ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

SUPPLEMENT 39

ANATOLIAN IRON AGES 7

The Proceedings of the Seventh Anatolian Iron Ages
Colloquium Held at Edirne, 1924 April 2010
Edited by

Altan ILINGIROGLU and Antonio SAGONA

PEETERS
LEUVEN PARIS WALPOLE, MA.
2012

CONTENTS
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Altan ILINGIROGLU and Antonio SAGONA

ix

The Eastern Sector at the Fortress of Ayanis: Architecture and Texture in the
Pillared Hall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mahmut Bilge BATRK
War and Identity in the Early History of Urartu
Atilla BATMAZ

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23

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

51

A Blacksmiths Workshop at Klazomenai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hseyin CEVIZOGLU and nsal YALIN

73

New Contributions to Urartian Archaeology from the Fortress at Ayanis . .

Altan ILINGIROGLU (with an appendix by Mirjo SALVINI)

99

Regional Variations in Iron Age Grooved Pottery in Eastern Anatolia . . . .

Aylin . ERDEM

113

The Apadana of Altntepe in the Light of the Second Season of Excavations

Mehmet KARAOSMANOGLU and Halim KORUCU

131

The Kingdom of Urartu and Native Cultures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kemalettin KROGLU

149

Archaeometric Investigations of Basaltic Grinding Stones from the Iron Age

Settlements of Udabno, Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rene KUNZE

167

vi

CONTENTS

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

177

Urartian Helmets in Reza Abbasi Museum, Iran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Reza Sabouri NOJEHDEHI

211

Phrygian Semi-Iconic Idols from Gordion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lynn E. ROLLER

221

Remarks on the East Anatolian Iron Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Antonio SAGONA

253

Late Iron Age Pottery From Northwestern Iran: The Evidence from Yanik
Tepe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Geoffrey D. SUMMERS and Charles A. BURNEY
Bronze Animal Figurines from Gordion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Maya VASSILEVA

269

317

THRACE BETWEEN EAST AND WEST:

THE EARLY IRON AGE CULTURES IN THRACE.
Elena BOZHINOVA

Plovdiv Regional Archaeological Museum

Saedinenie Sq. 1
Plovdiv 4000
BULGARIA
E-mail: elena.bozhinova@gmail.com

According to the literary sources, Thracian tribes occupied the northeastern part of
the Balkans; namely, the territory of the present state of Bulgaria, the northern part of
Greece, and the European part of Turkey. The available data proves that this region
evolved without any major cultural changes, which allows us to assume a cultural process without any major disturbances since the Early Bronze Age. The Central Balkan,
a natural border that crosses the centre of Bulgaria from west to east, divides this
Balkan region into two main parts north and south. The two areas differ in both
geographical and cultural aspects and are subordinated to the Carpathian and Aegean
culture centres respectively. The present paper will focus on the south part of this area,
which geographically today bears the name Thrace (Trakya in the local languages).
The territory of Thrace comprises regions which are clearly differentiated by their
geographical characteristics and, in turn, their economical and cultural aspects. The
greater part of the northern territory is formed by the huge Maritza (Meri, Hebros)
and Tundja (Tonzos) valleys, known together as the Upper Thracian Valley (Fig. 1).
To the south is the low mountain chain comprised of the Rhodopes, Sakar and
Strandja. Further south of the Rhodopes is the region of Aegean Thrace (Western
Thrace) and the large plain of Turkish Thrace (Eastern Thrace). Although each of
these regions has specific characteristics that allow differentiation between separate
cultures, there are phenomena that spread over larger areas. These phenomena are of
assistance in correlating the local cultures and distinguishing general trends in the
cultural development of Thrace.
The Early Iron Age comprises the period between the eleventh and the sixth centuries BC, according to the conventional chronology for Bulgarian archaeology (Fig. 2).1
The beginning of the Iron Age in Thrace is marked to a much greater extent by significant changes in the local culture than by the introduction of iron technology. It is
1
For a review on the different periodisation and chronological schemes, see Tonceva 1980,
pp. 1114; Gergova1986, pp. 1112; Shalganova and Gotzev 1995, pp. 327334.

52

E. BOZHINOVA

widely accepted that there were two phases within the Early Iron Age, divided by the
end of the ninth century BC.2 An additional third, late phase is assumed for some
regions, for example, Northeastern Thrace, but rejected for the area south of the Central Balkan. The end of the Early Iron Age is characterised by general changes in the
local cultures, among which are a sharp increase in the number of imports, novelties
in burial practices, local production of wheel-made pottery, and, in many regions,
urbanisation.
The Early Iron Age culture developed based on that of the previous Late Bronze
Age. The Late Bronze Age, or at least its later stage, is characterised by the PlovdivZimnicae-Cerkovna (PZC) complex, which was spread over nearly the whole territory
of Thrace.3 The complex bordered in the northeast on Coslodgeni and in the northwest on the southeastern variant of the Central European Urnfield culture (Urnenfelderkultur); here it is called the Lower Danube Culture with Incrusted Pottery.4
The Danube River divided the regions of the PZC complex and the Verbicioara and
Tei cultures, although the border is not very distinct and there were probably areas on
both sides of the river where these cultures met and mixed. To the west and south, the
complex ends with the Rhodopes. Aegean Thrace shared the same style of handmade
pottery, but also had pottery classes in the Mycenaean style.5 To the west, PZC was
in contact with the Koprivlen culture, which had an affinity with the Central Balkan
culture of Brnica.6 The neighbouring region, further still to the west, namely Macedonia, differed in that it had an additional class of Matt-painted pottery.7
Uniform pottery is the main characteristic of the PZC complex, with clearly established forms found from the lower Danube area (Zimnicea) to the Aegean (Thassos).
The characteristic sign of the pottery is its decoration in geometric style, implemented by incisions but most specifically by the technique of Furchenstich. Regional
peculiarities are to be seen in the quantities of decorated pottery; for example, there
is a high percentage of it in the region of the Rhodopes but nearly none in some
regions of the Upper Thracian valley. Uniformity as a result of intensified contacts
and the nature of the economy is one of the features of the Late Bronze Age in general. It can be seen, for example, in the single pottery forms of the Balkan complex
particularly the amphorae which appear even in the Anatolian ceramic types of
wheel-made pottery as far to the east as Hattusa.8 In general, Thrace is considered to

2
This division is a kind of symbiosis between two periodisation schemes, made on the basis of the
development of pottery (Cicikova 1971) and adornments (Gergova 1987).
3
Hnsel 1976; Mommsen et al. in print.
4
Salganova 1995.
5
Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1982.
6
Alexandrov 2002, pp. 7982; Ivanov 2007a, pp. 255256.
7
Heurtley 1939, pp. 9495; Horejs 2008, 259-278
8
Ivanov 2007, pp. 160161; Fischer 1963, figs. 6465.

THE EARLY IRON AGE CULTURES IN THRACE

53

be a peripheral part of Aegean civilisation during the Late Bronze Age, with contacts
directed towards both Central Europe and the Mediterranean but influenced much
more by the Aegean.
Within a rather short period, the PZC complex was replaced by a new pottery style.
This change is considered to mark the beginning of a new period, namely the Early
Iron Age, although the first iron artefacts did not appear until at least a century later.
In fact, the sites that date to the first centuries of the Iron Age lack metal artefacts in
general and the earliest iron objects are most often found out of context. Bronze continued to be used, as shown by European-style artefacts of the Ha AHa B1 period
like the socket axes, but also artefacts in the Aegean style, such as trunnion axes.9 An
investigation of all early iron artefacts in Thrace as well as bronze ones at the end of
the Bronze Age and in the first centuries of the Early Iron Age is still pending; thus
pottery is the most reliable archaeological material for following the chronological
stages in the cultural development of Thrace and, together with the information from
excavated grave structures, for distinguishing regional groups.
The initial phase of the Early Iron Age was firstly identified with the group of
incised, decorated pottery named Catalka.10 The research that followed proved that
such incisions were very few on the ornamented pottery of this first stage. The fluted
ware proved to be the only pottery decorated in the new style, which led to associating
this stage instead with a horizon of the fluted ware.11 Besides their decoration, these
are also pottery types that are new to the beginning of the Early Iron Age. Few shapes
of the previous PZC complex continued with the first stage of the Fluted ware horizon and those which did should be considered as remnant elements. Their presence
in this early stage together with the continuous development of both settlements and
necropoleis are the reasons for some researchers to consider this period a transitional
one between Bronze Age and Iron Age.12
The stratigraphy of three sites excavated in the last 10 years allows two stages to
be distinguished within the first Early Iron Age phase, based on the pottery development (Fluted ware horizons 1 and 2). These sites are Ada Tepe13 and Ku Kaya14 in
the Eastern Rhodopes, and Semercheto in the Sakar Mountain.15 At all of them, the
Late Bronze Age layers with pottery of the PZC complex were succeeded by layers
Stoyanov 2000.
Hnsel 1976, pp. 202205. The site of atalka itself provides material that today is recognised as
belonging to at least two periods of inhabitation Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age instead of
one, as Hnsel believed (Borislavov 1999, r. 52).
11
Shalganova and Gotzev 1995, p. 330. The term fluted ware is used for the burnished table ware
decorated with flutes, but also with knobs. A synonymous term is channelled ware.
12
Hnsel 1976, pp. 2002006; Shalganova and Gotzev 1995; Borislavov 1999.
13
Nehrizov 2005, pp. 169228.
14
Popov 2009.
15
Borislavov 1999, pp. 8386, 9398.
9

10

54

E. BOZHINOVA

containing pottery which was undecorated,16 except for a small number of vessels
with fluted decoration and, rarely, incisions (Ada Tepe Ia; Semercheto Early Iron
Age IIII). At least three layers of the Semercheto site, showing a gradual increase in
the occurrence of the fluted decoration, belong to this stage and prove its relatively
long duration. The second stage is represented at all three sites by an increasing
amount of fluted decoration and the first appearance of stamped ornaments, although
they are still very limited in number (Ada Tepe Ib; Semercheto Early Iron Age IV);
these are concentric circles with or without tangents and pseudo-cord motifs. The
circles are often made with a bone or a stick,17 and differ from the clay stamps for
circles, Ss, pseudo-cords, and other designs that were popular in the later phase.18
The second stage should be considered as a transition into the second phase and
probably lasted only a short period of time.
The new pottery style replaced that of the Late Bronze Age within quite a short
period within the first Early Iron Age stage and kept being conservative for the entire
Early Iron Age. The prototypes of the new shapes and the fluted decoration are to be
found in the Urnfield cultures of the central part of Eastern Europe.19 The fluted
decoration evolved first in the final stages of the Lower Danube Culture with Incrusted
Pottery in the Ha A1 period, under influences from the Middle and Lower Danube.20
Slightly later it became popular over nearly all of Thrace and it is much more likely to
represent a new fashion than a major migration. The reasons could be found in a
general reversal of the direction of contacts in Thrace from south/southeast to northwest. It looks very probable that Thrace fell strongly under the influence of the cultures from the Carpathian basin, because of their potential to provide sufficient metal
sources. This trend may even have strengthened during the time of the general crisis
that hit the Eastern Mediterranean region. A similar trend is marked for the contacts
of Troia imports from the East Mediterranean that are numerous in the Troia VI
layers cease in the following layer, Troia VIIb, where they are mainly of northwestern
origin.21
A possible mechanism for spreading the new pottery style in Thrace was the importation of metal vessels; this might also have been the form in which the metal itself was
imported. Four golden bowls found in Bulgaria and of Early Iron Age date are decorated in the European style of the fluted ware: one is a find from the Danube island
of Belene;22 one is part of a treasure found in Sofia along with a bronze cauldron and
16
The discussion of the decoration of the pottery here mainly concerns the fine table ware. The
decoration of the coarse ware consists basically of relief bands with finger impressions or blade incisions
for both Bronze Age and Iron Age.
17
Popov 2009, p. 28.
18
Nehrizov 2006.
19
Cicikova 1968, rr. 1619.
20
Hnsel 1976, pp. 113117; Salganova 1994.
21
Becks 2002, pp. 4950.
22
Lazarova 1993.

THE EARLY IRON AGE CULTURES IN THRACE

55

a clay bowl (Fig. 4);23 one was probably a gift, found in an inhumation grave under a
tumulus (together with fluted pottery and an iron sword of the Naue type);24 and the
last probably originates from Central North Bulgaria.25 The bowls are decorated with
knobs, ribs, cord-imitating lines and circles connected by tangents all motifs which
were also used in the ceramics (Fig. 3). A date of the eighth to seventh century BC was
suggested for these finds,26 supported by the presence of the cauldron in the Sofia
example, which appears to be of Anatolian origin.27 Nevertheless, the exaggerated
knobs of the bowls from Belene and Central North Bulgaria could point to an earlier
date. The cauldron from Sofia has a form similar to a group of Hungarian vessels from
the Ha A2 period.28 Even if none of the golden bowls is earlier than the later period
of the second phase, the existence of the same decoration on both metal and ceramic
vessels proves that basing ceramics on metal prototypes was one of the mechanisms of
imposing the new style during the Early Iron Age. This phenomenon is not new for
Thrace. Golden kantharoi and cups are known from the Valchitran treasure, dated
back to the very end of the Late Bronze Age;29 these vessels are of types also produced
in pottery and they appear at a chronological horizon preceding that of fluted ware in
the Central North part of Bulgaria.30 While the Valchitran treasure reflects both European and Mycenaean connections, the vessels from the Early Iron Age show strong
northern affinities.
Another European influence can be seen in the appearance of fibulae in Thrace at
the end of the Late Bronze Age. The first types to gain popularity were those of
Aegean origin and, together with the first iron Naue IINenzingen swords, they prove
that contacts with the south were not absolutely interrupted; Thrace kept bringing in
new ideas and innovations from the Mediterranean region. But the new fashion of
fastening clothes with fibulae, established as a typical feature of Thracian culture from
the beginning of the Iron Age onwards, reflects European influence. The first phase of
the Early Iron Age was characterised by a small number of fibulae type, which evolved
slowly. The earliest fibulae to be developed locally were made in iron, probably already
in the phases second stage, most of them using bronze inlays for decoration.31 Most
Stanceva 1974.
Kisyov 2004, pp. 1215. The find dates, according to Kisyov, to the eighth to seventh century
BC, but all the artefacts could well belong to an earlier period.
25
Draganov 2007. The artefact belongs to a private collection with a probable find site in the Pleven
region. Although a recent public discussion cast suspicion on its originality, its style is very close to the
other known vessels and even if it is a fake, it could well be an imitation of an existing artefact.
26
Howes Smith 1986.
27
Stanceva 1974, pp. 228232.
28
According to Patay, these are cauldrons of type A 2 (Patay 1990, pp. 1821, figs. 12), which has
a form nearly identical to the one of the Bulgarian find.
29
See Salganova (2005, pp. 155166) for the discussion about the chronology of the Valcitran
treasure.
30
See Guma (1995, pp. 109110, pl. XIII: 823) for the types of the ceramic vessels.
31
Gergova 1987, pp. 3638, 4447; see also Stoyanov (1997, pp. 7480) for the chronological
position of the type.
23

24

56

E. BOZHINOVA

fibulae of one of the variants of this type with a catch-plate in the shape of a sandglass were found exclusively in the Western Rhodopes, which suggests there were
workshops in that region.32
Some of the sites that have the longest inhabitation periods are those associated
with metallurgical activities. Some of the high fort settlements or peak sanctuaries
(depending on interpretation) were regional centres and their prosperity was probably
based on the exploitation of local ore deposits. These are the settlements that show
continuity between the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. The high parts of the
Western Rhodopes, widely settled in the Late Bronze Age, continued to be densely
occupied during the Early Iron Age. The whole area of the Sakar, Strandja and Rhodopes mountains yield a large number of sites, especially from the later phase of the
Early Iron Age. In general, the settlement pattern is scattered and besides the regional
centres, settlements are short-lived. The temporary nature of inhabitations reflects a
transhumant economy, based on stock-breeding with seasonal movements. The dwellings architecture is quite meagre and always depends on the resources available locally.
Depending on the region, the houses were built either as wattle-and-daub constructions or with only crumbled stones and wood. Rarely, sites on high peaks were additionally protected by defensive walls of large stones, built in a megalithic manner (Ku
Kaya, Dragoyna, Aul Kaya).
While the settlement pattern shows continuity with the previous age, the Late
Bronze Age, the appearance of the fluted pottery coincides with new traditions in the
burial rites. The number of burials that date to the first phase of the period is insufficient to allow regional specifics to be distinguished. However, all available data mark
new developments that would be commonly seen and widely accepted during the succeeding second phase of the period. In all parts of Thrace, inhumation was established
as the main burial ritual; the body was laid in a stretched position, with banded arms
and legs. For the first time in Thrace since the Early Bronze Age (except in the Western Rhodopes), tumuli were piled over one or more graves.33 The process of change
seems to have been gradual and in some regions, such as the Maritza and Tundja valleys, the new burial custom probably did not appear before the later phases of the
Early Iron Age, or even beyond that. Dolmens, both as construction and place for
burials, are also a novelty of the Early Iron Age.34 Their spread marks the cultural
unity of a large area in southeastern Thrace which covers the low mountain region of
Sakar, Strandja and the Eastern Rhodopes. This areas unity is more apparent in the
later stage of the period, when the same area has the greatest diversity and wealth of
geometric pottery decoration. The Eastern Rhodopes region differs from the others in
Gergova 1987, pp. 4447, pl. 13.
Kitov 1993, p. 46; see also Stoyanov (1997, pp. 109128) for a review of the Early Iron Age
burials in Thrace; see Kisyov (2009, pp. 1943) for the burial practices in the Rhodopes region.
34
Delev 1984.
32

33

THE EARLY IRON AGE CULTURES IN THRACE

57

Mediterranean landscape and rock-cut examples, among which are rock-cut tombs
used alongside dolmens for inhumation burials.
It can be presumed that the region evolved peacefully in this period; however, there
are also limited traces of mobility of people from the northwest in the archaeological
record of Thrace. In a cremation grave on the bank of the Maritza River, next to the
village of Manole, a vessel of a type known as amphora Gava A was used as a burial
urn. This type is unfamiliar in Thrace and has no further development; conversely it
is typical in the Carpatho-Danubian regions fluted pottery cultures, with a date not
later than the second half of the tenth century BC.35 The burial rite also contrasts
with the tradition of inhumation common in the region during both the Late Bronze
Age and the Early Iron Age. It is tantalizing to couple this evidence for movements in
the first centuries of the Iron Age in Thrace with the arrival of newcomers at Troia.
It is the site of Troia which is the most important for pinpointing the chronological
position of the Fluted ware horizon and, therefore, the beginning of the Early Iron
Age in Thrace. It is clear today that a new handmade ceramic class of both coarse and
knobbed ware appeared in the VIIb2 layers of Troia,36 and this is understood to
reflect a considerable influx of new population from Thrace.37 The Troian knobbed
ware finds most parallels among the pottery of the first stage of the Fluted ware horizon in Thrace; however, it also shares some elements with the preceding Late Bronze
Age, such as amphorae and kantharoi (following the type names in the Balkan assemblages38), as well as with the next second stage of the Fluted ware horizon; for example, the stamped decoration of circles with tangents on small kantharoi.39 Troia VII
B2 layers lack any Submycenaean pottery,40 thus through Troia, the Fluted ware horizon 1 in Thrace should be synchronised with the Aegean LH III C Middle to Late
period. Turning to the south, the data from Kastanas confirms this dating; fluted ware
appeared there in layer 13 of the KV period, together with LH IIIC pottery.41 The
situation differs, however, in Assiros where in Phase 4 the ware is found with a Protogeometric amphora.42 A similar delay in the arrival of fluted ware is to be seen in
Thassos, where channelled pottery first appeared in the IIB1 period, which has no
connection with Mycenaean pottery.43
Cicikova 1968, pp. 1920; Pare 1998, vol. 2, pp. 406422.
Knobbed ware is synonymous with the fluted ware, highlighting another decorative element,
which is much less common than the flutes. Knobs and flutes occur on one and the same types of
vessels, often together.
37
Becks et al. 2006, pp. 185187.
38
Hnsel 1976, p. 84. The vessels discussed can be seen in Schmidt 1902, p. 176, No. 5617, fig. II:
20; Blegens shapes C 84 and A105 in Blegen et al. 1958, pp. 165, 174, fig. 218, fig. 265: 32.23,
37.1007 and 37.1021, fig. 259: 37.1009.
39
Blegens shape A 107 in Blegen et al. 1958, pp. 165167, fig. 260: 37.1013.
40
Mountjoy 1999, p. 324.
41
Hochstetter 1984, pp. 188194; Jung and Weninger 2004, p. 286.
42
Wardle andWardle 2007, pp. 471472.
43
Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1982, p. 255; 1992, pp. 420, 475476.
35

36

58

E. BOZHINOVA

More problematic is defining the end of the Fluted ware horizon or the initial date
of the second stage. The new stamped-decoration motifs unambiguously bind the
second stage with Aegean Geometric pottery. Considering the presence, though limited, of this type of pottery at Troia VII B2, its first appearance should be dated
within the Submycenaean period. This stage must be synchronised in general with the
Protogeometric period.
Turning to the northeast, the two stages of the first Early Iron Age phase must be
synchronised consecutively with Durankulak44 and Babadag I.45 The site of Durankulak has the earliest fluted ware, marking the end of the Coslodgeni culture in this
region. Babadag I is comparable with Troia VII B 2, but the presence of stamped
decoration places it in a relatively later stage of the horizon. Like in South Thrace, the
geometric decoration developed gradually in the later phases of Babadag II and III.
The next, second Early Iron Age phase is characterised by an evolutional development of all aspects of the culture which impedes distinguishing clearly its beginning
and inner periodisation. Tumulus burials became a common practice in some regions;
for example, Kazanlak in the Tundja valley.46 The way the dolmens were constructed,
and therefore the burial rites, became more complex, as did the tumuli established as
locations for family cemeteries.47 The revival of the bronze industry after the middle/
end of the ninth century BC is one of the characteristics of this phase.48 The large
number of sites and finds are proof of wealth and population increase.
The developed phase of the Early Iron Age is identified with a pottery style known
as the Psenicevo group.49 Psenicevo is the name of the first excavated site to have a
high diversity of geometric motifs. The potterys main characteristic is rich decoration
implemented by stamps mainly concentric circles connected with tangents, the
S-ornament forming rows of running spirals, and pseudo-cord motifs and incisions. All these motifs were often combined with flutes. The pottery types are the basic
ones and they are often the same as those of the previous Fluted ware horizon.
The pottery decoration develops gradually from the simple towards elaborate compositions that are often highly ornamented. It allows three inner stages to be determined
(Psenicevo 13), as also confirmed by the stratigraphy at the sites of Malkoto kale near
Sozopol (Apolonia Pontica),50 and Ada Tepe51 and Cala52 in the Eastern Rhodopes.
The first stage is represented by the lower levels of Malkoto kale and Ada Tepe I and
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52

Todorova 1982.
Juganaru 2005.
Getov 1963; Kitov and Bozhinova 2005.
Delev 1984.
Gergova 1987, pp. 1012.
Hnsel 1976, pp. 192213; Gotsev 2008.
Domaradzki et al. 1991.
Nehrizov 2005, pp. 172173, 212223.
Bozhinova 2002.

THE EARLY IRON AGE CULTURES IN THRACE

59

is distinguished by geometric decoration made by stamps, incisions and flutes; rarely,

there is the combination of different techniques on one vessel. The S-ornament, single
or forming running spirals, appears among the ornamentation but circles with tangents are still most prominent. The upper Early Iron Age layers at Malkoto kale and
Ada Tepe II, and the lower layers at Cala and Psenicevo itself belong to the second
stage, which marks the apogee of geometric ornamentation.53 Most used are the
stamped motifs, among which the S-ornaments are generally preferred. Combinations
of stamped decoration and flutes are often seen. The spread of some motifs and sophisticated compositions allows some regional specifics to be distinguished, although they
are not very evident.54
The rich geometric decoration of the Psenicevo style is a phenomenon common to
all of southeast Thrace, where the centre coincides with the region of the dolmens
Sakar, Strandja and the Eastern Rhodopes. It also features in the central part of the
Maritza and Tundja valleys to the north and Eastern Thrace to the south.55 The
ornate decoration is less seen in the west, and its limit should be placed in the region
of Plovdiv (Philippopolis). In contrast to its gradual beginning, the second phase ends
abruptly. Burnished handmade table ware is replaced for quite a short time with a
grey wheel-made pottery that is foreign to Thrace and has its traditions in the northwestern Anatolian region.56 A short period when the two classes of pottery are found
together is regarded as the third and last stage of the second Early Iron Age phase, but
it could also be considered a transition into the Late Iron Age. In the upper layer of
the Cala settlement site, the amount of burnished handmade pottery decreases and it
is found together with a limited quantity of grey ware with a probable date of the
sixth century BC. In this period the first production centres of grey ware appeared;
they are expected in colonies established next to the Aegean and Black seas at the end
of the seventh to sixth centuries BC. Grey ware appeared later in the inland regions,
as in the case of the Western Rhodopes region, which is distinguished from the other
parts of Thrace in many aspects.
The Western Rhodopes region is characterised by a high mountain landscape suitable for summer pasture and known since ancient times to be rich in metal sources.
The area was occupied by the Bessoi tribes, who were famous for being conservative,
savage, good metal-workers and the keepers of the Dionysos sanctuary (Hdt, VII,
111). This description matches well with the material culture of the region. From the
Late Bronze Age, the culture exhibits features that continued until the Roman period

53
According to Hnsel (1976, p. 208), it is the phase of Lenovo. Given that the site of Lenovo has
never been excavated, the name did not gain popularity.
54
Nikov 2000a; 2000b; 2002.
55
Czyborra 2001, p. 75.
56
Nikov 1999.

60

E. BOZHINOVA

and even later. Information comes generally from necropoleis,57 and because of the
specific nature of the burial rites the available material consists mainly of metal artefacts. This is the only region in the whole of Thrace where the deceased were buried
under tumuli during the Late Bronze Age, and one necropolis continued to be often
used throughout the entire Iron Age. Cremation in urns was the typical ritual during
the Late Bronze Age, but this was abruptly replaced by inhumation at the beginning
of the Early Iron Age.
Although the ceramic complex of the Western Rhodopes requires further investigation, the available information enables the pottery groups to be revised. A local ceramic
group called Cepina was suggested for the whole Early Iron Age in the region,58 but
recent research proves that Cepina dates to the Late Iron Age or even later.59 The
confusion was created by the ceramics similarity to Late Bronze Age incised pottery,
both in technique and decorative motifs. The missing link can probably be found in
some of the sub-regions. Intriguingly, the most popular crater-shape60 is unknown
among all the other Balkans material; its closest parallels are to be found in northeast
Italy in the Protovillanova culture of the eleventhtenth centuries BC.61 The pottery
common in the Western Rhodopes follows the general trend of developments in
Thrace, but with some peculiarities. The local Late Bronze Age pottery is part of the
PZC complex and is often decorated in a style similar to the ceramics of Macedonia.62
This pottery probably had its longest life in this region, as it is found as grave goods
along with iron fibulae.63 A few complexes yielded channelled ware,64 but in general
it didnt gain popularity in this area. The Early Iron Age pottery style is known from
the site of Babyak and is mainly decorated with incised motifs that replaced even the
channels.65 Stamps are rare and simple mostly in the form of circles. Limited available material means it is not possible to mark stages in the development of the pottery. Wheel-made ware is unknown in Early Iron Age contexts and probably does not
appear in this region before the later stages of the Late Iron Age, or even after that.
A high level of diversity and regionalism in adornment types marks the second
Early Iron Age phase in all regions of Thrace. Most fibulae in South Thrace are of the
types common in the Aegean region, but some other examples prove there were broad
contacts with the northern regions as well as with Macedonia to the south and as far
See Kisyov (2009, pp. 1943) for comprehensive information about the Late Bronze AgeEarly
Iron Age burials in the Rhodopes region.
58
Hnsel 1976, pp. 220226.
59
Georgieva 2003, pp. 173176.
60
Shopova 1990.
61
Pare 1998, vol. 2, pp. 313317, fig. 9: 18 and 25.
62
Mommsen et al. in print.
63
Grave 1 from tumulus 1, the necropolis of Chepelare (Kisyov 1991, pp. 811, figs. 1314).
64
Damyanov 2003.
65
Gotsev and Bozhinova 2008.
57

THE EARLY IRON AGE CULTURES IN THRACE

61

as Phrygia to the east.66 The way adornments, mainly fibulae, developed enables three
phases to be distinguished. They do not, however, coincide with the stages of pottery
development; the proposed pottery phases appear to have a chronology which is too
late, and recent excavations also suggest an earlier date for some of the fibulae types.67
Generally fibulae, like all other Early Iron Age metal artefacts, require a new assessment, as a large number of finds have recently come from excavation contexts. Such a
review would allow the development of a more precise chronology for these items and
would also assist with defining the chronology of the Early Iron Age stages.
Similarities between the motifs and compositions of the Psenicevo decorations style
and the Aegean Geometric style lead to synchronisation of the two periods. Since the
preceding second stage of the Fluted ware horizon overlaps (partly or entirely) with
the Protogeometric period, the beginning of Psenicevo would coincide with the beginning of the Geometric period, or at least fall within the Early Geometric period. As
with fibulae, the resemblance between the two styles is much more obvious in the
later stages of their development.68 On the other hand, Psenicevo is very similar to the
Ostrov, Basarabi and Babadag groups to the north and should be contemporary with
them. In general, the first stage of Psenicevo should be synchronised with Ostrov and
Babadag II, and the second stage with Basarabi and Babadag III. These pottery styles
mark the geometric koine during the Early Iron Age, a result of restored contacts
between the Balkans and the Aegean region, as well as the return of Greece and Anatolia to a leading role during this period. This influence continued even more strongly
during the last Early Iron Age stage, with the appearance of grey ware. With the foundation of the first Greek colonies, contacts were accelerated and this led to general
changes in traditional Thracian culture, and thus to the end of the Early Iron Age.
This last stage is synchronous with the end of the Geometric and the Archaic periods
(the seventh to sixth century BC) but its more exact chronological position depends
on the region and the remoteness of the earliest urban centres.
CONCLUSION
A new period in Thrace, referred to as the Early Iron Age, started with general
changes in many aspects of the local Late Bronze Age culture: pottery style, burial
rites, and metal types. At the same time, all of the features of this period bear similarities to the previous period, supporting the theory of a gradual, though short transition between the two ages. The first phase of the Early Iron Age, called Fluted ware
horizon, started with the LH IIIC period and continued through the Protogeometric

66
67
68

Gergova 1987, pp. 1012.

Nehrizov 2009.
Nikov 2000.

62

E. BOZHINOVA

period, according to Aegean periodisation. The LH IIIC is still the Late Bronze Age
in the Aegean, and following the direction of the spread of iron technology from
south to north, it would be more correct to consider this phase a transitional period
than a real Iron Age. The horizon of the fluted ware is characterised by decreased
contacts with the Aegean region. Simultaneously Thrace became strongly dependent
on the Carpatho-Danubian region because of its potential to provide metal sources.
This development is most visible in the new pottery style that appeared throughout
Thrace. At this time, limited traces of migration are visible in the archaeological
records, both within Thrace (the cremation burial at Manole) and from Thrace (the
site of Troia), with movement in the direction northwest to southeast.
The real Iron Age starts with the next phase, called Psenicevo, when contacts with
the Aegean were restored and became more evident than ever before. Thrace became
part of the geometric koine, recalling the situation during the Late Bronze Age. The
Early Iron Age differs in the degree of regionalism visible; it increased in burial rites
and metal (adornment) types, but decreased in the pottery style. Contacts with the
Aegean rose gradually to a level after which they sharply increased, leading to enormous changes in the local culture. This change was comparable in range, but not in
nature, with the reverse movement at the end of the Late Bronze Age. Thus it is reasonable to regard the period between the twelfth and sixth centuries in Thrace as a
united historical era, known as an Early Iron Age and characterised by a gradual inner
development and rapid changes at its beginning and its end.

REFERENCES
ALEXANDROV, S.
2002 The Late Bronze Age Settlement at Koprivlen, in Koprivlen: Rescue Archaeological Investigations Along the Gotse Delchev-Drama Road: 19981999, Vol. 1,
edited by A. Bozhkova and P. Delev, pp. 6182. Sofia: NOUS.
BECKS, R.
2002 Troia VII: The Transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age,
in Identifying Changes: The Transition from Bronze to Iron Ages in Anatolia
and its Neighbouring Regions, edited by B. Fischer, H. Genz, . Jean and
K. Kroglu, pp. 4153. Istanbul: Turk Eskicag Bilimleri Enstitusu.
BECKS, R., HNILA P. and PIENIZEK-SIKORA, M.
2006 Troia in der Frhen Eisenzeit Troia VIIb1-VIIb3, in Troia. Archologie
eines Siedlungshgels und seiner Landschaft, edited by M. O. Korfmann,
pp. 181188. Mainz am Rhein: Philip von Zabern.
BLEGEN, C. W., BOULTER, C., CASKEY, J. and RAWSON, M.
1958 Troy. Settlements VIIa, VIIb and VIII (Troy: Excavations Conducted by the University of Cincinnati, 1932 1938, Vol. 4), pt. 1 (text), pt. 2 (plates). Princeton:
University Press.
BORISLAVOV, B.
1999 Yuzhna Trakia v Kraya na Bronzovata Nachaloto na Rannata Zhelyazna Epocha/ Southern Thrace in the End of the Bronze the Beginning of the Early Iron
Age. Unpublished PhD diss. Sofia University.

THE EARLY IRON AGE CULTURES IN THRACE

63

BOZHINOVA, E.
2002 Keramichniyat Kompleks ot Rannozheliaznata Epoha ot Obekta Chala, s. Kralevo,
Iztochni Rodopi/ Ceramic Complex from the Iron Age Site of Chala, Kralevo
Village, Eastern Rhodope Mountain. Unpublished MA diss. Sofia University.
CICIKOVA, M.
1968 Keramika ot Starata Zhelyazna Epoha v Trakia/ Early Iron Age Pottery from
Thrace, Arheologiya 10, 4: 1527.
1971 Sur la Chronologie du Hallstatt en Thrace, Studia Balcanica 5: 7992.
1978 La Thrace lpoque Homrique et Gomtrique, in The Proceedings of the
Xth International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Ankara-Izmir 2330/IX/1973,
Vol. 1 and 3, edited by E. Akurgal, pp. 187194. Ankara: Turk Tarh Kurumu.
CZYBORRA, I.
2001 Early Iron Age in Turkish Thracia and its Relationship with the South-Eastern
European Late Bronze and Early Iron Age. Unpublished PhD diss. Freie University of Berlin.
DAMYANOV, D.
2003 Das Weltbild der Thraker. Thrakische Hgelgrab-Nekropole bei Ljubtscha,
Westliche Rhodopen, Thracia 15: 581593.
DELEV, P.
1984 Megalithic Thracian Tombs in South-Eastern Bulgaria, Anatolica 11: 145.
DOMARADZKI, M., KARAIOTOV, I. AND GOTZEV, A.
1991 Lhabitat du Premier ge du Fer de Malkoto Kal, in Thracia Pontica IV,
edited by M. Lazarov, M. Tatcheva, C. Angelova, and M. Georgiev, pp. 119
132. Sofia.
DRAGANOV, V.
2007 An Unpublished Gold Bowl from the Collection of the Bobokov Bros. Foundation, Proceedings of the Rousse Regional Museum of History 11: 162164.
FISCHER, F.
1963 Die Hethitische Keramik von Bogazky. Berlin: Verlag Gebr. Mann.
GEORGIEVA, R.
2003 Keramikata ot Rannata Zhelyazna Epoha v Yugozapadna Balgaria i Fenomenat Tsepina/ Early Iron Age Pottery in Southwestern Bulgaria and the
Tsepina phenomenon, Pyraichmes 2: 159185.
GERGOVA, D.
1986 Postizheniya i Problemi v Prouchvaneto na Rannozhelyaznata Epoha v Trakia/ Achievements and Issues of the Research of Early Iron Age in Thrace,
Arheologiya 27: 1123.
1987 Frh- und ltereisenzeitlische Fibeln in Bulgarien (Prhistorische Bronzefunde
XIV Bd. 7). Mnchen: C. H. Becksche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
GETOV, L.
1963 Mogilno Pogrebenie ot Halshtatskata Epoha pri s. D. Sahrane, Starozagorsko/
A Hallstatt Mound Burial at Dolno Sahrane Village in Stara Zagora County,
Arheologiya 5: 5153.
GOTSEV, A.
2008 Prouchvaniya na Rannozhelyaznata Epoha v Yugoiztochna Balgaria Nyakolko Desetki Godini Po-kasno/ Southeastern Bulgaria Iron Age Research
Several Decades Later, in Phosphorion: Studia in Honorem Mariae Cicikova,
edited by D. Gergova, pp. 109113. Sofia: Prof. Marin Drinov Academic Publishing House.
GOTSEV, A. and BOZHINOVA, E
2008 Keramichniyat Kompleks ot Rannozhelyaznata Epoha ot Trakiyskoto Svetilishte pri s. Babyak / Ceramic Complex from the Early Iron Age from the

64

GUMA, M.
1995
HNSEL, B.
1976

E. BOZHINOVA

Thracian Sanctuary at Babyak Village, in Trakijskoto Svetilishte pri s. Babyak i

Negovata Arheologicheska Sreda / The Thracian Sanctuary Near Babyak and its
Archaeological Environment, edited by M. Tonkova and A. Gotsev. Sofia.
The end of the Bronze Age and the Beginning of the Early Iron Age in Southwestern Romania, Western Serbia and North-western Bulgaria. A Short
Review, Thraco-Dacia 16, 12: 99137.

Beitrge zur regionalen und chronologischen Gliederung der lteren Hallstattzeit

an der Unteren Donau. (Beitrge zur Ur- und Frhgeschichtlichen Archologie
des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 1617). Bonn: Habelt.
HEURTLEY, W. A.
1939 Prehistoric Macedonia. Cambridge: University Press.
HOCHSTETTER, A.
1984 Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshgel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit
Makedoniens, 1975-1979. Die handgemachte Keramik. Text und Tafelteil.
(Prhistorische Archologie in Sdosteuropa Bd 3). Berlin: Spiess.
HOWES SMITH, P. H. G.
1986 A Study of 9th7th Century Metal Bowls from Western Asia, Iranica Antiqua
21: 188.
HOREJS, B.
2007 Das prhistorische Olynth. Ausgrabungen in der Toumba Agios Mamas 19941996. Die sptbronzezeitliche handgemachte Keramik der Schichten 13 bis 1
(Prhistorische Archologie in Sdosteuropa Bd 21). Rahden / Westf: Verlag
Marie Leidorf.
IVANOV, G.
2007a Otnosno Hronologiyata na Nekropolite na Kultura Brnitsa v Tsentralnite
Balkani/ About the Chronology of the Brnica Culture Necropoleis in the
Central Balkans, in PRAE: In Honorem Henrieta Todorova, edited by
C. Angelova and M. Stefanovich, pp. 255-256. Sofia: Faber Ltd.
2007b Pogrebalnite Praktiki prez Kasnata Bronzova Epoha v Tsentralnite Balkani / Burial Practices During the Late Bronze Age in the Central Balkan Peninsula.
Unpublished PhD diss. Sofia University.
JUGANARU, G.
2005 Cultura Babadag, Vol. 1 (Biblioteca Istro-Pontica. Seria Arheologie 7). Constanta: Ex Ponto.
JUNG, R. AND WENINGER, B.
2004 Kastanas and the Chronology of the Aegean Late Bronze and Early Iron Age,
in Radiocarbon and Archaeology. Fourth International Symposium, edited by
T. Higham, C. B. Ramsey and C. Owen, pp. 209227. Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology.
KISYOV, K.
1991 Kam Vaprosa za Pogrebalniya Obichay prez Rannata Zhelyazna Epoha v
Zapadnite Rodopi/ On the Issue of Burial Rituals of the Early Iron Age in
the Western Rhodope Mountain, Arheologiya 33, 4: 18.
2004 Trakiyskata Kultura v Regiona na Plovdiv i Techenieto na r. Stryama Prez Vtorata
Polovina na I hil. pr. Hr. / Thracian Culture in Plovdiv Vicinity and Along the
Stryama River During the Second Half of the First Millennium BCE. Sofia:
Agato.
2009 Pogrebalni praktiki v Rodopite (II I hil. pr. Hr.)/ Burial Practices in the
Rhodope Mountain (II I mil. BCE). Plovdiv: Avtospektar.

THE EARLY IRON AGE CULTURES IN THRACE

65

KITOV, G.
1993 Trakiyskite Mogili/ Thracian Mounds, Thracia 10: 3980.
KITOV G. and BOZHINOVA, E.
2005 Manchova Mogila ot Rannata Zhelyazna epoha v dolinata na Trakiyskite
tsare/ Manchova mound from early Iron Age in the Valley of the Thracian
Kings, in Zemite na Bulgariya: Lyulka na Trakijskata Kultura/ Bulgaria:
A Cradle of Thracian Culture, Vol. 2, edited by G. Kitov and D. Dimitrova,
pp. 115121. Sofia.
KOUKOULI-CHRYSANTHAKI, CH.
1982 The Late Bronze Age in Eastern Macedonia, in Thracia Praehistorica, Supplementum Pulpudeva 3, pp. 231258. Sofia.
1992 Protoistorike Thasos: Ta Nekrotapheia tou Oikismou Kastri. Athens: Tameio
Archaiologikon Poron kai Apallotrioseon.
LAZAROVA, S.
1993 Zlaten Sad ot o. Belene (Persina), Loveshka Oblast/ A Golden Vessel from
Belene Island (Persina Site) in Lovech County, Izvestiya na Muzeite ot Severozapadna Bulgarya / Proceedings from the Museums of Northwestern Bulgaria 20:
261263.
MOMMSEN, H., JUNG, R. and BOZHINOVA, E.
Dragojna Eine Spaetbronzezeitliche Hoehensiedlung in den Bulgarischen
Rhodopen mit Importierter Mykenischer Keramik, Athenische Mitteilungen.
In print.
MOUNTJOY, P. A.
1999 Troia VII Reconsidered, Studia Troica 9: 295346.
NEHRIZOV, G.
2005 Keramichniyat Kompleks ot Rannata Zhelyazna Epoha v Iztochnite Rodopi /
Ceramic Complex from the Early Iron Age in the Eastern Rhodope Mountain.
Unpublished PhD diss. Archaeological Institute with Museum, Sofia.
2006 Glineni Pechati za Ukrasa na Keramikata ot Rannata Zhelyazna Epoha v Trakia/ Pottery Decoration Ceramic Bullae from the Early Iron Age in Thrace,
in V: Getite: Kultura i Tradicii / Getae: Culture and Traditions (Helis Helis 5),
edited by D. Gergova, pp. 298312. Sofia.
2009 Nekropol ot Rannata zhelyazna epoha pri s. Stambolovo, Haskovsko/ Early
Iron Age Necropolis at Stambolovo Village in Haskovo county, in Arheologicheski Otkritiya i Razkopki prez 2008 g. / Archaeological Survey and Excavations
in 2008, edited by D. Gergova, rr. 266271. Sofia: Faber.
NIKOV, K.
1999 Aeolian Bucchero in Thrace?, Archaeologia Bulgarica 3, 2: 3142.
2000a Kulturni Kontakti na Yuzhna Trakia s Egeyskiya Sviyat prez Rannata Zhelyaznata
Epoha po Danni na Keramikata/ Cultural Interactions Between Southern Thrace
and the Aegean World during the Early Iron Age Based on Ceramics Data. Unpublished PhD diss. Sofia University.
2000b Bird-Images on Early Iron Age Pottery from South-Eastern Thrace, in Technology, Style and Society. Contributions to the Innovations between the Alps and
the Black Sea in Prehistory (BAR International Series 854), edited by L. Nikolova,
pp. 303308. Oxford: Archaeopress.
2002 Stamped Decoration Pithoi in Southern Thrace from the Early Iron Age,
Archaeologia Bulgarica 6, 1: 1944.
ZDOGAN, M.
1987 Talcabayr, a Late Bronze Age Burial Mound in Eastern Thrace, Anatolica
14: 740.

66
PARE, C.
1998
PATAY, P.
1990
POPOV, H.
2009

E. BOZHINOVA

Beitrge zum bergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit in Mitteleuropa. Teil I:
Grundzge der Chronologie im stlichen Mitteleuropa (11.8. Jahrhundert
v. Chr.) (Jahrbuch des Rmisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums). Mainz.
Die Bronzegefe in Ungarn (Prhistorische Bronzefunde 10). Mnchen:
C. H. Becksche Verlagsbuchhandlung.

Selishten Obekt Kush kaya. Harakteristiki na Obitavaneto prez Kasnata

Bronzova I Rannata Zhelyazna Epoha/ Occupation Characteristics of the
Residential Site Kush kaya During the Late Bronze and the Early Iron Age,
Arheologiya 1, 2: 2139.
SALGANOVA, T.
1994 Das Auftreten der kannelierten Keramik und der bergang von der Sptbronzezeit zur Frheisenzeit in Nordwestbulgarien, in The Early Hallstatt
Period (1200-700 B.C.) in South-Eastern Europe. International Symposium from
Alba Iulia, 1012 June, 1993, edited by H. Ciugudean and N. Boroffka,
pp. 185196. Alba Iulia: Muzeul National al Uninii.
1995 The Lower Danube Incrusted Pottery Culture, in Prehistoric Bulgaria, edited
by D. Bailey and I. Panayotov, pp. 291306. Madison, Wis.: Prehistory Press.
2005 Izkustvo i Obred na Bronzovata Epoha. Kultura na Inkrustiranata Keramika po
Dolen Dunav/ Bronze Age Art and Ritual. Inlaid Pottery Culture in the Lower
Danube Valley, (MIF 3). Sofia: New Bulgarian University.
SALGANOVA, T. and GOTZEV, A.
1995 Problems of Research on the Early Iron Age, in Prehistoric Bulgaria, edited by
D. Bailey and I. Panayotov, pp. 327343. Madison, Wis.: Prehistory Press.
SCHMIDT, H.
1902 Heinrich Schliemanns Sammlung Trojanischer Altertmer. Berlin: Georg Reimer.
SHOPOVA, A.
1990 Glinen sad sas zakodirana informatsia za besite/ Ceramic vessel holding
encoded information about the Bessi culture, in Trakijska Kultura v Rodopite
i Gornite Porechiya na Marica, Mesta, i Struma / Thracian Culture in the
Rhodope Mountain and the Upper Valleys of Maritsa, Mesta, and Struma, edited
by M. Domaradski, pp. 8186. Smolyan.
STANCEVA, M.
1974 Une coupe en or de Sofia, Thracia 3: 221241.
STOYANOV, T.
1997 Early Iron Age Tumular Necropolis. (Sborianovo 1). Sofia.
2000 Kontakti na Severoiztochna Trakia s Anatoliya, Kavkaz i Blizkiya Iztok prez
Rannozhelyaznata epoha predi Gratskata kolonizatsiya / Early Iron Age
Contacts between Northeast Thrace and Anatolia, the Caucasus Region, and
the Near East before the Hellenic Colonisation, Izvestiya na Narodniya Muzej
Burgas / Proceedings of the National Museum in Burgas 3: 5061.
TODOROVA, H.
1982 Zur sptbronzezeitliche Siedlung auf der Groer Insel bei Durankulak
(Bulgarien), in Beitrge zum bronzezeitlichen Burgenbau in Mitteleuropa:
Kulturgeschichtliche und sozialkonomische Grundlagen, Dresden Nitra 1982,
pp. 412425. Berlin.
TONCEVA, G.
1980 Chronologie du Hallstatt ancien dans la Bulgarie de Nord-Est (Studia Thracica
5). Sofia: Academia Litterarum Bulgarica, Institutum Thracicum.

THE EARLY IRON AGE CULTURES IN THRACE

67

WARDLE, K and WARDLE, D.

2007 Assiros Toumba. A brief history of the settlement, in The Struma/Strymon
River Valley in Prehistory. In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, Vol. 2, edited by
H. Todorova, M. Stefanovich and G. Ivanov, pp. 451479. Sofia.

Fig. 1 Map of Thrace with sites discussed in the text: 1 Ada Tepe; 2 Assiros;
3 Babadag; 4 Babyak; 5 Belene; 6 Catalka; 7 Cepina; 8 Cerkovna; 9 Cala;
10 Durankulak; 11 Kastanas; 12 Kazanlak; 13 Koprivlen; 14 Ku kaya;
15 Malkoto Kale; 16 Manole; 17 Plovdiv; 18 Psenicevo; 19 - Semercheto;
20 Thassos; 21 Troia; 22 Valchitran; and 23 Zimnicae.

Fig. 2 Chronological schemes and regional groups proposed for South Thrace.

68
E. BOZHINOVA

THE EARLY IRON AGE CULTURES IN THRACE

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

Fig. 4 Golden bowl from Sofia.

69

70

E. BOZHINOVA

Fig. 5 Basic pottery forms from the Plovdiv-Zimnicae-Cerkovna complex

(the Late Bronze Age), the Fluted ware horizon and the Psenicevo phase
(the Early Iron Age).

THE EARLY IRON AGE CULTURES IN THRACE

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

71