, 131–135; Gale – Stoss-Gale 2008, 388–405; Herrero 2014, 471–472. Popov – Jockenhövel 2011, 271–275, fig. 7–10; Popov et al. 2015, 48–55, Abb. 5–14. Popov et al. 2015, 5; Popov et al. 2017.

‘Ada Tepe Late Bronze Age Gold Mine’ Project: Between Borders

Fig. 4   Ancient mine works on the eastern slopes of Ada Tepe. Investigations in 2012–2013 (© H. Popov, NIAM-BAS)

Fig. 5   Waste heaps from ancient mining. Western slopes of Ada Tepe. Investigations in 2015 (© E. Michov)

365

366

Hristo Popov – Krasimir Nikov

Fig. 6   Layers of finely crushed rock next to one of the ore processing sites, investigated in the northern part of the ridge. Investigations in 2013 (© H. Popov, NIAM-BAS)

it something regional? The gold mining that continued for 300 years raises still more questions related to the demographic potential and the professional specialisation of the population that was occupied in the process. The ancient mining on Ada Tepe covered a considerable area and, for good reasons, the analysis offers at least two possible alternatives: mining that was carried out for a long period by a smaller, but highly specialised community, or mining that was organised on a larger scale and was carried out (in several stages?) by a much larger group of people and during shorter periods. In the latter case, the absolute dates we have provide only the general chronological limits. In both cases, there are additional questions about the internal social organisation of the community that mined gold here in the Late Bronze Age. The broad perspective, offered by various field results obtained in the last eight years, provides opportunities for both microanalysis and the study of specific details about the mine, the technological processes, and the social organisation of the community that inhabited the site, and macro analysis to find the mine’s place in a larger natural, geographical and resource setting. The latter option is also made possible as a result of the archaeological surveys for ancient mines in the eastern Rhodopes that were undertaken in the frames of the above-mentioned Bulgarian-German project, supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.22 The metallogenic specialisation of the eastern Rhodopes differs from that of the central and western parts of the mountain. In the eastern Rhodopes, gold-bearing deposits are relatively common – as parts of broad-spectrum polymetallic deposits or in deposits with mostly precious metals (such as Ada Tepe and Stremtsi, for example).23 At many places, there were traces of ancient mining. The registered ancient mines

We are deeply grateful to the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation for the extremely valuable support in the early stages of the project. Between 2008 and 2013, A. Jockenhövel was director of the German side. He is in great measure responsible for the project’s breadth of perspective and its current framework (H. P.). Popov et al. 2011. 23 See an overview in Milev et al. 2007. 22

‘Ada Tepe Late Bronze Age Gold Mine’ Project: Between Borders

367

Fig. 7   Ancient mines, identified in the eastern Rhodopes. Bulgarian-German expedition, 2008–2011 (© H. Popov, NIAM-BAS; S. Iliev, RMH Haskovo)

for precious metals number more than 15.24 The evidence, collected in the field, dates them to a relatively broad period from the Late Bronze Age to the Middle Ages (Fig. 7). It should be remembered that this information is based only on field surveys and only Ada Tepe was subjected to planned investigations. The high density of traces of ancient mining sets Ada Tepe in a broader context that indicates a livelihood that was typical for the entire region and occurred periodically through successive historical periods. From this perspective, the specialisation of the ancient population is less surprising, as it could be considered a regularity related to long-term processes. Some observations in the field on Ada Tepe also provide grounds to think in larger terms. The manner in which people arrived, settled on the peak and exploited the deposit, and the absence of whatsoever changes in the technology seem to indicate a well-organised process and population that came here on purpose with an already established set of knowledge and abilities. In fact, there are hints in the literature about earlier traces of ancient mining in the northern Aegean region. They come from an eponymous place like Pangaion. As early as the beginning of the 1980s, Unger, when describing some of the sites with traces of ancient gold mining, mentions the discovery of pottery with specific decoration (Furchenstich) that dates to the Late Bronze Age.25 Unfortunately, this preliminary information was not expanded upon and no investigations in the field were undertaken. The updated overview by Andreou and Vavelidis of the known deposits of precious metals and finds related to gold processing from sites in the area of the northern and northwestern Aegean coast indicates that the traditions of gold extraction could be traced back to Prehistory. Therefore, future discoveries of early sites, related to the first technological stages in the production chain, should not be surprising. The gradual increase of the imports of Mycenaean pottery in the northern and northwestern hinterland of the Chalkidike Peninsula in LH I–LH II,

Popov et al. 2011, 256–270; Popov – Jockenhövel 2017, 60–61. Unger 1987; Vavelidis – Andreou 2008, 361–365; Andreou – Vavelidis 2014, 452–461, tab. 3, fig. 7.

24 25

368

Hristo Popov – Krasimir Nikov

reaching a peak and greatest density in LH IIIA, is also a circumstantial indication for the existence of factors that provoked interest for the region and could explain the presence of a large number of imported luxury items.26 The case of Pangaion is symptomatic and could be considered – in the broader perspective – an indication that Ada Tepe is not an exception, but rather an example of socio-cultural and professional phenomena that were widespread over large territories. Another leading topic is related to the place and the significance of the settlements that were investigated on the top; they could be used as an important source of information about the specifics of the human habitation of the eastern Rhodopes in the Late Bronze Age. The rescue investigations provided the opportunity to excavate a large area and to attempt to uncover the traces of human activity in its completeness. The remains of two settlements were investigated, one in the northern and the northeastern periphery of the ridge, and the other on the top itself and in the central parts of the ridge.27 The first one has a single layer from one main period of habitation, while the second reveals a much more complex situation. Stratigraphic evidence from the settlement on the top allows identification of at least two main construction phases during the Late Bronze Age. The second phase was the heyday period, marked by the construction of a massive fortification wall that enclosed the ridge of the hill. It is very rare in present-day Bulgarian territory to discover evidence about Late Bronze Age fortified settlements or citadels. Based on the radiocarbon dates, the absolute chronological limits of the settlements’ existence could be set from the early 15th century BC to the middle of the 11th century BC. At present, it is difficult to date the discontinuation of the first settlement and the appearance of the second settlement on the top. The evidence indicates that the transfer from the northeastern slopes to the ridge of Ada Tepe was a single act (?), prompted by various factors, related to some break in the mining activity on the top and the occupation of this vacant and levelled area. At the current state of knowledge, it is hard to say whether this act was driven by technological, organisational, demographical, or even socio-political reasons. It also remains unclear what the reasons were for abandoning the settlement at the end of the Late Bronze Age. Whatever they were, they are undoubtedly closely related to the interruption of gold extraction and led to an overall transformation of the model of habitation in the Early Iron Age. The results of the field investigations clearly indicate that there is no functional continuity between the Late Bronze Age habitation and that of the Early Iron Age. There is only topographical continuity and most probably there was a short chronological gap in the 11th century BC, at the transition between the two millennia. At present, there are numerous blank spots regarding in the settlement pattern in southern Thrace in the Late Bronze Age. Probably, the very specifics of the human habitation in the period also contribute to the many unclear points – small communities, often mobile, that did not build long-term settlement structures. In most cases, dwellings were light constructions made of perishable materials. At the same time, there are almost no well investigated sites that could provide grounds for more specific conclusions about their planning and internal organisation. In mountainous and semi-mountainous regions, this state of research is also due to the objective difficulties of the terrain. The practice indicates that often only small surfaces are investigated (by means of trench excavations) and only in exceptional cases is the work in the field longterm, over several successive campaigns. In these circumstances, it is hardly possible to offer conclusions and overviews based on more abundant and detailed empirical database. There are sites, investigated in the 1970s and the last decade, that reach beyond these limitations, such as Vishegrad, Koprivlen, Kush Kaya, Dragoyna, and Gluhite Kamani28 – but they could be regarded as exceptions to the rule. Due to the lack of information about highland settlements, situated on ridges and upper slopes, these hilltop sites were, until recently, regularly interpreted a priori as cult sites. The criteria that

Horejs 2012, 141–142, Karte 6. Popov – Jockenhövel 2011, 274–277; Popov et al. 2015, 54–55, Abb. 14–15; Popov et al. 2017; Horejs 2017. 28 Dremsizova – Nelchinova 1984; Alexandrov 2002; Popov 2009; Nekhrizov – Tsvetkova 2011; Bozhinova et al. 2013. 26 27

‘Ada Tepe Late Bronze Age Gold Mine’ Project: Between Borders

369

were applied were more geomorphological and purely physiognomic (high, inaccessible peaks with prominent, easily identifiable rock formations, etc.), without sufficient investigations in the field.29 In these cases, it is often overlooked that inaccessibility and domination above the surrounding area could serve other purposes. The complete investigations of the preserved parts of the two settlements on Ada Tepe provided the opportunity to modify this approach. Instead of hypothesising about separate parts of the settlement – based on preliminary and rather general observations – the chance emerged to fill up the missing details of the overall picture of the habitation and livelihood, on the grounds of specific sites that were investigated to the extent that allows for delving into detail. Clearly, the specifics of the terrain should not be the main criterion for establishing the function of each site. Undoubtedly, the main reason for the emergence and the existence of both investigated settlements was the extraction of gold from the top and the slopes of Ada Tepe. Most probably, many of their specifics (e.g. the differences in the layout and the duration of their existence) are closely related to the intensity of mining, the exact place where it was carried out, and the organisation of the working process. Respectively, this should lead to the revision of many of the existing views about the settlement structure in the eastern Rhodopes in the period under consideration. Numerous other activities, about which there are no direct data (but there is substantial circumstantial evidence), such as the provision of food and various resources and materials, indicate that the two settlements were part of a larger system that functioned at different levels. This suggests the existence of a network of links (settlements) with significant specialisation along the chain that carried out all main and secondary activities from the mining to the finished product. At the same time, another question could be raised – whether the model that is exemplified by Ada Tepe for the eastern Rhodopes was an exception (introduced from outside), or a widespread phenomenon. The two settlements of Ada Tepe have become the main source of information about general settlement layout and organisation, construction techniques and materials and ground plans of the dwellings in the whole region. The modest dimensions and the planned and organised creation of the earlier settlement on the northeastern slopes contrast with the evidence about the habitation on the top, where the scale of the construction works and the built-up area probably reflect the heyday in the mine’s exploitation (Figs. 8–10). Typical of the architecture are one- or two-room buildings of rectangular or oval ground plan, with stone foundations and walls of mudbrick or wattle-and-daub. At present, it is difficult to clearly tell apart the functions of the investigated structures (dwellings, workshops, etc.) due to the opinion, which is gradually gaining support, that the same building or room could combine both functions.30 The opportunity and the necessity to investigate the settlement in its entirety yielded a huge amount of artefacts and pottery that could serve as a platform for studying the everyday life of the Bronze Age community in much finer detail than was possible until recently. For example, an overview of the current state of research of the Late Bronze Age pottery assemblage indicates that individual sites have yielded only single shapes, often very fragmentary. Single finds with better-preserved shapes and decoration (usually luxury items) come from a few burials or chance collective finds like the one from Plovdiv, which in the 1970s enabled Bernhard Hänsel to define the so-called Čerkovna Group of the Late Bronze Age,31 in which a collective find from Plovdiv occupies a central place for southern Bulgaria. Hänsel himself admits that the group has been defined mainly based on pottery.32 The happy chance to discover a hoard of several dozen vases (mainly tableware) provided opportunities for analysis and for establishing at least a partial typolo-

See Bozhinova in this volume. Popov – Nikov 2014, 118–121, Obr. 1–2. 31 Hänsel 1976, 76–87, tabs. 9–11; tab. II. Initially, the group was defined by Morintz and Angehelscu as Plovdiv-Zimnicea. B. Hänsel used as a leading benchmark the finds from Čerkovna (in northeastern Bulgaria). See the discussion in Hänsel 1976. 32 Hänsel 1976, 79. 29 30

370

Hristo Popov – Krasimir Nikov

Fig. 8   Remains of a Late Bronze Age dwelling on the ridge of Ada Tepe (© R. Stoychev, IAS-BAS)

Fig. 9   Remains of dwellings and debris of the fortification wall from the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. Northeastern periphery of Ada Tepe’s ridge (© H. Popov, NIAM-BAS)

‘Ada Tepe Late Bronze Age Gold Mine’ Project: Between Borders

371

Fig. 10   Ground-plan of the remains of the settlement from the beginning of the Late Bronze Age, situated in the northern and northeastern periphery of Ada Tepe’s ridge (© B. Gjaurova, NIAM-BAS)

gy based on the scarce – at the time (and for long time afterwards) – information about the ceramic repertoire of the period. At the same time, Plovdiv as an archaeological site did not offer any other benchmarks to be studied as major manifestations of the culture in the period under consideration. The difficulties of studying the Late Bronze Age pottery assemblage from southern Trace are obvious. It is generally clear that in the Late Bronze Age various techniques were used for applying rich and diverse decoration on the vases. However, the fragmentary condition of the ceramic assemblage led to an equally fragmentary notion of the ornamental motives and compositions. The existing publications were forced to comply with individual specific elements, and it was rarely possible to analyse the entire decoration, the existing combinations, if there were regularities regarding which vases were decorated, etc.33 At Ada Tepe, the huge amount of empirical data creates the potential for a contextual and functional analysis of the ceramic assemblage from the period. At present (together with the investi-

Nekhrizov 1995; Dimitrova 2014; Dimitrova 2015.

33

372

Hristo Popov – Krasimir Nikov

gations by G. Nehrizov in 2001–2006), there are more than 90 intact vases and complete shapes, and this number increases with the continuing processing and restoration (Figs. 11–12). What is important here is that – unlike in cases like Plovdiv – at Ada Tepe the entire range of the ceramic assemblage is represented: tableware, kitchenware, and storage vessels. They could be studied in their household context and in accordance with how they were used.34 Most other finds from the two settlements on Ada Tepe offer a similar situation. The inventory provides rich information about all activities of their inhabitants. It should be noted that they illustrate a broad range of activities, probably typical for every settlement in that period: pottery making, manufacturing of bronze items (weapons, tools, personal adornments) and stone and flint tools, and purely household chores. The moulds for casting various bronze items are a good example (there are more than 30 fragmentary moulds). Together with hoards like the finds from Pobit Kamak and Mogilitsa,35 they offer new perspectives for studying craft manufacture in the Late Bronze Age. On one hand, as a highly specialised process, mastered by experts that could be mobile, transferring knowledge and technology over long distances, and on the other, as a common livelihood that was no longer rare and exotic, but was permanently stationed in the settlements and attended to the everyday needs of the population. The accumulation of a large quantity of empirical evidence from Ada Tepe combined with the results from numerous rescue and regular investigations carried out in the last ten years in southern Bulgaria provides grounds to achieve progress in the studies on the absolute chronology of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages in Thrace. Traditionally, the periodisation and chronology of the Bronze Age in present-day Bulgaria is based on the Aegean periodisation system.36 Adopted after the example of mainland Greece, the Cycladic islands, and Crete, the tripartite system has been subjected through the years to various attempts to be made more precise and detailed, but in the end remained largely the same.37 While for the Early Bronze Age and the 3rd millennium BC there are well investigated and largely published multilayer well-known sites like Ezero and Yunatsite, this is not the case with the entire 2nd millennium BC, for which there are no similar benchmark sites with relatively long chronological sequences, supported by stratigraphy. What is more, the culture in a time span of 250 years between the 18th and the middle of the 16th centuries BC has been described as “totally lacking specific features”.38 A major methodological problem about the chronology and periodisation of the Bronze Age in present-day Bulgaria is not only the scarce publications of the evidence that is insufficient per se, but also the circumstance that the formal-typological analysis has remained the leading (or even the only) method for establishing chronological regularities and conclusions. Rare attempts to create an absolute chronological and periodisation system remain isolated and criticised for the applied methodological approach.39 The picture is very different from the gradual build-up of published sites along the northern Aegean coast that have chronology and periodisation based also on absolute radiocarbon and dendrochronological dates with a secure stratigraphic context.40 The comparisons go beyond the multilayered chronology of Troy. In the last 30 years, the accumulation of sites, such as Kastanas, Assiros, Olynthos, Agios Mamas, etc. (to mention only a few) in the northern Aegean region between Thrace and the mouth of Axios, with a series of radiocarbon dates strongly contrasts to the dearth of relevant data from the Balkan hinterland. Frequent references in Bulgarian publications to sites like Troy and Kastanas do not actually solve the problem with the absence of

36 37 38 39 40 34 35

Nikov 2016, 457–462; Nikov 2017; Horejs 2017. Hänsel 1976, tabs. 1–3; Chernikh 1978, tabs. 67–70; Damyanov 2008, 270–278; Damjanov 2017; Leštakov 2017. Alexandrov 2017, 29–31. See Katinčarov 1982; Leshtakov 1993; Boyadziev 1995; Shalganova 1995; Leshtakov 2006 with references. Leshtakov 2006, 152. Boyadziev 1995; Leshtakov 2006, 151–152. Neuton et al. 2003; Jung – Weninger 2004; Horejs 2007; Wardle – Wardle 2007; Hänsel – Aslanis 2010; Wardle et al. 2014; Weninger – Jung 2014.

‘Ada Tepe Late Bronze Age Gold Mine’ Project: Between Borders

Fig. 11   Ada Tepe. Pottery from the Late Bronze Age (© K. Nikov, S. Vasileva, NIAM-BAS)

373

374

Hristo Popov – Krasimir Nikov

Fig. 12   Ada Tepe. Pottery from the Late Bronze Age (© K. Nikov, NIAM-BAS)

‘Ada Tepe Late Bronze Age Gold Mine’ Project: Between Borders

375

Fig. 13   Absolute radiocarbon dates from various structures at the site (mine works, waste heaps, settlements). The dates span the general chronological limits, established at present – the middle of the 2nd millennium BC – 9th century  BC (© H. Popov, NIAM-BAS; S. Iliev, RMH Haskovo)

‘domestic’ benchmarks that would make these links relevant. There are already preconditions to overcome this situation – in the last few years, there have been attempts to modify and modernise the approach, and opportunities are sought for to compile sequences of calibrated 14C samples from secure stratigraphic contexts. Initial attempts are made to formulate general regularities and specify the absolute chronology of the Late Bronze Age and the first stages of the Early Iron Age at sites that have the potential to become benchmarks with clear stratigraphy.41 Ada Tepe occupies a prominent place in this process. Until now, the site has yielded more than 150 absolute radiocarbon dates from secure contexts and from all periods, taken from the various functional zones of the site and structures that were investigated within it (Fig. 13). The analysis of the general chronological frame indicates that the earliest human activity related to mining and the accompanying habitation of the peaks should be dated to the beginning of the 15th century BC.

Nekhrizov et al. in press; Popov in press.

41

376

Hristo Popov – Krasimir Nikov

These dates have greatest density and consistency between the 2nd half of the 13th and the middle of the 11th century BC. After the two early periods (the first one from the Late Bronze Age, related to the mining on the top, and the second from the Early Iron Age that demonstrates only topographical continuity in the first two centuries of the 1st millennium BC), there was a chronological hiatus of several hundred years until a new occupation in the main and later stages of the Hellenistic period (3rd–1stcentury BC). The latest field investigations in 2015 revealed that after another hiatus, one more period of habitation followed in the southern periphery of the peak, dating to the Late Antique period (late 4th– early 6th century AD). Functionally and spatially, it has no relation whatsoever to gold mining and the earliest habitation phases on the top of Ada Tepe. The large database of empiric materials and absolute dates from secure contexts creates a potential for turning the site into a benchmark as well as a link between the rather numerous benchmark sites in the northern Aegean coastal zone and the Thracian interior. The eastern Rhodopes and the central and southern parts of the Thracian plain are no more blank spots regarding the absolute dates from the Bronze and Early Iron Age. In the last five years, as are sult of various scientific programs and rescue investigations due to infrastructure development, about 30 more sites yielded absolute radiocarbon dates, bringing the total number, comprising Ada Tepe, to more than 350 (Fig. 14).42 Processing and publishing these sites in the following years would provide opportunity to overcome the above-mentioned gaps in the chronology of the Bronze Age in southern Thrace. Additional possibilities to specify and correlate the dates are provided by the appearance of imports with clear and relatively narrow chronologies. Particularly revealing is the Mycenaean pottery from Koprivlen and Dragoyna.43 Based on the existing publications and the analysis of the Mycenaean imports in the northwestern and northern parts of the Aegean coast, it would facilitate a chronological, cultural, and interpretative link that was impossible until recently. As already mentioned, an important concentration of Mycenaean pottery is observed in the southwestern Thracian periphery, in the area between the mouths of Axios (Vardar) and Strymon.44 This phenomenon has clear connections with sites in the interior (such as Koprivlen, Lilovo and Bresto)45 and suggests one of the main directions of contact and penetration. Having in mind the imported materials and the indications about interregional contacts from earlier sites like Galabovo, Ovchartsi and Izvorovo,46 it could be claimed that the situation in the 2nd millennium BC, ‘dark’ until recently, brightens. All the more that the majority of the imports from the Middle and Late Bronze Age were discovered precisely in the area of Maritsa and Tundzha and the eastern Rhodopes – at present, the zone with the highest density of absolute dates. Thus, one could overcome the obvious lack of a network of regional and interregional benchmark sites in the interior of southern Thrace. As an attempt to reconstruct the environment of Ada Tepe in a broader perspective, steps were taken to put the accumulated primary data about livelihood and everyday life in a larger macro-regional setting. The region of present-day southeastern Bulgaria is of great significance as a key contact zone between Thrace, Asia Minor, and the Aegean world. In the last decades, new empirical evidence was gathered that makes possible the carrying out of various interdisciplinary paleoclimatological, landscape, and paleoeconomic analyses. Paleobotanical, paleozoological, palynological and geomorphological samples from secure contexts were taken as a preliminary database that could be correlated with the existing evidence from other sites that were investigated in the last ten years. Thus, another field in the exploration of Ada Tepe was created and another

We express our gratitude to all our colleagues that were willing to share materials from secure contexts from investigations they directed, in order to be analysed and to provide new absolute dates for the Bronze and the Early Iron Age. The rights are held by the investigators of the respective sites. 43 Alexandrov 2002, 73–74, 78–79, fig. 30; Bozhinova et al. 2013, 67–78, Abb.4; Jung et al. 2017; Horejs – Jung in press. 44 Horejs 2007, 304–306; Horejs 2012, 141–142. 45 Borislavov 2008; Athanassov et al. 2016. 46 Leshtakov 1993; Leshtakov 1996; Borislavov 2010. 42

‘Ada Tepe Late Bronze Age Gold Mine’ Project: Between Borders

377

Fig. 14  Southern and southeastern Bulgaria. Map of the archaeological sites with absolute radiocarbon dates from the Bronze and Early Iron Ages: 1. Ada Tepe; 2. Tatul; 3. Stambolovo; 4. Dolno Cherkovishte; 5. Kush Kaya; 6. Gluhite Kamani; 7. Dragoyna; 8. Kasnakovo; 9. Merichleri; 10. Harmanli; 11. Nova Nadezhda; 12. Biser; 13. Semercheto; 14. Izvorovo; 15. Vaskovo; 16. Kapitan Andreevo; 17. Ovchartsi; 18. Ovchartsi; 19. Polski Gradets; 20. Pet Mogili; 21. Bikovo; 22. Kermen; 23. Kermen; 24. Chokoba; 25. Malenovo; 26. Zheleznik (© H. Popov, NIAM-BAS; S. Iliev, RMH Haskovo)

attempt was made to ‘cross’ the methodological and informational borders that existed until recently. An international project was initiated, dedicated to subsistence economy and land use in the period and funded by the Research Foundation – Flanders.47 The focus of the project is on the specifics of human impact on the environment and the natural resources. This impact could be traced as a process through studies of individual components: land cultivation, animal husbandry, and extraction of vital resources – the exploitation and distribution of which could be not only of local, but also of interregional importance. Based on the favourable empirical preconditions, the project aims at tracing the human impact and the economy in southeastern Thrace during several main periods. Basic components in the database are animal bones, plant remains, and palynological samples. The collections from 24 (until now) sites, located in different landscapes – mountainous, semi-mountainous, plains, and river valleys – are treated in comparative perspective. Conventional methods of analysis have been supplemented with others that are innovative and pioneering for Bulgaria, e.g. the analysis of the stable isotopes of carbon and nitrogen (δ13C and δ15N) from remains of cultivated plants. One of the main tasks, related to the future use of the specific results obtained by the project, would be to trace them in diachronic perspective and to integrate them in the analysis and the

‘Subsistence Economy and Land Use during the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age and Roman Period (1600 BC–400 AD) in Today’s south-eastern Bulgaria: Archaeological Perspectives’. It is an international research project with main partners: the Catholic University of Leuven (Belgium) and NIAM-BAS (Bulgaria). Director from Belgian side is Delphine Frémondeau. The project has funding for 2015–2017 and already several dozen paleozoological and paleobotanical collections from sites in present-day southern Bulgaria have been processed. We are grateful to D. Frémondeau and our Belgian colleagues for the fruitful cooperation.

47

378

Hristo Popov – Krasimir Nikov

interpretation of the settlement structure as a whole or of some of its components. In this manner (based on the identified regularities and the evidence about the paleoeconomy and the exploitation of the environment), new points of view could be developed when building interpretational models about the evolution of the southeastern parts of the Balkan Peninsula and the cultural influences that were adopted in different periods. Eastern Rhodope in Transregional Perspective Taking into account all of the above-listed groups of scholarly questions and problems, one cannot but reach one main point, once more related to gold, which is the question about the distribution of the acquired metal and its role for the development of the trans-regional economic and cultural contacts. The appearance of the above-mentioned early Mycenaean imported pottery, of mining technology that was considered, until recently, to be innovative for the period, and of organised and specialised professional communities are all indicators that were rather consequences of one principal phenomenon, that being the availability of a certain raw material and the demand for it. In a study dedicated to metallurgy in southeastern Europe in the Bronze Age, S. Hansen points out the two main roles that the region (including the Carpathian Basin) played from the 3rd millennium BC onwards. On one hand, it was a “peripheral region, viewed from the perspective of the early urban cultures of Mesopotamia and Anatolia. Southeastern Europe participates in the quick distribution of certain types of weapons and tools, as well as of a series of metal casting techniques… On the other hand, southeastern Europe became a center for the neighbouring European regions to the northwest. The metallurgical impulses emanated from southeastern Europe in the Early Bronze Age. And Danube played a major role as the largest waterway of Europe”.48 Certainly, the roles of periphery and recipient on one hand, and of intermediary and distributor on the other are easily distinguished and could be backed with solid arguments for the place of southeastern Europe as a border zone between western Asia, the eastern Mediterranean, the Aegean and central and western Europe. At the same time, it would seem that the accumulation of information in the last few decades makes increasingly visible a third major role (equally important), played by southeastern Europe in the world of the Bronze Age, which is that of a stable source of some vital raw materials. The idea about the northern origin of some of the gold that reached the Aegean world is by no means a new one. In the early 1970s, Branigan suggested that the gold that reached Minoan Crete came from the north, from regions that were rather broad in geographic terms.49 Sources were presumed to be from the territories of present-day Bulgaria, Romania, FYR Macedonia, and northwestern Anatolia. Later, in the late 1970s and the early 1980s, A. Hartmann tried to argue for the Carpathian Basin as the source of the gold that provided the material for the numerous precious metal items from the Balkans and Mycenaean Greece in particular.50 Davis also supported the hypothesis about the gold coming from Siebenbürgen and Transylvania.51 Pernicka in turn presumes possible local sources of gold for the jewellery making in Troy.52 To summarise, all above-listed studies remain mostly within the realm of hypothesis. They start from the well-known final products, and the first links in the technological chain, such as sources of raw materials, are hypothetically identified with currently-known gold and silver deposits, without any archaeological evidence from the field. The attempts to identify the origin of a raw material by means of archaeometry and micro-regional field surveys have provided results that amount to broad hypotheses and probabilities.

Hansen 2005, 89; See a discussion about the Balkans as a border area in Bonev 1988; Bouzek 1997; Leshtakov 2007; Leshtakov 2009; Athanassov – Krauß 2015; Horejs – Jung in press. 49 Branigan 1974, 63, 98. 50 Hartmann 1978, 182–189; Hartmann 1982, 31–35. 51 Davis 1983, 32–37. 52 Pernicka et al. 2003 149. 48

‘Ada Tepe Late Bronze Age Gold Mine’ Project: Between Borders

379

In the case of Ada Tepe, the discovery of the site and the investigations provide us with the opportunity to reverse the order of research, starting not from the final products and the possible destinations of their distribution, but from the specific site of archaeologically and interdisciplinary attested gold mining from the Late Bronze Age. We are given the chance to reverse the direction and to look for correspondences between one (of how many?) positively identified source and possible products made from its raw material, as well as their addressees. Certainly, the interdisciplinary methods in provenance studies are not without limitations and conditionalities.53 Nonetheless, they have gained considerable strength in the last decades, a fact which offers hope that it may be possible to achieve an informational breakthrough and to move from broad hypotheses to more specific and explicit results. This broad circle of problems serves as a base for the project ‘Bronze Age Gold Road of the Balkans. Ada Tepe Mining: Producers and Consumers’, funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF).54 The direct and indirect (for example, various imports) indications that were accumulated in the last decades provide grounds to consider southeastern Europe, and in our case the southeastern parts of the Balkan Peninsula, to be viewed not only as a peripheral or intermediary region, but also as a supplier of raw materials, and therefore as an active and important player in trans-regional exchange and communication.55 A series of specific finds indicate that the Balkans were a permanent part of the economic network of the Mediterranean and the Aegean world in the Late Bronze Age. Hansen, analysing the mixed character of the hoard from Tekirdağ, points out that the metalworking crafts in southeastern Europe were by no means an “isolated cosmos” and that there is clear evidence of contacts that reached remote destinations.56 Many questions remain open and cannot fit within some scholarly theses that are regarded as proven once and for all. One such example is the case of the ox-hide copper ingots and their Mediterranean origins (Cyprus or Sardinia). Except for numerous shiploads from shipwrecks like those at Cape Gelidonya and Uluburun,57 such finds are relatively rare from dry land. This is not surprising, having in mind that these were half-finished products, related mainly to the transportation of a certain raw material. Against this background, what is to be noted is the steadily increasing number of such finds from the interior of present-day eastern Bulgaria.58 Some of them are chance finds, while, unfortunately, others were discovered by looters. Nonetheless, a clear trend emerges. If we complement the specimens from Cherkovo, Chernozem, Kirilovo, Ovcha Mogila and Pobit Kamak with the fragment from Tekirdağ, they would add up to eight intact or fragmentary ox-hide ingots with provenance from the eastern parts of the present-day Balkan Peninsula, to the south of the Danube.59 It would be logical to ask for the reasons for such a high concentration. Still more confusing is the fact that many of these finds come from the immediate hinterland of some of the richest copper deposits in these parts of the Balkans (that were definitely exploited in the Chalcolithic period and later in Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic times). In this respect, the skeptical attitude of K. Leshtakov on the importation of copper to this region, which was itself very rich in copper, makes perfect sense.60 In any case, new interdisciplinary research should be undertaken on all available ox-hide ingots. At this stage, we are equally unconvinced in the exclusively Mediterranean origin of these ingots. It is

For a detailed overview of the problem, see Junk – Pernicka 2003, 313–314, 328–329; Hauptmann 2011, 179–184; Pernicka 2014, 154–163. 54 We are grateful to B. Horejs and her team from OREA and to all our colleagues that are part of the collaboration in the framework of the project. 55 Horejs – Jung 2017; Jung 2017. 56 Hansen 2005, 93. 57 Pulak 1997. 58 The question has been treated at length by Lihardus et al. 2002, Leshtakov 2007 and Doncheva 2012. See the comments and an exhaustive overview of the existing literature. Full list of the ox-hide ingots from the eastern Balkan-Peninsula in Doncheva 2012, 692–694. 59 In our opinion, the ingot from Yabalkovo that is added to this list by K. Leshtakov is rather a votive item. For this reason, it is not included among the finds. 60 Leshtakov 2007, 453–456, figs. 5–6. 53

380

Hristo Popov – Krasimir Nikov

a legitimate question if the find-spots were the final destination or the starting point of at least some of the above-mentioned ingots from the southeastern Balkans. At the same time, precious and non-ferrous metals were definitely not the only Bronze Age raw resources in southeastern Europe about which the last decades brought new data. It would be sufficient to mention the important results of A. Harding and V. Kavruk about salt mining in the region of the western Carpathians and Transylvania.61 They are a clear indication that in the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age (which are of particular interest to the authors of the present text because of the chronology of Ada Tepe), between 1600 and 850 BC, salt production became a “highly organized industry, intended mainly for foreign customers.”62 The demand and the supply of raw materials undoubtedly played a major role in the development of trans-regional economic and cultural contacts, but it would seem that the interpretational models that we apply have some serious limitations. They seem to function better at a global macro-level, but suffer from certain flaws at local and micro-regional levels. On one hand, there are highly developed and centralised societies in the Mediterranean, Anatolia, and western Asia, and on the other, there are indications of contacts and trade of raw materials, but it would appear that we lack the specific identity of the other side in this act that is at least bilateral (as is trade). If the opposite side was represented by small, decentralised communities, often mobile and with different economic specialisations, then what remains unclear is the hierarchy and the basic organising principles that enabled the contacts, the extraction, and the distribution of a given raw material. Apparently, this ‘hierarchical inequality’ between the partners in the exchange was not a problem, and we see, in the Bronze Age, regular travelling across borders and distances that are significant even by modern standards. In this context, Ada Tepe offers the opportunity to sketch the portrait of the ‘other side’ in the Late Bronze Age long-distance trade on the Balkans. In fact, the gradual accumulation of empirical evidence in the last decades indicates that the Late Bronze Age was hardly an exceptional phenomenon regarding the exploitation of the existing sources of precious and non-ferrous metals in the southeastern parts of the Balkans. Without having to go back to the Chalcolithic period and the 5th millennium BC, an overview of the updated evidence about the time from the middle of the 3rd millennium onwards indicates that these areas of the Balkans stand out ever more distinctly as a long-term participant in the exchange network in the northern parts of the Aegean world. The gold finds from Dabene and their typological similarity to Troy and Poliochni are only one of the indications that deserve mention.63 The growing number of gold and silver pieces of jewellery from the 2nd half of the 3rd millennium BC would even allow for advancing hypotheses about the existence of prominent manufacturing centres. In addition to Dabene,64 such hypotheses have been voiced about the area of the upper reaches of Strymon,65 based on the occurrence of specific precious metal items.66 Only recently has analyses and a detailed overview of the main types of jewellery perfectly justified (despite the author’s cautiousness67) such a hypothesis for the central parts of the Thracian Plain and the periphery of Strandzha Mountain, which is rich in non-ferrous and precious metals. Defining, on the grounds of common specifics, the jewellery manufacture in the area of the Aegean islands, mainland Greece, and western Anatolia as a common ‘koine’ is complemented quite naturally by the thesis that, “Thrace has its place in the ‘koine’ of Aegean jewelry manufacturing and, in broader perspective, metallurgy”.68

63 64 65 66 67 68 61 62

Harding – Kavruk 2013. Harding – Kavruk 2013, 222–223. Hristov 2008, 219–222; Hristov 2010, 310–315; Hristov 2016, 229–235. Vasileva 2016, 301–304. Hristov 2008, 219–222. Tsintsov 2005, 220–225; Tsintsov 2008, 216–217. Vasileva 2016. Vasileva 2016, 304.

‘Ada Tepe Late Bronze Age Gold Mine’ Project: Between Borders

381

The overview of the increasingly distinguishable imports reveals southern Thrace as a known and accessible destination already in the 3rd millennium BC.69 In fact, when considering in retrospective the question about the sources of raw materials in southern Thrace, an impression is created of a certain recurrence of the model in various periods of the Early and Late Bronze Ages – and as late as the Archaic period and the active Greek colonisation of various parts of the Aegean and the western Pontic coast.70 Regions that were rich in precious and non-ferrous metals were ‘rediscovered’. One can observe periodical revival of the contacts with the islands and northwestern Anatolia – with highs and lows, but rather attesting a long-term interest to something familiar. In this respect, the notion of the southern Thracian communities as a koine where metal extraction and metallurgy were important livelihoods gradually gains materiality. The mountainous region between the mouth of Strymon to the west and the mouth of Hebros to the east emerges as an area with some discernible micro-regional specifics, but otherwise displaying a monolithic culture. The Rhodopes play a crucial role here. In recent years, these features have been emphasised repeatedly.71 It should be noted that the systematic scholarly interest towards the communities that inhabited the northern Aegean littoral in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages seems to be focused, in geographic terms and from west to east, mainly on the area of Chalkidike and the Strymon Valley. This is the border to the west of which, at this stage, one could distinguish tell settlements of settled communities.72 Sites such as Kastanas, Olynthos, Assiros, etc. have become eponymous for the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age culture in the region. The situation differs to the east, where field investigations and ensuing scholarly publications have been more or less sporadic. A. Baralis justly notes that for a long time “...Thracian remains were often described as ‘prehistoric’, and excavations were mainly concentrated on Greek colonies located along the coast...”.73 The long-term efforts of scholars like D. Triantaphyllos remain rather isolated. At the same time, the investigations of such sites as Asar Tepe and Agios Georgios indicate that at least until the Early Iron Age (included) manifestations of the same material culture could be observed, apparently carried by the same people. These manifestations are clearly visible on both sides of the present-day political border. In recent years, there have been attempts (at least in terms of reconsidering the evidence) to overcome the major informational gaps in the Late Bronze and Early Iron archaeology of the northern Aegean coast.74 Hopefully, this trend will persevere. Last, but not least, there are enough written sources about this region – from the Homeric epics to several Classical and Hellenistic authors – creating a picture of numerous Thracian tribal communities, which, despite the differences, were regarded more as part of the Aegean community, and not as its limit.75 It should be remembered that the early Thracian tribal coinage belongs precisely to the area of the lower reaches of Strymon and Nestos.76 The fact that numerous small tribal communities had access to sources of precious metals once more raises the question about the major and long-term role of mining and metallurgy as livelihoods in the entire northern Aegean region. We would rather not overstate the problem with the informational gaps and the selective interest to certain remains of the material culture of the late northern Aegean Prehistory.

Leshtakov 1993, 208–215; Leshtakov 1996; Leshtakov 2009, 59–60; Minkov 2013, 119–120. On the early stages of the Greek colonisation in the area, see the contribution of M. Damyanov in the present volume. 71 Baralis 2008; Dimitrova 2011; Dimitrova 2015; Nechrizov – Cvetkova 2017. 72 The so-called ‘architecture border’ from Atanassov – Krauß 2015, 67–68, Abb. 1. 73 Baralis 2008, 102. See also there the overview of the archaeological investigations of individual sites. 74 See for example Sazcı in this volume. 75 On the epics and references, see Porozhanov 1998, 24–38. For an up-to-date review of ancient sources and modern publications, and for an exhaustive analysis of the ancient geography of the tribes in south-western Thrace, see Delev 2014. 76 Delev 2014, 89–105. 69 70

382

Hristo Popov – Krasimir Nikov

Conclusions Ada Tepe could serve as a key site with a large database that could enable overcoming many different limitations. Having in mind the above-described several groups of scholarly problems, our desire was, and still is, to turn the Ada Tepe project into a platform for middle-term and long-term research. For this reason, we aimed at the broadest possible international scope – in terms of institutions, experts, and fields of research. Only the future will show if we would be able to handle our intentions.The site could serve as a model – of society, production, distribution and, in fact, culture – that could provide plausible explanations of how a small and specialised community could fit within far more global and far-reaching economic, cultural and historic processes. Based on the evidence collected from the field about specific features of everyday life and livelihood of the community that was occupied in gold mining, a micro-regional interpretational model could be created that in turn could fit in the larger framework of the trans-regional contacts, in order to provide plausible explanations for the long-term economic, technological and social processes that characterised important components of the Late Bronze Age society in southeastern Europe. References Alexandrov 2002 С. Александров, Селище от късната бронзова епоха край с. Копривлен, in: А. Божкова – П. Делев (eds.), Копривлен. Спасителни археологически проучвания по пътя Гоце Делчев – Драма 1 (Sofia 2002) 61–82. Alexandrov 2017 S. Alexandrov, Die Früh- und Mittelbronzezeit in Bulgarien. Chronologie, Periodisierung, kulturelle Kontakte und Edelmetallfunde, in: Haag et al. 2017, 29–33. Andreou – Vavelidis 2014 S. Andreou – M. Vavelidis, So rich and yet so poor. Investigating the scarcity of gold artifacts in Bronze Age northern Greece, in: Meller et al. 2014, 451–467. Atanassov – Krauß 2015 B. Atanassov – R. Krauß, Der Ostbalkanraum zwischen mediterranen Hochkulturen und dem südöstlichen Europa in der Spätbronzezeit, in: G. Sommer von Bülow (eds.), Kontaktzone Balkan. Beiträge des internationalen Kolloquiums “Die Donau-Balkan Region als Kontaktzone zwischen Ost-West und Nord-Süd” vom 16–18 Mai 2012 in Frankfurt a. M. (Bonn 2015) 63–80. Athanassov et al. 2016 B. Athanassov – J. Gorczyk – I. Kulov – Ph. W. Stockhammer, Eine Eberzahnlamelle aus der spätbronzezeitlichen Siedlung von Bresto, in: K. Bacvarov – R. Gleser (eds.), South­east Europe and Anatolia in Prehistory. Essays in Honor of Vasil Nikolov on his 65th Anniversary, Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 293 (Bonn 2016) 465–474. Bailey et al. 1995 D. Bailey – I. Panayotov – S. Alexandrov (eds.), Prehistoric Bulgaria, Monographs in World Archaeology 22 (Madison, WI 1995). Baralis 2008 A. Baralis, The Chora formation of the Greek cities of Aegean Thrace. Towards a chronological approach to the colonization process, in: P. G. Bilde – J. H. Petersen (eds.), Meetings of Cultures in the Black Sea Region. Between Conflict and Coexistence, Black Sea Studies 8 (Aarhus 2008) 101–130. Bonev 1988 А. Бонев. Тракия и Егейският свят през втората половина на II хилядолетие пр. н. е., Разкопки и проучвания 20 (Sofia 1988). Borislavov 2008 B. Borislavov, A Thracian tumular necropolis in Devin, Smolian region, contribution in: I. D. Cholakov – K. Chukalev, Archaeology in Bulgaria. 2006 season, American Journal of Archaeology 112, 2008, 143–170.

‘Ada Tepe Late Bronze Age Gold Mine’ Project: Between Borders

383

Borislavov 2010 B. Borislavov, The Izvorovo gold. A Bronze Age tumulus from Harmanli District, Southeastern Bulgaria (preliminary report), Archaeologia Bulgarica 14, 1, 2010, 1–33. Bouzek 1997 J. Bouzek, Late Bronze Age Greece and the Balkans. A review of the present picture, The Annual of the British School at Athens 89, 1994, 217–234. Boyadziev 1995 Y. Boyadziev, Chronology of prehistoric cultures in Bulgaria, in: Bailey et al. 1995, 149–191. Bozhinova et al. 2013 E. Bozhinova – H. Mommsen – R. Jung, Dragojna – eine spätbronzezeitliche Höhensiedlung in den bulgarischen Rhodopen mit importierter mykenischer Keramik, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 125/2010, 2013, 45–97. Branigan 1974 K. Branigan, Aegean Metalwork of the Early and Middle Bronze Age (Oxford 1974). Chernikh 1978 Е. Черных, Горное дело и металлургия в древнейшей Болгарии (Sofia 1978). Damjanov 2017 D. Damjanov, Der gussformenhort von Mogilica, in: Haag et al. 2017, 150–151. Damyanov 2008 D. Damyanov, A collective find of molds for casting bronze objects from the Middle Rhodopes, Thracia 17, 2008, 269–280. Davis 1983 E. N. Davis, The gold of the shaft graves. The Transylvanian connection, Temple University Aegean Symposium 8, 1983, 32–38. Delev 2014 П. Делев. История на племената в Югозападна Тракия през I хил. пр. Хр. (Sofia 2014). Dimitrova 2011 Y. Dimitrova, Rodopi Mountain between Thrace and Aegea region. Some elements of a border culture of Early Iron Age in Southern Bulgaria, Anodos. Studies of the Ancient World 10/2010, 2011, 71–84. Dimitrova 2014 Я. Димитрова, Керамичен комплекс от късната бронзова и ранната желязна епоха от светилището Бабяк, Археология 1–2, 2014, 7–27. Dimitrova 2015 Я. Димитрова, Kултурно развитие на Родопите през ранната желязна епоха (по археологически данни), дисертация за присъждане на научна и образователна степен „доктор“ (Sofia 2016). Domaradzki 1994 M. Domaradzki, Les lieux de culte Thraces (deuxieme moitie du IIe–Ie mill. av. J.C.), Helis 3, 1994, 69–108. Doncheva 2012 D. Doncheva, The northern ‘journey’ of Late Bronze Age copper ingots, in: E. Paunov – S. Filipova (eds.), Ηρακλέους σωτήρος Θασίων. Studia in honorem Iliae Prokopov sexagenario ab amicis et discipulis dedicata (Veliko Tarnovo 2012) 671–714. Dremsizova-Nelchinova 1984 Ц. Дремсизова-Нелчинова, Тракийската крепост край с. Вишеград, Кърджалийско, Thracia 6, 1984, 104–133. Gale – Stos-Gale 2008 N. H. Gale – Z. A. Stos-Gale, Changing patterns in prehistoric Cykladic metallurgy, in: N. Brodie – J. Doole – G. Gavalas – C. Renfrew (eds.), Horizon / Ορίζων. A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, McDonald Institute Monographs (Cambridge 2008) 387–408.

384

Hristo Popov – Krasimir Nikov

Haag et al. 2017 S. Haag – Ch. Popov – B. Horejs – St. Alexandrov – G. Plattner (eds.), Das erste Gold. Ada Tepe: Das älteste Goldbergwerk Europas. Exhibition catalogue (Vienna 2017). Hänsel 1976 B. Hänsel, Beiträge zur regionalen und chronologischen Gliederung der älteren Hallstattzeit an der Unteren Donau, Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 27 (Bonn 1976). Hänsel – Aslanis 2010 B. Hänsel – I. Aslanis, Das Prähistorische Olynth. Ausgrabungen in der Toumba Agios Mamas 1994–1996. Die Grabung und der Baubefund, Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 23 (Rahden/Westf. 2010). Hansen 2005 S. Hansen, Neue Forschungen zur Metallurgie der Bronzezeit in Südosteuropa, in: Ü. Yalçın (eds.), Anatolian Metal I, Der Anschnitt 18 (Bochum 2005) 89–103. Harding – Kavruk 2013 A. Harding – V. Kavruk, Explorations in Salt Archaeology in the Carpathian Zone, Archaeolingua 28 (Budapest 2013). Hartmann 1978 A. Hartmann. Die Goldsorten des Äneolithikums und der Frühbronzezeit im Donauraum, Studia Praehistorica 1–2, 1978, 182–191. Hartmann 1982 A. Hartmann. Prähistorische Goldfunde aus Europa II. Spektralanalytische Untersuchungen und ihre Auswertung, Studien zu den Anfängen der Metallurgie 5 (Berlin 1982) 31–36. Hauptmann 2011 A. Hauptmann, Gold in Georgia I. Scientific investigations into the composition of gold, in: Yalçın – Wirth 2011, 173–186. Herrero 2014 B. L. Herrero, The role of gold in South Aegean exchange networks (3100–1800 BC), in: Meller et al. 2014, 467–481. Horejs 2007 B. Horejs, Das Prähistorische Olynth. Ausgrabungen in der Toumba Agios Mamas 1994–1996. Die Spätbronzezeitliche handgemachte Keramik der Schichten 13 bis 1, Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 21 (Rahden/ Westf. 2007). Horejs 2012 B. Horejs, Zur Keramik im spätbronzezeitlichen Griechemland, in: P. Pavúk – B. Horejs, Mittel- und spätbronzezeitliche Keramik Griechenlands. Sammlung Fritz Schachermeyer, Faszikel III, Denkschriften der Philosophisch-Historische Klasse der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 439 (Vienna 2012). Horejs 2017 B. Horejs, Zum Alltagsleben der Ada Tepe Goldproduzenten im 15. Jh. v. Chr. Das Fundensemble aus Haus 7 in funktionaler und kontextueller Analyse, Archaeologia Austriaca 101, 2017, 205–268. Horejs – Jung 2017 B. Horejs – R. Jung, Netzwerke und Kulturkontakte in die Ägais, in: Haag et al. 2017, 99–103. Horejs – Jung in press B. Horejs – R. Jung, Ein Update zu den ägäisch-balkanischen Beziehungen in der Bronzezeit, in: Proceedings of the Conference “Thracian Archaeology” – 30 Years Department of Thracian Archaeology, NIAM-BAS, November 21–24, 2013 (in press) Hristov 2008 M. Hristov, On the age of some gold artifacts from Kraishte region in south-west Bulgaria, in: R. Kostov – B. Gaydarska – M. Gurova (eds.), Geoarchaeology and Archaeomineralogy. Proceedings of the International Conference, 29–30 October 2008 Sofia (Sofia 2008) 219–221. Hristov 2010 M. Hristov, Early Bronze Age ritual structures and cemetery at Dubene, near Karlovo (preliminary report), Studia Praehistorica 13, 2010, 293–317.

‘Ada Tepe Late Bronze Age Gold Mine’ Project: Between Borders

385

Hristov 2016 M. Hristov, Dabene and its probable contacts with the Aegaeo-Anatolian region, in: E. Pernicka – S. Ünlüsoy – S. W. E. Blum (eds.), Early Bronze Age Troy. Chronology, Cultural Development, and Interregional Contacts. Proceedings of an Inter­national Conference held at the University of Tübingen, May 8–10, 2009, Studia Troica Monographien 8 (Bonn, 2016) 229–237. Jung 2017 Krieger und Waffen auf dem Zentral- und Ostbalkan, in: Haag et al. 2017, 69–73. Jung – Weninger 2004 R. Jung – B. Weninger, Kastanas and the chronology of the Aegean Late Bronze and Early Iron Age, in: T. Higham – Ch. Bronk Ramsey – C. Owen (eds.), Radiocarbon and Archaeology. Proceedings of the 4th Symposium, Oxford 2002, Oxford University School of Archaeology Monograph 62 (Oxford 2004) 209–228. Jung et al. 2017 R. Jung – S. Alexandrov – E. Bozhinova – H. Mommsen, Mykenische Keramik in der Rhodopenregion. Herkunft, regionaler Kontext und sozialökonomische Grundlagen, Archaeologia Austriaca 101, 2017, 269–302. Junk – Pernicka 2003 S. A. Junk, E. Pernicka, An assessment of osmium isotope ratios as a new tool to determine the provenance of gold with platinum-group metal inclusions, Archaeometry 45, 2, 2003, 313–331. Katinčarov 1982 R. Katinčarov, Sur la synchronisation des civilisations de l’âge du bronze ancient Thrace et dans la région d’Egéen et d’Anatolie, Thracia Praehistorica, Suppl. Pulpudeva 3, 1982, 132–149. Klemm – Klemm 2013 R. Klemm – D. Klemm, Gold and Gold Mining in Ancient Egypt and Nubia. Geoarchaeology of the Ancient Gold Mining Sites in the Egyptian and Sudanese Eastern Deserts (Berlin, Heidelberg 2013). Leshtakov 1993 K. Leshtakov, Die mittelbronzezeitliche Besiedlung des Siedlungshügels von Gălăbovo in Südbulgarien, Saarbrücker Studien und Materialien zur Altertumskunde 2, 1993, 191–222. Leshtakov 1996 K. Leshtakov, Trade centres from Early Bronze Age III and Middle Bronze Age in Upper Thrace (Notes on the interpretation of Baa Dere – Konstantia – Gulubovo), in: L. Nikolova (ed.), Early Bronze Age Settlement Patterns in the Balkans (ca. 3500–2000 BC, Calibrated Dates), Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects 1 (Sofia 1996) 239–287. Leshtakov 2006 К. Лещаков, Бронзовата епоха в Горнотракийската низина, Годишник на Софийския университет, Исторически факултет – Специалност Археология 3/2002, 2006, 141–216. Leshtakov 2007 K. Leshtakov, The Eastern Balkans in the Aegean economic system during the LBA. Ox-hide and Bun Ingots in Bulgarian lands, in: I. Galanaki – H. Tomas – Y. Galanakis – R. Laffineur (eds.), Between the Aegean and Baltic Seas. Prehistory across Borders. Proceedings of the International Conference “Bronze and Early Iron Age Interconnections and Contemporary Developments between the Aegean and the Regions of the Balkan Peninsula, Central and Northern Europe”, University of Zagreb, 11–14 April 2005, Aegaeum 27 (Liège, Austin 2007) 447–458. Leshtakov 2009 K. Leshtakov, The second millennium BC in the northern Aegean and the adjacent Balkan lands. Main dynamics of cultural interaction, in: Ζ. Ι. Μπόνιας – J. Y. Perreault (eds.), Έλληνες και Θράκες. Πρακτικά του διεθνούς Συμποσίου «Έλληνες και Θράκες στην παράλια ζώνη και την ενδοχώρα της Θράκης στα χρόνια πριν και μετά τον μεγάλο αποικισμό» Θάσος, 26–27 Σεπτεμβρίου 2009 / Greeks and Thracians. Acts of the International Symposium “Greeks and Thracians along the Coast and in the Hinterland of Thrace during the Years before and after the Great Colonization” Thasos, 26–27 September 2009 (Thasos 2009) 53–82. Leštakov 2017 L. Leštakov, Der Hortfund von Pobit Karmăk, in: Haag et al. 2017, 137–139.

386

Hristo Popov – Krasimir Nikov

Lichardus et al. 2002 J. Lichardus – R. Echt – I. Iliev – C. Christov – J. Becker – W. Thiele, Die Spätbronzezeit an der unteren Tundža und die ostägäischen Verbindungen in Südostbulgarien, Eurasia Antiqua 8, 2002, 135–183. Meller et al. 2014 H. Meller – R. Risch – E. Pernicka (eds.), Metals of Power – Early Gold and Silver. 6th Archaeological Conference of Central Germany October 17–19, 2013 in Halle (Saale), Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle 11 (Halle/Saale 2014). Milev et al. 2007 В. Милев – Н. Обретенов – В. Георгиев – А. Аризанов – Д. Желев – И. Бонев – И. Балтов – В. Иванов, Златните находища в България (Sofia 2007). Minkov 2013 П. Минков, Раннобронзова керамична кана от експозицията на РИМ-Бургас, Археология 2, 2013, 113–122. Muhly 1983 J. D. Muhly, Gold Analysis and the Sources of gold in the Aegean, Temple University Aegean Symposium 8, 1983, 1–14. Nechrizov – Cvetkova 2017 G. Nechrizov – J. Cvetkova, Die Bronzezeit in den ostlichen Rhodopen, in: Haag et al. 2017, 49–55. Nekhrizov 1995 G. Nekhrizov, Late Bronze Age pottery in the Eastern Rhodopes, in: Bailey et al. 1995, 309–326. Nekhrizov 2003 Г. Нехризов, Спасителни археологически проучвания на обект “Ада тепе” при гр. Крумовград през 2002 г., Археологически открития и разкопки през 2002 г., 2003, 67–68. Nekhrizov 2006 Г. Нехризов, Спасителни разкопки на тракийското светилище “Ада тепе”, Археологически открития и разкопки през 2005 г., 2006, 140–142. Nekhrizov – Mikov 2002 Г. Нехризов – Р. Миков, Спасителни археологически проучвания на обект “Ада тепе” при гр. Крумовград през 2001 г., Археологически открития и разкопки през 2001 г., 2002, 42–44. Nekhrizov – Tzvetkova 2011 Г. Нехризов – Ю. Цветкова. Скален комплекс „Глухите камъни”, Археологически открития и разкопки през 2010 г. (Sofia 2011) 176–179. Nekhrizov et al. in press G. Nekhrizov – J. Tzvetkova – Y. Dimitrova, Contributions to the Periodization and Absolute Chronology of the EIA in Thrace, in: Proceedings of the Conference “Thracian Archaeology” – 30 Years Department of Thracian Archaeology, NIAM-BAS, November 21–24, 2013 (in press). Neuton et al. 2003 M. Neuton – K. A. Wardle – P. I. Kuniholm, Dendrochronology and radiocarbon determinations from Assiros and the beginning of the Greek Iron Age, Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη 17, 2003, 173–190. Nikov 2016 K. Nikov, 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 Vasil Nikolov on his 65th Anniversary, Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 293 (Bonn 2016) 457–464. Nikov 2017 K. Nikov, Die Keramik vom Ada Tepe im Kontext der spätbronzezeitlichen Keramik in Thrakien, in: Haag et al. 2017, 63–67.

‘Ada Tepe Late Bronze Age Gold Mine’ Project: Between Borders

387

Pernicka 1987 E. Pernicka. Erzlagerstätten in der Ägäis und ihre Ausbeutung im Altertum. Geochemische Untersuchungen zur Herkunftsbestimmumg archäologischer Metallobjekte, Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 34, 1987, 607–614. Pernicka 2014 E. Pernicka, Possibilities and limitations of provenance studies of ancient silver and gold, in: Meller et al. 2014, 154–164. Pernicka et al. 2003 E. Pernicka – C. Seeliger – G. A. Wagner – F. Begemann – S. Schmitt-Streiber – C. Einber – Ö. Öztunali – I. Baranyi, Archäometallurgische Untersuchungen in Nordwestanatolien, Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 31, 2014, 533–599. Photos et al. 1989 E. Photos – Ch. Koukuli-Chrysanthaki – R. F. Tylecote – G. Gialoglu, Precious metals extraction in Palaia Kavala, NE Greece. An archaeological attempt to locate Skapte Hyle, in: Andreas Hauptmann, Ernst Pernicka, Günther A. Wagner (eds.), Archäometallurgie der Alten Welt. Beiträge zum Internationalen Symposium “Old World Archaeometallurgy”, Heidelberg 1987 / Old World Archaeometallurgy. Proceedings of the International Symposium “Old World Archaeometallurgy”, Heidelberg 1987, Der Anschnitt Beiheft 7 (Bochum 1988) 179–190. Popov 2009 Х. Попов, Куш кая. Характеристика на обитаването през късната бронзова и ранната желязна епоха, Archaeologija 50, 2009, 21–39. Popov in press H. Popov, Kush Kaya. A Late Bronze Age settlement in Eastern Rhodopi Mountain. Relative and absolute chronology, in: R. Gläser – K. Bacvarov (eds.), Festschrift für Prof. V. Nikolov (in press). Popov – Iliev 2006 Х. Попов – С. Илиев, Антични рудни разработки, западен склон на Ада тепе, Археологически открития и разкопки през 2005 г., 2006, 154–156. Popov – Jockenhövel 2011 H. Popov – A. Jockenhövel, At the northern borders of the Mycenaean world Thracian gold mining from the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age at Ada Tepe in the Eastern Rhodopes, Anodos. Studies of the Ancient World 10/2010, 2011, 265–282. Popov – Jockenhövel 2017 H. Popov – A. Jockenhövel, Das spätbronzezeitliche Goldbergwerk auf dem Ada Tepe, in: Haag et al. 2017, 57–61. Popov – Nikov 2014 Х. Попов – К. Ников, Спасителни археологически проучвания на златодобивен рудник от късната бронзова епоха Ада тепе, община Крумовград, Археологически открития и разкопки през 2013 г., 2014, 118–121. Popov et al. 2011 H. Popov – A. Jockenhövel – Z. Tsintsov – S. Iliev, Montanarchäologische Forschungen in den Ostrhodopen, Südostbulgarien, in: V. Nikolov – K. Bachvarov – H. Popov (eds.), Interdisziplinäre Forschungen zum Kulturerbe auf der Balkanhalbinsel (Sofia 2011) 253–290. Popov et al. 2015 H. Popov – K. Nikov – A. Jockenhövel, Ada Tepe (Krumovgrad, Bulgarien) – ein neu entdecktes spätbronzezeitliches Goldbergwerk im balkanisch-ägäischen Kommunikationsnetz, in: G. Sommer von Bülow (eds.) Kontaktzone Balkan. Beiträge des internationalen Kolloquiums “Die Donau-Balkan-Region als Kontaktzone zwischen Ost-West und NordSüd” vom 16–18 Mai 2012 in Frankfurt a. M. (Bonn 2015) 45–62. Popov et al. 2017 H. Popov – M. Koleva – A. Andonova – J. Dimitrova – I. Vălčev, Das Goldbergwerk auf dem Ada Tepe. Zu Topografie, Stratigrafie, Chronologie und Interpretation des Nordareals, Archaeologia Austriaca 101, 2017, 161–204. Porozhanov 1998 К. Порожанов, Общество и държавност у траките. Средата на II – началото на I хил. пр. Хр. (в контекста на палеобалкано-западномалоазийската общност), Studia Thracica 6 (Sofia 1998).

388

Hristo Popov – Krasimir Nikov

Pulak 1997 C. Pulak, The Uluburun shipwreck, in: S. Swiny – R. L. Hohlfelder – H. Wylde Swiny (eds.), Res Maritimae. Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory to Late Antiquity. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium “Cities on the Sea”, Nicosia, Cyprus, October 18–22, 1994 (Atlanta 1997) 233–262. Shalganova 1995. T. Shalganova, The Lower Danube Incrusted Pottery Culture, in: Bailey et al. 1995, 291–308. Stöllner 2014 T. Stöllner, Gold in the Caucausus. New research on gold extraction in the Kura-Araxes Culture of the 4th millennium BC, in: Meller et al. 2014, 72–110. Stöllner – Gambashidze 2011 T. Stöllner – I. Gambashidze, Gold in Georgia II. The oldest gold mine in the world, in: Yalçın – Wirth 2011, 187–199. Tsintsov 2005 Z. Tsintsov, Gold artefacts from the alluvial sediments of Bulgaria – indicators for gold mining and metallurgy during the Bronze Age, Proceedings of Anniversary International Scientific Conference “80th Years Bulgarian Geological Society”, 2005, 217–229. Tsintsov 2008 Z. Tsintsov, Distribution and typology of gold artefacts from the Bronze Age in the alluvial sediments in Bulgaria, in: R. Kostov – B. Gaydarska – M. Gurova (eds.), Geoarchaeology and Archaeomineralogy. Proceedings of the International Conference, 29–30 October 2008 Sofia (Sofia 2008) 216–218. Unger 1987 H.-J. Unger, Das Pangaion, ein altes Bergbauzentrum in Ostmakedonien, Prähistorische Zeitschrift 62, 1987, 87–112. Vasileva 2016. Ж. Василева, Ювелирно производство в Южна Тракия и Егея през Ранната бронзова епоха, дисертация за присъждане на научна и образователна степен „доктор“ (Sofia 2016). Vavelidis – Andreou 2008 M. Vavelidis – S. Andreou, Gold and gold working in Late Bronze Age Northern Greece, Naturwissenschaften 95, 4, 2008, 361–366. Wagner – Weisgerber 1988 G. Wagner – G. Weisgerber, Antike Edel- und Buntmetallgewinnung auf Thasos, Der Anschnitt, Beiheft 6 (Bochum 1988). Wardle – Wardle 2007 K. A. Wardle – D. Wardle, Assiros Toumba. A brief history of the settlement, in: H. Todorova – M. Stefanovich – G. Ivanov (eds.),The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory. Proccedings of the International Symposium Strymon Praehistoricus, In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul 2 (Sofia 2007) 451–479. Wardle et al 2014 K. A. Wardle – T. Higham – B. Kromer, Dating the end of the Greek Bronze Age. A robust radiocarbon-based chronology from Assiros Toumba, PLOS ОNE 9, 2014, 1–9. Weisgerber 1985 G. Weisgerber, Die Blei- und Silbergruben von Agios Sostis, in: G. Wagner – G. Weisgerber (eds.), Silber, Blei und Gold auf Sifnos. Prähistorische und antike Metallproduktion, Der Anschnitt Beiheft 3 (Bochum 1985) 113–158. Weisgerber – Pernicka 1995 G. Weisgerber – E. Pernicka, Ore mining in Prehistoric Europe. An overview, in: G. Morteani – J. P. Northover (eds.), Prehistoric Gold in Europe. Mines, Metallurgy and Manufacture (Dordrecht 1995) 159–183. Weninger – Jung 2009 B. Weninger – R. Jung, Absolute chronology of the end of the Aegean Bronze Age, in: S. Deger-Jalkotzy – A. Bächle (eds.), LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms III. LH III C Late and the Transition to the Early Iron Age (Vienna 2009) 373–416.

‘Ada Tepe Late Bronze Age Gold Mine’ Project: Between Borders

389

Yalçın – Wirth 2011 U. Yalçın – Ch. Wirth (eds.), Anatolian Metal V, Der Anschnitt Beiheft 24 (Bochum 2011). Želev 2007 Д. Желев, Златно находище “Хан Крум”, участък “Ада тепе”, in: В. Милев – Н. Обретенов – В. Георгиев – А. Аризанов – Д. Желев – И. Бонев – И. Балтов – В. Иванов, Златните находища в България (Sofia 2007) 104–114. Želev – Hasson 2002 D. Želev – S. Hasson, Geology of Khan Krum deposit, in: Bulgarian Geological Society, Annual Scientific Conference, Sofia 21–22 November 2002 (Sofia 2002) 58–59.

Bronze Age and the Embedded Macedonian Question Maja Gori1 Abstract: This paper analyses two Macedonian Early Bronze Age ‘archaeological cultures’ and how their conception relates to the New Macedonian Question. The notions of Maliq culture and Armenochori groups are critically discussed using new evidence from Sovjan (Albania). Stratigraphy, radiocarbon dates and pottery analysis for Sovjan challenge a number of established interpretations on Early Bronze Age cultural patterns and connectivity in Macedonia. In particular, the notion of Armenochori type kantharos is thoroughly discussed showing that such a definition is too narrow to embrace all types of two-handled vessels that spread in the south-western Balkans between the late 3rd and early 2nd millennium BC, and should thus be abandoned in favour of a more complete and nuanced classification. Finally, combining Geschichtskultur with archaeological data, this paper shows how modern borders, cultural milieus and different research traditions influence the definition and interpretation of artefacts’ spatial variability. Keywords: Macedonia, Early Bronze Age, culture-historical approach, kantharoi, Sovjan, Maliq, Armenochori.

Archaeology Across the Balkan Borders: An Introduction Starting from the 18th century, the search for tangible remains of the past had become a patriotic undertaking in virtually every western European nation. It is meaningful to emphasise that scientific archaeology was a course of study first established in European universities in the early 19th century alongside the rise of nation-states, nationalisms and positivist sciences. Today, archaeological images have become the official national symbols of modern peoples, and ancient ruins have been transformed into national shrines and popular tourist attractions. Archaeology as a discipline is embedded in present political borders and often takes the form of a national narrative.2 There has been substantial scholarly research into the relationship between archaeology and nationalism, as earlier studies predominantly explored the interaction between archaeology and the State. However, in the Balkans, with the exception of Greece, the analysis of the relationship between archaeology, Geschichtskultur and politics has received scant attention by archaeologists. This shortage can somehow be connected to the orientalisation3 of Balkan archaeology, which is often regarded as inherently pervaded by nationalism and driven by ethnic issues. For this reason, it is often dismissed a priori as unscientific and irrational. At present, the opposition between ‘unscientific and irrational’ Balkan and ‘scientific and rational’ western European archaeology follows cultural patterns rooted in the 18th and 19th centuries and contemporary geopolitical frameworks developed through membership of the European Union. Although geographically belonging to the Balkans, Greek archaeology is regarded as an expression of the ‘Western’ approach to the past, and the relevance of its archaeological heritage goes beyond Greek national borders. Indeed, besides its importance as an academic subject, Greek antiquity is of the utmost relevance in the discourse on European cultural and political roots, being used abundantly in Western decorative and visual arts, literature, theatre, music, and architecture. In her ground breaking work, Imagining the Balkans, Maria Todorova showed how, contrary to Greece, the Balkans have been present in the Western collective imagination as the ‘Other’ of

3 1 2

University of Heidelberg, Germany; [email protected]; [email protected]. For the difference between national and nationalist archaeology see e.g. Kohl 1998, 226–227. For the concept of Orientalism see Said 2002 [1978].

392

Maja Gori

Europe in terms of the uncivilised versus the civilised world.4 In archaeology, this East-West opposition is often simplistically and uncritically considered as given, with Western scholars setting the research standards to which Balkan archaeologists should adapt in order to reach an adequate scholarly level and be accepted in the international academic community. By doing so, a complex phenomenon such as the history of archaeological research in the Balkans and its relation to local Geschichtskulturen and present political issues remains under-investigated and the problems affecting the discipline unresolved.5 Geschichtskultur represents the specific and particular way in which a society relates to its past. When we study historical culture, we investigate the social production of historical experience and its manifestation in a community’s life. Archaeology can be defined as history’s material outcome, and as such it represents a crucial aspect of a people’s reception and representation of the past. E. Hobsbawm argued that the contrast between the constant change and innovation of the modern world and the attempt to structure at least some parts of social life within it as unchanging and invariant has led many newly-formed, unprecedented political institutions, ideological movements and groups to invent their historic continuity. New symbols and devices derived from archaeological heritage came into existence as part of national movements and states that claimed a direct connection to the past. Archaeology, like history, is thus used to legitimise actions and cement group cohesion.6 B. Anderson defined the nation as an imagined community7 and underlined that if nation-states are conceded to be ‘historical’, the nation to which they give political expression is always believed to originate from an immemorial past and to glide into a limitless future. He argued that nationalist imagining is characterised by its concern with death and immortality, which draws it close to religious imagining. In this way, the concepts of unchanging and invariant become steady components of the invented traditions that constitute nations’ narratives, and represent responses to new situations which take the form of reference to old ones.8 Ancient and Present Macedonian Borders As a part of the Oriental question, the Macedonian question was generated by the definition of political and territorial borders made first by the European superpowers with the treaty of Santo Stefano and subsequently that of Berlin. Following the power vacuum created by the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, a plethora of ethnic groups were entangled in the Western idea of the nation-state and its concomitant secular identity in contrast with the Ottoman ‘millet-system’ that granted collective rights to members of a confessional association.9 Following the First and the Second Balkan Wars, most of the Macedonian territory was divided between Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia. Political and historiographical controversies over Macedonia characterised the relationship of SFR Yugoslavia with its neighbours during the communist era.10 The interpretations of the ethnogenesis and formation of the South Slavs in the Macedonian region from prehistoric times until the present made by propagandists of history and professional historians and archaeologists in Athens, Belgrade, Sofia, Thessaloniki and other places diverge so much that they are incompatible.11After Yugoslavia’s collapse and the consequent independence of the Macedonian state in 1991, Bulgaria and Greece renewed the question of the legitimacy of Macedonian nationhood, but only Bulgaria recognised the Republic of Macedonia, while Greece

6 7 8 9

Todorova 2006, in particular 3–20. For a thorough discussion of issues discussed in the paragraph see Gori – Ivanova 2017 and related bibliography. Hobsbawm – Ranger 1983 7, 12. Anderson 2006 [1991], 6–7. Anderson 2006 [1991], 11. Adanir 1979. 10 Troebst 1983. 11 Troebst 2007, 409–424. 4 5

Bronze Age and the Embedded Macedonian Question

393

did not.12 According to Troebst, no new Macedonian question arises after Yugoslavia’s collapse but Athens and Sofia’s reactions were instead to be interpreted as weak reflexes of the old one.13 Nowadays, the Republic of Macedonia-FYROM is engaged in a bitter struggle with Greece over the legitimate use of the name Macedonia and ancient Macedonian symbols. The dispute rapidly assumed political, historical and archaeological importance, and it has been fiercely debated both in parliaments and in universities.14 An important factor that influences the Republic of Macedonia’s construction of national identity based on archaeological discourse is the friction with the considerable Albanian minority. As part of the Oriental question, the Albanian question has gained in importance in the last decades as one of the causes of the Yugoslav wars, since half of Albanians live in Europe outside Albania’s borders, especially in Kosovo and in the Republic of Macedonia-FYROM, where they represent approximately 25% of the population.15 Even though Greece and the Republic of Macedonia-FYROM are the main actors in the New Macedonian Question, Albania, Kosovo and Serbia are also involved. This proves that the building of national identity and its relationship to archaeology is a complex and multi-layered phenomenon that surpasses Macedonian historical, cultural, political and geographic borders. From an archaeological perspective, Macedonia was constructed as a passage – or highway to use the definition by Andreou, Fotiadis and Kotsakis – between lands of alleged ‘higher’ archaeological importance: Europe, Greece and Anatolia.16 Indeed, archaeologists invoked Macedonia’s importance as a passage as justification for excavating in the region. Macedonia was thus alternately viewed as culturally gravitating towards the north or towards the south of the Balkan Peninsula, and spatial boundaries were constructed and dismantled to illustrate these different interpretations. Kotsakis argues that the vision of Macedonia’s otherness in respect to the Aegean reflected early 20th century quests for modern identities and geopolitical concerns.17 Likewise, when viewed from a Danube-Balkan perspective, Macedonia was perceived as a marginal area where the characteristic Danube-Balkan cultural features faded until they became unrecognisable. As a result of these different types of perceptions, Macedonia was often discussed in terms of what it had not been as often as in terms of what it was and in terms of deficiency as much as in terms of importance.18 Although more than two decades have passed since the fall of the communist regimes, the old theoretical framework and scientific regionalisms that organised archaeological knowledge during the Cold War remain difficult to overcome. Like the old ones, new political borders and geopolitical tensions are influencing archaeological research. The newly-born Republic of Macedonia-FYROM witnessed a wave of popular interest in archaeology that was linked primarily to processes of national identity building. While these processes focused mainly on more recent periods, prehistoric archaeology is also being involved, and if on the one hand it is flourishing due to the general growth of archaeological research, on the other hand it is also largely used in the process of building Macedonian national identity. In Greece, the use of archaeological discourse in identity building has a longer tradition and goes back to the beginning of the 19th century.19 Still today, archaeology is largely used to support political claims based on identity issues. If modern geopolitical borders, states, administrative districts and the boundaries between them provide a framework for organising our knowledge, then such divisions play powerful and multiple roles in the production and consumption of archaeological knowledge.

14 15 16 17 18 19 12 13

Danforth 1995; Mahon 1998, 389–407. Troebst 2007, 371; see also Pettifer 1999. Kotsakis 1998, 44–67. Brown 1998, 73; Troebst 2007, 363–372; Moulakis 2010, 495–510. Andreou et al. 2001, 282. Kotsakis 1998. Andreou et al. 2001. See e.g. Hamilakis 2007.

394

Maja Gori

What’s in an Archaeological Culture? In the 19th century in central Europe, large amounts of archaeological finds were recovered as a result of the construction of infrastructures – such as roads, railways and canals. At the same time, archaeological institutions were created and teaching positions for archaeologists in universities established. This was an epoch characterised by declining faith in the benefit of technological progress and by growing nationalism, which supported the formation of nation-states in Europe. In this period, archaeology’s focus switched from the study of settlements and architecture to the study of artefacts.20 Archaeologists’ main objective was now to determine to which past ethnic group various finds belonged. The growing interest in cultural variation and diffusion in the social sciences provided a theoretical framework that allowed archaeologists to account for the evidence of spatial as well as temporal variations that was becoming evident as archaeological data accumulated across Europe. On the basis of assemblages of artefacts, archaeologists singled out different cultural traditions and ethnic entities. The spatial distribution of artefacts thus acquired increasing importance for the definition of historical trajectories and the interpretation of the past. The growing preoccupation with ethnicity that characterised the late 19th century favoured the development of the concept of archaeological culture and of the culture-historical approach to the study of prehistory. The use of the term culture to indicate civilisation and customs of individual societies began to proliferate in Germany, where Kultur started to be increasingly applied to archaeological remains.21 Bruce Trigger has pointed out how the labelling of artefacts’ variation in space and time was described using the term culture, a phenomenon which occurred independently to a number of archaeologists.22 However, it developed consistently in those central European countries where interest in tracing ethnic and national trajectories occurred with more intensity. Both Gustav Kossinna and Vere Gordon Childe, each within his own political and ideological milieu, extensively used the basic concept of archaeological culture in their work. Since then, archaeological cultures have been used, abandoned, re-used, deconstructed, reformulated, renamed and simply ignored, but have refused to be consigned to the dustbin of archaeological research, as Roberts and Vander Linden have recently reminded us.23 The need for reconceptualising boundaries and identity has been a recurrent theme in Western archaeology since the late 1960s. Researchers became suspicious of simple correlations between artefact distribution and group identity and sought new approaches to the interpretation of variability. However, these debates and ensuing theoretical shifts have had limited impact on research in the Balkans,24 where archaeological discipline has developed within different cultural and theoretical frameworks. Yet projection of historically contingent concepts of culture and identity into the distant past cannot be simplistically regarded as a methodological shortcoming producing agenda-driven interpretations of the archaeological record. Different interpretations of the past in the form of archaeological discourse based on the concept of archaeological culture reflect power struggles centred on national identity building; however, other cultural and political tensions are also present even if they are more subtle and difficult to spot. To understand the relationship between archaeology and present borders, one must not think about these issues only in terms of the manipulation of the past and the misuse of archaeology. The problem is far more complicated. It not only relates to theoretical developments of the discipline and to different research traditions, but is also closely connected to the relationship between archaeology as a discipline and society.

22 23 24 20 21

Trigger 1989, 148. Trigger 1989, 149–160. Trigger 1989, 161–162. Roberts – Vander Linden 2011b, 1–21. Gori – Ivanova 2017; Gori 2017.

Bronze Age and the Embedded Macedonian Question

395

Fig. 1   Chronological scheme for the principal sites mentioned in the text (modified after Gori 2015a)

An overall critique of the uses of the concept of archaeological culture in relation to spatial patterning is beyond the scope of this paper, which aims to discuss uses of archaeological culture and its relation with present identity issues in the southwestern Balkans. Sovjan (Albania) As a case study, this paper discusses two Macedonian25 late Early Bronze Age archaeological cultures and shows how modern borders and different research standards have influenced their definition and spatial boundaries. The paper starts with the deconstruction of the Maliq and Armenochori archaeological cultures followed by a discussion on the so-called Armenochori type kantharoi, given their importance in the Early Bronze Age interregional relations connecting the Balkans with the Aegean and Anatolia (Fig. 1). New data from the Sovjan (Albania) excavation

Macedonia is considered as an expansive region that surpasses the present political borders to include northern Greece, the Republic of Macedonia–FYROM, south-eastern Albania, and south-western Bulgaria.

25

396

Maja Gori

will be used as a basis to challenge a number of established interpretations on Early Bronze Age cultural patterns and connectivity. Most of the excavation work in Sovjan was carried out between 1993 and 2006 as part of a collaborative project involving the Institute of Archaeology in Tirana, the French School at Athens and the University of Paris 1, mostly under the direction of Gilles Touchais and Petrika Lera.26 Prehistoric Sovjan is on the northwestern side of the Korçë Basin and is situated on the western shores of what had been Lake Maliq until it was drained. The stratigraphic sequence of Sovjan ranges from Early Neolithic to Iron Age. Levels 13 and 12 date to the Early Neolithic and level 11 belongs to the Middle Neolithic. Level 10 could well be assigned to the Neolithic as well, but there are neither secure stratigraphy nor radiocarbon dates to support this dating. Levels 9, 8 and 7, which are the focus of this paper, date to the late Early Bronze Age and early Middle Bronze Age, covering a time span from c. 2500 to 1900 calBC. Only one radiocarbon date is available for level 9 and dates to between 2486–2204 calBC. Also, for level 8 there is only one radiocarbon date, which dates to between 2303–2040 calBC. The precise chronology of level 7 is problematic, although four out of five dates are consistent with the single radiocarbon date available for level 8. Level 6 and level 5 of Sovjan belong to the Late Bronze and Iron Ages. Two out of four radiocarbon dates available for level 6 place it in a chronological horizon contemporary with level 7; on the contrary, the other two place it between 1600 and 1300 calBC. Pottery typology substantiates the dating of level 6 to between 1600 and 1300 calBC. Two chrono-stratigraphic gaps are observed in the Sovjan sequence: the first between level 10 and level 9, the second between level 7 and level 6. Stratigraphy combined with radiocarbon dating and pottery analysis proved clear discontinuity between level 7 and level 6, confirming the presence of a c. 300-year hiatus between the two levels.27 Level 5 dates to the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. Radiocarbon dates place level 5c1 to between 1400 and 1000 BC, 5c2 to 1430–1225 BC and 5c3 to 1603–1322 BC.28 The vast majority of the pottery on which this study is based comes from the Maison du Chanal (level 8), a 15-metre long pile dwelling structure with wattle-and-daub walls. Deconstructing Maliq III Culture Maliq is undoubtedly the most well-known site in Albania, one on which generations of scholars have based their chronological and cultural parallels both within Albania and the larger western Balkan region. Every Albanian chrono-cultural sequence has been constructed on the assumption of uninterrupted stratigraphic and cultural continuity from the oldest horizon to the most recent one. This theoretical approach was popular during the Communist period and was strongly influenced by ethnogenetic theories of the origins of the Albanian people and Marxist and Soviet approaches to archaeology. Due to very weak public, and consequently also academic, infrastructure, a true national disciplinary framework for archaeology was introduced in Albania only in the early 1950s, with a strong boost from Enver Hoxha’s Communist Party. Prior to this period, there was almost no archaeological practice in Albania apart from foreign missions, the most significant being promoted by the Italian Fascist Regime. After seizing power in 1944, the Albanian Communist government soon banned all foreign expeditions and started to develop its own national disciplinary framework for archaeology. Under the rule of Hoxha, Albania’s path had been one of increasing isolation. The country had established and renounced alliances with Tito’s Yugoslavia, Khrushchev’s

For a description of Sovjan stratigraphy see Gori 2015a, 11–32 and the related bibliography. The complete volume on Sovjan stratigraphy is in preparation. 27 Stratigraphic and cultural relation between levels 7 and 6 is currently being studied; therefore, the results presented here may undergo some changes. 28 See Krapf in this volume. For a detailed analysis of chronological and cultural aspects see Gori – Krapf 2016. 26

Bronze Age and the Embedded Macedonian Question

397

Soviet Union, and Mao’s China until, by the late 1970s, it had isolated itself as few countries have been able to do. In some cases, these alliances produced joint archaeological enterprises, like, for example, the Albanian-Soviet cooperation in Apollonia in 1958–60.29 Much effort was spent in demonstrating the autochthony and distinctiveness of the Illyrian people, from whom modern Albanians were believed to have descended. The theory of Illyrian origins is centred on the idea of unbroken and direct descent of modern Albanians from the Illyrians, who inhabited Albania and the neighbouring areas in the past. The Greater Albania, an irredentist concept based on the presence of Albanian populations in the southwestern Balkans, often overlapped with the alleged Illyrian territories.30 Several excavations targeting prehistoric sites were financed – like at Maliq31 and at several Bronze and Iron Age tumuli,32 especially in the Korçë Basin – to supplement evidence for Illyrian ethnogenesis and autochthony. Political and cultural isolation favoured the crystallisation in Albanian archaeology of early 20th century culture-historical themes popular in central Europe. These were combined with Marxist and Marxist-Soviet approaches and re-cast in a form of archaeological interpretation suitable for regime propaganda.33 This theoretical framework underlays the interpretation of the Maliq sequence.34 The concept of Maliq III culture was used to identify the entire Albanian Bronze Age and represented the paradigm chrono-cultural sequence to which Bronze Age evidence from all over the Albanian territory should have been connected. When no direct typological similarity with Maliq pottery assemblage was recognised, barbotine surface treatment, which, according to F. Prendi culturally and chronologically characterises Maliq IIIa, was alone invoked as a meaningful typological and cultural element. Barbotine surface treatment was used as a cultural and chronological marker especially to connect the northern areas of the country to the south, since in the Bronze Age northern Albania is more linked to the north Adriatic. Connections with finds beyond Albanian political borders were certainly taken into account, but Maliq culture was mainly constructed in terms of an Albanian Bronze Age as opposed to a Yugoslav Bronze Age. Maliq III culture was thus constructed as a cultural phenomenon detached from the Bronze Age evidence of the larger Macedonian region. This idea of the uniqueness and distinctiveness of the Maliq culture was fostered by the difficulties encountered by other scholars in establishing reliable chrono-cultural parallels between the Maliq III chrono-cultural horizon and other Balkan regional sequences (Fig. 2). On the basis of the comparison between Sovjan and Maliq stratigraphic and ceramic sequences, it is now clear that, like Sovjan, the stratigraphy of Maliq also contains evidence for at least two stratigraphic gaps of different lengths in the Bronze Age sequence.35 In Maliq, the first gap falls between phases IIb and IIIa, the second between phases IIIb and IIIc. Indeed, the chrono-cultural level Maliq IIIa was obtained by merging pottery assemblages coming from different trenches excavated in both sectors A and B.36 The pottery assemblage published in 196637 as Maliq phase IIIa and considered characteristic of the first phase of the Early Bronze Age actually represents a selection of vessels from heterogeneous contexts ascribed during the excavation to level IIIa. It is, therefore, highly plausible that part of the artefacts ascribed to phase Maliq IIIa consists also of older and younger artefacts. Levels 8–7 of Sovjan present a good number of types in common with Maliq IIIa and IIIb, suggesting that most of the pottery attributed to these levels are contemporary to them. Maliq IIIa and IIIb have a total of 14 types of bowls, tankards, cups, kantharoi,

31 32 33 34 35 36 37 29 30

Ceka 2005, 16. Gori 2012. Prendi 1966. Andrea 1985. Gori 2012; Gori 2017. See for example Prendi 1977–1978, 28. For a comprehensive analysis see Gori 2015a, 187–193. Prendi – Bunguri 2008, fig. 30. Prendi 1966, 255–280.

398

Maja Gori

Fig. 2   Macedonian sites portraying typological similarities with the Sovjan ceramic assemblage (M. Gori)

etc. in common with Sovjan 8–7.38 Typological parallels between Sovjan level 6 and Maliq IIIc indicate that the second gap falls most likely between phases IIIb and IIIc. Stratigraphic gaps have also been documented in the sequences at Archontiko and Mandalo. Toumba Archontiko is located on the northeastern side of the Giannitsa Plain. Occupation layers range from the Middle Neolithic onwards.39 At the top and on the eastern slope of the tell, the remains of two main habitation phases were found, dated with radiocarbon between 2600 and 1400 calBC.40 Phase B is formed by different building horizons and dates roughly between 2300 and 1900 calBC.41 Phase A is roughly dated to 1550–1400 calBC and marks the beginning of the Late Bronze Age.42 The absolute chronology of phases A and B indicates that c. 400 years elapsed between them.43 Mandalo is located in the foothills of Mount Paikon and was inhabited from the 5th millennium BC to the Bronze Age. Stratigraphy in combination with radiocarbon dating indicates two major periods: Final Neolithic and Early Bronze Age.44 Phases Ia, Ib and II date to the 5th millennium BC. Phase II ends with vast destruction that seems to concern the whole settlement.45 Phase III follows phase II without any apparent gap in the stratigraphy, but a long chronological gap for the 4th millennium is clearly recognisable in the radiocarbon dating.46 Phase III starts at 2950 calBC and ends at 2200 calBC, with a slight gap around 2600 BC that might indicate the existence of

40 41 42 43 44 45 46 38 39

Gori 2015a. Merousis 2004, 1291. Papaefthymiou-Papanthimou – Pilali-Papasteriou 2000, 309–314, fig. 1. Papaefthymiou-Papanthimou – Pilali-Papasteriou 2000, 311. Papaefthymiou-Papanthimou – Pilali-Papasteriou 2003, 21. Papanthimou et al. 2010, 978. Kotsakis et al. 1989, 679–685; Maniatis – Kromer 1990, 149–153. Kotsakis et al. 1989, 683, fig. 3. Maniatis – Kromer 1990, fig.1.

Bronze Age and the Embedded Macedonian Question

399

two sub-phases, IIIa, dated 2710–2580 BC, and IIIb, dated 2460–2200. Mandalo was permanently abandoned at the end of the 3rd millennium BC. There are several typological parallels linking Mandalo and Archontiko to Sovjan and to Maliq, substantiating the existence of stratigraphic gaps also in the Maliq sequence as a general phenomenon observed in Macedonia at the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age.47 At the end of the Early Bronze Age, several settlements in Macedonia were probably abandoned or relocated possibly in response to a combination of different pushpull factors, e.g. reorganisation of social structure, new resource attaining strategies, warfare, etc. However, they were re-occupied in the Late Bronze Age.48 On the basis of these data, the concept of Maliq III culture as a continuing cultural phenomenon encompassing the whole Bronze Age needs to be abandoned in favour of a chronological and cultural framing that encompasses only the period from the late Early Bronze Age to the Late Bronze Age. Maliq III has been subdivided by Prendi into four chrono-cultural horizons: a, b, c, d; where a and b indicate two phases within the Early Bronze Age, c the Middle Bronze Age, and d the Late Bronze Age. Narrowing the chronological framing and acknowledging the existence of two or more chronological gaps in the Maliq sequence and its unreliability, Maliq III should be abandoned as a reference sequence for the Albanian Bronze Age. Instead, the Sovjan sequence can much more easily be compared to the other sequences available for the late Early Bronze Age, showing also the inconsistency of the Maliq culture intended as an exclusively Albanian cultural phenomenon. Mapping distribution patterns of pottery that compare to the Sovjan assemblage succinctly reveals how different research traditions influence our distribution maps and therefore the perception of past boundaries and the definition of cultural entities. Indeed, most of the pottery types found at Early Bronze Age Sovjan seem to portray diffuse distribution across Macedonia. However, when viewed in detail, these patterns are actually tracing present political borders.49 Two good examples of present borders’ influence on perception of cultural and chronological trajectories are two maps, one showing the distribution of Mycenaean finds in the Balkans drafted by Gilles Touchais,50 and the other the distribution of bowls with wishbone handles, especially trapezoidal forms, published by Barbara Horejs in her work on Late Bronze Age Olynth.51 These two distribution patterns overlap considerably and their northern boundary compares well with the distribution patterns for Early Bronze Age pottery that compares to types from Sovjan. This shows how the lack of some elements in the Republic of Macedonia-FYROM reflects current differences in research traditions rather than genuine Early and Late Bronze Age cultural and chronological patterns.52The imagined spatial boundaries and cultural identities suggested by pottery distribution patterns need to be critically approached, firstly by re-discussing and abandoning traditional definitions of ‘cultures’ or ‘cultural groups’ used to describe clusters of artefacts. Kantharoi: a Balkan Brand A typical example of a ceramic shape used to define cultural groups, trace boundaries and identify exchange trajectories in Macedonia are the two-handled beakers, better known in the literature as kantharoi. Two-handled beakers group together vessels with a variety of morphologies ranging from open, shallow examples to deep, closed forms, which, in some cases, resemble small amphorae. Handle shape may also vary substantially, ranging from high-swung vertical strap or loop

Gori 2015a, 204–215 and Gori 2015b. For a detailed discussion on the definition of the Middle Bronze Age in Macedonia see Gori 2015a, 181 and Gori 2015b. 49 Refer to the discussion in Gori 2015a, 247–250. 50 Touchais 2002, fig. 1. 51 Horejs 2007, fig. 23. 52 Gori 2015a, 182–183, figs. 53, 54. 47 48

400

Maja Gori

handles to those that are roughly level with the rim. Typological and chrono-cultural problems associated with this shape must be considered within their wider geographic and chronological contexts, as kantharoi are known from an area extending from Transdanubia to continental Greece during a period spanning the 4th to 1st millennia BC. During the 1931 excavations of Settlement III at Armenochori, W. Heurtley excavated a pit filled with around 32 kantharoi.53 Referred to as the Pottery Deposit, the pit was dated to a late phase of the Early Bronze Age.54 The initial identification of the Armenochori group was based solely on the presence or absence of kantharoi, which, together with jars of “unfamiliar forms”, characteristic plastic enhancement of tubular handles, and the near absence of bowls with incurving rims, convinced Heurtley to consider Armenochori separately from other sites discovered in Macedonia.55 Understanding of the Macedonian Early Bronze Age did not advance in any great measure during the decades following W. Heurtley’s milestone publication, and his transfer from Greece to Palestine ushered in a thirty-year period during which only limited fieldwork was carried out at prehistoric sites.56 Although new research projects began in Greek Macedonia during the 1970s, especially in the central and eastern parts of the region, Armenochori and the western area of Macedonia remained an isolated phenomenon in the Balkan and Aegean Bronze Age. Indeed, I. Aslanis’ work on the Early Bronze Age pottery at the site of Kastanas highlighted difficulties in not only determining the chronological position of the pottery from Settlement III of Armenochori, but also in relating it to the Kastanas material. This was mainly due to the lack of relevant typological similarities between the two sites.57 Some twenty years after Heurtley’s excavations, M. Garašanin worked on the Armenochori group definition following his work in Pelagonia, where several isolated finds apparently portrayed connections with Armenochori.58 In addition to several vessels recovered from the Kale fortress in Skopje,59 Garašanin assigned the sites of Demir Kapija, Črnobuki and two minor sites in Pelagonia to his Armenochori group, based primarily on the presence of so-called Armenochori-type kantharoi. Some years later, he refined the Armenochori group’s chrono-cultural context,60 comparing Črnobuki Level IV61 to Karaman phases IIIa and IIIb62 as well as to Bakarno Gumno. The extent of the Armenochori group was further enlarged with the inclusion of other sites: Visoki Rid-Bukri, Kravari, Barešani, Crnicani, and Herakleja in the Republic of Macedonia-FYROM as well as Perivolaki-Saratse63 and Axiochori-Vardaroftsa64 in Greece.65 Garašanin also emphasised both the role of central Danube-Balkan elements in the emergence of the Armenochori group and its strong cultural connections with the Bubanj-Hum III group through the Morava River valley. Together with Armenochori, he also viewed phase IIIa of Maliq as the southernmost manifestation of his South-Danube-Balkan cultural complex.66

55 56 57 58 59 53 54

62 63 64 65 66 60 61

Heurtley 1939, 192–194, figs. 319–349. Heurtley 1939, 59. Heurtley 1939, 85. Andreou et al. 2001, 282–284. Aslanis 1985, 278. Garašanin 1958, 121. Garašanin 1958, 121, fig. 25; this vessel belongs to an earlier chronological horizon, as is also suggested by the new excavation works that are being carried out at Kale fortress. The similarity of this two-handled vessel with BubanjHum II pottery assemblage has already been noted, see e.g. Orssich de Slavetich 1940. Garašanin 1983, 723–726. Simoska et al. 1976, 43–83, fig. 7. Heurtley 1939, 85, 198; Simoska et al. 1977, 9–25. Heurtley 1939, 26–31, 182–185, figs. 23–26. Heurtley 1939, 36–39, 178–180, figs. 35–38. Garašanin 1983, 724 and map no. 18. Garašanin 1983, 463–470, 725–726.

Bronze Age and the Embedded Macedonian Question

401

In one of his last papers, M. Garašanin67 readdressed the emergence of the Early Bronze Age in the central Balkans as he himself had approached it since 1958, when there were only a few sites known from the late phase of Early Bronze Age: Bubanj-Hum III, Maliq IIIa and Armenochori. These sites were considered contemporaneous with Glina III in Romania and with Nagyrev, Csepel–Nagyrév, Maroš, Vinkovci, Somogyvár and Belotić-Bela Crkva in the Danube-Carpathian area. The common origin of these Balkan groups, according to Garašanin, can be seen in reciprocal influences expressed through common typological features that originated from the Bubanj-Hum II group, a late manifestation of the Cotofeni culture.68 The pottery shape characterising these groups is the kantharos, which is divided by Garašanin into two basic varieties, both furnished with rim handles that are in most cases swung. Open and shorter vessels form the earliest variety, while the more recent variety is a taller, closed shape. This chronological difference is based on the Karaman sequence, where open shapes dominate phase IIIa and subsequent phases contain a greater number of closed shapes. With that said, Garašanin also argued that the Armenochori pottery deposit contained both shapes. Furthermore, he stressed the Balkan origin of the depas amphikypellon, whose diffusion was such that the Bubanj-Hum I Balkan kantharoi would have been the forerunners of the Early Helladic tankard and the Depas Amphikypellon from Troy, which in turn would have been the origin of the Armenochori kantharos. BubanjHum I kantharoi are undoubtedly earlier than the southern and southeastern Aegean examples, arguing for the origin of this shape to be sought in southern Serbia. To explain this idea, Garašanin proposed an early north-south migration. The subsequent diffusion of the Carpathian–Balkan cultural complex – Belotić-Bela Crkva, Vinkovci and Somogyvár groups – over a more expansive eastern European area would then have resulted from the seasonal movement of shepherds and cattle. As he himself underlined, this argument is difficult to reconcile with the fact that, in the time span between Bubanj-Hum I and Bubanj-Hum III–Armenochori, there are almost no finds from the central or southern Balkans that substantiate typological continuity. Based on the presence of two-handled beakers at Argissa Magoula, as well as the most recent layers of Axiochori-Vardaroftsa and Perivolaki-Saratse, and levels 26–22a of Kastanas, Garašanin proposed that the Armenochori group should be dated to the Early Helladic II. V. Sanev69 suggested that the Armenochori group should be replaced by the term Pelagonian, also used by Garašanin, in order to emphasise the role of this Macedonian region in its emergence. He also added “lamps”70 to the list of diagnostic shapes already provided by Garašanin and attributed further sites to the Armenochori group, including Pribovce-Lopate, Tumba Kravari, Tumba Kanino, Taninska Tumba, Tumba Radobor and Gradina near Demir Kapja in the Republic of Macedonia-FYROM as well as Sedes and Gona, which were excavated by W. Heurtley in Greece. The addition of these sites moved the core area of the Armenochori group north-eastwards in Macedonia, emphasising the role of the territories included within the present borders of the Republic of Macedonia-FYROM. D. Mitrevski assigned all of the Early Bronze Age sites excavated in the south-western region of the Republic of Macedonia-FYROM to the Armenochori-Pelagonian group, reasserting Garašanin’s idea of them representing a southern manifestation of the Balkan lower Danube complex.71 F. Prendi considers the Albanian kantharoi as one of the characteristic shapes of the Maliq IIIa chrono-cultural horizon. Kantharoi from Maliq were broadly divided into several types according to size. In typological terms, the Maliq kantharoi, rather than Armenochori forms, are seen by Prendi as most similar to the vessels from Bubanj-Hum III. The kantharoi from Maliq IIIa are

Garašanin 2007, 173–179. The common elements of these groups are: the decoration with impressions on different parts of the vessels, vessels with pierced holes under the rim, bowls with a T-profiled rim, etc. see Garašanin 2007, 174. 69 Sanev 1999, 127–135. 70 Sanev 1999, figs. I–VII. Lamps are better known in the literature as miniature ovens or smoking pots (see Gori 2015b, 117–120). 71 Mitrevski 2003b, 43–46; refer also to Mitrevski 2003a, 44. 67 68

402

Maja Gori

seen as prototypes of the two-handled beakers from Maliq IIIb, emphasising the idea of continuity between the two levels.72 While J. Maran argues that the kantharoi from Armenochori compare well typologically to the kantharoi from Bubanj-Hum phase III,73 he stresses that the presence of two-handled beakers in Thessaly74 as early as the Early Helladic II75 suggests that they persisted for a considerable period of time. Maran concluded that Armenochori III should be provisionally positioned between the Early Helladic II and III, if not the early Middle Helladic.76 Over the last two decades, several new excavations have been carried out in both western and central Macedonia, with Archontiko and Mandalo being the most important multi-stratified settlements containing Early Bronze Age levels. While the so-called Armenochori type kantharoi were recovered from the uppermost Early Bronze Age levels of both sites, they seem to be more numerous at Archontiko. Kantharoi are found as far south as central Greece, but are typologically different. Based on his study of the Lerna material, J. Rutter77 investigated the diffusion of Grey Burnished Ware kantharoi from the Peloponnese during the late Early Bronze Age. In Lerna IV, kantharoi, together with tankards and Bass bowls, were all made in fine Grey Burnished Ware. The lack of direct forerunners for kantharoi, Bass bowls, and tankards in either the Early Helladic II pottery assemblage from Lerna or in the Peloponnese area led Rutter to propose that these forms derive from those seen in the central Greek Lefkandi I assemblage, which in turn should find their origins in western Anatolian prototypes. A key site linking the southwestern Balkans to southern Greece is Olympia. In 1908, W. Dörpfeld found handmade Grey Minyan Ware vessels decorated with incisions and grooves in the Apsidenhäusern. The shape of some of these vessels recalls kantharoi with tall cylindrical necks from Armenochori.78 J. Maran had already noted that two-handled vessels from Haus 3 of the Altis in Olympia are absent from the classic Cetina repertoire to which belong the typical decoration patterns. On the contrary, the two-handled beakers from Bubanj-Hum III represent a better typological parallel for Olympia exemplars,79 establishing a link with the central Balkans. The pottery from the Altis can be considered an original combination of technological and formal attributes from different pottery traditions, a phenomenon that can be also observed in later periods, like at Late Helladic III C Kastanas and Agios Mamas-Toumba Olynth, where potters integrated local Macedonian handmade pottery shapes into their wheel-made Mycenaean repertoire. One of the most imitated shapes in the Chalkidike Peninsula in this period is the so-called “globular kantharos”.80 Like the Pottery Deposit excavated by Heurtley at Armenochori,81 pits containing several entire kantharoi were also unearthed at Večina Mala.82 Similar deposits were documented at Gradište Pelince-Dve Mogili near Kumanovo, a site interpreted as a shrine or sanctuary. Here, several pits and rock fissures covered with stones and sealed with clay contained a number of entire kantharoi.83

Prendi 1966, pl. XI, 7–8; Prendi – Bunguri 2008, 245; pls. VII, 1–10 and VIII, 1–5. Maran 1998, 109. 74 In Pevkakia Magoula: Christmann 1996, pl. 51.7; 93.11; in Argissa Magoula: Hanschmann – Milojčić 1976, pls. 43.3, 46.9, 12, 16. 75 See Maran 1998, 108–110. 76 Maran 1998, 336. 77 Rutter 1983, 327–355. 78 Heurtley 1939, nos. 347–349. 79 Maran 1988, 326. 80 Jung 2003, 140. 81 Heurtley 1939, 59; this fact was already noticed by J. Maran (Maran 1998, 322 n. 167). 82 Stojić 1986, 145–151. 83 Trajkovska 1999, fig. 4. 72 73

Bronze Age and the Embedded Macedonian Question

403

Fig. 3   Distribution patterns for Sovjan kantharoi (after Gori 2015a)

Kantharoi are also well attested in funerary contexts across a wide area extending from the Drina to the Morava Basin and to Macedonia, where the cemetery of Xeropigado Koiladas84 in the Kitrini Limni region produced numerous burials with kantharoi as grave goods. The use of kantharoi as grave goods is also known further north in the cemeteries of Transdanubia. Recently, Wagner proposed a typology for two-handled vessels from the Mokrin Graves,85 where the Pitvaroš form is considered characteristic of his horizon I,86 the so-called “Perjámos-cups” typical of the horizon II,87 and kantharoi with fairly squat bodies88 as chronological markers of horizon III. Of these vessels, the most similar to southern Balkan examples is the one connecting phases I and II.89 Typological analysis of the Sovjan kantharoi shows that there is no such thing as a single Armenochori type to include all kantharoi produced between the late 3rd and the early 2nd millennium BC in the southwestern Balkans (Fig. 3). Also, a simplistic division into two large typological groups, one formed by tall, the other by shorter vessels, has proved to entail no chronological or cultural meaning since it was based on too few examples to be reliable. The ‘Armenochori type kantharos’ thus proves to be a misleading definition that fails to represent the whole spectrum of kantharoi shapes and should be abandoned in favour of a more nuanced and wider classification, which shall include a larger number of examples from a consistent number of sites. Multiple kantharoi shapes produced between the end of the 3rd and the early 2nd millennium BC in the south-western Balkans cannot be connected to a unique template. The origin and development of kantharoi remain poorly understood and controversial, mainly because there has not been targeted

86 87 88 89 84 85

Ziota 2007; see also Ziota 1998a, 81‒101; Ziota 1998b, 503‒516. Wagner 2009, 344. Wagner 2009, fig. 13.I,1. Wagner 2009, fig. 13.I,3‒5. Wagner 2009, fig. 13.I,6. Wagner 2009, fig. 13.I,2.

404

Maja Gori

or complete analysis. For the moment, a coherent interpretation of the ‘kantharos phenomenon’is beyond our reach, and the search for the first kantharos resembles something of a quest for the Holy Grail. Likewise, tracing the boundaries of the ‘Armenochori group’ on the basis of the presence or absence of ‘Armenochori type kantharoi’ is erroneous since this reconstruction takes into consideration only a typological macro-category of vessels, thus overlooking the archaeological contexts and leading to inconsistent historical interpretation. By extending Gosselain’s example of football’s global diffusion and the formation of micro ‘football cultures’ with their own peculiarities and characteristics90 to the southwestern Balkans between the 3rd and the 2nd millennium BC, it seems more reasonable to speak of different micro-‘kantharos cultures’.“How these distinct ‘cultures’ arose is a question that may prove more important in historical and anthropological terms rather than finding the original locus of football practice and the geography of its diffusion. […] Once introduced, innovations are inevitably submitted to a process of appropriation, which means both inserting them in pre-existing logics and generating new logics from their use […] Studying the dynamics of transmitted elements, therefore, is not only a way to explore historical processes, but also a way to gain a better understanding of the social dimension of technical practices and material culture”.91 Conclusions Acknowledging the role of archaeology and its connections to modernity in the politics of remembering and forgetting may represent a crucial step towards overcoming present borders and developing archaeological research in Macedonia as a whole. Although the need to transform the relations of production of archaeological knowledge into more democratic structures to engage subordinate groups who wish to be involved in archaeological interpretations is perceived as significant,92 many scholars prefer to ignore popular depictions of prehistoric or historic cultures, without paying much attention to the often misleading conflations between archaeological sources and popular interpretations.93 The spread of archaeological theories in society should be of greater concern for academic archaeology, especially when the battle over archaeological public interpretation is a struggle for power between rival groups in the fluid conditions of an emerging nation-state. Silberman argues that, “archaeological remains, when preserved and presented to the public, are almost always monuments either to generalise notions of progress or of someone’s inalienable historical and political rights”.94 In Hobsbawm’s opinion, “all historians are engaged with this process [the invention of tradition] inasmuch as they contribute, consciously or not, to the creation, dismantling and restructuring of images of the past which belong not only to the world of specialist investigation but to the public sphere of man as political being”.95 The same remark applies to archaeologists. The engagement of many scholars in debating the relationship between archaeology and the New Macedonian Question clearly shows that the role of the international scientific community in national identity building processes based on archaeological discourse is relevant.96 In the ‘Western world’, archaeologists perceive themselves as officially entitled by society to use archaeological material as a resource for understanding the past in pursuit of the ‘truth’. Nicholas and Wyle97 argue that in their combined roles of scientists and self-identified stewards of the past,

92 93 94 95 96 97 90 91

Gosselain 2011, 211–227. Gosselain 2011, 212. See for example Hodder 1991, 186. Holtorf 2005. Silberman 1995, 258. Hobsbawm – Ranger 1983, 13. Gori 2014. Nicholas – Wylie 2012, 11–34.

Bronze Age and the Embedded Macedonian Question

405

archaeologists have long enjoyed considerable privilege of access and authority in determining how archaeological materials should be used, by whom and for what purposes. The authors clearly state that archaeology as a discipline is inherently a practice of cultural appropriation, at least where it has become established as a professional research enterprise. Even if scholars play a crucial role in articulating archaeological narratives, they have, however, far less control over the patterns of appropriation than they commonly assume. The vision of the past that emerges in analysing the dynamic nature of its appropriation as an intentional process, whose mechanism affects social change, is that uses of the past have to be considered as pointers to competing visions of the future. Scientific archaeology also adopts such a vision. In the south-western Balkans, the importance of the international scientific community in shaping archaeological discourse as the basis of national identity building processes turned out to be more relevant than it was initially thought.98 Judging from the central role that the modernist approach in archaeology plays in the New Macedonian Question – see recently the case of the Amphipolis tomb in Greece99 – one may question whether the postmodern turn really has produced a change within the discipline in the Balkans. A major result of postmodern critique in archaeology seems to be a further expansion of the scope of the discipline and its role in society, but this expansion seems to have involved only some aspects and overlooked others, and this seems to be particularly true in the domain of identity building. However, we first of all need to ask ourselves if we can actually speak of Balkan archaeology as a discrete category. It is undeniable that Balkan countries have several common traits that shaped their societies and thus their archaeologies – like the influence of foreign countries in the establishment of the discipline, Greece being the paradigmatic example; but see also the already mentioned Italian influence in Albania and that of Germany in Yugoslavia,100 or the influence of communist or soviet ideologies especially in Romania and Bulgaria – it is also true that archaeology has followed individual trajectories in each country of the Balkan Peninsula. While new research methodologies and techniques have been introduced and different theoretical frameworks have influenced approaches to material record, a thorough reflection on the discipline and its impact on society are struggling to take hold. This is particularly evident in the western Balkans. In former Yugoslav countries, especially in Serbia and in the Republic of Macedonia-FYROM, difficulties in dealing with the Yugoslav research tradition are also evident. As was underlined by N. N. Tasić and N. Tasić, undertaking archaeological research in the “post Srejović and post Garašanin era”101 proved to be a difficult task, as was reinventing the discipline in a postconflict context within new administrative structures. M. Garašanin conducted his archaeological research within a Yugoslav administrative and theoretical framework. His Podunavski-Balkanski kompleks (Danube-Balkan complex), indeed, spread across a large area from the Alpine region to northern Greece. While archaeological practice in former Yugoslav countries such as Slovenia and Croatia, is wholly integrated into the European scientific network, Bosnian archaeology, for example, is still affected by political and inter-ethnic tensions. The connection between scientific archaeology and national and international political issues already characterised the conflict between Albania and Yugoslavia in the 1970s.102 Direct involvement of scientific archaeology occurred also in the 1990s conflict, as is shown by the example of Kosovo.103 The entire Yugoslav wars were characterised by a massive recourse to heritage destruction as exemplified by the bombing of Dubrovnik and of the old bridge of Mostar. This shows how the relationship between the past and the present is not only a problem of archaeological discipline but, on the contrary, characterises the whole Geschichtskultur of the western Balkans. The issue is complex and the bundle is difficult to disentangle. It is clear,

Gori 2014. See Gimatzidis in the present volume. 100 Gori 2017, Novaković 2012. 101 Tasić – Tasić 2003, 74. 102 Gori 2012, 78–79. 103 Gori 2017. 98 99

406

Maja Gori

however, that simplistic solutions like invoking ‘archaeological good practice’ as scientific and ‘neutral’ panacea to solving problems related to present-day uses of archaeology in the Balkans and elsewhere appears specious. Becoming aware that archaeology is indissolubly connected to politics and accepting its status as a device of modernity can lead to a better understanding of its role and its effect on society. Recognising this, first of all at a specialist level, will improve scientific practice and thus the relationship between archaeology and archaeologists with society. Acknowledgments: I would like to express my deep gratitude to Gilles Touchais and Petrika Lera for allowing me to study the pottery from Sovjan and for the constant help and support they have given me in the last ten years. I would like to thank the editors of this volume for their invaluable comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the paper.

References Adanir 1979 F. Adanir, Die Makedonische Frage. Ihre Entstehung und Entwicklung bis 1908 (Wiesbaden 1979). Anderson 2006 [1991] B. Anderson, Imagined communities. Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism (London 2006 [1991]). Andrea 1985 Z. Andrea, Kultura ilire e tumave në pellgun e Korçës (Tirana 1985). Andreou et al. 2001 S. Andreou – M. Fotiadis – K. Kotsakis, The Neolithic and Bronze Age of Northern Greece, in: T. Cullen (ed.), Aegean Prehistory. A Review (Boston 2001) 259–327. Aslanis 1985 I. Aslanis, Kastanas. Die frühbronzezeitlichen Funde und Befunde (Berlin 1985). Brown 1998 K. S. Brown, Contests of heritage and the politics of preservation in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, in: Meskell 1998, 68–86. Christmann 1996 E. Christmann, Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Pevkakia-Magula in Thessalien 1967–1977. II. Die frühe Bronzezeit (Bonn 1996). Danforth 1995 L. M. Danforth, The Macedonian Conflict. Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World (Princeton 1995). Garašanin 1958 M. Garašanin, Neolithikum und Bronzezeit im Serbien und Makedonien (Mainz 1958). Garašanin 1983 M. Garašanin, Centralnobalkanska Regija, in: A. Benac (ed.) Praistorija Jugoslavenskih Zemalja 4, Bronzano doba (Sarajevo 1983) 461–462, 471–475, 703–786. Garašanin 2007 M. Garašanin, Betrachtungen zum Beginn der mitteleuropäischen Bronzezeit auf dem Zentralbalkan, in: M. Stefanovich – Ch. Angelova (eds.), Prae. In honorem H. Todorova (Sofia 2007) 173–179. Gori 2012 M. Gori, Who are the Illyrians? The use and abuse of archaeology in the construction of national and trans-national identities in the southwestern Balkans, in: C. N. Popa – R. Ó Ríagáin (eds.), Archaeology and the (De)Construction of National and Supra-National Polities, Archaeological Review from Cambridge (Cambridge 2012) 71–84. Gori 2014 M. Gori, Fabricating identity from ancient shards. Memory construction and cultural appropriation in the new Macedonian question, in: Fabricating History. Representations, Manipulation, Evidence, The Hungarian Historical Review 3, 2, 2014, 285–311.

Bronze Age and the Embedded Macedonian Question

407

Gori 2015a M. Gori, Along the Rivers and Through the Mountains. A Reviewed Chrono-Cultural Framework for the South-Western Balkans During the Late 3rd and Early 2nd Millennium BCE (Bonn 2015). Gori 2015b M. Gori, The long journey of a few ugly pots. Long distance cultural interactions in Southwestern Balkans at the end of the Early Bronze Age, in: P. Suchowska-Ducke – S. Scott Reiter – H. Vandkilde (eds.), Forging Identities. The Mobility of Culture in Bronze Age Europe, British Archaeological Reports International Series 2772 (Oxford 2015) 183–192. Gori 2017 M. Gori, Illyrians across the Adriatic. A cultural history of an archaeological culture, in: A. de Francesco (ed.), In Search of Pre-Classical Antiquity. Rediscovering Ancient Peoples in Mediterranean Europe (19th and 20th c.) (Leiden 2017) 119–145. Gori – Ivanova 2017 M. Gori – M. Ivanova (eds.), Balkan Dialogues. Negotiating Identity Between Prehistory and the Present (New York 2017). Gori – Krapf 2016 M. Gori – T. Krapf, The Bronze and Iron Age Pottery from Sovjan, Iliria 29/2015, 2016, 91–135. Gosselain 2011 O. Gosselain, Fine if I do, Fine if I don’t. Dynamics of technical knowledge in Sub-Saharan Africa, in: Roberts – Vander Linden 2011a, 211–228. Hamilakis 2007 Y. Hamilakis, The Nation and its Ruins. Antiquity, Archaeology, and National Imagination in Greece (Oxford 2007). Hanschmann – Milojčić 1976 E. Hanschmann – V. Milojčić, Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Argissa Magula in Thessalien, III. Die frühe und beginnende mittlere Bronzezeit (Bonn 1976). Heurtley 1939 W. A. Heurtley, Prehistoric Macedonia. An Archaeological Reconnaissance of Greek Macedonia (West of the Struma) in the Neolithic, Bronze and Early Iron Ages (Cambridge 1939). Hobsbawm – Ranger 1983 E. Hobsbawm – T. Ranger (eds.), The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge 1983). Hodder 1991 I. Hodder (ed.), Archaeological Theory in Europe. The Last Three Decades (London, New York 1991). Holtorf 2005 C. Holtorf, From Stonehenge to Las Vegas. Archaeology as Popular Culture (Walnut Creek 2005). Horejs 2007 B. Horejs, Die spätbronzezeitliche handgemachte Keramik der Schichten 13 bis 1. Das Prähistorische Olynth. Ausgrabungen in der Toumba Agios Mamas 1994–1996 (Rahden/Westf. 2007). Jung 2003 R. Jung, Late Helladic III C at the Toúmbes of Kastanás and Ólynthos, in: S. Jalkotzy – M. Zavadil (eds.), LH III C Chronology and Synchronism. Proceeding of the International Workshop held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences at Vienna, May 7th and 8th 2001 (Vienna 2003) 131–144. Kohl 1998 P. L. Kohl, Nationalism and archaeology. On the constructions of nations and the reconstructions of the remote past, Annual Review of Anthropology 27, 1998, 223–246. Kotsakis 1998 K. Kotsakis, The past is ours. Images of Greek Macedonia, in: Meskell 1998, 44–67. Kotsakis et al. 1989 K. Kotsakis – A. Papanthimou-Papaefthimiou – A. Pilali-Papasteriou – T. Savopoulou, Y. Maniatis ‒ B. Kromer, Carbon 14 Dates from Mandalon, W-Macedonia, in: Y. Maniatis (ed.), Archaeometry. Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium (Amsterdam 1989) 679–685.

408

Maja Gori

Mahon 1998 M. Mahon, The Macedonian Question in Bulgaria, Nations and Nationalism 4, 3, 1998, 389–407. Maniatis – Kromer 1990 Y. Maniatis – B. Kromer, Radiocarbon dating of the Neolithic/Early Bronze Age Site of Mandalo, W. Macedonia, Radiocarbon 32, 2, 1990, 149–153. Maran 1998 J. Maran, Kulturwandel auf dem griechischen Festland und den Kykladen im späten 3. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Bonn 1998). Merousis 2004 N. Merousis, Early Bronze Age in the Pella-Imathia Plain, Western Macedonia, in: E. Alram–Stern – F. Felten – N. Efstratiou (eds.), Die Ägäische Frühzeit (Vienna 2004) 1285–1295. Meskell 1998 L. Meskell (ed.), Archaeology Under Fire. Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East (London, New York 1998). Mitrevski 2003a D. Mitrevski, From southern Morava to Vardar. Bronze and Iron Age archaeological parameters, Pyraichmes II, 2003, 1– 30. Mitrevski 2003b D. Mitrevski, Prehistory in Republic of Macedonia – F.Y.R.O.M., in: V. Grammenos (ed.), Recent Research in the Prehistory of the Balkans (Thessaloniki 2003) 13–72. Moulakis 2010 A. Moulakis, The controversial ethnogenesis of Macedonia, European Political Science 9, 2010, 495–510. Nicholas – Wylie 2012 G. P. Nicholas – A. Wylie, Archaeological finds. Legacies of appropriation, modes of response, in: J. O. Young (ed.), Ethics of Cultural Appropriation (Oxford 2012) 11–34. Novaković 2012 P. Novaković, The “German School” and its influence on the national archaeologies of the Western Balkans, in: B. Migotti – P. Mason – B. Nadbath – T. Mulh (eds.), Scripta in Honorem Bojan Djurić (Ljubljana 2012) 51–72. A. Orssich de Slavetich, Bubanj, eine vorgeschichtliche Ansiedlung bei Niš, Mitteilungen der Prähistorischen Kommission 4, 1–2 (Vienna 1940). Papaefthymiou-Papanthimou – Pilali-Papasteriou 2000 Α. Παπαευθυμίου-Παπανθίμου – Α. Πιλάλη-Παπαστερίου, Αρχοντικό 1998. Προϊστορικός οικισμός, Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη 12/1998, 2000, 309–314. Papaefthimiou-Papanthimou – Pilali-Papasteriou 2003 A. Papaefthimiou-Papanthimou – A. Pilali-Papasteriou, The Prehistoric Settlement in Archontiko of Giannitsa (Giannitsa 2003). Papanthimou et al. 2010 A. Papanthimou – K. Pilali – E.Papadopoulou, Archontiko Yiannitson. A Settlement in Macedonia, in: A. Philippa Touchais – G. Touchais – S. Voutsaki – J. Wright (eds.), Mesohelladika. The Greece Mainland in the Middle Bronze Age (Athens 2006) 975–980. Pettifer 1999 J. Pettifer (ed.), The New Macedonian Question (Houndmills 1999). Prendi 1966 F. Prendi, La civilisation préhistorique de Maliq, Studia Albanica 1, 1966, 255–280. Prendi 1977–1978 F. Prendi, Epoka e bronzit në Shqipëri / L’age du Bronze en Albanie, Iliria 7–8, 1977–1978, 5–58. Prendi – Bunguri 2008 F. Prendi – A. Bunguri, Bronzi i Hershëm në Shqipëri / The Early Bronze Age in Albania (Prishtina 2008).

Bronze Age and the Embedded Macedonian Question

409

Roberts – Vander Linden 2011a B. W. Roberts – M. Vander Linden (eds.), Investigating Archaeological Cultures. Material Culture, Variability, and Transmission (New York, Heidelberg 2011). Roberts – Vander Linden 2011b B. Roberts – M. Vander Linden, Investigating archaeological cultures. Material culture, variability and transmission, in: Roberts – Vander Linden 2011a, 1–21. Rutter 1983 J. B. Rutter, Fine gray-burnished pottery of the Early Helladic III period the ancestry of Gray Minyan, Hesperia 52, 1983, 327–355. Said 2002 [1978] E. Said, Orientalismo. L’immagine europea dell’Oriente (Milan 2002 [1978]). Sanev 1999 V. Sanev, Pottery in favour of designating the cultural borders of the Early Bronze age in Macedonia, in: E. Petrova – V. Sanev – R. Tanevski (eds.), Macedonia and the Neighbouring Regions from 3rd to 1st Millennium BC. Papers presented at the International Symposium in Struga 1997 (Struga 1999) 73–85. Silberman 1995 N. A. Silberman, Promised lands and chosen people. The politics and poetics of archaeological narrative, in: P. L. Kohl – C. Fawcett (eds.), Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology (Cambridge 1995) 249–262. Simoska et al. 1976 Д. Симоска – Б. Китаноски – Ј. Тодоровиќ, Населбата Црнобуки и проблемот на истоимената култура во светлината на новите археолошки истражувања, Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 2, 1976, 43–84. Simoska et al. 1977 Д. Симоска – Б. Китаноски – Ј. Тодоровиќ, Праисториска населба Тумба во село Карамани кај Битола, Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 3, 1977, 9–25. Stojić 1986 M. Стоић, Праисториjско населье Вецина Мала у маjуру код Светозарева, Старинар / Starinar ХХХVІІ, 1986, 145–151. Tasić – Tasić 2003 N. N. Tasić – N. Tasić, Serbian prehistoric archaeology in the 1990s. State of research, in: D. V. Grammenos, Recent Research in the Prehistory of the Balkans (Thessaloniki 2003) 73–128. Todorova 2006 M. Todorova, Imagining the Balkans (Oxford 2006). Touchais 2002 G. Touchais, Les rapports entre le monde Mycénien et ses marges nord-ouest (Épire, Albanie, Macédoine), in: G. Touchais and J. Renard (eds.), L’Albanie dans l’Europe Préhistorique , Act. Coll. De Lorient 2000, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique Suppl. 42, 2002, 199–216. Trajkovska 1999 Л. Трајковска, Градиште – Пелинце, истражување на секторот Две Могили, Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 15, 1999, 47–61. Trigger 1989 B. G. Trigger, A History of Archaeological Thought (Cambridge 1989). Troebst 1983 S. Troebst, Die bulgarisch-jugoslawische Kontroverse um Makedonien 1967–1982 (München 1983). Troebst 2007 S. Troebst, Das makedonische Jahrhundert. Von den Anfängen der nationalrevolutionären Bewegung zum Abkommen von Ohrid 1893–2001 (München 2007). Wagner 2009 J. Wagner, Die chronologische Entwichlung des Gräberfeldes von Mokrin, Analele Banatului, New Series, Arheologie – Istorie XVII, 2009, 337–356.

410

Maja Gori

Ziota 1998a X. Ζιώτα, Προϊστορικό νεκροταφείο στην Κοιλάδα Κοζάνης. Μια πρώτη αναλυτική παρουσίαση της ανασκαφικής έρευνας (1995–1996), in: Μ. Λιλιμπάκη-Ακαμάτη – Κ. Τσακάλου-Τζαναβάρη (eds.), Μνείας Χάριν. Τόμος στη Μνήμη Μαίρης Σιγανίδου (Thessaloniki 1998) 81–101 Ziota 1998b X. Ζιώτα, Κίτρινη Λίμνη 1998. Ανασκαφή στο Ξεροπήγαδο Κοιλάδας, Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη 12, 1998, 503–516. Ziota 2007 X. Ζιώτα, Ταφικές πρακτικές και κοινωνίες της εποχής του χαλκού στη Δυτική Μακεδονία. Τα νεκροταφεία στην Κοιλάδα και στις Γούλες Κοζάνης (PhD Diss., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki 2007).

The Late Bronze Age / Early Iron Age Transition in the Korçë Basin (SE-Albania) and the Modern Perception of the Emergence of Illyrian Culture Tobias Krapf 1 Abstract: During the communist era, Albanian archaeology has been strongly influenced by politics. Consequently, a major interest was to trace the Illyrian culture, claiming it as Albanian ancestry, even as far back as into prehistory and to prove its autochthony. Today, the interests have shifted to a less biased approach and interregional comparisons bring new insights to Albanian prehistory. It is the transition from the Late Bronze to the Early Iron Age that has often been referred to as the crucial period for linking Illyrian and prehistoric or Proto-Illyrian culture. As a case study, the Korçë Plain and the results of the excavations of the French-Albanian mission in Sovjan will be discussed and it can be shown that several earlier assumptions have to be updated in light of the new research. Additionally, two recent international projects will be briefly presented, as they cross the modern country borders and characterise the new tendency towards collaboration. Especially in the Korçë region, at the corner of Albania, FYROM and Greece, prehistoric culture can only be understood when the modern borders are ignored. And it becomes clear that the local cultures are closer to their contemporary neighbours than their local successors, making it problematic to trace much later attested cultural groups back into prehistory. Keywords: Illyrians, Late Bronze Age / Early Iron Age transition, southeast Albania, matt painted pottery, borders, local characteristics, international collaboration

Prehistory has very often been used for political purposes, especially when studied through the lens of cultural archaeology. In Albania, this was the case during the communist era, after the Second World War, when – next to a Marxist influence – a strong nationalistic perspective made the definition of an identity a priority.2 There was a major interest to link the modern Albanian population and its Illyrian predecessors and, consequently, to study their ethnogenesis and to prove the autochthonism of the Illyrians, thereby finally legitimising modern Albania.3 S. Islami in 1985 perfectly stated the political importance of archaeology under the regime of Enver Hoxha: “Tout particulièrement, le camarade Enver attire l’attention des chercheurs pour qu’ils consacrent les soins nécessaires au problème de la genèse des Illyriens et de la formation du peuple albanais, en attribuant à ces problèmes une grande importance non pas seulement scientifique mais aussi politique.ˮ4 This political dimension of archaeology has often been criticised, but thanks to it, archaeology became institutionalised in Albania and had a much more prominent position than what would be expected in a young post-war country.5



1



2



3



4



5

University of Basel / University of Paris 1 Panthéon – Sorbonne & Swiss School of Archaeology in Greece; tobias. [email protected]. For the research history of Albanian archaeology see Tsonos 2009 and Cabanes 2004. On archaeology and nationalism see Kohl 1998. Korkuti – Anamali 1969; Anamali 1976; Korkuti 1976; Korkuti – Petruso 1993, 706. Cf. the acts of the 1st conference on Illyrian studies (1972) in Illyria 1976. Equally, the same research has been conducted for the Albanian language. Islami 1985, 16. Cf. also the following statement of E. Hoxha, quoted on the same page in Islami 1985 (cf. footnote 2): “Maintenant […] la question de l’existence du peuple albanais en tant que nation ne se pose comme auparavant, mais le problème de l’origine doit être résolu scientifiquement […] alors que la question des Illyriens, en tant que les ancêntres [sic.] du peuple albanais est prouvée.ˮ Veseli 2006.

412

Tobias Krapf

While Illyrian towns have been explored mostly along the Adriatic coast, the inland plains of Korçë and Kolonjë in southeast Albania, not far from the rich Illyrian rock-cut royal tombs of Selca e Poshtme, became the centre of prehistoric archaeological research, thanks to the excavations of several settlements and burial tumuli. It was to these Early Iron Age, Bronze Age and even Neolithic cultures that the Illyrian elements have been traced back. Subsequently, these early cultures have been called Pre- and Proto-Illyrian.6 The long-lasting tradition of culture-historical archaeology favoured such approaches. This paper concentrates on the appropriation of the Illyrians by Albania, although this appellation has been used in other Balkan countries as well (e.g. Croatia7), eager to defend their Illyrian share. When it was mentioned in an Albanian overview on Illyrian culture in 1985 that the Illyrians had expanded into Yugoslav territory with the Albanian population,8 the reaction from Belgrade was immediate.9 Today, research questions and approaches have changed significantly. Prehistoric archaeology has spread throughout the whole country of Albania, but the Korçë region still remains an active centre of research, with many on-going projects: the American-Albanian Early Neolithic SANAP project in Vashtëmi,10 re-excavation of the cave of Tren by the University of Tirana, the French-Albanian survey of the plain of Korçë and the excavations in Sovjan and Kallamas,11 the Greek-Albanian project on Maligrad island12 and further projects. This article will discuss the crucial period of the transition from the Late Bronze Age (LBA) to the Early Iron Age (EIA), which is supposed to constitute the link of the Illyrian identity back to the Bronze Age. It will focus mainly on the Korçë region and especially on the results from Sovjan. This will allow the re-evaluation of several earlier assumptions and – in light of new research – a better placement of the Korçë region in its cultural environment. Finally, two recent projects that foster the international collaboration in this region will be briefly presented. The Three-National Lake Region and the Illyrians The Korçë Plain (Fig. 1), surrounded by several mountains, is situated at 820 masl. in the southeast of Albania, close to the borders of Greece and FYROM. Several lakes, such as the Great and Small Prespa Lakes, Lake Ohrid, Lake Kastoria and not least the nowadays drained Lake Maliq, characterise the region, as well as a number of plateaus, for instance, the Kolonje Plain. All these areas are interlinked through passes and river valleys and they shared for many periods a common material culture. The modern borders, however, reflect recent historic events but do not correspond with the ancient cultural landscapes. But this has not always been reflected in archaeological research, which has mainly focused on sites within political borders. And this accounts even more for the oversimplified popular knowledge of the past. Layman archaeology, however, can play an important role in modern politics, as B. Slapšak has stressed.13 In Albania, Illyria or Illyrians appear everywhere as names of hotels, sport’s clubs, furniture stores, a university college, a telephone company, restaurants and bars, clinics, ships and, last but not least, the main archaeological journal.

8 9 6 7

12 13 10 11

Ceka 2013. Dzino 2008. Islami et al. 1985, 39–40 (Illyrian tribes in Epirus, FYROM and Kosovo). Cf. also Gori 2012. See the volume of Garašanin 1986 whose main aim is to deny the Albanians an Illyrian origin and heritage of their territory. See also the review of this book (A. Failler in Revue des Études Byzantines 47, 1989, 295–296) and Cabanes 2004, 120–121. Gjipali – Allen 2013. Lera – Touchais 2013a; Lera – Touchais 2013b; http://www.sovjan-archeologie.net. Lera et al. 2014. Slapšak 2011, 421–431.

The Late Bronze Age / Early Iron Age Transition in the Korçë Basin

413

Fig. 1   Map of the three-national lake region with the places mentioned in the text (T. Krapf, map: Esri 2014)

But when approaching the borders of FYROM the visitor receives an automatic short message stating: “Welcome to Macedonia, the cradle of civilization. During your stay we strongly recommend that you visit the Museum of the Macedonian Struggle and the Memorial House of Mother Teresa in Skopje, the Memorial Center of Toshe Proeski in Krushevo, the Museum on Water in Ohrid and the Ancient Observatory in Kokino”.14 Crossing this border, anyone enters consequently the ‘Paeonian cultural sphere’, called more often simply ‘Macedonian’, whose ancient centre however lays in modern Greece, hence the dispute over the name of Macedonia. This being said, ancient Illyria also spreads much further than the modern Albanian borders (see above). It is in this context that early historic and prehistoric archaeology of this region has to be understood – largely separated (until recently) between different countries, mainly due to politics, let alone the different modern languages, which do not facilitate scholarly interest either. And therefore many phenomena have been interpreted in the way that best suits the national historic narrative. N. Ceka brings this to a head in his description of the adoption of the channelled bowl called ‘turban dish’ during the EIA (see Fig. 3a): “The contemporaneous appearance of pottery known as turban dish […] has been interpreted as evidence of the arrival in the proto-Illyrian territory of waves of the so-called Balkan-Pannonian invaders, who started from the Danube. However, Albanian archaeologists see these phenomena merely as instances of influence, or at most the arrival of discrete elements; they do not accept the participation of the ‘Aegean’ factor in the later development of the ethnogenesis of the Illyrians.”15

T-Mobile, 5.7.2015, received while visiting Maligrad Island (Great Prespa Lake, Albania). Ceka 2013, 51.

14 15

414

Tobias Krapf

Sovjan and the French-Albanian Mission To return to the outlined region and southeast Albanian prehistory, Sovjan is of major importance (Fig. 2) as it has one of the longest stratigraphies in the region, going back at least to the Early Neolithic.16 The settlement is located near the modern village of Sovjan (Korçë district) on the shores of the ancient Lake Maliq, which was drained in the last century. It is due to the rising level of this lake that the site was abandoned during the Early Iron Age, probably in the 8th century BC. During this period, a new site was occupied on a safe spot on the mountain above the nearby village of Symizë.17 At the edge of the modern village of Sovjan there is also a tumulus, but it has not yet been excavated as it is still a place of worship with a small chapel on its top. The site was discovered in 1988 by P. Lera and excavated from 1988 to 1991 by the Archaeological Institute at Tirana.18 After the opening of the Albanian borders, works were resumed by a joint French and Albanian mission, directed by F. Prendi, P. Lera and G. Touchais, from 1993 to 2006.19 In order to reconstruct the ancient landscape that this site used to belong to, geological research as well as an archaeological survey of the northern half of the Korçë Plain, around the shores of the ancient lake, were undertaken in the following years. The PALM (Prospection Archéologique du Lac Maliq) survey project enabled the discovery of over 60 new sites (Neolithic to Medieval) and made it possible to understand the settlement development and its relation to the environmental changes.20 Test trenches were also dug by the same team in Vreshtasi (EBA, 2010) as well as on the coast of the Great Prespa Lake at Kallamas (Middle and Late Neolithic, 2008–2011).21 Wooden structures, including the so-called ‘Maison du canal’, were preserved in the earlier Bronze Age layers of Sovjan. The pottery of these phases is now fully published by M. Gori,22 while the LBA and EIA pottery is currently under study by the author.23 There are three levels belonging to the LBA (layers 5c3–5c1) and there is a marked change between the preceding layer 624 and layer 5c3. The few Mycenaean imports (LH IIIB–C) and radiocarbon dates provide a date between the 14th and 11th centuries BC for layer 5c1.25 The top of this layer also contains elements of a transitional phase towards the EIA, marked by the appearance of channelled ware, bowls with inturned rims and a greater variability in the application of bands with finger imprints– phenomena that find their parallels in layers 13 and 12 of Kastanas (Greece). Most characteristic for the EIA layers (5b and 5a) are the significant increase in matt painted pottery (there are just a handful of LBA fragments with this type of decoration)26 besides a few incised fragments, a general decrease in pottery quality, the introduction of a few new wares and the presence of jugs and globular kantharoi (Fig. 3). Besides these innovations, there is, however, continuity, especially in the coarse wares – including the pyraunoi cooking pots. While the pottery of higher quality is subject to changes, the pots of more common use and their fabric remain almost the same. Ceramic imports from the south, still of no quantitative significance, continue into the Protogeometric and Geometric periods. The kantharoi handle types, which form one of the most reliable dating criteria, also continue their linear development and obtain the typical EIA characteristics.

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 16 17

Gori – Krapf 2016. Lera 1992. Korkuti – Petruso 1993, 715. Preliminary results in the Bulletin de correspondance hellenique, first in volume 118, 1994. Lera et al. 2010b, 634–647. See also reports in following volumes of the Bulletin de correspondance hellenique. Oberweiler et al. 2014. Gori 2015. Krapf in press. On the new dating of layer 6 see Gori – Krapf 2016. Lera et al. 2010a, 50. Krapf 2014, 590 fig. 4.

The Late Bronze Age / Early Iron Age Transition in the Korçë Basin

Fig. 2   Sovjan, with the canal cutting through the site and the Korçë Basin in the background (Mission archéologique franco-albanaise du basin de Korça, campaign 2002)

Fig. 3   Sovjan, EIA pottery fragments: a. SV91 6/11 no. 235; b. SV91 6/7 no. 106; c. SV91 5/10 no. 150; d. SV90 surface find; e. SV91 5/14 no. 180; f. SV91 5/15 no. 185 (photos: T. Krapf)

415

416

Tobias Krapf

The late appearance of the matt painted ware in southeast Albania is surprising; even more so when we consider other innovations such as the pyraunoi at the beginning of the LBA (layer 6) or the channelled ware at the beginning of the EIA (phase 5b), which were adopted contemporaneously in the Korçë Basin and Macedonia. Maliq and the Devoll Style Matt Painted Pottery A very similar development as in Sovjan can be followed at the neighbouring site of Maliq, which, like Sovjan, was also abandoned during the EIA, due to the fact that – again, like Sovjan – it was located on the shores of the same lake. Since it is one of the first large excavations of a multi-period prehistoric site in Albania (first excavation 1961 to 1966 by F. Prendi),27 it formed the reference stratigraphy for south Albania. However, the chronology of the latest layers has been intensively discussed and questioned in the last decades. The main issue was the attribution of the earliest layer with matt painted pottery either to the LBA or the EIA (and the transition between the two) (Maliq IIId2–3, according to Zh. Andrea now Maliq IVa–b28), a question that can today clearly be answered in favour of the latter thanks to the stratigraphy and the radiocarbon dates of Sovjan. F. Prendi had recognised two types of matt painted pottery, the typical one with the paint applied before firing and an earlier technological stage with decoration applied after firing. Because this is a phenomenon not attested in Macedonia and as he believed that it appeared already at the turn from MBA to LBA, Prendi logically concluded that this pottery style originates from the Korçë region29 and should therefore be called ‘Devoll style’ pottery, after the main river of the area.30 The persistence of this ceramic style right up to the 6th century BC – when the Illyrians are first attested – proved its alleged Illyrian character. “Diese Umstände definieren mit einer überzeugenden Deutlichkeit den illyrischen Charakter der schönen geometrisch bemalten Keramik in der Devoll-Zone. […] Deshalb halten wir diese archäologischen Argumente für überzeugend […], um diese bemalte Keramik der Spätbronze- und Früheisenzeit in der Devoll-Zone der Südgruppe der vorgeschichtlichen Illyrier zuzuweisen.”31 Not surprising, similar tendencies are also attested in Greek archaeology.32 But one of the first to connect this style with races and people was a British archaeologist, W. A. Heurtley, who excavated Boubousti/Platania.33 Today, with the study of Sovjan, it has become obvious that, first, there is no clear attestation of this early stage of matt painted pottery with paint applied after firing and, second, that the matt painted decoration appeared considerably later in the Korçë region34 than in central Macedonia35 and even the Kozani region,36 thereby making the Illyrian theory obsolete. Additionally, there are good arguments to connect the introduction of the northern matt painted pottery to Middle Bronze

29 30 31 32

Prendi 1966. Andrea 2009. Prendi 1982a, 218. Prendi – Budina 1971; Andrea 1976, 141. Prendi 1982a, 228. Bodinaku 1990, 90; G. Karamitrou-Mentessidi (1999, 270) lists the different designations used in Greece: Macedonian matt painted, north-western matt painted, Boubousti ware and Doric ware; on the perception of this issue in north Greek archaeology see Gimatzidis in this volume. 33 Heurtley 1926/1927, 191–194. 34 Prendi actually already noted, that the matt painted of the EIA was so close to the one from Maliq (supposedly LBA) that a chronological differentiation is often difficult (Prendi 1982a, 228). For a discussion of the EIA matt painted pottery see Gimatzidis 2010, 274–280. 35 In Agios Mamas in the Chalkidiki, matt painted pottery starts in layer 8 at the beginning of LBA (Horejs 2007, 249) and in Kastanas in the lower Axios Valley matt painted decoration first appears also in the contemporary layer 18 (Horejs 2007, 256). 36 Horejs 2007, 268–274. 27 28

The Late Bronze Age / Early Iron Age Transition in the Korçë Basin

417

Fig. 4   a. Boubousti / Platania (after Heurtley 1926/1927, 170 fig. 18); b. Sovjan SV91 6/10 no. 277 (photo: T. Krapf)

Age central Greece.37 In Sovjan, there is only a handful of LBA examples and all come from the last phase of the LBA (5c1). While in the EIA, there is a regional style that resembles the matt painted pottery from Boubousti/Platania38 in the Aliakmon valley in modern Greece, as F. Prendi has already noted (Fig. 4).39 Matt painted pottery is just one exemplary case (albeit the best known), but many other phenomena and their interpretations in different archaeological traditions could be re-evaluated in the same way, not least the aforementioned turban dish. It hits the modern spirit when its distribution is explained by O. Aslaksen in terms of design theory, instead of attribution to cultures or even ethnicities. His conclusion is as follows: “With the turban rimmed bowl a trans-regionally shared design was designed in local clay. […] The designed surfaces of the turban rimmed bowl provided a meeting ground as well as a dish.”40 Through this approach, cultural boundaries and attributions no longer have any importance. The LBA / EIA Transition in the Lake Region Most important for the Illyria-centric interpretation was, apart from the identification of local characteristics, the search for continuity in material culture. Foreign elements where, additionally, often downplayed.41 Burial tumuli (e.g. in Kamenica,42 Barç and Kuç i Zi43 near Korçë or Lofkënd44 in the Mallakastër district) have been regarded as the strongest evidence for continuity between the Bronze and Iron Age: “The conservatism indicated by the persistent use of these types of tomb is a new archaeological pointer to the ethnic continuity of their users, and helps to

Horejs 2007, 278–281; Krapf 2017. Heurtley 1926/1927. 39 Prendi 1966, 267. But now that the corpus of matt painted pottery has increased significantly and agreeing with Horejs (2007, 277), these resemblances should not be overestimated. 40 Aslaksen 2012, 271. 41 F. Prendi on the influences of the urnfield culture: “Auch die zweite Immigrationswelle bewirkte keine wesentliche Veränderung in der autochthonen Basis der Zivilisation, noch weniger beeinflusste sie die ethnische Zusammensetzung der Bevölkerung. […] Selbst die wenigen Urnengräber im Hügel von Barç, die den Einflüssen der zweiten pannonisch-balkanischen Wanderung zugeschrieben werden können, enthalten mit wenigen Ausnahmen typisch illyrische Beigaben und vor allem bemalte Keramik.“ (Prendi 1982a, 226–228). 42 Bejko 2008. 43 Andrea 1985. 44 Papadopoulos et al. 2015. 37 38

418

Tobias Krapf

trace the genesis of ethnic identity amongst the Illyrian people in Albania.”45 Their significance for the construction of a commemorative landscape has already been acknowledged.46 Even today, they are connected to memories or local stories,47 as mentioned above for Sovjan. Although there is a cultural difference between northern and southern Albania, the tumuli connect both. There are over 150 tumuli in the region of Shkodra (Shtoj and Shkrel).48 Recent field research and studies presented evidence that this type of burial formed a wider phenomenon in the Adriatic and Ionian Sea and even further inland in the Balkans.49 The settlement pattern, however, shows that especially in the Korçë Plain (as mentioned above) there were major changes during the earlier part of the EIA. During this period, several hilltops around the Korçë Plain and along the Devoll River, mostly at strategic points above passages, were fortified with dry stone walls;50 however, the scarcity of finds makes the dating of these installations difficult and some of them might not even have been permanently occupied (Shuec).51 Contrary to other opinions, most of these fortifications might date quite late in the Iron Age, as in Gajtan near Shkodra, where a date in the 8th to 7th century BC has been proposed.52 In Korçë, the abandonment of the lakeside settlements obviously had environmental reasons, which, however, only explains the dislocation but not the fortification. The fact that fortifications of the same type were also found in upper Macedonia, as e.g. in Siatista,53 and Epirus54 underlines that this was not a local phenomenon. Chronology becomes generally a problem with the abandonment of the lakeside settlements, and the developed Iron Age (8th to 7th century BC) still constitutes, in many aspects, a research gap. But it is exactly this period that must be better understood, before speculations are made about traditions dating back to the LBA or even earlier. And actually, the Korçë region is not, despite its rich prehistoric remains and the tumuli, an ideal study case, because there are only a few remains of the later Classical and Hellenistic periods, as the survey of the plain has shown. Habitation increased again only during the Roman period.55 Thus, it becomes clear that both breaks and continuity are traceable in the local material culture, which, for its part, must be explored within the context of a larger region. The following few examples of parallels across the modern borders will give just a glimpse of the potential of such approaches. Parallels with the Aliakmonas Valley have already been mentioned. A peculiar variation of the common pyraunos, a bipod, is also connecting the Korçë Basin to Kastoria and further to the necropolis of Vergina.56 Most striking, but again not much surprising, is the occurrence of the typical elements of the LBA pottery of the Korçë Plain at Plocha Michov Grad, a lakeside settlement on the eastern coast of Lake Ohrid (FYROM), as e.g. triple impressions on the upper handle attachments of plain kantharoi.57 Further parallels can also be drawn to the coastal LBA settlement of Sveta Nedela on the side belonging to FYROM of the Great Prespa Lake.58 Characteristic ceramic shapes and decorations of the Korçë region can equally be found in modern Epirus, as in Vitsa (Fig. 5) or the tumuli of the Pogoni region59 at the Greek-Albanian borders.

47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 45 46

Prendi 1982b. Papadopoulos et al. 2008, 686–687. Papadopoulos et al. 2008, 699. Korkuti et al. 2008, 53. Oikonomidis et al. 2011. For western Kosovo see Bunguri 2006, 48–49. Karaiskaj 1976; Korkuti et al. 2008, 47–51; Lera et al. 2009. Korkuti et al. 2008, 50–51. Korkuti et al. 2008, 48. Karamitrou-Mentessidi 1999, 258 and 235 for Siatista Kastraki. Andreou – Andreou 1999, 79 for the site of Glava in the Gormos Valley. See also Lera et al. 2009, 333–336. Lera et al. 2010b, 641–643. Bräuning – Kilian-Dirlmeier 2013, 21–23; Krapf in press. Krapf 2014. Gori 2015. Andreou – Andreou 1999, e.g. 85 fig. 35.

The Late Bronze Age / Early Iron Age Transition in the Korçë Basin

419

Fig. 5   a. Barç (after Andrea 1985 colour plate 1); b. Vitsa (after Vokotopoulou 1986 pl. 46 στ).

This leads finally to the conclusion that the contemporary comparisons between these supposed Epirote, Macedonian, Illyrian, etc. prehistoric cultures are much closer than those within these cultures through time. The LBA and EIA populations kept their local characteristics due to the fragmented topography (this concerns more the well-limited micro-regions than larger areas) but they were also in regular contact, though in small networks rather than on a large scale. These networks allowed for the transmission of influences and of a few imported goods.60 And, actually, it is often possible to trace the introduction of new elements and changes back to influences from neighbouring regions along the line of those networks.61 International archaeological collaboration without nationalistic and cultural archaeological agendas is the only way to grasp these phenomena and to better describe all the particular regions.

Fig. 6   Maligrad Island in the Great Prespa Lake (photo: T. Krapf 2015) Horejs 2009. Krapf 2014.

60 61

420

Tobias Krapf

Maligrad Island and Local Stories A promising new Greek-Albanian project, directed by P. Lera, St. Oikonomidis, A. Papayiannis and A. Tsonos, focuses on a strategic spot at the very centre of the here-discussed three-national region, almost at the borders of the three countries: Maligrad Island (Fig. 6), in Great Prespa Lake (Albania). This multi-period site is interesting for several reasons. First, it shows the great diversity in settlement types and locations of the region (island, lake side, cave). And second, by the very nature of the project: a Greek-Albanian team working in a region of Albania that is inhabited today by a Slavic minority. A small-scale ethnological study in the coastal village of Liqenas, opposite the island, showed that this very special and still quite typical Balkan situation of a minority community proves to be fruitful ground for investigating the local stories of the past that are at least as important as the larger, politically-fostered narratives.62 In this sense, they differ significantly from the Albanian nationalistic interpretation and show how many layers popular knowledge of the past can have. A New International Project: Balkan Bronze Age Borderland On a larger scale, a new international project in the southern Balkans was launched in 2014 and first realised in 2015.63 The “Balkan Bronze Age Borderland Workshop” brought 11 young archaeologists together, all working on material evidence and mainly pottery from the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in the southern Balkans.64 The mobile nature of the seminar, a two week trip to Macedonia, Epirus, Albania, FYROM, Kosovo and southwestern Bulgaria, allowed a comprehensive overview of the material culture. Each participant, a specialist of a region, presented the material under their study. Through the presence of all the experts and the autopsy of the material, important comparisons were for the first time possible. The presence of different local groups, as B. Horejs defined them (e.g. based on matt painted pottery styles),65 was confirmed. And, not surprisingly, it became clear that they correspond much better to topographical factors than to the modern borders or the reconstructed limits of historically-attested cultures. It is mainly the decorated pottery that allows the delimitation of different zones and the identification of influences. Distribution maps for many shapes and motifs can now be completed – as for the pyraunos cooking pots that are now well-attested in Kosovo and FYROM. On the other hand, limits of distribution patterns can also be clearly confirmed, as e.g. the absence of incised and incrusted pottery west of Mount Vermion. The thorough evaluation of all the results will provide a detailed study of the mutual influences within the southern Balkans and further projects of this newly established network of scholars will strengthen a less biased knowledge of the LBA and EIA in the southern Balkans.

Lera et al. 2013; Gori et al. 2017. The idea has been created in 2013 during a meeting of M. Galaty, S. Deskaj and T. Krapf in Shkodra, following the SAA 2012 session on “Recent Trends in Albanian Archaeology”. Preparations began in 2014 and the workshop took place from 28 June to 11 July 2015. Krapf et al. 2017. 64 E. Agolli (University of Tirana), O. Aslaksen (University of Gothenburg), E. Ilieva (New Bulgarian University), St. Ivanov (New Bulgarian University), Ch. Kleitsas (Ephorate of Antiquities of Ioannina), T. Krapf (University of Basel/University of Paris 1 Panthéon – Sorbonne), G. Papadias (University of Thessaloniki), A. Papazovska Sanev (University of Skopje), E. Tsafou (University of Thessaloniki), A. Tsonos (University of Ioannina) and E. Vliora (University of Thessaloniki). 65 Horejs 2007, 277–278. 62 63

The Late Bronze Age / Early Iron Age Transition in the Korçë Basin

421

Conclusions Albanian archaeology has been very active during the Communist era due to political promotion. Today, an increasing number of diverse international collaborations make Albania a promising place for archaeological research of interest far beyond its borders. This helps in escaping the long established discourses of culture-historical archaeology. This is by far not an easy task as layman archaeology has by now strongly anchored these narratives in popular culture. And as long as research subjects and projects are still delimited by modern borders, they further strengthen their projection back into the past and their role as limits of research interests. The political borders still play a much more important role in the southwestern Balkans, as is often acknowledged. That the younger neighbouring countries, the Republic of Kosovo and FYROM, are still in the phase of defining their national identity does not facilitate the development of unbiased archaeology in the region. It becomes, furthermore, clear that nationalistic interest in archaeology forms an almost inevitable step in research history, not least because its institutionalisation takes place during this phase. Kosovo, for instance, claims the Dardanians, which are “a particular group of the Illyrian culture of Iron period” and it is “hope[d] to discover in the future, when it is known that an organized state formation existed there, the Dardan Empire.”66 The recently printed catalogue of the Museum of Kosovo67 and the archaeological map of Kosovo,68 however, make recent knowledge available and enable this region to be added to the archaeological map of the southern Balkans. By bridging the geographical gaps and linking the different national research traditions, the relations between the different local groups and their extent will become much clearer. And this is most important in the here outlined three-national region, where the lakes are now shared by three countries but once formed a largely homogenous cultural entity. Acknowledgments: Stressing the importance of cooperation, this book is a very important contribution to the future Balkan archaeology and I would like to thank St. Gimatzidis, M. Pieniazek and S. Votruba for their great initiative. Thanks are also due to all the participants of the “Balkan Bronze Age Borderland Workshop” and especially to A. Tsonos for his insights into the Maligrad project, as well as the Max Geldner Foundation in Basel that financed the workshop. I am also very grateful to Shafi Gashi and Adem Bunguri for their hospitality in Prizren and for introducing me to the archaeology of Kosovo. But most important, I would like to thank all responsibles of the French-Albanian archaeological team in Korçë, namely G. Touchais, C. Oberweiler and P. Lera, for entrusting me with the study of the LBA and EIA pottery from Sovjan. Finally, I would like to thank M. Gori for the many fruitful discussions.

References Anamali 1976 S. Anamali, Des Illyriens aux Albanais, Iliria 5, 1976, 23–40. Andrea 1985 Zh. Andrea, Kultura ilire e tumave në pellgun e Korçës (Tirana 1985). Andrea 2009 Zh. Andrea, Shtresat me qeramike te pikturuar te stilit devollit ne sektorin C te vendbanimit prehistorik te Maliqit (germime te viteve 1988–90), Iliria 32, 2009, 5–58. Andreou – Andreou 1999 Η. Ανδρέου – Ι. Ανδρέου, Η κοιλάδα του Γορμού στο Πωγώνι της Ηπείρου, Κέντρο ζωής και ανάπτυξης κατά την Πρώιμη Εποχή του Σιδήρου, in: Φ. Δακορώνια – Μ Παπακωνσταντίνου – Κ. Αμούντζιας – Τ. Παπαβασιλείου (eds.), Η περιφέρεια του Μυκηναϊκού Κόσμου (Lamia 1999) 77–90.

Bunguri 2006, 52–53. Gashi 2013. 68 Përzhita et al. 2006; Rexha 2012. 66 67

422

Tobias Krapf

Aslaksen 2012 O. Aslaksen, Designed surfaces, in: I.-M. Back Danielsson – F. Fahlander – Y. Sjöstrand (eds.), Encountering Imagery. Materialities, Perceptions, Relations (Stockholm 2012) 255–274. Bejko 2008 L. Bejko, The Tumulus of Kamenica. Life, Death, Culture and Identity of a Prehistoric Community. A Short History and Guide (Korçë 2008). Bodinaku 1990 N. Bodinaku, Sur l’origine et les porteurs de la céramique peinte mate de l’Âge du Bronze Récent et du Fer, Iliria 2, 1990, 65–95. Bräuning – Kilian-Dirlmeier 2013 A. Bräuning – I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Die eisenzeitlichen Grabhügel von Vergina. Die Ausgrabungen von Photis Petsas 1960–1961 (Mainz 2013). Bunguri 2006 A. Bunguri, Drini i Bardhë Area in Prehistory, in: L. Përzhita – K. Luci – G. Hoxha – A. Bunguri – F. Peja – T. Kastrati (eds.), Harta arkeologjike e Kosovës 1 (Prishtina 2006) 44–55. Cabanes 2004 P. Cabanes, Archéologie et identité nationale en Albanie au XXe siècle, Dialogues d’histoire ancienne 30, 1, 2004, 115–122. Ceka 2013 N. Ceka, The Illyrians to the Albanians (Tirana 2013). Dzino 2008 D. Dzino, Deconstructing ‘Illyrians’. Zeitgeist, changing perceptions and the identity of peoples from Ancient Illyricum, Croatian Studies Review 5, 2008, 43–55. Garašanin 1986 M. Garašanin (ed.), Iliri i Albanci (Belgrade 1986). Gashi 2013 Sh. Gashi (ed.), Archaeological catalogue of Kosovo (Prishtina 2013). Gjipali – Allen 2013 I. Gjipali – S. Allen, Investigations on the Early Neolithic Period in Albania: Vashtëmi, in: Gjipali et al. 2013, 23–25. Gjipali et al. 2013 I. Gjipali – L. Përzhita – B. Muka (eds.), Recent Archaeological Discoveries in Albania (Tirana 2013). Gimatzidis 2010 S. Gimatzidis, Die Stadt Sindos. Eine Siedlung von der Späten Bronze- bis zur Klassischen Zeit am Thermaischen Golf in Makedonien (Rahden/Westf. 2010). Gori 2012 M. Gori, Who are the Illyrians? The use and abuse of archaeology in the construction of national and trans-national identities in the southwestern Balkans, in R. O. Riagain – C. N. Popa (eds.), Archaeology and the (De)Construction of National and Supra-National Polities, Archaeological Review from Cambridge 27, 2, 2012, 71–84. Gori 2015 M. Gori, Along the Rivers and Through the Mountains. A Revised Chrono-Cultural Framework for the South-Western Balkans During the Late 3rd and Early 2nd Millennium BCE (Bonn 2015). Gori – Krapf 2016 M. Gori – T. Krapf, The Bronze and Iron Age Pottery from Sovjan, Iliria 29/2015, 2016, 91–135. Gori et al. 2017 M. Gori – P. Lera – S. Oikonomidis – A. Papayiannis – A. Tsonos, Practicing archaeology and researching present identities in no man’s land. A view from the tri-national Prespa Lake, in: M. Gori – M. Ivanova (eds.), Balkan Dialogues. Negotiating Identity Between Prehistory and the Present (New York 2017) 254–270.

The Late Bronze Age / Early Iron Age Transition in the Korçë Basin

423

Heurtley 1926/1927 W. A. Heurtley, A Prehistoric site in Western Macedonia and the Dorian Invasion, The Annual of the British School at Athens 28, 1926/1927, 158–194. Horejs 2007 B. Horejs, Das prähistorische Olynth. Ausgrabungen in der Toumba Agios Mamas 1994–1996. Die spätbronzezeitliche handgemachte Keramik der Schichten 13 bis 1 (Rahden/Westf. 2007). Horejs 2009 B. Horejs, Alltagskulturen und Elite zwischen Karpatenbecken und Ägäis. Verschiedene Kommunikationsmodelle? in: A. Krenn-Leeb – H.-J. Beier – E. Classen – S. Schwenzer (eds.), Varia Neolithica 5 (Langenweißbach 2009) 197–207. Islami 1985 S. Islami, Enver Hoxha. Inspirateur et protecteur de l’archéologie albanaise, Iliria 15, 1, 1985, 15–25. Islami et al. 1985 S. Islami – S. Anamali – M. Korkuti – F. Prendi, Les Illyriens. Aperçu historique (Tirana 1985). Karaiskaj 1976 Gj. Karaiskaj, Les fortifications illyriennes du premier Âge du Fer dans les environs de Korçë, Iliria 4, 1976, 196–221. Karamitrou-Mentessidi 1999 Γ. Καραμήτρου-Μεντεσσίδη, Βοίον – Νότια Ορέστις. Αρχαιολογική έρευνα και ιστορική τοπογραφία (Thessaloniki 1999). Kohl 1998 Ph. L. Kohl, Nationalism and archaeology. On the constructions of nations and the reconstructions of the remote past, Annual Review of Anthropology 27, 1998, 223–246. Korkuti 1976 M. Korkuti, De la formation de l’ethnie illyrienne, Iliria 4, 1976, 57–70. Korkuti – Anamali 1969 M. Korkuti – S. Anamali (eds.), Iliret dhe gjeneza e shqiptareve, sesion shkencor, 3–4 Mars 1969 (Tirana 1969). Korkuti et al. 2008 M. Korkuti – A. Baçe – N. Ceka, Carte archéologique de l’Albanie (Tirana 2008). Korkuti – Petruso 1993 M. Korkuti – K. M. Petruso, Archaeology in Albania, American Journal of Archaeology 97, 4, 1993, 703–743. Krapf 2014 T. Krapf, The Late Bronze Age pottery of Macedonia. Comparisons with the Plain of Korçë, in: E. Stefani – N. Merousis – A. Dimoula (eds.), A Century of Research in Prehistoric Macedonia, 1912–2012. International Conference Proceedings, Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki 22–24 November 2012 (Thessaloniki 2014) 585–597. Krapf 2017 T. Krapf, From Central Greece to the north and then westwards? Tracing influences in matt painted pottery from Middle Bronze Age to Early Iron Age, in: M. Fotiadis – R. Laffineur – Y. Lolos – A. Vlachopoulos (eds.), Hesperos. The Aegean seen from the West, Proceedings of the 16th International Aegean Conference, University of Ioannina, 18–21 May 2016, Aegaeum 41 (Liège 2017) 349–360. Krapf in press T. Krapf, Sovjan (Korçë). First remarks about the Late Bronze Age pottery, in: Γ. Καραμήτρου-Μεντεσίδη (ed.), Το αρχαιολογικό έργο στην Άνω Μακεδονία 3, 2013 (in preparation). Krapf et al. 2017 T. Krapf – E. Agolli – O. Ch. Aslaksen – E. Ilieva – S. Ivanov – Ch. Kleitsas – G. Papadias – A. Papazovska Sanev – E. Tsafou – A. Tsonos – E. Vliora, Balkan Bronze Age borderland. Along ancient routes from the Aegean to Albania, F.Y.R.O.M., Kosovo and SW Bulgaria, in: M. Fotiadis – R. Laffineur – Y. Lolos – A. Vlachopoulos (eds.), Hesperos. The Aegean seen from the West, Proceedings of the 16th International Aegean Conference, University of Ioannina, 18–21 May 2016, Aegaeum 41 (Liège 2017) 279–285.

424

Tobias Krapf

Lera 1992 P. Lera, Vendbanimi ilir ne gradishten e Symizes, Iliria 22, 1992, 177–208. Lera – Touchais 2013a P. Lera – G. Touchais, Archaeological investigations in the region of Korça, in: Gjipali et al. 2013, 26–33. Lera – Touchais 2013b P. Lera – G. Touchais, Kallamas, in: Gjipali et al. 2013, 34–39. Lera et al. 2009 P. Lera – St. Oikonomidis – A. Papayiannis – A. Tsonos, Settlement organisation and social context in the SW Balkan peninsula (Epirotic and Albanian coasts) and northern Italy during the transitional period between the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age (c. 13th–9th B.C.), in: E. Borgna – P. Càssola Guida (eds.), From the Aegean to the Adriatic. Social Organisations, Modes of Exchange and Interaction (12th–11th B.C.) (Rome 2009) 325–343. Lera et al. 2010a P. Lera – C. Oberweiler – G. Touchais, Le passage du Bronze Récent au Fer Ancien sur le site de Sovjan (Bassin de Korçë, Albanie). Nouvelles données chronologiques, in: J.-L. Lamboley – M. P. Castiglioni (eds.), L’Illyrie méridionale et l’Épire dans l’antiquité V. Actes du Ve colloque international de Grenoble, 10–12 octobre 2008 (Paris 2010) 41–52. Lera et al. 2010b P. Lera – G. Touchais – C. Oberweiler, Bassin de Korçë, Kallamas, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 134, 2010, 617–647. Lera et al. 2013 P. Lera – St. Oikonomidis – A. Papayiannis – A. Tsonos, The Greek-Albanian Archaeological Project on Maligrad. Shaping the Cultural Heritage in the Tri-National Zone of the Great Prespa Lake, Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 15, 1, 2013, 121–134. Lera et al. 2014 P. Lera – St. Oikonomidis – A. Papayiannis – A. Tsonos, The Greek-Albanian Archaeological Expedition at Prespa: 2009–2013. The most recent results, in: Përzhita et al. 2014, 153–173. Oberweiler et al. 2014 C. Oberweiler – C. Touchais – P. Lera, Les recherches franco-albanaises dans la région de Korçë. Nouvelles données sur la chronologie absolue de la préhistoire albanaise, in: Përzhita et al. 2014, 83–92. Oikonomidis et al. 2011 St. Oikonomidis – A. Papayiannis – A. Tsonos, The emergence and the architectural development of the tumulus burial custom in NW Greece (Epirus and the Ionian Islands) and Albania and its connections to settlement organization, in: E. Borgna – S. Müller Celka (eds.), Ancestral Landscapes. Burial Mounds in the Copper and Bronze Ages (Central and Eastern Europe – Balkans – Adriatic – Aegean, 4th–2nd millennium B.C.) Proceedings of the International Conference held in Udine, May 15th–18th 2008, Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient méditerranéen 58 (Lyon 2011) 185–201. Papadopoulos et al. 2008 J. K. Papadopoulos – L. Bejko – S. P. Morris, Reconstructing the prehistoric burial tumulus of Lofkënd in Albania, Antiquity 82, 2008, 686–701. Papadopoulos et al. 2015 J. K. Papadopoulos – S. P. Morris – L. Bejko – L. A. Schepartz (eds.), The Excavation of the Prehistoric Burial Tumulus at Lofkënd, Albania (Los Angeles 2015). Përzhita et al. 2006 L. Përzhita – K. Luci – G. Hoxha – A. Bunguri – F. Peja – T. Kastrati (eds.), Harta arkeologjike e Kosovës 1 (Prishtina 2006). Përzhita et al. 2014 L. Përzhita – I. Gjipali – G. Hoxha – B. Muka (eds.), Proceedings of the International Congress of Albanian Archaeological Studies. 65th Anniversary of Albanian Archaeology, 21–22 November, Tirana 2013 (Tirana 2014). Prendi 1966 F. Prendi, La civilisation préhistorique de Maliq, Studia Albanica 3, 1966, 255–280.

The Late Bronze Age / Early Iron Age Transition in the Korçë Basin

425

Prendi 1982a F. Prendi, Die Bronzezeit und der Beginn der Eisenzeit in Albanien, in: B. Hänsel (ed.), Südosteuropa zwischen 1600 und 1000 v.Chr., Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 1 (Berlin 1982) 203–233. Prendi 1982b F. Prendi, The Prehistory of Albania, Cambridge Ancient History III, 1982, 187–237. Prendi – Budina 1971 F. Prendi – Dh. Budina, Kulture ilire e luginës së Drinosit në epokën e Hekurit, Studime Historike 2, 1971, 137–171. Rexha 2012 E. Rexha (ed.), Harta arkeologjike e Kosovës II (Prishtina 2012). Slapšak 2011 B. Slapšak, Entangled histories in South-East Europe, in: G. Klaniczay – M. Werner – O. Gecser (eds.), Multiple Antiquities – Multiple Modernities. Ancient Histories in Nineteenth Century European Cultures (Frankfurt 2011) 407–432. Tsonos 2009 Α. Τσώνος, Σκάβοντας στην Αλβανία. Ιστορία και Ιδεολογία των αρχαιολογικών ερευνών κατά το 19ο και 20ο αιώνα (Ioannina 2009). Veseli 2006 S. Veseli, Archaeology, nationalism and the construction of national identity in Albania, in: L. Bejko – R. Hodges (eds.), New Directions in Albanian Archaeology. Studies Presented to Muzafer Korkuti (Tirana 2006) 323–330. Vokotopoulou 1986 I. Βοκοτοπούλου, Βίτσα. Τα νεκροταφεία μιας μολοσσικής κώμης (Athens 1986).

No Group, no People? Archaeological Record and Creation of Groups in the Western Balkans Mario Gavranović1 Abstract: The prevailing cultural interpretation of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages in the central and western Balkans is still based on the culture-historical approach introduced by G. Kossina in the early decades of the past century. In this framework, prehistoric societies were explained as cultural-ethnic groups within certain territories and with overriding collective identities expressed through specific artefacts and features (jewellery and weaponry, ceramic decorative styles, funeral rites, etc.). The potential risks of directly associating material culture and ethnicity for a prehistoric period seem to be disregarded in the archaeological discourse of southeast Europe. The focus of the paper is northern Bosnia, where previous research was not able to define any certain ‘cultural-ethnic’ group for the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages. The archaeological data from this region is simply not compatible with the unilateral model of prehistoric communities as cultural groups with a determined collective identity. Keywords: Early Iron Age, western Balkans, cultural groups, funeral attire, identity, interpretive models

Introduction Interpretations of the archaeological record from the countries of the western Balkans is, to a great extent, still rooted in the scientific discourse of the period between 1945 and 1991, as this territory was then part of the common Yugoslavian state. No less important, in terms of archaeological finds and extent of investigations, is the period of Austrian rule (1878–1914), since most of the prominent Late Bronze and Early Iron Age sites, especially in Bosnia and Herzegovina, were discovered and excavated during this period. Among them are, e.g. tumuli in the Glasinac area,2 a pile-dwelling settlement and cemetery in Donja Dolina on the Sava River,3 a cemetery in Sanski Most,4 a pile-dwelling settlement in Ripač on the Una River5 and a temple structure in Gorica.6 Yet, despite the large number of significant finds, the focus of the archaeological pioneers in Bosnia, like F. Fiala, V. Radimský or Ć. Truhelka, was not to establish and describe prehistoric identities in the sense of specific ‘cultural groups’, but rather to classify the material from a typological and chronological aspect. One noteworthy exception is Truhelka’s summary of the prehistoric exhibition in the State Museum in Sarajevo from 1914, with a short synthesis of the cultural development in Bosnia and Herzegovina.7 Regarding the Bronze and Iron Ages, Truhelka underlines the intermediate position of Bosnia between the Carpathian Basin, the Balkans and the Apennine Peninsula, as well as different landscape features within the country, each of them,



1

4 5 6 7 2 3

OREA – Institut für Orientalische und Europäische Archäologie, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna, Austria; [email protected]. – The paper was written within the frame of the project “Burial”, supported by the European Commission, Marie Skłodowska-Curie Action, Research Fellowship Program, Project: EUP0231. Fiala 1893; Benac – Čović 1956; Benac – Čović 1957. Truhelka 1904; Marić 1961; Čović 1987. Fiala 1899; Teržan 1974; Čović 1987. Radimský 1897; Drechler-Bižić 1987. Truhelka 1902. Truhelka 1914.

428

Mario Gavranović

according to Truhelka, with a strong local character.8 However, the term Kulturgruppe was applied only for the Glasinac region of eastern Bosnia, with ‘Illyrians’ as the presumably dominant ethnical component.9 The next phase of the intensive and extended field investigations started in the 1950s and 1960s with an emphasis on stratified settlements as the most reliable chronological indicators. The following two decades (1970–1990) were characterised by a number of comprehensive studies, mostly restricted to territories within the existing republic state borders of Bosnia,10 Croatia11 or Serbia.12 In order to overcome this regional approach, A. Benac and his collaborators from the Center for Balkanological Studies in Sarajevo initiated and administered a series of extraordinary, comprehensive publications entitled ‘Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja’, with the Bronze Age volume published in 1983 (Vol. IV)13 and the Iron Age volume (Vol. V) in 1987. With the contributions of all relevant experts from each state republic, the area of former Yugoslavia was divided into specific archaeological groups, each of them with an alleged distribution area, defined and demarcated mostly through the distribution of certain objects or cultural traits. Regarding the Iron Ages and most of the contributions dealing with the Late Bronze Age, each archaeological group was presented more or less as a firm historical entity or ‘cultural-ethnical group’ with an overriding collective identity, whereas the appearance of new specific artefacts or traits were attributed to migrations.14 Besides the distribution area and history of the research, the contributions also feature subchapters about archaeological material and chronology, settlements, burial customs, economy, religion, social organisation, relationships with the neighbouring groups, and genesis. In most cases, the possible ethnic affiliation of each group was also included, usually derived from certain tribe or tribes alliances mentioned in the written Roman sources between the 4th and 1st centuries BC.15 This vague connection between historical sources and much older archaeological finds (at least 300 years difference) is obviously based on the premise that material culture of the particular region is at the same time also the prime identity characteristic of the people living there, which in this case was supposed to remain unchanged through several centuries. This interpretation model is evidently using the theoretical premises of the cultural-historical approach, introduced by G. Kossina in the first two decades of the past century16 and later widely adopted by G. Childe.17 Despite the fact that reasonable critical arguments on this method were already presented in the 1950s, especially by M. Eggers,18 the model of prehistoric societies as ethnic groups with a specific material culture dominated archaeological research of the former Yugoslavia and is, to some extent, preserved even until recent times.19 New approaches to understanding the ancient communities,20 introduced since the 1960s, were more or less left aside. The crucial issue in the construed historical interpretation of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages, as presented in Yugoslavian research, seems to be far too uncritical and arbitrary, cross-linking between archaeological groups and the alleged, intangible ‘cultural-ethnical groups’ as idealistic tribal societies.21 In this sense, the archaeological groups were understood not as the much-needed but more or less

8 9



12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 10 11

Truhelka 1914, 71. Truhelka 1914, 194. Čović 1965. Vinski-Gasparini 1973. Vasić 1977. Separated volumes are dedicated also to Paleolithic (Vol. I), Neolithic (Vol. II) and Copper Age (Vol. III). Benac 1987b, 756–747. Benac 1987b, 739; Vasić 1991, 80. For the critical argumentation on the method see Džino 2011, 201–203. Kossina 1920; Veit 1989; Günert 2002; Rebay-Salisbury 2011. Childe 1929; Trigger 1980. Eggers 1952; Eggers 1959. Babić 2002; Novaković 2007; Roberts – Vander Linden 2011b; Džino 2012. Barth 1969. Džino 2011, 203.

No Group, no People?

429

technical instrument in order to classify the archaeological material, but as real existing groups of the people of the same ethnicity.22 Archaeological Groups and Identity Traits The main source used to distinguish between the archaeological groups of the western Balkans, or the demarcation between their territories, is the distribution of the so-called “specific cultural traits”.23 But what are the ‘specific cultural traits’ in the case of the pre-literate prehistoric communities, and how are certain parameters of the archaeological record defined in order to sketch the distribution of actual people on the map?24 Is it in the end just an arbitrary decision by the researcher to declare ‘cultural traits’ and geographically separate archaeological groups with alleged collective identity expressions? Due to the imbalanced state of research, the amount and nature of the existing archaeological data is never consistent for each territory or region, so that the exclusive application of the static group model leads unavoidably to contradiction in methodology. An illustrative example is the following situation, with two designated neighbouring groups in Bosnia: the Glasinac group in the eastern part of the country and the Central Bosnian group in the central part (Fig. 1). Within the afore-mentioned publication series Prehistory of the Yugoslav Lands, both were presented in both the Bronze Age25 and Iron Age26 volumes, meaning they were more or less regarded as traditional, closed entities running through historical development. Eventually, this process ends with the gradual formation (whatever that could mean) into ethnic communities whose historical names are known from foreign written sources.27 Methodological deficiencies in this approach were convincingly outlined by D. Džino,28 but it is also questionable to what extent the existing archaeological material supports such interpretations. As stated previously, most of the finds from the Glasinac area come from old and partly non-systematic excavations of burial tumuli during the Austrian rule of Bosnia.29 The typological and chronological classification of the archaeological material was systematically presented by A. Benac and B. Čović in two separate catalogues covering the Bronze30 and Iron Ages.31 After investigations in western and southwestern Serbia revealed comparable burials with similar archaeological material,32 the territory of the Glasinac group was extended and rather understood as a complex of smaller communities with common material culture and tumuli as main and distinctive identity features with a long tradition dating back to the Early Bronze Age.33 Additional excavations in the Glasinac area between the1960s and 1980s have shown that both inhumation and cremation were practised during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages, with an increased tendency of cremation in the later phases (6th and 5th centuries BC).34 However, the different body treatment of the deceased was apparently not considered to be the characteristic cultural or identity attribute. Along with tumuli as a primary trait, the emphasis of the common group identification was also put on specific bronze and iron dress elements and weaponry. These, however, are rarely

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 22 23

Shennan 1989; Jones 1997. Benac 1987b, 737. Hodder 1979; Stark 1998; Wells 1998; Parkinson 2006. Čović 1983, 414–432 (Glasinac); Čović 1983a, 433–456 (Central Bosnian). Čović 1987a, 575–644 (Glasinac); Čović 1987b, 481–531 (Central Bosnian). Benac 1977, 1–16; Benac 1987b, 738. Džino 2009; Džino 2011. For an overview see: Benac – Čović 1956; Benac – Čović 1957; Čović 1987a, 578; Vasić 2002. Benac – Čović 1956. Benac – Čović 1957. Garašanin 1967; Zotović 1985; Vasić 1987; Vasić 2007: Čović 1983, 429–429; Čović 1987a, 576–579. Čović 1963; Govedarica 1978; Čović 1987a; Govedarica 2002.

430

Mario Gavranović

Fig. 1   Archaeological groups of the Early Iron Age in the western Balkans (after Benac 1987b; Vasić 1991). List of sites on the map: 1. Jablanica; 2. Gornja Tuzla; 3. Donja Dolina; 4. Sanski Most; 5. Mekota; 6. Vis; 7. Petkovo Brdo; 8. Zecovi; 9. Dolina-Glavičice

limited to the alleged area of the Glasinac group.35 There are undoubtedly a number of types – in particular, jewellery forms from the 8th and 6th centuries BC – with a dominant appearance in the tumuli graves of the Glasinac area in eastern Bosnia and in the adjacent region of western Serbia. Examples include two loop bow fibulae with shield foot,36 double pins with loop (‘omega-shaped’) head,37 round belt buckles with open work38 and small fibulae with triangular or trapezoidal foot.39 However, the distribution of short-lived dress items (two or three generations) is not sufficient to embrace all the communities living in the area or to establish them as one group with a common cultural tradition, or even more risky, as a ‘cultural-ethnical group’, as was mostly done in previous research.40 In fact, the observation that distinctive dress elements (fibulae, pins, etc.) were more or less transitory and obviously changed after two or three generations at most, rather points towards communities that were not strongly attached to a common traditional background. Moreover, further archaeological parameters of the Glasinac group are almost completely

37 38 39 40 35 36

Gabrovec 1970; Vasić 1982; Teržan 1987. Gabrovec 1970, Map 11; Vasić 1999, 65. Vasić 1982, 232: Vasić 2003, 118. Teßmann 2004, 149; Gavranović 2011, map 64. Čović 1987a, tab. LXVII, 21.22; Teržan 1987, 17; Vasić 1999, tabs. 46–47. Čović 1987a, 642; Benac 1987b, 785; Parzinger 1991; Pare 1998.

No Group, no People?

431

uncharted. Limited excavations were conducted at only a few hill-top settlements,41 and there is still no comprehensive overview of the ceramic repertoire for either the Late Bronze or the Iron Age. Equally unknown are possible production sites for the numerous and, apparently, relatively rapidly fluctuating bronze and iron dress elements and weaponry. The assumptions about livestock farming as a leading economic occupation42 of the Glasinac population are not supported by any kind of bio-archaeological analysis, and are mostly based on the hypothesis that landscape and vegetation were similar to modern environmental conditions. Finally, as noted by R. Vasić, whose numerous studies were dedicated to Early Iron Age material from the Glasinac area, even the graves as the prime archaeological source are actually poorly investigated in relation to the number of existing and still mostly visible tumuli in the area, and, moreover, many of the excavations are in fact inadequately published.43 In contrast to the Glasinac group, the definition of the neighbouring Central Bosnian group (Fig. 1) was based almost exclusively on archaeological data from settlements, primarily pottery decorated with incised geometric ornaments.44 The first depiction of this manifestation was made in 1965 by B. Čović in his ground-breaking study about the stratigraphy and chronology of the hill-top settlements in Bosnia, where he used the more appropriate term “territorial group” to describe and encompass settlements with comparable ceramic material.45 The pivotal site of the Central Bosnian group is the Pod settlement, excavated between 1959 and 1984, with continuous and well-documented stratigraphy reaching from the 12th until the 4th century BC.46 A study published in 1965 clearly stressed that Pod and other settlements in the Central Bosnian region could not be devscribed as a ‘cultural group’ since no other data (e.g. graves that could be assigned to the settlements) are available.47 Yet, in 1983, the same author characterised the Central Bosnian group as a “distinct cultural and ethnical community with clearly recognisable expressions of material culture and art”.48 Despite this essential extension of the interpretation, the amount of the presented data has not significantly increased, since the extensive excavations in Pod and other sites between 1965 and 1984 were only partly published.49 Instead, all of the bronze finds (graves, hoards, singular finds) from the alleged distribution territory were simply assigned to the newly created ‘cultural-ethnical group’. It is interesting that most of these objects (e.g. hoards from Veliki Mošunj and Motke50 or grave finds from Srijetež and Kakanj51) were discovered long before Čović’s first study in 1965, but were at that time obviously not considered as an attribute of any particular ‘ethnical’ community. Further description and chronological classification of the Central Bosnian group rests mainly upon the results from the Pod settlement. Consequently, hill-top settlements and pottery with incised geometrical ornaments were characterised as the main identity traits for the entire group.52 The statement that flat inhumation graves were the characteristic mortuary practice in Central Bosnia53 is somewhat arguable, since there are also clear indications for tumuli dating to the same period.54 Besides that, all published graves were discovered in the course of non-archaeological operations, and thus partly destroyed and poorly documented.55

43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 41 42

Govedarica 1988, 92; Govedarica – Babić 1993, 53. Čović 1987a, 637. Vasić 2002, 313; Vasić 2007,559. Čović 1983a, 433; Čović 1987b, 481. Čović 1965, 59. Čović 1965, 63; Gavranović 2011, Teil 2, 89. Čović 1965, 87. Čović 1983a, 434. Trajković 1971; Čović 1974. König 2004, 171. Gavranović 2011, Teil 1, 56–57. Čović 1987b, 485. Čović 1987b, 511. Perić 2002, 179. See Gavranović 2011, Teil 2, 33.125.

432

Mario Gavranović

Regarding the metal objects (dress elements and weapons), there are actually only a few Late Bronze Age types that occur predominantly in the area of central Bosnia (e.g. fibulae with rhombic bow profile and triangular foot56or short swords of type Veliki Mošunj57), whereas the majority of the Iron Age finds58 reveal wide regional distribution across southeast and central Europe and can thus hardly be taken to delineate borders of an assumed ‘cultural-ethnical group’. Nevertheless, in the Iron Age volume of the ‘Prehistory of the Yugoslav Lands’, the Central Bosnian group was labelled as an “ethnic community with steady and continuous cultural development and graduate modification of the forms and ornaments until the historic period (first written sources)”.59 It is obvious, though, that the archaeological record of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age in central Bosnia can hardly support this interpretation. The only cohesive element of the Central Bosnian group appears to be pottery decoration,60 and that is defined only through selected finds from several investigated hill-top sites. Meanwhile, all other aspects, such as funeral rites, economic background or possible social stratification are unknown at the present state of research. The example of two neighbouring and contemporary groups in Bosnia reveals clear inconsistencies in the interpretation of the archaeological record as an expression of collective identity with projected ethnical groups as a determining factor. What is unconvincing about this methodological approach is the fact that the decisive criteria for the definition of ‘cultural-ethnic groups’, as presented in the Yugoslavian archaeological discourse, seemed to be more or less random and dependent on the obtainable data (Glasinac group – graves, no settlements; Central Bosnian group – settlements, no graves). Northern Bosnia – the Uninhabited Land during the Early Iron Age? The most striking example of the insufficiency of the cultural-ethnical interpretation model in the western Balkans is the apparent lack of any specific group for the Early Iron Age in the northern part of Bosnia along the upper courses of the rivers Bosna and Vrbas (Fig. 1). This large territory contains c. 10,000km² of fertile and favourable settlement land between the Sava River in the north and the Glasinac and Central Bosnian group in the south. According to the still-influential concept presented in the ‘Prehistory of the Yugoslav Lands’, this large region was more or less deserted in the time between the 9th and 6th centuries BC. The truth, however, is different, but following the idea of supreme group identity, the interpretation of the archaeological record from this region is indeed a difficult task. Even less justified is the simplified assignment of all finds from the entire territory of the western Balkans to the Glasinac group, as was done by N. Lucentini61 and C. Pare62 in their respective regional overview studies. In the earlier research, the northern part of Bosnia in the Late Bronze Age was perceived mostly within the frame of the Urnfield Culture,63 which is archaeologically attested only for the early stage (Bz D–Ha A) with the cemeteries of the local group Barice-Gređani.64 The transition to the younger phase of the Urnfield Period (Ha B) is somewhat sketchy, since the first settlement layers in the hill-top sites like Vuknić, Vis, Zemunica or Zecovi cannot be clearly connected with the urn cemeteries of the Ha A period (Barice-Gređani).65 In his division of the ‘territorial groups’ from

58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 56 57

Gavranović 2011, Teil 1, map. 60. Gavranović in press, fig. 7. Čović 1987b, tabs. 52–54. Čović 1987, 526. For the early historical sources and their interpretation see Džino 2009. Brosseder 2006, 119. Lucentini 1981. Pare 1998, 335. Marić 1961; Vinski-Gasparini 1983, 617. Čović 1988; Marijan 2010. Vinski-Gasparini 1983, 624; Gavranović 2011, Teil 1, 249–246.

No Group, no People?

433

Fig. 2   Various grave forms in Jablanica, northeast Bosnia (after Gavranović 2011)

1965, B. Čović distinguished two settlement groups in northern Bosnia for the period Ha B, one in the west (‘Zecovi-Kekića Glavica’) and one in the east (‘Vis-Pivnica’), although this differentiation is actually not clearly visible in the presented ceramic material.66 Yet, unlike the Central Bosnian area, these two ‘territorial groups’ never evolved into ‘cultural-ethnical groups’ in the later studies. But for the Iron Age volume of the ‘Prehistory of the Yugoslav Lands’ in 1987, B. Čović created the Donja Dolina-Sanski Most group, including the part of northwest Bosnia between the Sana, Una and Sava rivers.67 The main objective of this act was to include these two important but in principle not very analogous sites or rather their necropoleis (Fig. 1) within the comprehensive study. Finally, the author himself stressed the provisional character of the Donja Dolina-Sanski Most group, with the significant chronological and cultural disparity of the included sites.68 The major challenge for the ‘cultural-ethnical’ concept in the case of northern Bosnia was, first of all, the large diversity of contemporary grave types in the time span between Ha Ba and Ha C, including both inhumation and cremations in various constructions and with occasionally uncommon composition of the mortuary sets. The first example that needs to be pointed out is the Jablanica cemetery, located in northeast Bosnia on the last foothills of the western Balkan Mountains, towards the valley of the Sava and the Carpathian Basin (Fig. 1.1). The first three graves in Jablanica were discovered in 1981 during construction works, and shortly after that

Čović 1965; Jamaković 2011; Gavranović 2011, Teil 1, figs. 254, 258. Čović 1987, 232. 68 Čović 1987, 278. 66 67

434

Mario Gavranović

Fig. 3   (Female?) grave attire sets from Jablanica and from tumuli in Glasinac area (Jablanica after Gavranović 2011; Glasinac after Benac – Čović 1956, tab. 46-68; Benac – Čović 1957, tab. 1)

briefly published.69 Despite the damage, it was possible to document that all three burials were flat inhumation graves. Excavations in 1985 and 1988 revealed 22 additional inhumation burials in various grave constructions, such as square stone slab graves (Fig. 2 Graves 6 & 7), coronal stone structures with the grave inside (Fig. 2 Grave 17), dual burials of the same orientation in two parallel pits (Fig. 2 Graves 11 & 12), dual burials of opposite orientation in the same pit (Fig. 2 Graves 22 & 23) and cist-like graves (Fig. 2 Grave 16). Some of the graves, like the square stone slab constructions, were used for several successive burials in stratigraphical order.70 It is assumed that a significant number of graves remain undetected, since the excavations were limited to only a few trenches.71 The 25 hitherto documented graves from Jablanica date to the time span between the late 10th and the early 7thcenturies BC. Twisted or ribbed torcs with looped ends (Fig. 3 Grave 2.3), bracelets with D-profile (Fig. 3 Grave 2.4–5), oneloop bow fibulae with nodes and triangular foot (Fig. 3 Grave 2.1, Grave 2a.1), big hollow ornamented rings (Fig. 3. Grave 2.6), small round belt buckles with concave middle part (Fig. 3 Grave 10) and sets of

Milić 1985. Gavranović 2011, tab. 16. 71 Gavranović 2011, Teil 2, fig. 46. After the brief visit of the site in November 2015 it was clear that all of the remaining graves (35–40 stone grave constructions) were destroyed by illegal excavations, which took place in 2013 and 2014. 69 70

No Group, no People?

435

Fig. 4   (Male?) grave attire sets from Jablanica and from tumuli in Glasinac area (Jablanica after Gavranović 2011; Glasinac after Benac – Čović 1957, tabs. 2–3)

five to six spectacle pendants (Fig. 3 Grave 2.7–12) are characteristic for the presumably72 female funeral attire sets of the 9th and the early 8th centuries BC. Graves with bronze or iron two loop bow fibulae with triangular foot (Fig. 3 Grave 9.1, Grave 24.1), massive bracelets with crossed ends (Fig. 3 Grave 24.6), torcs with tapered endings (Fig. 3 Grave 24.4) and ‘birdcage’ pendants with triangular shaft (Fig. 3 Grave 24.2–3) are one to three generations younger (between the 8th and the early 7th centuries BC). Sets of spectacle pendants were apparently still in use as one of the few generation-spanning attire elements of the entombing community in Jablanica. Some of the named objects (e.g. torcs, bracelets, belt buckles) have a relatively wide distribution in the mountainous area of the western Balkans, while others, like bow fibulae or big hollow rings, appear to be local (Fig. 5).73 In terms of the composition of the funeral attire sets, however, there is a remarkable resemblance to the tumuli of the Glasinac area, with combinations of similar types (torc, bow fibulae, bracelets, set of spectacled pendants, belt buckle) (Fig. 3). For the period of the 7th century BC, there is also an evident analogy between presumably male graves from Jablanica, with whetstone and iron weapons, and contemporary tumuli burials in the Glasinac area (Fig. 4). Yet, despite similarity in the grave set structure, the lack of tumuli in Jablanica made the assignment of this site to the Glasinac group impossible. The affiliation with some other ‘cultural-ethnical’ group was disputable simply because there was no assumed group for the region of northeast Bosnia. Eventually, this contradiction had the consequence that Jablanica was largely ignored within the comprehensive regional studies of the former Yugoslavia.

Anthropological analyses are missing. For the distribution maps see Gavranović 2011, Teil 1, maps 59, 61, 62, 64.

72 73

436

Mario Gavranović

Fig. 5    Distribution of specific jewellery types of the 9th and 8th centuries BC. List of sites on the map with last publications: 1. Gajina Pećina (Vinski-Gasparini 1973, tab. 128.6); 2. Osredak (König 2004, tab. 61A.17); 3. Ivanjska (Gavranović 2011, fig. 186); 4. Tijesno Vrbasa (Gavranović 2011, fig. 198.3); 5. Jablanica (Gavranović 2011, tab. 13.5–6.10); 7. Sanski Most (Fiala 1899, 106); 8. Petkovo Brdo (Gavranović 2011, fig. 236.3); 9. Donja Dolina (Gavranović 2011, fig. 172.12); 10. Gornja Tuzla (Gavranović 2011, fig. 45); 11. Tešanj (Gavranović 2011, fig. 57.1); 12. Lipac-Doboj (unpublished, five pieces, Museum Doboj); 13. Lučica (König 2004, tab. 43A.3); 14. Stog-Zavidovići (Gavranović 2011, tab. 23.5); 15. Drenov Do (König 2004, tab. 56.10); 16. Brgule (König 2004, tab. 57A.2–5); 17. Brist-Zenica (Gavranović 2011, 52)

The same problem of cultural affiliation also appeared in the case of the inhumation grave from Gornja Tuzla, published in 1957,74 located some 15km south of Jablanica.75 Comparable to Jablanica, the grave from Gornja Tuzla contains the same dress combination of torc, bracelets, pendants (bell-shaped) and set of spectacled pendants. Additional elements in the funeral set are bronze pendants in the shape of animals and one conical, decorated belt buckle. In the existing literature, the grave from Gornja Tuzla was again like Jablanica, lacking any regional associations. This is rather peculiar, because both sites contained several specific jewellery items that commonly appear in the culturally undefined region of northern Bosnia. Considering the distribution of the particular bow fibulae with one loop, hollow decorated rings or conical belt buckles, it would not be impossible to outline a characteristic distribution area in the northern part of Bosnia for the late 9th and the 8th century BC (Fig. 5). Nevertheless, despite the fact that these neighbouring

Čović 1957, 252; Pare 1998, 368. The find from Gornja Tuzla was mentioned in the Iron Age volume of the ‘Prehistory of the Yugoslav Lands’ as a chronological reference, without discussion of the cultural background, see Čović 1987b, 483; Čović 1987a, 584.

74 75

No Group, no People?

437

communities obviously shared some characteristic elements of material culture, their cultural background appears to be distinct. One illustrative example is the assemblage of conical belt buckles with incised geometric ornaments on the front side, which most likely were made in the same workshop. In northeast Bosnia, they belong to the mortuary sets in the flat inhumation graves like in Gornja Tuzla or in Tešanj (Fig. 5.10–12), whereas in northwest Bosnia the identical belt buckles are found in contemporary cremation graves at Petkovo Brdo (Fig. 5.8). One piece was also found in a much later female burial of the 6th century BC from Sanski Most (Fig. 5.7) as, most probably, an inherited jewellery item. The most prominent example of the disparity between material culture and an alleged collective identity, regarded exclusively within the framework of ‘cultural-ethnical groups’, is the site of Donja Dolina (Fig. 1.3) on the Bosnian bank of the Sava, a complex of an Early Iron Age pile-dwelling settlement and an associated flat grave cemetery, both excavated in the early years of the 20th century.76 As later investigations showed, the cemetery was actually situated on slightly higher ground within the previous Late Bronze Age settlement, which was occupied between the 12th and 8th centuries BC and then abandoned, most likely due to extensive floods.77 The pile-dwellings were subsequently erected on the elevated terrain in the immediate vicinity, and then used through the 8th and 7th centuries BC, while the area of the old settlement was partly turned into the necropolis.78 In the later phase (6th–4th centuries BC), the settlement was apparently again moved, now to the higher riverbank, where the last excavations in 1976 revealed traces of rectangular wooden houses.79 The focus of numerous previous studies was to establish an accurate chronology of the cemetery in Donja Dolina, with 170 burials dating to the time between the early 7th and the late 4th centuries BC.80 The intriguing fact about the Iron Age cemetery in Donja Dolina is the wide spectrum of burial customs through all chronological phases, including inhumation, inhumation of selected body parts, cremation burials in urns, cremation burials in pits, singular graves without any human remains and even temporary burials in the settlement area.81 To a certain extent, the burial variability points to the heterogeneous structure of the community, at least regarding their conceptions of the afterlife. Even more striking at Donja Dolina are the mortuary sets with unique combinations of objects (foremost jewellery and weaponry) from various surrounding regions. Specific items originating from the Alpine region, the Balkans, the Carpathian Basin, and even distant regions like Greece or Italy, are frequently deposited in the same grave.82 Due to this phenomenon, Donja Dolina represents an excellent opportunity to synchronise the chronologies of central Europe, the Balkans and the Mediterranean.83 In this context, it should be mentioned that bronze objects of different provenance could also be observed among randomly collected finds from the surface of the Late Bronze Age settlement through all chronological stages (Ha A–Ha B).84 For example, the collection of artefacts dating to Ha B1 to Ha B2/3 contains types from the Carpathian Basin (socketed axes with Y-ribs, razors of Určice type-mould), the Alps (socketed axes of Passau type, pins with vase-shaped head), northern Italy (knifes of Vadena type, various pins with conical head) and the Balkans (decorated belt buckles, daggers of Lašva type). In this sense, the mixed grave ensembles from the Iron Age speak for continuity of the same trend with the difference that the peculiar compilations can actually be assigned to concrete individuals.

78 79 80 81 82 83 84 76 77

Truhelka 1904; Marić 1964; Čović 1987. Marić 1964, 4. For the flood layers see the stratigraphy of trench A. Marić 1964; Nikolić-Mutavdžić 1964. Žeravica 1976. Čović 1961; Marić 1964; Teržan 1974; Čović 1987. Gavranović 2007. Čović 1987, 242–254; Gavranović 2011, Teil 2, figs. 166–176. Gabrovec – Čović 1987, 902; Teržan 1987. Marić 1964, tab. 1–10; Gavranović 2011, Teil 2, figs. 95–98.

438

Mario Gavranović

Fig. 6   Grave attire sets of the 7th and 6th centuries BC from Donja Dolina (after Čović 1961)

Yet, in contrast to well-elaborated chronological matters, only a few studies discussed the cultural background of the settlement and graveyard in Donja Dolina. Despite indications of diversity and plurality, expressed vividly through both burial rite and material culture, the focus of previous research was to define one specific ‘ethnic group’, which could be linked to the finds from Donja Dolina.85 As mentioned above, the Late Bronze Age of northern Bosnia, including Donja Dolina, was regarded as part of the Urnfield Culture, underlining especially affinities to the “Urnfield people”.86 As a result, the Early Iron Age pile-dwelling settlement and associated cemetery are seen as their direct descendants, and hence of the same “ethnicity”.87 The occurrence of the artefacts from different regions was explained through complex trade relations, migration or temporary residence of foreign people at Donja Dolina.88 Even the artificial creation of the Iron Age group ‘Donja Dolina-Sanski Most’, as done in 1987 for the Iron Age volume of the ‘Prehistory of the Yugoslav Lands’,89 could not provide sufficient explanation regarding the required collective ‘cultural–ethnical’ identity of the community in Donja Dolina. The important contribution of this study, however, is the introduction of other cemeteries from northern Bosnia (Petkovo Brdo, Mekota, Bajinci) into the discussion about the cultural background of Donja Dolina. Some of these sites, for instance the large bi-ritual Mekota cemetery with over 650 uncovered graves,90have revealed a similar diversity of archaeological materials and mortuary practices.91 At the same time, the graves from Donja Dolina undoubtedly challenge the relation between specific artefact types and certain ethnic affiliations. An individual whose mortuary set consists

87 88 89 90 91 85 86

Marić 1964; Vinski-Gasparini 1983. Marić 1964, 65. Marić 1964, 66. Marić 1964, 77. Čović 1987, 281 According to the first preliminary reports, see Mulabdić 2011, 81. Čović 1987b, 233. Ložnjak-Dizdar – Gavranović 2014.

No Group, no People?

439

of a coronal belt buckle ‘typical’ for the Glasinac group92 (Fig. 6 Grave 16.100) in south-eastern Bosnia and boat-shaped fibula mainly distributed in the south-eastern Alps93 (Fig. 6 Grave 16.12) simply does not fit into any pattern of alleged prehistoric group identity. The same can also be stated for the burial set from the 6th century BC with a bow fibula of the Arareva Gomila type (Fig. 6 Grave 35.1–2), spread mostly in the Glasinac area, western Serbia and Herzegovina,94 and two serpentine fibulae (Fig. 6.4–5) with a main concentration area in the southern Alps.95 Local attire elements are represented in this burial by the sets of the so-called temporal rings (Fig. 6 Grave 16.1–10, Grave 35.7–16) and round bronze-sheet fibulae (Fig. 6 Grave 16.11, Grave 35.6). It is important to highlight that similar combinations of domestic and foreign jewellery are the rule rather than the exception in Donja Dolina.96 It is also remarkable that similar tendencies regarding the variety of burial forms and grave set compositions are observed in the recently discovered cemetery in Dolina-Glavičice on the Croatian side of the Sava (Fig. 1.9).97 Thus far, excavations in Dolina-Glavičice have revealed five tumuli with cremation graves dating to the 9th and 8th centuries BC. The burial sets reveal great diversity, or rather a mixture of objects from different native regions. This is quite comparable to the situation in the flat grave cemetery at Donja Dolina, which is a few generations younger and just across the Sava.98 From this perspective, the ambiguous character of the well-known Donja Dolina site appears to be not just a singular phenomenon but rather a regional idiosyncrasy of communities situated around the middle course of the Sava and in the adjacent territory of northern Bosnia. Conclusion In summary, the archaeological record of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages from northern Bosnia provides great variety of burial customs, even within the same community. Starting from the burials as a primary source of transferred individual and possibly group identity, it is obvious that interpretations of data cannot be simply reduced to vague ‘cultural-ethnical’ groups with certain ‘tribes’ or ‘ethnicities’ as a formative factor. In fact, most of the archaeological evidence does not support assumptions about supreme and determined collective identity with decisive influence on ways of living, trading or burying. Apart from that, there is also no evidence whatsoever for any specific ‘ethnicity’ of the population during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages in the area. The crucial problem seems to be the previously favoured top-down approach, which starts from an ethnic group as a persistent and static community with alleged cultural and biological continuity within a certain territory. Needless to say, similar concepts of group identity awareness remain very relevant for most parts of southeast Europe. The unilateral ‘ethnical’ approach to prehistoric societies ultimately prohibits any other kinds of individual or group identity (social, economic, religious, geographical, or combinations of these). For some reason, the possibility of multifarious identities (e.g. one person as father, co-worker in the mine and member of the hunting group, etc.) was more or less neglected in the case of prehistoric communities in the western Balkans. Such identities can hardly be supported by archaeological finds, and in this respect are not better than the hitherto dominant ethnical interpretation, the limits of which are clearly visible in the example of Donja Dolina. The failure of previous research to reliably establish Early Iron Age cultural groups in northern Bosnia is thus apparently not caused by a lack of archaeological finds, but rather by the inability

94 95 96 97 98 92 93

Gavranović 2011, map 65. Teržan 1989, maps 6, 14, 16. Vasić 1999, 96. Parzinger 1988, tab. 143; Teržan 2000, fig. 88. For further examples see Truhelka 1904; Čović 1961. Ložnjak-Dizdar – Gavranović 2014. Ložnjak-Dizdar et al. 2010, 43–44.

440

Mario Gavranović

to construe any other model of the prehistoric society than the imposed – and to a great extent – vacuous ‘cultural-ethnical’ one. However, the plurality of the archaeological record requires a bottom-up approach to each local community, wherein identity does not have to be regarded solely as a product of the contrast between ‘Us and Them’ (in-group vs. out-group). It would be perhaps more appropriate to consider the prehistoric community as an association of concrete, existing and eclectic individuals with dynamic social relations and shared interests in resource management (food, housing, goods). Based on the definition of V. Turner, similar associations are more or less corresponding to normative communitas as durable relationships of individuals with emerging social structure between them.99 Whereas the cultural-ethnical model implies overriding group affiliation, within the society model of the normative communitas, the identity should rather be understood as an “overlapping, multi-layered and dynamic construct”,100 which is only traceable to a limited extent in the archaeological remains. References Babić 2002 S. Babić, “Princely graves” of the Central Balkans. A critical history of research, European Journal of Archaeology 5, 1, 2002, 70–88. Barth 1969 F. Barth, Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. The Social Organization of Culture Difference (Boston 1969). Benac 1977 A. Benac, Prediliri, protoiliri, prailiti. Neki novi aspekti, Balcanica 8, 1977, 1–16. Benac 1983 A. Benac (ed.), Praistorija Jugoslovenskih Zemalja IV. Bronzano doba (Sarajevo 1983). Benac 1987a A. Benac (ed.), Praistorija Jugoslovenskih Zemalja V. Željezno doba (Sarajevo 1987). Benac 1987b A. Benac, O etničkim zajednicama starijeg željeznog doba u Jugoslaviji, in: Benac 1987a, 737–805. Benac – Čović 1956 A. Benac – B. Čović, Glasinac I – Bronzezeit, Katalog prethistorijske zbirke Zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu I (Sarajevo 1956). Benac – Čović 1957 A. Benac – B. Čović, Glasinac II – Eisenzeit, Katalog prethistorijske zbirke Zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu II (Sarajevo 1957). Blečić et al. 2007 M. Blečić – M. Črešnar – B. Hänsel – A. Hellmuth – E. Kaiser – C. Metzner-Nebelsick (eds.), Scripta Praehistorica in Honorem Biba Teržan, Situla 44 (Ljubljana 2007). Brosseder 2006 U. Brosseder, Ebenen sozialer Identitäten im Spiegel des Zeichensystems hallstattzeitlicher Keramik, in: S. Burmeister – N. Müller-Scheeßel (eds.), Soziale Gruppen – kulturelle Grenzen. Die Interpretation sozialer Identitäten in der Prähistorischen Archäologie, Tübinger Archäologische Taschenbücher 5 (Münster 2006) 119–138. Childe 1929 V. G. Childe, The Danube in Prehistory (Oxford 1929).

99

Turner 2000. Turner 2000, 133.

100

No Group, no People?

441

Čović 1957 B. Čović, Nekoliko manjih preistorijskih nalaza iz Bosne i Hercegovine. Glasnik Zemaljskogmuzeja u Sarajevu 12, 1957, 241–255. Čović 1961 B. Čović, Donja Dolina. Nécropole de l’âge du fer, Inventaria Archaeologica Iugoslavica Fasc. 3 (Bonn 1961). Čović 1963 B. Čović, Pogrebni običaji praistorijskih stanovnika glasinačkog područja, Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu 18, 1963, 53–85. Čović 1965 B. Čović, Uvod u stratigrsfiju i hronologiju praistorijskih gradina u Bosni, Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu 20, 1965, 27–145. Čović 1974 B. Čović, Pod bei Bugojno, eine befestigte Siedlung der Bronze und Eisenzeit, in: A. Benac (ed,), Utvrđena ilirska naselja. Međunarodni kolokvij, Mostar 24–26 oktobar 1974 / Agglomerations Fortifiees Illyriennes. Colloque international, Mostar 24–26 Octobre 1974, 121–131. Čović 1983 B. Čović, Glasinačka kulturna grupa, in: Benac 1983, 433–461. Čović 1983a B. Čović, Srednjobosanska grupa in: Benac 1983, 413–433. Čović 1987 B. Čović, Grupa Donja Dolina-Sanski Most, in: Benac 1987a, 232–289. Čović 1987a B. Čović, Glasinačka kultura, in: Benac 1987a, 575–644. Čović 1987b B. Čović, Srednjobosanska grupa, in: Benac 1987a, 487–528. Čović 1988 B. Čović, Barice-Gređani. Kulturna grupa, Arheološki Leksikon Bosne i Hercegovine 1 (Sarajevo 1988) 60–61. Drechler-Bižić 1987 R. Drechler-Bižić, Japodska Kultura, in: Benac 1987a, 391–442. Džino 2009 D. Džino, “Dezidijati”. Identiteski konstrukt između antičkih i suvremenih percepcija, Godišnjak Centra za balkanološka ispitivanja 36, 2009, 75–95. Džino 2011 D. Džino, Indigene zajednice zapadnog i središnjeg Balkanskog poluoroka i 21. stoljeće. Metodološki problemi, Godišnjak Centra za balkanološka ispitivanja 40, 2011, 197–207. Džino 2012 D. Džino, Contesting identities of Pre-Roman Illyricum, Ancient West & East 11, 2012, 69–95. Eggers 1952 H. J. Eggers, Das Problem der ethnischen Deutung in der Frühgeschichte, in: H. Kirchner (ed.), Ur- und Frühgeschichte als historische Wissenschaft (Heidelberg 1952) 49–59. Eggers 1959 H. J. Eggers, Einführung in die Vorgeschichte (München 1959). Fiala 1893 F. Fiala, Die Ergebnisse der Untersuchung prähistorischer Grabhügel auf dem Glasinac im Jahre 1892, Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen aus Bosnien und der Herzegowina 1, 1893, 126–168.

442

Mario Gavranović

Fiala 1899 F. Fiala, Flachgräberfeld und die prähistorische Ansiedlung in Sanski Most, Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen aus Bosnien und der Herzegowina 6, 1899, 65–127. Gabrovec 1970 S. Gabrovec, Dvozankaste ločne fibule, Godišnjak Centra za balkanološka ispitivanja 8, 1970, 5–44. Gabrovec – Čović 1987 S. Gabrovec – B. Čović, Zaključna razmatranja, in: Benac 1987a, 902–909. Garašanin 1967 D. Garašanin, Ražana, Kriva Reka i glasinački kompleks, Zbornik Narodnog Muzeja 5, 1967, 41–50. Gavranović 2007 M. Gavranović, Eisenzeitliche Bestattungssitten in Donja Dolina an der Save. Beispiele der sekundären Bestattung, in: Blečić et al. 2007, 405–419. Gavranović 2011 M. Gavranović, Die Spätbronze- und Früheisenzeit in Bosnien, Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 195 (Bonn 2011). Gavranović in press M. Gavranović, Überregionale Netzwerke und lokale Distribution. Verteilungsmuster einiger Bronzeobjekte im westlichen Balkan während der jüngeren und späten Urnenfelderzeit, in: D. Ložnjak-Dizdar – M. Dizdar (eds.), Late Urnfield Culture between the Eastern Alps and the Danube. Proceedings of the International Conference in Zagreb, November 7–8, 2013 (in press). Govedarica 1978 B. Govedarica, Novi arheološki prilozi istraživanju tumula na glasinačkom području, Godišnjak Centra za balkanološka ispitivanja 14, 1978, 15–35. Govedarica 1988 B. Govedarica, Klisura, Kadića brdo, Arheološki pregled 29, 1988, 92–95. Govedarica 2002 B. Govedarica, Zwischen Hallstatt und Griechenland. Die Fürstengräber in der frühen Eisenzeit des Mittelbalkans, Godišnjak Centra za balkanološka ispitivanja 30, 2002, 317–329. Govedarica–Babić 1993 B. Govedarica – S. Babić, Metodologija istraživanja gradinskog naselja Klisura u Kadića Brdu, Glasnik Srpskog arheološkog društva 8, 1993, 53–63. Günert 2002 H. Grünert, Gustaf Kossina (1858–1931). Vom Germanisten zum Prähistoriker, Vorgeschichtliche Forschungen 22 (Rahden/Westf. 2002). Hodder 1978 I. Hodder, Spatial correlations between material culture and society. A review, in: I. Hodder (ed.), The Spatial Organisation of Culture (London 1978) 3–24. Jamaković 2011 O. Jamaković, Kraj bronzanog i početak željeznog doba na prostoru sjeverozapadne Bosne, Godišnjak Centra za balkanološka ispitivanja 40, 2011, 91–131. Jones 1997 S. Jones, The Archaeology of Ethnicity. Constructing Identities in the Past and Present (London 1997). König 2004 P. König, Spätbronzezeitliche Hortfunde aus Bosnien und der Herzegowina, Prähistorische Bronzefunde XX/11 (Stuttgart 2004). Kossina 1920 G. Kossina, Die Herkunft der Germanen. Zur Methode der Siedlungsarchäologie (Leipzig 1920).

No Group, no People?

443

Ložnjak-Dizdar et al. 2010 D. Ložnjak-Dizdar – M. Mihaljević – M. Dizdar, Rezultati pokusnog istraživanja prapovijesnog groblja Glavičice i Draganje u Dolini 2009, Annales Instituti archaeologici Zagreb 6, 2010, 41–46. Ložnjak-Dizdar – Gavranović 2014 D. Ložnjak-Dizdar – M. Gavranović, Across the River. The cemetery in Dolina and new aspects of the late Urnfield culture in Croatian Posavina and Northern Bosnia, Archaeologia Austriaca 97–98/2013–2014, 2014, 13–32. Lucentini 1981 N. Lucentini, Sulla cronologia della necropoli di Glasinac nell’età del ferro. Studi di protostoria adriatica 1, Quaderni di cultura materiale 1 (Rome 1981). Marić 1961 Z. Marić, Vis kod Dervente, naselje kasnog bronzanog doba, Glasnik Zemaljskog Muzeja u Sarajevu 15/16, 1961, 151–171. Marić 1964 Z. Marić, Donja Dolina, Glasnik Zemaljskog Muzeja u Sarajevu 19, 1964, 5–128. Marijan 2010 B. Marijan, Crtice iz prapovijesti Slavonije. Brončano doba (Osijek 2010). Milić 1985 V. Milić, Bardačilovac. Jablanica-praistorijska nekropola, Arheološki pregled 24, 1985, 62–64. Mulabdić 2011 E. Mulabdić, Mekota u Gornjim Rakanima, Glasnik Zemaljskog Muzeja u Sarajevu 52, 2011, 81–91. Nikolić-Mutavdžić 1964 V. Nikolić-Mutavdžić, Izvještaj sa iskopavanja u Donjoj i Gornjoj Dolini 1963 i 1964 godine, Zbornik Krajiških Muzeja 2, 1964, 201–204. Novaković 2007 P. Novaković, The present makes the past: the use of archaeology and changing national identities in former Yugoslavia, in: S. Rieckhoff – U. Sommer (eds.), Auf der Suche nach den Identitäten:Volk – Stamm – Kultur – Ethnos, British Archaeological Reports International Series 1705 (Oxford 2007) 181–192. Pare 1998 Ch. F. E. Pare, Beiträge zum Übergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit in Mitteleuropa, Teil I. Grundzüge der Chronologie im östlichen Mitteleuropa (11.–8. Jahrhundert v. Chr.), Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Museums in Mainz 45, 1998, 239–483. Parzinger 1988 H. Parzinger, Chronologie der Späthallstatt- und Frühlaténe-Zeit. Studien zu Fundgruppen zwischen Mosel und Save, Quellen und Forschungen zur prähistorischen und provinzialrömischen Archäologie 4 (Weinheim 1988). Parzinger 1991 H. Parzinger, Archäologisches zur Frage der Illyrer, Berichte der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 72, 1991, 205–262. Perić 2002 S. Perić, Zum Problem der Bestattungsweise im oberen Lauf des Flusses Bosna in der Bronze- und Eisenzeit, Godišnjak Centra za balkanološka ispitivanja 30, 2002, 179–199. Parkinson 2006 W. A. Parkinson, Tribal Boundaries. Stylistic variability and social boundary maintenance during the transition to the Copper Age on the Great Hungarian Plain, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25, 2006, 33–58. Radimský 1897 V. Radimský, Der prähistorische Pfahlbau von Ripač bei Bihać, Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen aus Bosnien und der Herzegowina 5, 1897, 29–77. Rebay-Salisbury 2011 K. Rebay-Salisbury, Thoughts in Circles. Kulturkreislehre as a hidden paradigm in past and present archaeological interpretations, in: Roberts – Vander Linden 2011a, 41–61.

444

Mario Gavranović

Roberts – Vander Linden 2011a B. W. Roberts – M. Vander Linden (eds.), Investigating Archaeological Cultures. Material Culture, Variability and Transmission (New York 2011). Roberts – Vander Linden 2011b B. W. Roberts – M. Vander Linden, Investigating archaeological cultures. Material culture, variability and transmission, in: Roberts – Vander Linden 2011a, 1–23. Shennan 1989 S. Shennan, Introduction, in: S. Shennan (ed.), Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity (London 1989) 1–32. Stark 1998 M. T. Stark, Introduction, in: M. T. Stark (ed.), The Archaeology of Social Boundaries (Washington 1998) 1–11. Teßmann 2004 B. Teßmann, Grabhügel 30 aus Rusanovići. Untersuchungen zu Kontakten zwischen der Glasinac-Hochebene und dem westlichen japodischen Raum, Godišnjak Centra za balkanološka ispitivanja 32, 2004, 139–185. Teržan 1974 B. Teržan, Halštatske gomile iz Brusnic na Dolenjskem, Varia Archeologica, Posavski muzej Brežice 1, 1974, 31–66. Teržan 1987 B. Teržan, The Early Iron Age chronology of the Central Balkans. A review from the viewpoint of the southeastern Alpine Hallstatt, Archaeologia Iugoslavica 24, 1987, 7–27. Teržan 2000 B. Teržan, Ältere Eisenzeit im südlichen Mitteleuropa, in: Fibel und Fibeltracht, Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 8, 2000 [1994], 24–34 [434–444]. Trajković 1971 Č. Trajković, Kopilo, Zenica – praistorijska Gradina, Arheološki pregled 13, 1971, 26–27. Trigger 1980 B. Trigger, Gordon Childe. Revolutions in Archaeology (London 1980). Truhelka 1902 Ć. Truhelka, Zwei prähistorische Funde aus Gorica (Bezirk Ljubuški), Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen aus Bosnien und der Herzegowina 8, 1902, 3–47. Truhelka 1904 Ć. Truhelka, Der vorgeschichtliche Pfahlbau im Savebette bei Donja Dolina (Bezirk Bosnisch-Gradiška), Bericht über die Ausgrabungen bis 1904, Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen aus Bosnien und der Herzegowina 9, 1904, 1–156. Truhelka 1914 Ć. Truhelka, Kulturne prilike Bosne i Hercegovine u doba prethistoričk, Glasnik Zemaljskog Muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine 26, 1914, 43–139. Turner 2000 V. Turner, Das Ritual. Struktur und Anti-Struktur (Frankfurt 2000). Vasić 1977 R. Vasić, The Chronology of the Early Iron Age in the Socialist Republic of Serbia, British Archaeological Reports International Series 31 (Oxford 1977). Vasić 1982 R. Vasić, Ein Beitrag zu den Doppelnadeln im Balkanraum, Prähistorische Zeitschrift 57, 1982, 220–257. Vasić 1987 R. Vasić, Kneževski grobovi iz Novog Pazara i Atenice, in: Benac 1987a, 644–650. Vasić 1991 R. Vasić, Cultural groups of the Early Iron Age in West and Central Balkans and the possibilities of their ethnical identification, in: A. Benac (ed.), Paleobalkanska plemena između Jadrankog i Crnog mora od eneolita do helenističkog doba. I Iliro-Trački simpozijum, Centar za balakanološka ispitivanja, Posebna izdanja, Knjiga 14 (Sarajevo, Belgrade 1991) 73–83.

No Group, no People?

445

Vasić 1999 R. Vasić, Die Fibeln im Zentralbalkan (Vojvodina, Serbien, Kosovo und Makedonien), Prähistorische Bronzefunde XIV/12 (Stuttgart 2003). Vasić 2002 R. Vasić Die Geheimnisse der Hochebene von Glasinac, Godisnjak Centra za balkanološka ispitivanja 30, 2002, 307–312. Vasić 2003 R. Vasić, Die Nadeln im Zentralbalkan, Prähistorische Bronzefunde XIII/11 (Stuttgart 2003). Vasić 2007 R. Vasić, Kneginje Centralnog Balkana, in: Blečić et al. 2007, 557–562. Vinski-Gasparini 1973 K. Vinski-Gasparini, Kultura polja sa žarama u sjevernoj Hrvatskoj (Zadar 1973). Vinski-Gasparini 1983 K. Vinski-Gasparini, Kultura polja za žarama sjeverne Bosne, in: Benac 1983, 617–646. Veit 1989 U. Veit, Ethnic concepts in German prehistory. A case study on the relationship between cultural identity and archaeological objectivity, in: S. Shennan (ed.), Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity (London 1989) 35–56. Wells 1998 P. S. Wells, Identity and material culture in the later prehistory of central Europe, Journal of Archaeological Research 6, 1998, 239–298. Zotović 1985 M. Zotović, Arheološki i etnički problemi bronzanog i gvozednog doba zapadne Srbije, Dissertationes et Monographiae 26 (Beograd 1985). Žeravica 1976 Z. Žeravica, Gradina u Donjoj Dolini – sojeničko naselje, Arheološki pregled 18, 1976, 49–50.

Index A Abdera 188–189, 222, 224–225 abecedarium   210 acculturation   19, 81, 94, 97, 102, 152 Achaemenid  203, 211–213 Actor-Network-Theory   99 Ada Tepe   20, 359–377, 379–380, 382 Adriatic   32, 397, 412, 418 north Adriatic   397 Aeolian   59, 61–63, 255–256, 314 Agathokles   256 Agios Mamas   269, 272, 275, 277, 372, 402, 416 agriculture   269, 271, 273, 278, 334 Aiani   41, 119, 121 Ai Bunar   360 Ainos   224 Akatlar   57 Alacahöyük   57 Alexander I   213–215 Alexander the Great   35, 36, 42, 43, 44, 202 35–36, 42–44, 202 Aliakmon   119, 417 Allied Forces   74 Al Mina   77 Alpine region   405, 437 Alps   21, 105, 437, 439 altars   337–338, 345 amber   16, 117, 120, 130 Amphipolis   14, 34, 40, 42–44, 226–228, 405 Amyntas I   213, 214 Anatolia   9–10, 15, 17–18, 27, 46, 55–56, 58–63, 71–84, 120, 127, 139, 142–143, 145, 147, 152, 208, 255, 292–293, 314, 316, 321, 378, 380–381, 393, 395 Anatolianism   37, 56–58, 61 Andronikos   38–39, 167–168 Ankara University   57 Anthemous   213–214 Apennine Peninsula   427 Apollonia   244, 246–249, 251–252, 254–259, 397 Apsidenhäusern   402 Aradians   214 arboriculture   269, 273, 276, 280 archaeobotany   269 archaeological culture   318–319, 325–326, 394–395, 407

Archaic period   62, 80, 82, 169, 174, 187, 189, 191–193, 196, 203, 206, 208, 219, 221, 223, 226, 233, 243, 248, 254, 257, 272, 280, 314, 381 Archontiko   175, 191, 398–399, 402 Ariabignes   210 Armenochori   21, 391, 395, 400–404 Artemis   191, 227 Aryans   75 Asar Tepe   381 Assenovets   316, 318, 321, 324–326 Assiros   162, 176, 221, 269, 277, 372, 381 Assyrians   211 Atatürk   37, 57, 74, 448 Kemal Atatürk   37, 448 Attic   169, 193, 196, 213, 226, 228–233 Attic vase painting   see vase painting Aul kaya   334, 341 Axiochori   400–401 B Babyak   334–336 Balkans   9–11, 13, 15, 18, 20–21, 27, 29–32, 37–38, 46, 59, 93–94, 120, 139, 145, 147, 152, 176, 219, 275, 282, 291–293, 300, 317, 325, 336, 364, 378–379, 380, 391–392, 394–395, 397, 399, 401–405, 418, 420–421, 427, 429–430, 432, 435, 437, 439 Balkanisation   10, 21, 30, 152 Balkanism   10, 21, 30, 44 Balkan Mountains   291, 433 Barbarian Ware   see Ware barbotine 397 Barç   417, 419 Barešani   400 Battal Gazi   58 Battle of Manzikert   58 Bendis   227–228 Berezan   247, 250 Beşik Bay   147, 150 Beşik-Tepe   113, 118, 121, 124–130, 139 Bessi   346 Beycesultan   78–80, 143 bilingualism   100 bitter vetch (Vicia ervilia L.)   275 blackberry (Rubus fruticosus)   276 Black Sea   139, 147, 150, 197, 223–224, 243–250, 255– 256, 280, 282, 292, 294, 316, 323–324, 347

448

Index

Boreas   223, 227–229, 231–232 Bosna   432, 443 Bosnian archaeology   21, 405 Bosporus   139, 292 bothroi   345 Bottiaia   214 Boubousti/Platania   416, 417 Bresto   93–94, 269, 272, 276–277, 279, 376 bucchero   206 Buckelkeramik   18, 315 burial burial mounds   159, 294, 298, 346 Byzantine   35, 58, 141, 203 Byzantium   58 C Camelina microcarpa   275 Çanakkale   139, 140–141 Cape Gelidonya   see Gelidonya cape Maslen Nos   245 Carian fleet   210 letters   19, 203, 208, 210 Carians   76, 210, 214–215 carnelian   113, 116–117, 119–125, 127 Carpathian Basin   378, 427, 433, 437 Caucasians   75 Celtic bean (Vicia faba)   275 centre and periphery   16, 18, 97 Cepina Wares   see Ware Čerkovna Group   369 Čerkovna cultural group   317 Cetina   402 Chalkidike   188, 191, 193, 196, 209–210, 214–215, 221–222, 224, 226, 360, 367, 381, 402 Chalkidians   209 Charles Newton   17, 71–72 Chenopodium album   278 chestnut (Castanea sativa)   273 chickpea (Cicer arietinum)   275 Chokoba   337, 346, 377 chora   251, 254, 256–257 Cilicians   214 citadel   117–118, 120, 125, 368 Classical archaeology   10, 19, 38–39 Cold War   9, 30, 393 colonisation   14, 19–20, 39, 59, 219, 2 223–226, 228, 233, 243–250, 254, 255–256, 258, 279–280, 282, 381 colonial frontier   101 colonialist   29, 39, 59 common pea (Pisum sativum)   275 Communist Party   396

connectivity   15, 99, 106, 391, 396 Constantinople   60 consumption patterns   19, 198 contact contact space   18, 93–94, 101–106 contact zone   18, 93–94, 100–104, 106, 254, 324, 376 copper deposits   251, 360, 379 Corinthian   19, 41, 187–198, 206, 224, 226 Cornelian cherry (Cornus mas)   276 cremation   118, 125, 164, 168, 171, 173–174, 429, 437, 439 Crete   56, 61, 78–79, 118, 1 123, 276, 293, 335, 372, 378 Crimea   250, 279 Crnicani   400 culinary   20, 269, 278–279, 282 cultural diffusion   11–12, 319, 394, 401–402, 404 Culture Babadag Culture   248, 251 Coslogeni Culture   310, 315, 321, 323 Danubian Culture   321 Novo Selo Culture   321–322 Sabatinovka Culture   324 Cyclades   61, 162, 190, 223–224, 226, 281, 293, 383 Cycladic islands   372 Cyprus   18, 59, 61, 116, 120, 150, 379 Cypriots   214 D Dabene   275, 380 Dana Bunar   269, 275, 277 Danube   177, 227, 292, 308, 316, 321, 3 324–325, 378– 379, 393, 400–401, 405, 413 Dardanelles   78, 139–140, 147, 150, 292 Dardan Empire   421 Dardanians   31, 421 Darius   213–214 Dasypyrum cf. villosum   278 David Hogarth   17, 73 deficit model   45 Demir Kapija   400 depas amphikypellon   401 depositional processes   114 Dikili Tash   145, 277, 280 Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi   57 Dimitsas   33 Dionysos   227, 229 Dionysus   276, 281, 336, 346 Dionysopolis   257, 264 Dobrudzha   243, 247–248, 256, 258–259, 321, 3 323 Dodecanese   61 Dolina-Glavičice   430, 439 dolmen   248, 259, 295, 298

449

Index

Dolno Cherkovishte   269, 275, 377 Donja Dolina   21, 427, 430, 433, 436–439 Dorians   13, 41, 73, 75, 83, 250 Doriskos   214, 225 Dragoyna   245, 313, 333, 336–337, 339–342, 346, 349, 368, 376–377, 383 drama   219, 233 Drina   403 Dubrovnik   405 Durankulak-Golemiya ostrov   310 Duvanli   255 dwelling   176, 178, 214, 336–338, 344, 347, 370, 396, 427, 437, 438 Dzhendem tepe   344 E Eceabat   140–141 Egypt   30, 61, 95, 121, 123, 279, 364, 385 Egyptian   56, 80, 123, 309, 315, 385 einkorn   273–274, 279 Eion   191, 214, 224, 227–228 Ekrem Akurgal   74–75, 83 Elgin Marbles   72 emporion   78, 251 Encrusted Ware   see Ware Ephesos 74, 77–78, 80, 82 Epirus   13, 32, 37, 412, 418, 420 Epirotans   32, 39 escharae   338, 349 Essenitsa   316–317, 324 essentialisation   107 ethne   9, 31 ethnic identity   9, 12, 27, 418 ethnicity   12–13, 203, 247, 394, 427, 429, 438–439 ethno-cultural groups   11, 21 ethnogenesis   9, 12, 27, 30–31, 35, 40–42, 319–320, 392, 397, 411, 413 Etiler   57 Etruscans   56 Euboea   95, 163, 165–166, 247, 281 Europe   12–13, 17, 30–31, 37, 58–59, 72–73, 78, 95, 101, 130, 139, 269, 270, 273, 275, 278, 282, 292, 378–380, 382, 392–394, 397, 427, 432, 437, 439 Euro-centric   58 European Union   59, 391 Euxeinos Pontos   224, 227 exchange network   20, 187, 198, 380 exotic goods   198 Ezero   372 Ezerovo   321, 322 F faience   118–119, 129–130 fibulae   168, 172, 254, 430, 432, 434–436, 439

fig (Ficus carica)   276 fittingness   15, 81 Fol   20, 36, 220, 244, 295, 320, 334, 338, 345 food   143, 162, 177, 269, 273–274, 278–279, 282, 350, 369, 440 Free-threshing cereals   269, 273–274, 278–279 wheat (Triticum aestivum/durum)   273 Furchenstich   367 G Gajtan   418 Galium sp.   278 Gallipoli Peninsula   16, 18, 118, 139–140, 150, 152 Gărla Mare   317, 3 323, 325 gateway communities   95 Gelidonya   61, 379 Geometric   76, 82, 141, 152, 163, 173, 188, 247, 270, 275–276, 278, 281, 314, 414 Georgia   363 Geryones   222 Geschichtskultur   391–392, 405 Giannitsa Plain   398 Glasinac Glasinac area   427, 429–431, 434–435, 439 Glasinac group   429–432, 435, 439 globalisation   30, 59 Gluhite Kamani   336, 342, 368, 377 glume wheat   see wheat gold gold mine   20, 359 gold of pleasure (Camelina sp.)   275 Gorica   427 Gornja Tuzla   430, 436, 437 Govora   308, 317, 3 325 graffiti   19, 80, 203, 208–209, 211–213, 215, 255 grains   273, 279, 347 grape   276–277, 280–281 grapevine (Vitis vinifera)   276 grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.)   275 Gray Thracian Ware   see Ware Great King 209, 211 Great Mother Goddess   334 Great Prespa Lake   413–414, 418–420 Greek Greek colonies   187–189, 191–193, 198, 220, 224, 226, 244, 247, 250–251, 259, 272, 279–281, 381 Greek colonisation   19, 2 223, 225, 233, 243–244, 247, 254, 256, 258, 279, 282, 381 Greek poleis   243, 258 Greek script   210 Grey Burnished Ware   see Ware Grey Minyan Ware   see Ware Grey Ware see Ware grinding stone 206

450

Index

H

J

Haemus   213 Haliacmon   214 Hatti   57, 61 Ḫattuša   143 Hattusili III   78 hazel (Corylus avelana)   276 headdresses   208, 211–212 hearths   338, 347 Hebros   150, 219, 245, 339, 343, 381 Hebros Valley   339 Hekate   334 Hellenes   59, 75, 257 Hellenisation   10, 34 Hellenism   58, 60, 73 Hellenocentric   60, 72, 83 Heracles   48, 191, 2 223 heritage 9–10, 13, 27, 29, 30–31, 33–36, 39–40, 42, 46, 55, 59, 74, 83, 243, 391–392, 405, 412 Hermes   334 Herodotus   203, 210, 213–215, 227–228, 248, 257, 259, 336, 346, 348 Hesiod   278, 280 Hippias   213 Histiaios   224 historical archaeology   12–13, 30, 326, 412, 421 Hittite   56–57, 61, 74–75, 78–80, 128, 143, 212 Hittitology   57 Homer   221, 2 223, 228–229, 280 Homeric epics   221, 223, 381 hybridity   15, 81, 102, 104–105, 257 hyperrelativism   27, 29

jewellery   14, 113–117, 120, 1 129, 164–166, 168, 172– 174, 213, 272, 338, 378, 380, 427, 430, 436–437, 439

I Iasos   78–79 iconography   19, 125–126, 128, 208, 211–213, 229, 233 identity   9–13, 17, 21, 27, 37, 42, 44, 46, 55–56, 58–59, 63, 73, 80, 84, 102, 104, 120, 159, 165, 169, 175, 177, 243, 320, 350, 380, 392–395, 404–405, 411– 412, 418, 421, 4 427–429, 431–432, 437–440 Illyria   75, 411–413, 417 Illyrian   13, 31–32, 38, 397, 411–413, 416, 418–419, 421 imperialist   14, 29, 37, 56 inhumation   171, 173–174, 429, 431, 433–434, 436–437 inscription   207, 210, 213, 228, 246, 255, 257 Ionia   17–18, 56, 62, 73, 76, 80, 83, 214, 223–224 Ionian migration   18, 61, 74–77, 81, 83–84 Ionian Revolt   213, 225 Ionians   18, 56, 58, 63, 73, 76–77, 83, 215, 250 Ionian Sea   418 Islam   56–57 Istros   247–248, 251, 254–257, 259 ivory   116–118, 125 Izvorovo   376–377

K Kale fortress   400 Kallamas   412, 414 Kallatis   247–248, 258–259 Kamenica   417 Kanlıgeçit   142 Kapitan Andreevo   269, 274–275, 280, 349, 377 Karabournaki   170–175, 178, 188–194, 196, 203, 205, 210, 269, 270, 272–278 Karaman   400–401 Kastanas   49, 119, 146, 162, 178, 221, 269, 272, 274– 277, 279, 309, 313, 316, 372, 375, 381, 400–402, 414, 416 Kastoria   412, 418 Lake Kastoria   412 Kaymenska chuka   311–313 Kemalism   55 Kikones 222–223, 225 Kilisetepe   16, 18, 118, 139–142, 144–152 Klazomenai   62, 74, 78, 80, 82 Knobbed Ware   see Ware koine   323, 380–381 Kokino   413 Kolonjë   412 Kolophon   74 komai   203, 448 Koprivlen   247, 269, 272, 311, 313, 3 325, 334, 347– 348, 368, 376 Korçë   396–397, 411–412, 414–418, 421 Korçë Basin   396–397, 411, 415–416, 418 Korçë Plain   411–412, 414, 418 Korinos Pieria   175 Kossinna   32, 318, 394 Kotys   258, 348 Koukonisi    118–119, 139, 147 Kozi Gramadi   337, 349–350 Krania   188, 196, 269, 272, 275–276, 278, 281 Krastevich   337–338 Kravari   400–401 Kresna   93–94 Krumovgrad   359, 361 Krushevo   413 Kuç i Zi   417 Kultur   394 Kulturgruppe   428 Kumanovo   402 Kush Kaya   368, 377 Kyknos   222

451

Index

L Lallemantia   275, 280 landscape   15, 19–20, 36–37, 74, 79, 161, 176, 178, 248, 258, 270, 273, 278–281, 292, 294–295, 335–336, 339–350, 360, 376, 414, 418, 427, 431 Latmian Gulf   83 lentil (Lens culinaris Medik)   275 Lerna   402 Lesbos   59, 75 Levant   18, 61, 105 Levunovo   313, 334–335, 337 Lilovo   376 Liman Tepe   62, 128–129 Linear B tablets   221, 280 Linseed (Linum usitatissimum)   275 Liqenas   420 Lofkënd   417 Lolium sp.   278 Luwian   127 Lycians   214–215 Lydia   56, 208 Lydian   211 Lykourgos   222–223, 228–229 M Macedonia   13–14, 17, 19, 21, 32–44, 75, 82–83, 113, 115, 119, 121, 123–124, 128, 145, 159–161, 175– 176, 178, 187, 189, 190–193, 196, 198, 203, 208– 211, 213–215, 221, 224, 269–270, 292, 294, 300, 378, 391–393, 395, 399–405, 413, 416, 418, 420 central Macedonia   13, 19, 82, 119, 159–161, 175– 176, 178, 187, 189, 191–192, 196, 210, 269–270, 301, 402, 416 Macedonian Question   391, 393, 404–405 Macedonians   11, 13, 30–31, 34, 38–41, 75, 209, 214–215, 225 Maligrad Island   413, 419–420 Maliq   21, 391, 395–402, 412, 414, 416 Lake Maliq   396, 412, 414 Malkoto Kale   248 Maltepe   57 Mardonius   214 Maritsa   150, 292, 294, 376 Maron   2 223 Maroneia   224–225, 255 Marxist   28, 32, 396–397, 411 materiality   11, 14–15, 20, 105, 113, 187, 198, 381 Mausoleum at Halikarnassos   17, 72, 73 Maydos   16, 18, 118, 139–142, 144–152 Medians   215 Mediterranean    18, 20, 58–59, 61, 82, 95–96, 105, 113–114, 123, 129, 147, 191, 197, 2 245–246, 271, 277, 279–282, 292, 336, 359, 364, 378–380, 437 eastern Mediterranean   24, 58, 82, 114

Megali Idea   292 Mekota cemetery   438 melon (Cucumis melo)   276 Meriç   150, 292 Mesambria   244, 248–249, 259 Mesopotamia   320, 378 Mesta Valley   272, 294 Methone   34, 41–44, 188–191, 193, 196–197 Middle Ground   93, 102 migration   18, 39, 46, 61–63, 72, 74–77, 81, 83–84, 114, 319–320, 401, 438 migrationist   17, 31, 319 Aeolian Migration   61, 63 Mikro Vouni   118, 124, 139, 146, 147 Miletos   76–80, 82–84, 89 Millawanda   78, 84 millet (Panicum miliaceum)   274 millet-system   392 mining archaeology  359–360 Minoan civilisation   59 Minoanisation   23, 79 mixellenes   19, 257 Moesi   320 Mogilitsa   372 Mokrin Graves   403 Morava Basin   403 Mostar   405 Motke   431 Mount   36–37, 119, 123, 219, 398, 420 Olympus   36–37, 119, 123, 213, 219 Paikon   398 Vermion   420 multiple perspective model   45 multivocality   17, 27–29, 40, 42, 44–46 Muses   229, 232 Mycenaean   16–18, 59–62, 73, 76, 78, 80, 83–84, 116– 117, 119–120, 1 123–125, 128–130, 143, 163, 219, 221, 245–246, 300, 312–314, 323, 367, 376, 378, 399, 402, 414 Mygdonia   214 mythology   19, 219, 221, 2 223, 233 N national commodity   9, 10, 14 nationalism   9–10, 13, 17, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35–37, 45–46, 55–56, 60, 391, 394, 411 nationalist archaeologies   291 nationalistic ideology   12–14, 17, 19, 28–32, 35–37, 40–41, 56–57, 130, 175, 177, 291 narratives   9–13, 17–18, 27, 29–30, 37–38, 46, 56, 61, 71, 80, 83, 94, 100–101, 321, 392, 405, 420–421 Naukratis   80 Nebet tepe   311, 333, 342–344 necropolis   189, 191, 244, 254–258, 344, 418, 437

452

Index

neoliberalism   28 Nestos   18, 93, 224, 226, 381 Nipsaoi   259 non-ferrous metals   380, 381 O object biography   113 objectivity   29, 30, 31, 45, 291, 307 Odessos   244, 248, 249, 251, 255, 256 Odrysian kingdom   225, 227 Odrysians   259 Odyssey   221, 223, 280 Ohrid   33, 412, 413, 418, 448 Lake Ohrid   412, 418, 448 oikos   175, 177 olive   226, 272, 275, 276, 280, 281, 282 Olympia   213, 402 Olynthos   372, 381 opium poppy (Papaver somniferum)   275 ore deposits   360 Oreithyia   229, 231 Orgame   247, 248, 254 Orientalism   30, 73, 391 origins   9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 27, 32, 37, 46, 56, 73, 74, 75, 80, 83, 223, 251, 255, 379, 396, 397, 402 Orpheus   36, 228, 229, 230, 231 Orphism   36 ostrich egg shells   117 Ottoman Empire   31, 36, 37, 55, 56, 72, 73, 74, 291, 392 Ottomanism   56 overinterpretation   335 ox-hide copper ingots   379 Oxus Treasure   212 P Paeonian   413 paleoeconomic analyses   376 Palestine   10, 123, 400 palynological samples   366–377 Panaztepe   128–129 Pangaion   226, 367–368 Panhellenism   34, 42 Pan-Illyrism   31–32, 42 Panionismus   75 Pan-Islamism   56 Pan-Macedonism   42 Pannonian   413 Pan-Thracism   42 Pan-Turkism   37, 56 Paparrigopoulos   36, 37 Pausanias   63, 229 Peak Peak sanctuaries   295, 333–336, 339, 347 Peak sites  296, 336  

Pelagonia   400 Peloponnese   40, 121, 402 performance characteristics   114 Perperek   333, 334, 336, 344–345, 349 Persepolis   203, 211–213 Persians   73, 211, 213–215, 219 Persian army   203, 209, 213–215 Persian wars   19, 226–229 Petkovo Brdo   430, 436, 437, 438 Philippopolis   342–344, 348, 349 Philomela   232 Philostratus   228, 346 Phoenician   95, 203, 208–210 Phokaia   62, 80 Phrixos and Helle   222 pidginisation   100 pit complexes   20, 36, 333–349 pit graves   168, 169, 171 pit sanctuary   248, 258 Pitvaroš   403 plain of Drama   294, 296, 298 plane tree (Platanus orientalis)   273 Plocha Michov Grad   418 Plovdiv   310, 311, 314, 316, 317–318, 3 323–326, 333, 342, 343, 344, 345, 349, 369, 371, 372 Pogoni region   418 Polichni   170, 171, 173–175, 178, 192, 269, 270, 272, 274, 275 Poliochni   147, 380 polis   80, 178, 244, 250, 251, 256, 257 Polycnenum arvense   278 Polygonum aviculare   278 Pontic coast   19, 244–247, 254, 257, 381 popularisation   17, 28, 44 positivism   21, 27–28 postcolonial theory   71, 79, 84 postmodernism   27, 28 Poteidaia   193, 196, 215 pottery   Attic pottery   196, 226 Corinthian pottery  19, 187, 190–192, 196, 198, 224 Geometric pottery  19, 76, 152 Protogeometric pottery   62, 63, 76–77, 83, 162, 172, 313 pre-colonial   16, 222, 245, 247, 248 predatory identities   11 Prespa Lakes   412 prestige goods   115, 116, 160, 169 project Skopje 2014   14 Prokne   232 propaganda   14, 31, 44, 46, 397 Propontis   245, 246 Proteas   222

453

Index

Protesilas/Karaağaçtepe   150 Protocorinthian   5, 19, 187–190, 196–197 Protogenes   257 R radiocarbon dates   20, 147, 293, 312–313, 368, 372, 375–377, 391, 396, 414, 416 Razkopanitsa   312, 321–326 Rhesos   223, 228, 346 Rhodope Mountains   20, 228, 247, 294–295, 298–299, 322, 324–325, 335, 338, 339, 343, 347 Ripač   427, 443 ritual   20, 24, 159, 160, 163, 164, 187, 192, 196, 197, 257, 258, 333–339, 341–350, 438 activities   16, 74, 83, 84, 114, 120, 162, 163, 176, 188, 191, 198, 206, 221, 226, 251, 270, 272, 282, 298, 333–334, 337, 344, 346, 349 practices   20, 160,334, 336, 338, 347, 350, 404, 438 River Axios   174, 192, 292, 300, 372, 376, 416 Morava   400, 403, 408 Sava   427, 432–433, 437, 439 Strymon   18, 93, 224–225, 227–229, 269, 280, 376, 380–381 rock sites   333 Romanisation   10 romanticism   27, 28 roof-tile   203, 207–212 royal   42, 43, 209, 211, 212, 213, 412 guards   209, 211–212 soldiers   19, 203, 209, 210, 211, 212, 214, 215, 228, 229 Rymnio   121 S Sakar   295, 296, 298, 299 Sakdrisi   363, 364 Salamis   215 salt mining   380 Samothrace   16, 118, 123, 124, 139, 147, 209, 224, 228, 247 sanctuary   40, 187, 188, 191, 196, 210, 227, 228, 248, 258, 281, 333–335, 337–339, 341, 343–350, 360, 402 Sanski Most   427, 430, 433, 436, 437, 438 Sardinia   379 Sardis   74, 76, 88, 214 Saronic Islands   61 Satrae   346 script   203, 207–210 Scythian   250, 254 seals   18, 113–129, 145 Second World War   21, 32, 33, 75, 83, 84, 411 settlement highland settlements   368

hill-top settlements   431 settlement pattern   176, 270, 271, 300, 327, 333, 336, 341, 349, 350, 368, 418 Seuthopolis   255, 337–338, 349 sheep   348 Shipka   14, 36 shipwrecks   379 Shkodra (Shtoj and Shkrel)   418 shrine   16, 118, 121–122 336, 346, 402 Sidonians   214 Sindos   170, 178, 188, 189, 191, 192, 196, 214, 269, 272 Sitalkes   227, 229, 233 Skamandros   147 Skapte Hyle   360 Smyrna-Bayraklı   75, 83 Social Networks Analysis   93, 98 social spaces   100, 102, 105, 106 Sokol-Semerdzhievo   316 South Slavs   392 Soviet Union   397 Sovjan   21, 391, 395–399, 403, 407, 411–412, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 421 Sozopol   244, 246, 249, 252, 258, 259 Spacer beads   129 spears   211, 212 spindle whorl   206 Srijetež   431 stable isotopes   377 Stara Planina   335 Stipa sp.   278 stock-breeding   271 stone tools   143, 364 stone vessels   116, 117, 118 Strandzha Mountain   243, 295, 380 strawberry (Fragaria vesca)   276 Stremtsi   366 Stryme   224 Sumerian   56 Sumerology   57 Svilengrad   269, 334, 347 sword   118, 119, 212 Symizë   414 synoikismos   162 Syrian   211 T Tan Ware   see Ware Tawagalawa Letter 78, 84 Tei   316, 317, 321–326 Tekirdağ   379 temenos   251, 256, 360 temple   257, 337, 345, 349, 383, 427 Teres   227, 233

454

Index

Tereus   228, 232, 233 Tešanj   436, 437 Thaeniaterum sp.   278 Thasian colonies   191 Thasos   191, 192, 196, 210, 222, 224, 225, 226, 228, 247, 255, 281, 360 Thermaic Gulf    5, 19, 159–178, 188, 192, 193, 196, 197, 203, 206, 210, 214, 221, 224, 226, 270, 272, 278, 281 Thermi   5, 75, 203, 208, 214, 270 Thessaly   13, 119, 120, 214, 215, 402 Thrace   15, 16, 19, 20, 35, 37, 42, 75, 142, 189, 192, 193, 213, 219–233, 243, 245, 246, 254, 255, 269, 280, 291–294, 296, 300, 301, 308, 320–324, 326, 334, 337, 348, 360, 361, 368, 372, 376, 377, 380, 381, 382 Thracia Pontica   243, 244, 321 Thracology   35–36 Thracian   16, 18, 19, 20, 35, 36, 43, 152, 191, 198, 209, 222, 224–233, 244, 245–251, 254–259, 269, 272, 273, 277, 278, 280, 281, 291, 292, 294, 295, 296, 298, 299, 300, 301, 319–323, 326, 333–335, 343, 346, 347, 348, 359, 376, 380, 381 Chersonese   226 garments   172, 212, 228, 231 plain   87, 190, 193, 196, 206, 207, 222, 248, 269, 272, 273, 277, 278, 280, 294, 296, 298, 299, 318, 376, 412, 418 Upper Thracian Plain   292, 294, 296, 298, 299, 300 sanctuaries   20, 36, 80, 187, 188, 190, 191, 193, 196, 197, 213, 225, 227, 295, 296, 298, 333–350 shore   78, 119, 188, 191, 224, 247 Thracians   5, 11, 19, 30, 31, 38, 39, 209, 219–233, 243, 245, 246, 247, 250, 251, 254, 256, 258, 259, 320, 321, 336, 344, 348, 385 Tomis   248, 251 Torone   189, 221, 222 toumba   42, 161, 203, 294 Toumba Thessaloniki   19, 159–178, 203 tourism   30, 63 traditionalisation   107, 114 transcultural   16–19, 101, 102, 104, 106, 359 transculturation   100, 102, 104, 105 Transdanubia   400, 403 transhumant   120 economy   271 mobility   319 translocality   27, 46 Transylvania   145, 316, 378, 380 trapeza   203, 204, 205, 270, 271, 272 treasure   316 Treaty of Lausanne   140 of Sèvres   18, 74 Tren   412 Troad   18, 76, 115, 118, 119, 121, 124, 129, 130, 139, 140, 150

Troy   18, 61, 62, 78, 113, 116–123, 124–129, 130, 139, 142, 143, 145, 147, 150, 152, 294, 308, 313, 314, 315, 316, 320, 322, 360, 372, 375, 378, 380, 401 Tsouka   335, 337, 350 tumuli   21, 32, 171, 255, 272, 333, 337, 347, 397, 412, 417, 418, 427, 429, 430, 431, 434, 435, 439 Tunca   150 Tundzha   316, 376 turbans   211 Turkish    History  17, 57, 60 History Thesis (THT)   56, 58 Turkishness   74 Tyrians   214 Tzrancha   334, 335 U Ukrainian archaeology   338 Uluburun   61, 114, 379 urn   1 298, 432 V value   29, 34, 72, 102, 114, 117, 122, 160, 192, 198, 246, 296 vase painting   219, 228, 229, 233 Vashtëmi   412 Veliki Mošunj   431, 432 Verbicioara   308, 317, 321–325 Vergina   34, 38, 39, 43, 44, 46, 167, 191, 193, 418 vetch (Vicia ervilia)   275 Vishegrad   311, 312, 341, 347, 368 Visoki Rid-Bukri   400 Vitis-pollen   273 Vitsa   418, 419 votive gifts   117, 1 197 votives   117, 122, 190 Vratitsa   146, 269, 314 W walnut (Juglans regia)   273 war   19, 21, 35, 100, 103, 215, 319, 411 Ware   16, 21, 41, 62, 63, 122, 142, 143, 150, 152, 207, 294, 313, 402 Aeolian Ware   62 Barbarian Ware   16, 152 Cepina Wares   338 Grey Burnished Ware   402 Grey Minyan Ware   402 Grey Ware   16, 62, 63, 152, 313 Knobbed Ware   152, 294 Tan Ware   16, 143 watermelon (Citrullus lanatus)   276 weapon   114, 115, 117, 119, 120, 172, 211, 212, 221, 245, 372, 378, 432, 435

455

Index

weeds   278 wheat glume wheat   274 hulled wheats   274, 279 World-Systems Perspective   93 X Xeropigado Koiladas   403 Xerxes   203, 209, 210, 211, 213, 214, 215

Y Yugoslavia   10, 33, 38, 392–393, 396, 405, 428, 435 Yunatsite   372 Z Zimnicea-Plovdiv   314, 317, 322–324, 326 Zone   209, 226, 228