In The Steps of James Harvey Gaul

Volume 2

THE
THE STRUMA/STRYMON
STRUMA/STRYMON
RIVER
RIVER VALLEY
VALLEY IN
IN PREHISTORY
PREHISTORY
Pernik

Kjustendil

Blagoevgrad

Kamenska uka

ma
Stru

Topolnica
Promachon

Str
y

m
on

Serres

Drama

Sitagroi
Dikili Tash

Amphipolis

Edited by
Henrieta Todorova, Mark Stefanovich, Georgi Ivanov

Proceedings of the International Symposium

Strymon Praehistoricus
KjustendilBlagoevgrad (Bulgaria) and SerresAmphipolis (Greece)
27.0901.10.2004

GERDA
GERDAHENKEL
HENKELSTIFTUNG
STIFTUNG
Sofia 2007

DIE GERDA HENKEL STIFTUNG FUR FRDERUNG DER HISTORISCHEN

GEISTESWISSENSCHAFTEN IST IM JUNI 1976 VON FRAU LISA MASKELL
ZUM GEDENKEN AN IHRE MUTTER, FRAU GERDA HENKEL, ALS
GEMEINNTZIGE STIFTUNG DES PRIVATEN RECHTS ERRICHTET WORDEN.
DIE STIFTUNG HAT IHREN SITZ IN DSSELDORF. AUSSCHLIESSLICHER
STIFTUNGSZWECK IST DIE FRDERUNG DER WISSENSCHAFT, VORNEMLICH
DURCH BESTIMMTE FACHLICH UND ZEITLICH BEGRENZTE ARBEITEN AUF
DEM GEBIET DER GEISTESWISSENSCHAFT AN UNIVERSITTEN UND
FORSCHUNGSINSTITUTEN. DIE WEITERBILDUNG GRAGUIERTER
STUDENTEN IST EIN BESONDERES ANLIEGEN DER STIFTUNG.

Gerda Henkel Stiftung

In The Steps of James Harvey Gaul

Volume 2
The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory
Proceedings of the International Symposium Strymon Praehistoricus,
KjustendilBlagoevgradSerresAmphipolis, 27.0901.10.2004
Editing: Henrieta Todorova, Mark Stefanovich and Georgi Ivanov
1. PrehistoricEurope; 2. Neolithic periodEurope; 3 EuropeAntiquities.
544 pp., 29 maps, 9 topograchical plans, 779 color photos, 81 b/w photos,
815 drawings, 58 tabl., 32 diagrams and simplified graphs,
10 reconstructions drawing of houses.

Museum of History-Kyustendil
ISBN: 978-954-8191-11-1
Sofia (2007) First published

GER DA HENK EL ST IF T UNG

MALKASTENSTRASSE 15, D-40211 DSSELDORF, GERMANY
TELEFON +49 (0)211 35 98 53, TELEFAX +49 (0)211 35 71 37
INFO@GERDA-HENKEL-STIFTUNG.DE
WWW.GERDA-HENKEL-STIFTUNG.DE

English texts edited by:

MARK STEFANOVICH
Drawings and Maps by:
IVAN VAJSOV, MICHAIL GEORGIEV AND AUTHORS
Photographs:
KRASIMIR GEORGIEV AND AUTORS
Graphic desing, layout and artistic supervisions:
GEORGI IVANOV (pages IX; 141; 121534) AND IVAN VAJSOV (pages 42120)
Cover graphic desing by:
GEORGI IVANOV AND IVAN VAJSOV
Cover photographs by:
KRASIMIR GEORGIEV, GEOGRI IVANOV AND CHAIDO KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI

Copyright 2007 by GERDA HENKEL STIFTUNG and THE AUTHORS

ISBN: 978-954-8191-11-1
No part of this publication may by reproduced by any means, including photocopy, recording or other information
storage retrieval system, without permission in writing from GERDA HENKEL STIFTUNG and THE AUTHORS.
The copyright to the illustrations are hold by the authors.
Printed in Bulgaria at BULGED.
Digital print. The technology of Indigo.

Gerda Henkel Stiftung

THE STRUMA/STRYMON
RIVER VALLEY IN PREHISTORY
Proceedings of the International Symposium

Strymon Praehistoricus
KjustendilBlagoevgrad
(Bulgaria)

SerresAmphipolis
(Greece)

27.0901.10.2004

Edited by

Henrieta Todorova, Mark Stefanovich, Georgi Ivanov

Soa 2007

Table of Contents

Vorwort ........................................................................................................................................................... vii

Die paleoklimatische Entwicklung in VIII Jt. vor Chr.

H. Todorova ..................................................................................................................................................... 1

Abrupt Climate Forcing Observed at Early Neolithic Sites

in South-East Europe and the Near East
B. Weninger, E. Alram-Stern, E. Bauer, L. Clare, U. Danzeglocke,
O. Jris, C. Kubatzki, G. Rollefson, H. Todorova, T. van Andel .................................................................... 7

Social Network Analysis of Neolithic Societies

E. Claen ........................................................................................................................................................ 28

Promachon-Topolnica. A greek-bulgarian archaeological project

Ch. Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, H. Todorova, I. Aslanis, I. Vajsov, M. Valla ................................................. 43

Promachon-Topolnica. A typology of painted decorations

and its use as a chronological marker
I. Vajsov .......................................................................................................................................................... 79

Tierdarstellungen und Stierkult im Neolithikum Sdosteuropas und Anatoliens

F. Falkenstein ................................................................................................................................................121

Where Do Children Belong? Neolithic burials in western Bulgaria

K. Bvarov ...................................................................................................................................................139

. ...............................................................................................................................................147

Die Entstehung und Gliederung der neolithischen Kulturen auf dem Zentralbalkan:
Fallbeispiel Glbnik
J. Pavk ........................................................................................................................................................ 165

Tell Glbnik. Architecture and Site Planning

A. Bakamska..................................................................................................................................................177

. , . . .....................................................................................................181

The Early Neolithic Site at Piperkov iflik, Near Kjustendil (Season 2004)
V. Vandova ....................................................................................................................................................191

Proto-Starevo Culture and Early Neolithic in the Struma Valley

M. Bogdanovi ..............................................................................................................................................201

La priodisation des sites prhistoriques dans la valle de la Strouma moyenne

L. Pernieva.................................................................................................................................................. 209

Das Frhchalkolithikum des Strymonbereichs

S. ochadiev ............................................................................................................................................... 223

Some Observations on Zoomorphic Images from Western Bulgaria

S. TerzijskaIgnatova ................................................................................................................................... 227

Prehistoric Settlements in the Province of Kjustendil

V. Genadieva ................................................................................................................................................ 239

Recent Researches at the Neolithic Settlement of Dikili Tash, Eastern Macedonia, Greece:
an Overview
P. Darcque, H. Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, D. Malamidou, R. Treuil, Z. Tsirtsoni ......................................247

Neolithic Societies: Recent Evidence from Northern Greece

M. Pappa .......................................................................................................................................................257

In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Linguistische Angaben ber die Namen der Flsse Axios, Strymon, Nestos
I. Duridanov ............................................................................................................................................. 273

Prehistorical Sites in the Middle Struma River Valley Between the End of the VIIth mill.
BC and the Beginning of the Ist mill. BC
M. Grbska-Kulowa, I. Kulow ..................................................................................................................... 279

Kryoneri: a Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Settlement in the Lower Strymon Valley
D. Malamidou .............................................................................................................................................. 297

Absolute Chronology of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Cultures in the Valley of Struma
J. Bojadiev................................................................................................................................................... 309

Decline of the Painted Pottery in Eastern Macedonia and North Aegean

at the End of the Final Neolithic/Chalcolithic Period
S. Papadopoulos ............................................................................................................................................317

On the Late Stages of the Krivodol-Slcua Culture

P. Georgieva ................................................................................................................................................. 329

The Ethno-Cultural Affiliation of the North Anatolian Early Bronze Age

J. Yakar ......................................................................................................................................................... 339

Dating the Donja Brnjica Culture Based on Metal Finds

K. Luci .......................................................................................................................................................... 347

A Late Bronze Age Cemetery in Faia Petra, East of the Middle Strymon Valley
M. Valla ........................................................................................................................................................ 359

The Late Bronze Age Necropolis in the own of Sandanski, Southwest Bulgaria
S. Alexandrov, V. Petkov, G. Ivanov .............................................................................................................373

Krsto Pokrovnik Excavations at a Late Bronze Age Site in the Middle Struma
River Valley, Southwest Bulgaria. Preliminary results 2004 season
M. Stefanovich, I. Kulov .............................................................................................................................. 389

Tradition and Innovation in the Bronze Age Pottery of the Thessaloniki Toumba.
Food and drink consumption and tableware ceramics
S. Andreou, K. Psaraki ................................................................................................................................ 397

Bronzezeitliche Goldornate aus Sddeutschland

und ihre donaulndisch-balkanischen Beziehungen
W. David ....................................................................................................................................................... 421

The Beginning of the Iron Age in Macedonia

D. Mitrevski .................................................................................................................................................. 443

Assiros Toumba. A brief history of the settlement

K.A. Wardle, D. Wardle. ...............................................................................................................................451
Troy

VIIB2 Revisited. The date of the transition from Bronze

to Iron Age in the Northern Aegean

K.A. Wardle, M. Newton, P.I. Kuniholm .....................................................................................................481

Palaeobotanical Data in South-Western Region of Bulgaria

Tz. Popova, E. Marinova .............................................................................................................................. 499

-.

. , . .................................................................................................................................. 509

Agriculture and Use of Space at Promachon/Topolnica.

Preliminary observations on the archaeobotanical material
S.M. Valamoti ............................................................................................................................................... 523

Palaeoecological Evidence of the Main Postglacial Vegetation and Climate Changes

in Southwestern Bulgaria from the Neolithic to Modern Times
E. Boilova, S. Tonkov ..................................................................................................................................531

The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

On the Late Stages

of the Krivodol-Slcua Culture
Petya Georgieva
The paper presents problems in the internal periodisation of the culture KrivodolSlcua and the possibilities
of the synchronization of their individual stages with neighbouring cultures. The early stages of the development of
the culture were known especially from the territory of Western Bulgaria. Only here continuity with chronologically
earlier culture Gradenica-Dikili Tash-Slatino was identified. These early stages are simultaneous with IIII phases
of the cultures Kodadermen-Gumelnia-Karanovo VI and Varna. Settlements from the later stages were found in a
much larger territory Western Bulgaria and the Rhodopi mountains, Muntenia Serbia and Macedonia. This is also
the maximal territorial range of the KrivodolSlcua culture, which includes territories of Vina culture. In the periodisation scheme of H. Todorova later stages are separated generally as phase IV of the Late Eneolithic Period, which
developed in stage, chronologically following the final stage of the neighboring cultures Kodadermen-GumelniaKaranovo VI and Varna.
In the later stages of the culture KrivodolSlcua two stages can be clearly differentiated the earlier, presented
well in Galatin and Slcua IIc, and the later, presented well in Rebrkovo and Slcua III. The pottery complex of
the culture KrivodolSlcua is mainly stable related to the forms and ornamental compositions in its whole stages of
development. Only individual formal details were changed, as well as some of the ornamental techniques, but in the
latest stages the quality of the vessels got worse.
The comparative analysis between pottery complexes from the latest stages of culture KrivodolSlcua and the
pottery from some settlements, presented latest stages of the cultures Kodadermen-Gumelnia-Karanovo VI: Rupkite, Starozagorski Mineralni Bani, Bikovo; Varna: Kozareva mogila and Sozopol, proves their contemporaneousness.
Also the comparison argues for the rejection of a widely spread theory, according to which the cultures Varna and
Kodadermen-Gumelnia-Karanovo VI finish their development earlier then culture KrivodolSlcua.

-

- .
. e
--. IIII -- VI .
, ,
. , . . - IV
, ,
-- VI .
- -, - IIC, -, - III. -, ,
. , , ,
.
-
, -- VI : , , , ,
,
-- VI -
-.

The Krivodol-Slcua-Bubanj-Hum culture

can be found in parts of three modern countries, in each of which different periodisations
have been created on the basis of explored settlements. All authors accept that they are referring to one and the same culture.
The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

In Romania, periodisation is based on the

stratigraphy of the Slcua settlement (BERCIU
1961). The following phases have been identified: Slcua I, Slcua II with three subphases,
a, b, and c, and Slcua III and IV. Little ceramics has been published from Slcua I and

330

Petya Georgieva

Fig. 1. Chronlogical table.

IIab and it does not represent significant differences with regards to forms. All three levels
have ceramics painted with graphite and with
white and red paint, with the technique known
as fresco. In level IIb, the quantity of graphite-painted ceramics decreases and that of redand white-painted ceramics increases. Ceramics
from level IIc differs significantly from that of
preceding levels, mostly by its greater quantity
and diversitythe majority of the whole vessels
are here. However, there are no forms known
from I, IIa, and IIb, that do not occur in IIc.
Here, as well as in preceding levels, there is
both ceramics painted with graphite and ceramics painted with red and white paint. From
the small quantity of ceramic from levels I, IIa,
and IIb, it is impossible to identify any type of
vessel whose evolution can be traced within the
two phases of the development of the culture as
defined by Berciu. I make a special note of this
not to dispute the periodisation of the Slcua
settlement proposed by D. Berciu, but to emphasise the fact that the published fragments
of Slcua IIIa are not sufficiently representative to justify distinguishing a phase and two
In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

subphases within the culture. Findings from

Slcua III and IV indeed show a significant
difference both from the preceding ones and
between each other. From the point of view of
the ending of the culture, it is of interest that
individual shards made from clay mixed with
shells appear in Slcua III for the first time,
and in Slcua IV their quantity become significant. According to D. Berciu, Slcua IV is
a period of transition to the Coofeni culture.
He writes about the artefacts from V. Mikovs
excavations at the Devetashka cave saying that
they are earlier than those from Slcua, and
he identifies the materials from Krivodol as cotemporaneous.
In the prehistory of Serbia, the culture considered here is called Bubanj-Hum. Two phases
are distinguished, called Bubanj Hum Ia and
Bubanj Hum Ib. The first is synchronous with
Krivodol and phases IIII of Slcua, and the
second one with Slcua IV and Herculan II
III (GARAANIN 1978; TASI 1979).
In the periodisation adopted in the Bulgarian literature on prehistory, the Krivodol culture
is defined as one from the Late Eneolithic synchronous with the Kodjadermen-Gumelnia-Karanovo VI culture complex and the Varna culture, and continuing its development for a short
period after the latter (MIKOV 1948; MIKOV 1960;
PETKOV 1964; NIKOLOV 1975; NIKOLOV 1984; TODOROVA 1986, 127132; GEORGIEVA 1990).
In this paper, I use the term late stages of
the culture to mean the stages after the appearance of ceramics painted with red, white, yellow, orange, and black paint with the technique
called fresco by Berciu. I adopt the appearance of this type of decoration as a distinguishing feature between the early and the late stages
of the culture for two reasons: first, because this
is the only feature of the ceramics from the end
of the Late Eneolithic in eastern Bulgaria that
has been mentioned in the literature (GEORGIEV/
A NGELOV 1952; GEORGIEV/A NGELOV 1957), and because comparing the currently known ceramic
complexes from various settlements (with stratigraphic data) where this type of decoration is
present shows that they differ from those from
which it is absent by the specific features of vessel shapes as well. This kind of ceramics does not
occur during the earlier stages of the evolution
of the culture, known only from Bulgaria and

331

On the late stages of the Krivodol-Salcua Culture

1
2

3
4

7
8
Fig. 2. Ceramic from Devetashuata peshtera (1, 3), Peklyuk (4) and Zaminetz (2, 58).
explored in the Devetashka cave house no. 2
from Mikovs excavations (MIKOV 1960, 7987),
Peklyuk the potters furnace (PETKOV 1964),
and Zaminetz the published three levels of ocThe Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

cupation (NIKOLOV 1975). It occurs in all levels

of Slcua, in some of the levels of Galatin the
house (GEORGIEVA 1988), Negovantzi (GEORGIEVA
1993), Kolarovo (PERNICHEVA 1992), Rebrkovo

332

Petya Georgieva

10

11

12

13

15
14

17

16

18

19

Fig. 3. Ceramic from Peklyuk (1), Devetashuata peshtera (2), Zaminetz C(36), Krivodol (711),
Galatin (1213), Slcua I, Slcua II a (1416), Slcua II b (17), Slcua II c (18) and Slcua III (19).
In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

333

On the late stages of the Krivodol-Salcua Culture

3
2
4

9
10

Fig. 4 Ceramic from Peklyuk (1 4), Devetashuata peshtera (5), Zaminetz C (610).
(GEORGIEVA 1994), etc. With regard to the ceramics from the settlement near Krivodol, the
only note in the text regarding the differences
between the ceramic complexes from the five
levels is, ...Graphite-painted geometric patterns
dominate in the earlier stages from the existence of the
settlement. In the higher levels, graphite as a means
of decoration is replaced by multicoloured ochre
paint: white, yellow, red, light brown... (NIKOLOV
1984, 10). With regards to relative chronology
(Fig. 1) the late stages of the culture falls after
the stage represented in Zaminetz and before
Slcua IV or the so-called scheibenhenkel
level. The ceramics of this stage is rather different from that of the preceding stages. GraphThe Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

ite-painted ceramics continues to be found together with ceramics painted with red, white,
etc. paint, but the overall quantity of painted ceramics is smaller. The same types of vessels continue to occur, but some of their details change.
Vessels in which the middle part of the vertical
profile is thickened and sharply shaped downward (Fig. 2: 16) or thickened and shaped as a
cylindrical belt (Fig. 2: 78) do not occur during
this period. I shall demostrate here the differences between the vessels from the period under consideration and the preceding ones only
in vessels with two large vertical handles cups
and deep vessels (bowls or amphora-like ones).
All of them, with the exception of the vessels

334

Petya Georgieva

1
3

9
7
10

11

12

Fig. 5. Ceramic from Krivodol (18), Slcua I (9), Slcua II b (10), Slcua III (11) and Slcua IV (12).

from Krivodol, come from complexes with certain stratigraphies. With regards to the cups, it
can be seen that those from Galatin and Slcua
(Fig. 3:1219) are definitely different from the
In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

rest (Fig. 3:111) the body is broad and shallow, the handles are large and spread outthe
most convex part of the handle is in the middle
of the arc of its profile, while for the earlier ones

335

On the late stages of the Krivodol-Salcua Culture

3
Fig. 6. Ceramic from Kozareva mogila.
from Peklyuk and Zaminetz this is the lowest
part. With regard to deep vessels (Fig. 45), the
handles of the earlier ones are attached to the
rim or a little under it and to the most bulging
part of the body (Fig. 4), while for the later ones
they are attached to the rim and at or a little
above the most bulging part of the body (Fig.
5). For cups, as well as for the two deep vessels
from Slcua IIC and Slcua III the abovementioned differences the earlier stages are more
emphasised than, for example, for the numerous vessels of these types from Krivodol (Fig.
3:7). This means that the material from the
various strata at Krivodol represent different
stages of the evolution of the Krivodol-Slcua
culture and are only partially cotemporaneous
with Slcua IIII.
Two subperiods can be distinguisghed within
the period under consideration, which I tentatively call the later stages of the Krivodol-Slcua
culture, or the period of ceramics painted with
The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

various paints and the fresco technique. The

first one is represented in Galatin, Krivodol,
and Slcua IIC, and the second one in Slcua
III, Rebrkovo, Krivodol, and probably Staliyska
Mahala. The Slcua IIIRebrkovo stage represents the ending of the evolution of the cuture
of the eneolithic population in this region. This
is the last stage of the development of copper
metallurgy. The first traces can be seen during
this stage of a penetration of a population ethnically foreigh to the locals, originating from the
steppe regions of Ukraine in both Slcua III
and Rebrkovo, the first shards made from clay
mixed with ground clam and snail shells appear
during this period (GEORGIEVA 1992).
Fig. 1 shows the presumed chronological
sequence of the complexes from various settlements belonging to the culture. As far as one
can judge from the typological characteristics of
the ceramics, some of them are chronologically
very close to each other, for example Djakovo

336

Petya Georgieva

5
2

Fig. 7. Ceramic from Sozopol (13) and Rebarkovo (47).

(COCHADZIEV 1984), Peklyuk (the potters furnace) and Devetashka peshtera (house No. 2),
while others appear more distant: Devetashka
peshtera and Zaminetz as well as Zaminetz and
Galatin I (the house). This, as well as the large
typological differences between the ceramic
complexes of Krivodol-Slcua and Kodjadermen-Gumelnia-Karanovo VI, makes synchronization of their individual stages difficult. The
materials from the Late Eneolithic settlements
explored in recent years on the territiry of the
cultures
Kodjadermen-Gumelnia-Karanovo
VI and Varna: Sozopol, Kozareva mogila and
Rupkite, allow more precise synchronizations,
as well as an opportunity to correct the notion
that the Krivodol-Slcua culture continued to
evolve longer than Kodjadermen-GumelniaIn the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Karanovo VI the so-called phase IV of the

Krivodol culture. Complexes cotemporaneous
with the later stages of the Krivodol-Slcua
culture have been explored in the settlements
at Kableshkovo-Kozareva mogila, Black Sea region (GEORGIEVA 2004) and at Rupkite, Thrace
region (GEORGIEVA 1994, 1213, Fig. 2426).
There are vessels painted with red, white, and
brown paint among the ceramics from these
settlements and, similarly to the Slcua III
Rebrkovo stage, individual shards made from
clay mixed with ground shells (Fig. 6). The finds
of ceramics with ground shells notwithstanding, these settlements appear chronologically
closer to the stage represented at Galatin (the
house) and Slcua IIc, because the remaining
ceramics is of excellent quality and is nowhere

On the late stages of the Krivodol-Salcua Culture

near the beginning of the deterioration of production that is characteristic of the Slcua III
Rebrkovo stage. The ceramics from the submerged settlement at Sozopol (DRAGANOV 1998,
Fig. 34) which can be typologically defined as
later than that from Kozareva mogila has many
more parallels in Rebrkovo, both with regard
to the shapes and sizes of vessels small vessels with an S-shaped vertical profile, and with
regards to the decoration for example, the
impressed decoration on the shards in Fig. 7.
The synchronization of the late stages of these
two neighboring cultures allows an opportunity

337
to approach a clarification of the problems related to the disappearance of the brilliant Late
Eneolithic cultures in this part of the Balkan
Penunsula and the process of the formation
of the Cernavoda I and Galatin (Slcua IV,
Herkulane IIIII) cultures. It appears improbable that findings such as those from Kozareva
mogila, Rupkite, and Sozopol are an isolated
phenomenon; it is more likely that they had remained unnoticed in the course of long years,
similarly to those from the Rebrkovo-Slcua
III stage and those chronologically following it
in western Bulgaria.

References
BERCIU 1961
D. Berciu. Contribuii la problemele neoliticului din
Romnia n lumina noilor cercetri (Bucureti 1961).
COCHADZIEV 1984
S. Cochadziev. Ausgrabungen an der Prahistoriskken Siedlung beim Dorf Djakovo, Kreis Kjustendil. Studia Praehistorica 7, 1984, 6480.
DR AGANOV 1998
V. Draganov. James Harvey Gaul and the Present State of Eneolithic Research in Northeastern Bulgaria and Trace. In: M. Stefanovich et
al. (eds.). In the steps of James Harvey Gaul 1 (Sofia
1998), 203122.
GARAANIN 1973
M. Garaanin. Praistorija na tlu SR Srbije (Beograd
1973).
GEORGIEVA 1988
P. Georgieva. Die prahistorisihe Siedlung in der
Gegend Cukata beim Dorf Galatin. Studia Praehistorica 9, 1988.
GEORGIEVA 1990
P. Georgieva. Periodization of the Krivodol-SaliuaBubanj Culture. In: D. Srejovi, N. Tasi (eds.).
Vinca and its World (Beograd 1990), 167173.
TASI 1979
N. Tasi. Bubanj-Slcua-Krivodol kompleks. In:
A. Benac (ed.). Praistorija Jugoslovenskih Zemalja
III (Beograd 1979).
/ 1952
. , . . 19481949 .
VIII, 1952, 119195.
/ 1957
. , . . 19501953 . I,
1957, 41129.
1992
. .
. Studia
Praehistorica 1112, 1992, 339346.

The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

1993
. .
. , . . . , 86, 1993, 525.
1994.1
. .
. , . VI, 1994, 1, 926.
1994.2
. . .
, . . . ,
., 1, 1994, 750.
2004
. .
. . 21,
2004, 216230.
1948
B. . , . I,
1948, 2662.
, 1960
B. , . .
( 1960).
1975
. . ( 1975).
1984
. . ( 1984).
1986
. . - ( 1986).
1964
. . . , . 1, 1964.
1992
. . . Studia Praehistorica
1112, 1992, 221235.

In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2