Neolithic settlement Promachon-Topolnica (offprint) by Struma Road

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 Čuka

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 Kjustendil–Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria) and Serres–Amphipolis (Greece) 27.09–01.10.2004

GERDA GERDAHENKEL HENKELSTIFTUNG STIFTUNG Sofia · 2007

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

THE STRUMA/STRYMON RIVER VALLEY IN PREHISTORY

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“, Kjustendil–Blagoevgrad–Serres–Amphipolis, 27.09–01.10.2004 Editing: Henrieta Todorova, Mark Stefanovich and Georgi Ivanov 1. Prehistoric–Europe; 2. Neolithic period–Europe; 3 Europe–Antiquities. 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 DÜSSELDORF, 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 I–X; 1–41; 121–534) AND IVAN VAJSOV (pages 42–120) © 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 Kjustendil–Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria)

Serres–Amphipolis (Greece)

27.09–01.10.2004

Edited by

Henrieta Todorova, Mark Stefanovich, Georgi Ivanov

Soﬁa 2007

Table of Contents Vorwort ........................................................................................................................................................... vii Die paleoklimatische Entwicklung in VII–I 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. Jöris, C. Kubatzki, G. Rollefson, H. Todorova, T. van Andel .................................................................... 7

Social Network Analysis of Neolithic Societies

E. Claßen ........................................................................................................................................................ 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 Südosteuropas und Anatoliens

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

Where Do Children Belong? Neolithic burials in western Bulgaria

K. Băčvarov ...................................................................................................................................................139

Нови сведения за ранния неолит в Северозападна България

Г. Ганецовски ...............................................................................................................................................147

Die Entstehung und Gliederung der neolithischen Kulturen auf dem Zentralbalkan: Fallbeispiel Gălăbnik

J. Pavúk ........................................................................................................................................................ 165

Tell Gălăbnik. Architecture and Site Planning

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

Крайници – раннокерамично селище от басейна на река Струма

С. Чохаджиев, А. Бакъмска Л. Нинов .....................................................................................................181

The Early Neolithic Site at Piperkov Čiflik, Near Kjustendil (Season 2004)

V. Vandova ....................................................................................................................................................191

Proto-Starčevo Culture and Early Neolithic in the Struma Valley

M. Bogdanović ..............................................................................................................................................201

La périodisation des sites préhistoriques dans la vallée de la Strouma moyenne

L. Perničeva.................................................................................................................................................. 209

Das Frühchalkolithikum des Strymonbereichs

S. Čochadžiev ............................................................................................................................................... 223

Some Observations on Zoomorphic Images from Western Bulgaria

S. Terzijska–Ignatova ................................................................................................................................... 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 über die Namen der Flüsse 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. Grębska-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. Bojadžiev................................................................................................................................................... 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-Sălcuţa 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 Тown 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 Süddeutschland und ihre donauländisch-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

VIIB2 Revisited. The date of the transition from Bronze to Iron Age in the Northern Aegean

Troy

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

Palaeobotanical Data in South-Western Region of Bulgaria

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

Промахон-Тополница. Компаративно изследване на дивите и домашни животни от сектор Тополница

Н. Илиев, Н. Спасов .................................................................................................................................. 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. Božilova, S. Tonkov ..................................................................................................................................531

The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

Участниците в конференцията пред Археологическия музей на Серес, 1 октомври 2004 г. Οι συμμετέχοντες στο συνέδριο μπροστά από το Αρχαιολογικό μουσείο στις Σέρρες, 1 Οκτωβρίου 2004. The participants of the conference in front of the Archaeological Museum of Serres, 1st of October 2004.

Henrieta Todorova Bernhard Weninger Erich Claßen Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki Ioanis Aslanis Ivan Vajsov Frank Falkanstein Krum Bačvarov Georges Ganetzovski Juraj Pavuk Aneta Bakamska Stefan Čochadžiev Veselina Vandova Liljana Perničeva Stoilka Terzijska–Ignatova Veneta Genadieva Pascal Darcque René Treuil Zoï Tsirtsoni Maria Papa Malgorzata Grębska-Kulowa Ilija Kulow Dimitra Malamidou Javor Bojadžiev

henrietat@web.de b.weninger@uni-koeln.de erich.classen@uni-koeln.de ckoukouli@yahoo.gr aslanis@classic.diavlos.gr aim-bas@aclubcable.com falkenstein@urz.uni-heidelberg.de krum.bacvarov@gmail.com ganecovski_ar@abv.bg jpavuk@pobox.sk abakamska@gmail.com s_choha@abv.bg v.vandova@abv.bg pernicheva@abv.bg ignatovatoni@yahoo.com venge@abv.bg pascal.darcque@mae.u-paris10.fr rene.treuil@mae.u-paris10.fr zoi.tsirtsoni@mom.fr gatpap@otenet.gr grembskamal@hotmail.com iliakulov@yahoo.com d.malamidou@free.fr yavordb@abv.bg

In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Stratis Papadopoulos Petya Georgieva Jak Yakar Kemjal Luci Magdalene Valla Stefan Alexandrov Georgi Ivanov Mark Stefanovich Stelios Andreou Wolfgang David Dragi Mitrevski Ken Wardle Diana Wardle Maryanne Newton P.I. Kuniholm Tzvetana Popova Nikolaj Spasov Elisaveta Božilova Spassimir Tonkov Sultana Maria Valamoti Irena Nasteva Petar Zidarov Biserka Gaydarska Valentin Debochichki

strapapa@in.gr van@theworld.com yakar@post.tau.ac.il muzeu_kosoves@ipko.org vallamagda@in.gr stefanalexandrov@abv.bg ivanov.georgi@yahoo.com mark@aubg.bg andrest@hist.auth.gr wolfgang.david@vfpa.fak12.uni-muenchen.de dragimit@yahoo.com wardleken@aol.com d.e.wardle@bham.ac.uk mwn3@cornell.edu pik3@cornell.edu1 paleobotani_tz@abv.bg nspassov@nmnh.bas.bg bozilova@biofac.uni-sofia.bg tonkov@biofac.uni-sofia.bg sval@hist.auth.gr musmk@mt.net.mk petarzidarov@yahoo.com b_gaydarska@yahoo.co.uk rmuseum.kn@mail.bg

Promachon-Topolnica

A greek-bulgarian archaeological project Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla Промахон-Тополница. Гръко-Български археологически проект Хайдо Кукули-Хризантаки, Хенриета Тодорова, Яоанис Асланис, Иван Вайсов, Магдаленe Вала През VI–V хил. пр. Хр. районът на Средна Струма е важното свързващо звено между юга и севера на Балканския полуостров. Това обуславя голямото значение на проучването на намиращото се там праисторическо селище Промахон-Тополница. Дългогодишните разкопки на обекта (1980–2003 год.), провеждани както от българската, така и от гръцката страна на границата, хвърлиха обилна светлина върху проблемите на праисторията на този район и донесоха много нови открития. Именно този обект дава и името на късно неолитната култура Тополница–Акропотамос. Обектът лежи на 1 км западно от десния бряг на река Струма, на ръба на заливната й тераса. Той се намира на около 2 км южно от българското село Тополница, Петричко (Figure 3–4). Разположен е пред източните склонове на планината Беласица, върху обширен eрозионен конус. Находището е известно в България под името „Кременица“. То се простира от двете страни на българо-гръцката граница, при гранична пирамида №63 и заема площ от около 40 декара. Българо-гръцката граница го дели на два сектора – български (наречен сектор Тополница) и гръцки (наречен сектор Промахон). Доминантното географско положение на селището е указание за това, че жителите му са контролирали по един или друг начин прохода Промахон, а с това и търговския път по река Струма. Промахон-Тополница е важно свързващо звено между неолитните култури на Северна Гърция и Югозападна България. В края на шестото и началото на петото хил. пр. Хр. селището е играло ключова роля в праисторията на Балканския полуостров. Животът там е продължил около 400 години, между 5100 и 4700 г. пр. Хр. Обектът е открит през 1979 год. по време на теренни обхождания, организирани от музея в гр. Петрич. През 1980 г. започва археологическото проучване на българския сектор под ръководството на проф., д-р, др.и.н. Хенриета Тодорова от Археологическия институт на Българската академия на науките в София. В сектор Тополница те продължават без прекъсване до 1991 год. Политическите промени след 1989 год. позволиха осъществяването на един голям гръцко-български проект за проучване и на гръцката част от селището. Той е ръководен от гръцка страна от д-р Хайдо Кукули-Хризантаки, а от българска – от член кор. на БАН, проф. д-р, д-р.и.н Хенриета Тодорова. Разкопките на гръцка територия продължиха от 1993 до 2003 год. В тях участва гръцко-български колектив, съставен от специалисти от различни области на науката. В сектор Промахон бе открит уникален сутеренен храм, вкопан на 4 м дълбочина. Той е бил двуетажен, като долният му, вкопан в земята, етаж вероятно е служил за депониране на жертвоприношения. Там бе открит голям брой червено оцветени букраниони (челната част на бичи черепи). От храма произхожда и богата колекция от находки – глинени и мраморни идоли, съдове, украсени с битум и червено и черно рисувани орнаментални композиции, аскоси, пинтадери, каменни и кремъчни артефакти, глинени модели на храма, олтари както и части от дървени, украсени с червена и черна боя, конструкции. Селището е било застроено с частично вкопани в земята сгради, които образуват голям архитектурен ансамбъл. Стените на сградите са били от колове, преплетени с плет, обмазан с глина. Вероятно покривните конструкции са били хоризонтални, като на места равният покрив вероятно е носил надстройка, покрита с двускатен покрив. Особен интерес представлява един наземен храм от финалната фаза (IIIB) на селището, проучен на българска територия, където бяха открити три големи идоли, които са били апликирани като полурелефи на западната му стена. От изток, в сектор Тополница, бе устанавена палисада от масивни дървени колове, от което съдим, че селището е било добре укрепено. Земеделието и животновъдството са лежали в основата на икономиката на селището. Отглеждани са били дребни кози и овце, както и говеда. Откритите тежести за стан и прешлените за вретено свидетелстват за развито тъкачество. Оръдията са били от камък, кремък, кост и рог. Открити са и останки от кошници и рогозки. През финалния етап от съществуването на къснонеолитното селище тук е била обработвана и самородна мед, за което говорят откритите многобройни най-ранни металургични топилни. Те маркират началото на металургията въобще. Къснонеолитната керамика е изключително висококачествена и богато украсена с рисувани орнаменти нанесени с черна и тъмнокафява боя (тип Акропотамос и тип Струмско), с битум (тип Тополница), с широки светлочервени ленти (тип Промахон), с полихромен орнамент (тип Димитра). Ранноенеолитната керамика е украсена с типичният за Струма позитивен линеен графитен и врязан орнамент, очертаващи спиралоидни мотиви.

The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla Προμαχώνας -Topolnica. Ελληνοβουλγαρικές αρχαιολογικές έρευνες X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, H. Todorova, I. Ασλάνης, I. Vajsov, M. Βάλλα Κατά την 6τη – 5τη χιλιετία πρ. Χρ. η περιοχή του μέσου και του κάτω Στρυμώνα έπαιξε σημαντικό ρόλο στην επικοινωνία ανάμεσα στο νότιο και το βόρειο τμήμα της Βαλκανικής χερσονήσου. Η γεωγραφική θέση του οικισμού Προμαχών-Topolnitsa καθορίζει και την σημασία της ανασκαφικής εξερεύνησής του. Οι μακρόχρονες ανασκαφές στην θέση (1983–2003) έφεραν στο φώς πολλά καινουργια ευρήματα και έγιναν αφορμή για καινούργιες ερμηνείες. Λόγω της σημασίας του, ο οίκισμος συμπεριλήφθηκε στην ονομασία του υστερονεολιθικού πολιτισμού TopolnitsaΑκροπόταμος. Ο οικισμός βρίσκεται στο χαμηλό λόφο Κρεμενίτσα, σε απόσταση ένα χιλιόμετρο δυτικότερα του σημερινού ρού του Στρυμόνα και περίπου 2 χιλιόμετρα νοτιότερα του χοριού Τοπόλνιτσα (Εικ. 3–4) και τέμνεται σε δύο από τα ελληνοβουλγαρικά σύνορα. Η έκταση της προϊστορικής εγκατάστασης υπολογίζεται στα 40 στρέμματα. Η προεξέχουσα τοποθεσία του οικισμού υποδεικνύει, πως οι κάτοικοι του μάλλουν θα ελέγχαν το στενό του Προμαχόνα και επομένος τον δρόμο κατά μήκος του Στρυμόνα. Η ζωή στν εγκατάσταση διαρκούσε περίπου 500 χρόνια, από τα τέλη της 6ης μέχρι και το τέλος του πρώτου ήμισυ της 5ης χιλιετίας πρ. Χρ. (περίπου 5100 – 4600 πρ. Χρ.). Ο οικισμός βρέθηκε το 1979 κατά επιφανειακές έρευνες διοργανόμενες από το αρχαιολογικό μουσείου στο Petrich. Ο βουλγαρικός τομέας διερευνήθηκε από το 1980 εως το 1991 υπό τη διεύθυνση της Η. Todorova. Οι πολιτικές αλλαγές το 1989 επέτρεψαν μια ελληνοβουλγαρική συνεργασία, κατευθυνόμενη από τους αρχαιολόγους Χ. ΚουκούληΧρυσανθάκη και Η. Todorova, στην οποία έλαβαν μέρος συνεργάτες από διάφορους κλάδους της επιστήμης. Οι ανασκαφές στο ελληνικό τομέα έλαβαν χώρα από το 1993 έως το 2003 και έφεραν στο φώς ένα μοναδικό κτίριο και σπάνια ευρήματα: πήλινα αγγεία με μαύρη και κόκκινη γραπτή διακόσμηση, ανθρωπόμορφα ειδώλια, πινταντέρες, εργαλεία από λίθο και πυριτόλιθο, πήλινα ομοιώματα κτιρίων όπως και μέρη ξύλινων κατασκευών. Τα κτίρια του οικισμού βρίσκονταν εν μέρει στο έδαφος, τοποθετημένα το ένα κοντά στον άλλο δημιουργόντας νησίδες. Οι τοίχοι κτιρίων ήθαν κατασκευασμένες από ξύλινους πασσάλους, πλεχτά κλαδιά και πηλό. Οι στέγες θα ήθαν οριζόντιες, ενώ μέρικά σημεία τα κτίρια θα κατείχαν και δεύτερο όροφο καλυμμένο με δίκλινη στέγη. Ιδιαίτερο ενδιαφέρον κατέχει ένα κτίριο με υπόγειο, σκαμμένο 4 μ. μέσα στο φυσικό έδαφος μέσα στο οποίο βρέθηκαν βουκράνια, λιχνάρια, ανθρωπόμορφα ειδώλια, ασκοειδή και άλλα αγγεία, τα οποία παραπέμπουν σε τελετουργική αποθετική χρήση. Η ανατολική πλευρά του οικισμού ήθαν οχυρομένη με περίφραξη από μεγάλους πασσάλους. Οικονομική βάση του πληθυσμό αποτελούσε η γεωργία και η κτηνοτροφία. Εκτρέφονταν αιγοπρόβατα και βοοειδή. Αγνίθες και πήλινα σφοντύλια τεκμειριώνουν την ύπαρξη υφαντικής. Σόζωνται εργαλεία από πέτρα, πυριθόλιτο, οστόν και κέρατο. Για την τελευταία φάση του οικισμού αποδεικνύεται η επεξεργασία χαλκού, μια που βρέθηκαν τμήματα χωνευτηρίων. Η κεραμεική διακρίνεται για την καλή της ποιότητα και τον πλούσιο γραπτό διάκοσμο (των τύπων Ακροπόταμος, Στρούμσκο), την διακόσμηση με Bitumen (τύπος Τοπόλνιτσα), την διακόσμηση με φαρδιές κόκκινες ταινίες (τύπος Προμαχών), την διακόσμηση με περισσότερα χρώματα (τύπος Δήμητρα), ενώ για τις φάσεις της αρχαιότερης Χαλκολιθικής είναι χαρακτηριστικά αγγεία διακόσμημένα με γραφίτη. Στον οικισμό βρέθηκε μεγάλος αριθμός πήλινων ανθρωπόμορφων ειδωλίων. Στον τομέα «Topolnitsa» ήρθε στο φώς ένα σύμπλεγμα από τρία ανρθωπόμορφα ειδώλια, τα οποία λόγω αξιόλογου σοζώνου ύψους από περίπου 1 μ. μπορούν να χαρακτηριστούν ώς αγάλματα.

Introduction Today Greek (Fig. 2) and Bulgarian (Fig. 1) archaeologists are investigating a Neolithic settlement that is situated on the Greek–Bulgarian border and is bisected by the frontier of the two countries. Until 1994 this Neolithic settlement was known in the literature under the name of Topolnica or Topolniča „Kremenica“ (PERNICHEVA 1983; TODOROVA 1982; 1983; 1984; TO DOROVA /BOJADZIEV 1985, 1986, 1987; BOJADZIEV/ VAJSOV 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991; TODOROVA /VAJSOV 1993, 1995; G ÖRSDORF/BOJADZIEV 1996; BAILEY 2000), and from 1995 – under the name of Promachon, Promahonas or Promachon-Topolnica (KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2004; KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI /BASSIAKOS 2002; A NDREOU et al 1996.). The discovery of this site has given researchers the possibility to define a new culture called – Topolnica-Akropotamos (TODOROVA /VAJSOV 1993, 113–116). The results from In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

the Greek-Bulgarian systematic excavations of Promachon-Topolnica are of exceptional importance for the Late Neolithic and Early Eneolithic on the Balkan Peninsula. History of Research The settlement of Topolnica (Kremenica) was discovered in 1978 by B. Băcharova, who was then director of the museum in Petrich (BĂČVAROVA 2002). The site was also registered by the Bulgarian-Polish survey expedition in 1980–1981 when they noted sites in the areas around the rivers Strumešnica and the Middle Struma (Strymon) (PERNICHEVA 1983, 1995; DOMARADZKI et coll. 2001, 70–72, Karta 1–3, Tablo 2:16, 18–22, 24–25; 3:1, 3–4). During 1980 H. Todorova from the Archaeological Institute of Sofia began test excavations on the site called Kremenica, that is located 2 kilometers to the south of the Bulgarian village Topolnica. Until 1983 these excavations were carried out alone

Promachon-Topolnica. A Greek-Bulgarian Archaeological Project

Fig. 1. a – The Bulgarian team in the Sector Topolnica in 1989*; b – Working in the Sector Topolnica.

Figure 2. a–b – Working in the Sector Promachon; b – P. Tzanetakis (conservator).

by Todorova (TODOROVA 1980, 1982, 1983, 1984; GEORGIEV, E. 1982), and from 1984–1986 with J. Bojadziev (TODOROVA /BOJADZIEV 1985, 1986, 1987). From 1987 until 1991 archaeological research on the Bulagrian sector was under J. Bojadziev with I. Vajsov from the Archaeological Institute of Sofia (BOJADZIEV/VAJSOV 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991) (Fig. 1). During 1980–1981 the excavations were mainly test soundings extending up to the border markers (Fig. 5:1). The aim was to define the stratigraphy and chronology of the site. Because of the complexity of the horizontal stratigraphy this was especially difficult. This caused future excavations (1981–1991) to extend the excavation to the east and encompass a large part of the settlement on the Bulgarian side of the border. During 1981 Ing. P. Vălev, an engineer-surveyor from the Archaeological Institute of Sofia set out a grid of 5 × 5 m squares. This grid was different from the

later Greek one laid out in 1992 as the grid in the Bulgarian sector (sector Topolnica) was oriented to magnetic north. In 1992, a joint Greek-Bulgarian excavation-research program began on the sector of the site located on Greek territory (sector Promachon) that continued to 2003. It was carried out under the auspicious of the Greek 18th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities of Eastern Macedonia under the direction of Ch. Koukouli-Chryssanthaki in collaboration with I. Aslanis of the Greek National Center of Research and the excavation team from Bulgaria (KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1992; 1993; 1995; 1996; 1997a–1997b; 1998; 1999; 2000; 2001; 2004; Koukouli-CHRYSSANTHAKI/BASIAKOS 2002) (Fig. 2). The results after 23 years of excavation on the site of Promachon-Topolnica show with justification that this is one of the most important prehistoric sites in this part of Southeastern Europe.

* From left to right (Tsvetan Tsvetanski, Plamen Arsov, Ivan Vajsov, Stamen Stanev, Smaragda Arvanitidu, Petar Iliev,

Ilian Hristakiev, Galja Stajkova, Petar Tsvetkov, Javor Bojadžiev, Milena Kalfova and Vladimir Panajotov)

The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla

Ali Botuš (Slavjanka) mountain

Kulata

Struma (Strymon) River Promachon-Topolnica

Fig. 3. Location of the Neolithic settlement Promachon-Topolnica (view from the West, Belasica moutain). The artifacts from the Promachon-Topolnica settlement excavations are located in the following museums, Archaeological Institute and Museum – Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Sofia (Bulgaria), National Historical Museum Sofia, (Bulgaria), Historical Museum Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria), Historical Museum Petrich (Bulgaria), Archaeological Museum Serres (Greece). The material (pottery, bones, daub etc.) from Sector Promachon is stored in the Loutra Sanatorium in Sidirokastro, Greece. Where is the site of Promachon-Topolnica located? The Neolithic site Promachon-Topolnica is located 1 km to the west of the right bank of the Styrmon (Struma) river and 2 km to the south of the Bulgarian village Topolnica (Municipality Petrich) and 3,5 km north-west of the Greek border village of Promachon (Figs. 3–4; Geographic Coordinates: Latitude – 41°23.220`, Longitude – 23°19.725`; h. 80.50 m). This location was straIn the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

tegic and the site controlled the north-south traffic through the Promachon pass that also represents an important link between the Neolithic cultures of Northern Greece and Southern West Bulgaria. The site is also located on the border between the Middle and Lower Strymon (Struma) river that from ancient times was a crossroads for many cultures and peoples. The valleys of the Middle and Lower Strymon (Struma) river, along with the river Strumešnica was the area where the Topolnica-Akropotamos culture extended with its dense settlement system. Research on the site of Promachon-Topolnica The joint research program, which has combined excavations and surface investigation with archaeometric ground probe data1 has determined the existence of an open prehistoric settlement (CHAPMAN 1989, 134) that covered two adjacent hilltops and encompassed a total area of 5 hectares with habitation occupation

Promachon-Topolnica. A Greek-Bulgarian Archaeological Project

Marikostinovo

B U L G A R I A

Čučoligovo

Topolnica

Promachon-Topolnica

Marino Pole

Kulata

Belasica Mountains

G R E E C E

Promachon

Fig. 4. Geographical map of the lower course of the Middle (Strymon) Struma valley and location of the Neolithic settlement Promachon-Topolnica. Drawing – © M. Georgiev and I. Vajsov. The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla

between 0,5 to 1,70 meters in depth (Figs. 3–4). The excavations undertaken on the Greek and the Bulgarian areas of the prehistoric settlement have identified four habitation phases. Today the stratigraphic sequence of the occupation levels according to excavation results is as follows: in the uppermost archaeological level, which has been disturbed by plowing, only a few pits and probably the compacted layers with pottery sherds and pebbles appear in places where the architectural remains of the last phase of habitation are present (Phase IV) (Figs. 5:2, 5:3). These strata, which also contain pottery from an earlier phase, probably come from the leveling of the ruins of the buildings from the preceding settlement levels. The last phase of habitation on the site can be dated to a late phase of the Late Neolithic based on scattered pottery sherds. Typical examples of incised and graphite painted pottery (Fig. 33) link this phase to Dikili Tash II (SEFERIADIS 1983; TREUIL 1992) and Sitagroi III (EVANS 1986) in Eastern Macedonia, and to Slatino (CHOCHADZIEV 1986) in the Strymon valley, and Gradešnica (NIKOLOV 1976) in Northwestern Bulgaria, as well as the Marica I–II culture in North Thrace. Clear architectural remains from the next level (Phase III) from both the Greek (Sector Promachon) (Fig. 5:5) and Bulgarian sectors (Sector Topolnica) (Fig. 5:4) indicate timberframed (wattle and daub) houses with interior hearths. The best example of a timber-framed/ wattle and daub/house in this level was found in the Bulgarian sector. It was rectangular and measured 8 × 5 m and was aligned roughly east-west. A large post-hole pit in the center belonged to a post, which had supported the the roof (Fig. 5:4). Inside on the east side of the South wall, an oven was discovered with side chambers. On a bench, next to the West wall, were found fragments of three relief protomes

of female figures (KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1998b, Fig. 4:1; 1997b, Fig. 5:3), which probably come from the decoration of the West wall. The site mapping of the many clay idols that have been discovered around the building point to a votive deposit. There suggests the interpretation of a sanctuary for this dwelling (TODOROVA /VAJSOV 1993). Vessels painted in the Akropotamos style decoration (Fig. 36) (MYLONAS /BAKALAKIS 1938; MYLONAS 1941), mostly locally made, are typical for this phase (CHOCHATZIEV 1986; PERNICHEVA 2002). Evidence for copper-smelting is of particular interest and is documented in the sector Promachon in the Phase III levels (KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 2000; KOUKOULI-CHRYSANTHAKI / BASIAKOS 2002). According to the Archaeometry Laboratory Democritos in Athens a clay crucible found at the bottom of a small pit contained traces of copper smelting with distinct traces of heavy burning (Figs. 7:1–4). The extension of the excavation area towards neighboring Trench B also revealed traces of copper on the floor. Here we discovered a series of hollows in the floor with successive layers of burnt clay on the interior (Fig. 7:3), that resemble a similar construction in Phase I at the prehistoric settlement of Dikili Tash (SEFERIADES 1983; BLÉCON et al. 1992). As the excavations continued, further evidence increased for copper extraction in these hollows. The only examples known to date of early copper metallurgy in the 5th millennium BC, without slag production come from the Middle East. At this initial stage of copper production veins of pure malachite were exploited, which did not leave slag. Examples of slag-free extraction of copper in the Middle East are still few and isolated while the Çatal Hüyük slag sample from the 6th millennium remains questionable

The settlement is situated at the area of the deserted Greek village Mesaia, Nea Petritsi and the Bulgarian village Topolnitsa (Topolnica). The collaborative research program has been designated by the conventional name Promachon-Topolnica which refers to this prehistoric settlement that is divided by the Greek and Bulgarian border using the names of the two modern-day neighbouring Greek and Bulgarian villages Promachon and Topolnica. The research results of this project are to be published in a publication under the title „Promachon–Topolnica“. Till now there are two joint preliminary publications:

Koukouli-Chryssanthaki et al. 1998a; 1997b. Main collaborators of the progamm: Ch. Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, H. Todorova, I. Aslanis, I. Vajsov, M. Valla, D. Malamidou, V. Draganov, K. Dimitrov, Ph. Kostantopoulou, D. Amoiridou and J. Bojadžiev (excavation goup); G. Koutetsi-Philippaki (stone tools); R. Christidou (bone objects); Tz. Popova and T. Valamoti (paleobotanology); N. Spassov and K. Trantalidou (palaeozoology); I. Kulev and I. Bassiakos (archaeometallurgy); P. Yiouni (pottery techiques); M. Georgiev , K. Velkovski and D. Stoev (ground probe investigations) and P. Tzanetakis (conservation).

In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Promachon-Topolnica. A Greek-Bulgarian Archaeological Project

B U L G A R I A Sector Promachon Sector Topolnica

G R E E C E

Fig. 5. 1 Promachon-Topolnica topographic plan of the prehistoric settlement (Drawing â&#x20AC;&#x201C; ÂŠ M. Georgiev and I. Vajsov); 2 Layer with pottery sherds and pebbles, Sector Topolnica, Phase IV; 2 Layer with pottery sherds and pebbles, Sector Promachon, Phase IV; 4 House nr. 1. Sector Topolnica, Phase IIIB; 5 Timber houses (wattle and daub construction), Sector Promachon, Phase IIIB. The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla

Lab. No

Context

Material

C BP

ä13C

cal. BC

HD-20459

5, Square ÓÔ Phase III

Bone

5999±47

-19,30

4939–4805 5017–4733

(68,3%) (95,4%)

HD-20461

3, Square IA, depth 80,05 m Phase III (IV)

Bone

5447±42

-18,62

4341–4250 4360–4145

(68,3%) (95,4%)

HD-20462

4, Square IA, depth 80,01 m Phase III (IV)

Bone

5530±48

-19,00

4448–4337 4459–4254

(68,3%) (95,4%)

DEM-1173

10, Square ÉÓÔ, pasa 10 depth 79,30 m, Phase II

Charcoal

5996±25

-25,00

4910–4810 4940–4870

(68,3%) (95,4%)

DEM-1185

9, Square ÉÓÔ, pasa 10 depth 79,31 m, Phase II

Charcoal

5895±33

-25,00

4800–4720 4850–4690

(68,3%) (95,4%)

Bln-3348

Hor. 2b, Square M14, depth 0,90 m, Wohngrube, Phase II

Charcoal

6000±80

DEM-1250

8, Square ÉÓÔ, pasa 8 depth 79,65 m, Phase II

Charcoal

6068±40

-25,00

5030–4860 5190–4810

(68,3%) (95,4%)

DEM-1254

12, Square ÉÓÔ, pasa 11 depth 78,99 m, Phase II

Charcoal

6038±40

-25,00

4990–4820 5040–4800

(68,3%) (95,4%)

HD-20457

29, Square Ã, depth 78,17 Phase I

Charcoal

6188±38

-25,77

5227–5061 5287–5002

(68,3%) (95,4%)

Bln-3382

Hor. 2c, Square J14, depth 1,10 m, Phase I

Charcoal

6100±60

5200–5180 5080–4930a

Bln-3349

Hor. 2c, Square O12 depth 1,20 m, Grube, Phase I

Charcoal

6240±90

5270–5060a

Bln-3381

Hor. 2b, Square J11, depth 0,80 m, Phase I

Charcoal

6270±60

5270–5200 5170–5080a

4970–4780a

Fig. 6. 14C dates (according to GÖRSDORF/BOJADŽIEV 1996; MANIATIS/FAKORELLIS 2000; MANIATIS et al. 2004). (CRADDOCK 1995). In Europe, there is no archaeological evidence for copper smelting in the earliest phases of the Late Neolithic. The appearance of crucibles with copper slag in Sitagroi Phase III probably comes from a copper melting operation (RENFREW/SLATER 2003). The evidence for intensive copper ore extraction in the Balkans at the mines of Rudna Glava (JOVANOVIC 1980) and Aibunar (CERNYCH 1978) at the end of the later phase of the Late Neolithic, presupposes the existence of an earlier small scale stage of copper extraction. This could have begun as early as the first half of the 5th millennium. The examples from the prehistoric settlement of Promachon-Topolnica and the isolated and an unconfirmed example from the settlement at Dikili Tash dated to the early phase of the Late Neolithic (Dikili Tash I, Sitagroi II), constitutes the earliest evidence for the autonomous appearance of copper metallurgy in the first half of the 5th millennium BC. Below building Phase III with its timberframed-wattle and daub-houses was found the In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

earliest building phase – Phase II of the settlement Promachon-Topolnica. In this phase, which is according to 14C analyses is dated to the beginning of the early phase of the Late Neolithic, occurs in pits and semi-subterranean „rooms“ cut into the natural subsoil. According to the 14C dates these phases are dated as follow (Fig. 6): Phase II: End of the 6th millennium, Phase III: First half of the 5th millennium, Phase IV: End of the first half of the 5th millennium. We do not as yet have a complete set of 14C dates for the lower levels of Phase I in the Promahon sector. We also have not checked the 14C dates against the thermoluminescence dates, and therefore it is still too early to discuss the 14 C dates for Phase IV of Promachon–Topolnica compared to those in a similar phase of Dikili Tash II (MANIATIS /FAKORELIS 1996) where the thermoluminescence dates have been checked

Promachon-Topolnica. A Greek-Bulgarian Archaeological Project

Fig. 7. 1 – North Proﬁle Square G – Crucible Pit; 2 – Bottom of the crucible pit; 3 – Cavities; 4 – Crucible. Sector Promachon, Phase III.

Fig. 8. Malachite beads (2–4) and bone (1). Sector Promachon, Phase III. The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

Fig. 9. Clay bead. Sector Topolnica, Phase III. Photo – © K. Georgiev.

Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla

(GUIBERT/ROCQUE 2000, 23). However, these dates do appear to be later than the ones for contemporary cultures in the Balkans (BOJADZIEV 1987). Similar semi-subterranean structures of different dimensions are already known in the Aegean area (PANTELIDOU/GOFA 1991). They have also been discovered on northern Greek sites in the same chronological horizon, e.g., Makriyalos (PAPPA /BESSIOS 1995, 1998, 1999) Thermi (GRAMMENOS /PAPPA 1992; PAPPA et al. 2000) and Stavroupolis (GRAMMENOS /KOTSOS 2002), Gianitsa B (CHRYSOSTOMOU 1991), which date to the pre-Dimini phase of the Late Neolithic (GALES / DEMOULE 1988). However, the earliest examples appear already in the Early Neolithic Period in the Southern Greece (Nea Makri, Attiki) (PANTELIDOU/G OFA 1991) and Northern Greece too (Gianitsa B, Macedonia) (CHRYSOSTOMOU 1991) Semi-subterranean structures are also known from other parts of Southeastern Europe (Ch. L AZAROVICI/C-M.M. L AZAROVICI 2003). In the Bulgarian sector (sector Topolnica), the semi-subterranean structures appear at different levels without any distinctive plan. Nine closed complexes have been excavated. The floor level is found at a depth of between 0,60–0,70 m. below the surface of the natural subsoil (from which they were cut) and they do not measure more than 8–10 square meters in area. The finds demonstrate that semi-subterranean structures were living areas and in some cases specialized workshops. Excavation of the floor areas revealed hearths and ovens, which show traces of repeated renewal (Fig. 13). Evidence came to light on the eastern periphery of the settlement located in Bulgarian territory that the settlement had been fortified with rows of upright massive posts that had been interlaced. In the Greek sector (sector Promachon) four structures with semi-subterranean areas were identified. The semi-subterranean structure nr. 1 seems to have continued into the next Trench A and beyond the limit of our excavation area. Since it has not been completely excavated, its plan is still uncertain. In the interior, a series of shallow pits of unequal depth in the natural subsoil were distinguished (Figs. 10–11). In the semi-subterranean structure nr. 2 (Fig. 11) there was a large central cutting in the subsoil with apsidal extensions almost symmetrically In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

arranged. A third semi-subterranean structure nr. 3 was discovered on the south side of the excavated area. The most important subterranean structure nr. 4 in the Promachon sector was found under the timber-framed wattle and daub structures of a later building in Phase III (Fig. 13). It differs from the other semi-subterranean structures excavated in the Greek and the Bulgarian sectors. This large, roughly circular subterranean structure, of which barely a third has been excavated, is much bigger than the already described semi subterranean structures – this one having a radius of more than 12 m and a depth of more than 7 m. To this large subterranean room belongs the hearth from level 17, which was found near the eastern wall where it had fallen at an angle towards the centre of the room. Excavation below the hearth floor revealed another lower floor level with pottery vessels in situ and the remains of structures. Whitish traces on the floor probably came from a wooden structure, while the large hole can be related to a wooden post that supported a wooden floor platform or the roof of the subterranean building (KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 2001). Further excavation showed that below the level 23 floor there existed many earlier floor levels that are testimony to the continuous use of the room. These floor levels and the deposits on them were covered by thin layers of a white material with organic remains and thick layers of a fine sandy soil, which extends from the walls of the pit and sloped downwards towards the centre where they leveled out (KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 2003). Below the floor levels with shallow deposits, which were not particularly rich in finds and below a layer of fine sandy soil, there appeared a rather thick deposit rich in finds. Among the many pebbles and stones were large number of grinding stones that are scattered around and a substantial number of intact and fragmented vessels, as well as fragments from clay structures, animal bones and horns (Fig. 12:1). Of special interest was the presence of bulls’ skulls usually facing upwards (Fig. 12:2). The deposits were located on floors plastered with yellowish clay and contain a large number of small objects including figurines, tools and jewelry (KOUKOULICHRYSNANTHAKI et al. 2003).

Promachon-Topolnica. A Greek-Bulgarian Archaeological Project

Fig. 9. Sector Topolnica, Phases II and III.

Fig. 10. Sector Promachon, Phase I and II.

structure nr. 1

structure nr. 2

structure nr. 3

structure nr. 4

structure nr. 5

Fig. 11. Sector Promachon, Phases I, II and III. The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla

Fig. 12. Sector Promachon, Phase II: 1 – Detail of the destruction level nr. 28; 2 – Destruction level nr. 31– bull’s skull „in situ“; 3 – Destruction level nr. 31; 4 – Destruction level nr. 36.

Fig. 33. Sector Promachon, Phases II and III. Subterranean structure nr. 4. Destruction layer nr. 28. In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Promachon-Topolnica. A Greek-Bulgarian Archaeological Project

Fig. 14. Sector Promachon, Phase II: 1 – Subterranean structure nr. 4 – View of the interior walls, hearth belonging to level nr. 17 and Floor levels – platforms (?) sloping towards the center; 2 – Section of a ﬂoor level. We also note a similar deposit with the same type of vases and bull skulls that was excavated outside the subterranean room, this indicates a coeval use of the space inside and outside the pit. Below the level 28 destruction and after a few levels without finds successive destruction levels were noted. In an analogous context, a great quantity of burnt clay fragments, grinding stones, vases, figurines, tools, pieces of jewelry animal bones and many bull skulls were found (Figs. 12:1–3). Large pieces of clay with molded surfaces are of particular interest. These were excavated very carefully but have not yet been conserved or studied. Some certainly, come from hearth floors. Others could come from the wall decorations or benches, e.g., a fragment of a bull’s head, which resembles a similar find from a Phase II building at Dikili Tash (TREUIL /DARCQUE 1998). However, the one from Promachon-Topolnica is sculptured in clay rather than being a clay-covered bull’s skull. The numerous floor levels with similar phases (Fig. 12:4) show the successive use phases of the circular (?) subterranean structure. A hearth sloping towards the centre in the uppermost level 17 in the interior of this – subterranean room is noted (Fig. 14:1). Half of this hearth has been left unexcavated in the interior of the pit to better understand the slope of the levels toward the centre of the subterranean room. The stratigraphy under the hearth corresponds completely to the stratigraphic picture of the succession of levels indicated in the northern and western profiles of our excavated trench. The appearance of successive archaeological levels with similar finds and the context of each The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

under a similar level of sandy soil indicates regular renewal. This could have resulted from the successive destructions of the subterranean structure and regularly planned reconstructions, or could represent erosion deposits covering an original subterranean room without a roof. On the other hand, the existence of successive construction phases in an original natural pit cannot yet be excluded. The floor level of this pit could have been steadily raised from the debris of the earlier phases. As the excavations progressed, and after the removal of the deepest archaeological layers, the internal walls of the subterranean room were very obviously at floor level. The walls were plastered with layers of compacted clay reinforced with pebbles. In only two places in the SW and NW corners of the excavated part of the subterranean room did we reach the earliest stages of the construction of the wall surfaces (Fig. 14:1) that rested on the natural subsoil. At the same time we discovered successive repairs on the interior wall facings. The successive layers of clay that covered the surface on the interior walls of the pit was indicative of a covered space. The regular slope of the floor levels towards the centre and the disorderly mass of objects in the middle of the pit where the floors level out, demonstrate the collapse of successive wooden floors towards the centre of this subterranean room. The existence of clay-covered wooden floors (Fig. 14:2) in the interior of the pit was also confirmed in the deeper levels, where because of the great depth and the very damp condi-

Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla

Fig. 15. Sector Promachon, Phase II: 3 – Fragment of a basket; 4 – Detail of a wooden post. tions, large timbers were preserved below the clay floor surfaces (Fig. 15:2). Among these was a complete, large branch (Fig. 15:2; See POPOVA 1992). The timbers were covered with mud plaster and were often only recognizable from the red color of the floor and their arrangement which, in places, seemed to demonstrate the existence of a wooden substructure below the clay covered floors. The appearance of a layer of stones deep in the SW part of the excavated semi-subterranean room at level 33 could indicate a second building phase within it, which was preceded by a leveling fill of stones (Fig. 17). These heapedup stones could also come from the sidewalls

of the pit or from some other stone structure, which had collapsed into the interior of the pit. A stonewall in the interior of the structure could have helped support the floor but stone walls have not been noted up to date in the Neolithic architecture of Macedonia. The great depth and the constant moisture helped the preservation of objects made from organic material: fragments of baskets, as well as a fragment from a wooden cist. Even more remarkable is a thin sliver of bark with painted decoration (Figs. 16; 19). A major challenge is to determine how the roof of such a large room was supported. The upper excavated levels give some evidence

Fig. 16. Fragment of a piece of a bark with painted decoration. Sector Promachon, Phase II. Photo – © I. Vajsov. In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Promachon-Topolnica. A Greek-Bulgarian Archaeological Project

Fig. 17. Sector Promachon, Level nr. 33, Phase II. for the existence of timber posts, but since we still have not reached the original floor of the subterranean room, we are not able to understand the architectural construction of this particular building. The exceptionally difficult nature of this excavation at the lowest archaeological levels compelled us to confine our investigation to partial testing of the levels in the semi-subterranean structure without completely removing the archaeological deposits, which continued below the start of the plastered outer walls. We think it likely that the remaining archaeological deposits are relatively thin and possibly derive from the oldest platform within the semi-subterranean structure, which had been constructed before the inner walls were built around the pit, or belong to an earlier habitation phase. In addition to the problems of the original form and the internal arrangement of the subterranean structure, the principal focus of interest of this circular building remains the clear difference in size and depth between it and the other semi-subterranean structures found in both Promachon and Topolnica sectors, which have been interpreted as dwelling places. As well as the size of the semi-subterranean structure, the great number of finds and quantity of animals bones concentrated in the successive layers of the deeper floor levels should be emphasized (Fig. 20). A great quantity of pottery vessels has also been noted. Storage vessels are present, but most of the vases are tableware of very fine quality. The predominant shapes are askoi, amphorae, cups, pedestal or flat-based bowls, as well as the so-called lamps The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

Fig. 18. A branch from level nr. 33. Sector Promachon, Phase II.

Fig. 19. Sector Promachon, Phase II. Reconstruction of a decorated fragment from a piece of a bark with painted decoration. with incised decoration (Figs. 20; 72). The central representation of askoi and their zoomorphic forms are of special interest. The askos is frequently found next to a bull’s skull and is accompanied by shallow bowls, and sometimes by pedestal bowls (Fig. 12:2). The number of miniature vases is also particularly well represented. The high quality of the pottery and vessel decoration is particularly remarkable. There are different kinds of incised, rippled or painted decorations, which represent characteristic categories of the decorated pottery from the early phase of Late Neolithic period in the northern Aegean area and especially in Eastern Macedonia at the prehistoric settlements of Akropotamos (MYLONAS /BAKALAKIS 1938; MYLONAS 1941), of Dikili Tash (Phase I) (SEFERIADES 1983, TSIRTSONI 2000) and of Sitagroi (Phase II) (K EIGLEY 1986), in Aegean Thrace and at the settlement of Paradimi (Phases II–III) (BAKALAKIS /SAKELLARIOU 1981, 15–20, Beil. 4–9, 13II–14) as well as in the Struma valley (PERNICEVA 1995) and in

Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla Askoi

Anthropo-zoomorphic askoi

CERAMIC LAMP

ASKOI

Drum-shaped stands

Anthropo-zoomorphic askoi

Fig. 20. Sector Promachon, Phase II. Subterranean structure nr. 4 – Finds from the successive layers. Destruction level nr. 28. Drawing – © I. Vajsov. the interior of the Balkans (D. GARASANIN/M. GARASANIN 1979; GIMBUTAS 1976, 119–150). Among the painted vessels, those with bituminous paint deserve special mention (GIOUNI et al. 1994) (Figs. 23–24, 37–38). Tools and jewelry were found scattered throughout all three strata. These included flint axes and blades (Fig. 49), clay spindle whorls, clay loom weights, and bone points. There were also spondylus shell bracelets (Fig. 46) marble beads (Figs. 53:3–5), and a small number of malachite beads (Figs. 8:2–4). Schematic marble figurines are also present, as well as miniature marble bowls with traces of red color (Fig. 54). The number and variety of clay figurines whose size and shape varies is also significant (Figs. 56–68; 70). Very roughly fashioned figurines (Figs. 56–57), are often found in the deeper levels, while many figurines of high quality, finishing and firing are also found. A number of different types of figurines can also be identified. Women are represented with emphaIn the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

sized female characteristics, which are essentially linked to the creation of new life and their maternal role (Fig. 61). The female form is usually represented with bird-like face, which is probably related to a bird face goddess (GIMBUTAS 1986, 247–249 Figs. 9, 46, 48). A child held by a kourotrophos female also has a bird-like face (Figs. 56–57). The appearance of a type of a figurine with two figures united into a single body is also of particular interest. This type is also known from Anatolia (Hacilar) and from the Vinča culture (VASIĆ 1936; KOROŠEC 1959; 1960; 1962). Other figurines from the lower floor levels of the circular semi-subterranean structure resemble those from Vinča B2 (VASIĆ 1936; SREJOVIĆ 1984) (Figs. 64; 66). Although female types predominate, many male figurines have also been found in the different levels of the subterranean room (Figs. 61:1–2). The discovery outside of the subterranean room of a stone phallo-morphic sculpture, of exceptional scale for the period, shows the clear recognition

Promachon-Topolnica. A Greek-Bulgarian Archaeological Project

Fig. 21. Sector Promachon, level nr. 31. Phase II. Bowl nr. A311 â&#x20AC;&#x17E;in situâ&#x20AC;&#x153;.

Fig. 22. Sector Promachon. Phase II. Bowl nr. A311 after restoration.

Fig. 23. Sherds with bituminous decoration Topolnica type. Phase II. (Scale 1:2).

Fig. 24. Sherds with bituminous decoration Topolnica type. Phase II. (Scale 2:3).

of the male and female reproductive forces. The phallo-morphic sculpture was found outside the pit in layers contemporary with the floor of this circular semi-subterranean structure. (KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTAHKI et al. 1998) (Figs. 65; 67). A two-roomed house-model found in the lower floor levels of the circular semi-subterranean structure is particularly remarkable. It was restored from the many scattered fragments found in these floors. A small verandah

leads into the interior of this model, which has one rectangular and one apsidal room. The roof is pitched and the doors are arched. The windows are round or elliptical. Relief bucrania decorate the facade and the interior wall and the parapets of the verandah. Externally, the walls are decorated with incised and painted motifs. The motifs and styles of decoration are similar to those found on the pottery vessels2. A second model, from which only a portion

The dimensions of house-model nr. 1: Length 0,385 m., maximum width 0,38 m., minimum width 0,325 m., maximum height (without the base) 0,15 m., minimum height

(without the base) 0,12 m. The conservation and the restoration work have not been completed.

The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla

of the front part remains, is of the same type with a verandah and interior wall decorated with bucrania. This model was found outside the circular semi-subterranean structure in a level above the natural surface, which corresponds to the lower floor level within the structure (Figs. 25a–25b)3. After the discovery of these two clay housemodels in the Promachon sector (Figs. 25a–25b; 27), we can attempt the first representation of the houses themselves, which, based on the evidence from the excavation, probably had a raised upper structure with pitched roof (Fig. 27). Are we justified in comparing the appearance of the house-models with the large, semisubterranean structure completing it as apsidal or elliptical in plan and adding in, or above this, an apsidal building with a pitched roof? Such an interpretation cannot be excluded, nor can the possibility that the house-models represent the contemporary form of the typical houses in the settlement, which, of course, were very different from the large semi-subterranean structure, possibly circular or elliptical in plan. Already in the Preceramic phase of the Early Neolithic period in the Near East at Jerf el Ahram (STOREDEUR et al. 2000) and Murreybet (AURENCHE 1980) in the upper Euphrates valley in Syria, simple houses in the settlements differ from the so-called public buildings. The former are built above-ground and rectangular or apsidal in form, frequently with rounded corners. The latter are semi-subterranean, and very much larger. Public buildings in Anatolia, retain the circular and semi-subterranean tradition while the typical house form changes (Fig. 29). The presence in the Near East of buildings dedicated to public use in the Preceramic phase of the Neolithic period, i.e. the 10th and 9th millennia BC, has demonstrated that, already from their first beginnings, Neolithic settlements were not simply undifferentiated collections of individual dwellings but rather a single complex of buildings which reflected the social organization of the community. The intangible nature of this social organization can, of course, only be approached with difficultly through the ma-

terial remains. Recent finds from the Near East thus provide evidence from the Preceramic phase of the Neolithic period for the existence of „public“ buildings with a symbolic character. These include the multifunctional buildings at Murreybet and Jerf el Ahram and others with specific functions such as the assembly rooms as Jerf el Ahram, the shrines at Gobekli Tepe (SCHMIDT 2000) in upper Mesopotamia and at Nevali Cori (HAUPTMANN 1999) in Turkey and the houses of the dead in the Neolithic settlement of Dja’de el Mughara. (COQUEUGNIOT 1998). The fortification walls, tombs, public areas, streets between houses and megalithic the graves in Europe constitute clear evidence for design collaboration in the construction of public works during the Neolithic period. Maybe the large semi-subterranean structure of the Neolithic settlement on the Greek-Bulgarian border can be defined as one such distinctive building, which was used by the community for activities of a symbolic nature? Based on the stratigraphy and the finds, we can begin to approach these issues, albeit with considerable caution and frequent areas of uncertainty. The presence of a large number of luxury vessels as well as tools, jewelry and figurines in association with large numbers of grinding stones and quantities of animal bones and horn cores presupposes the presence of a large number of participants at the celebrations which took place here. The evidence for this lies in the material remains of the successive archaeological levels that demonstrate the consumption, or offering, of meat or other foods. The frequent presence of bulls’ skulls (bucrania) in the successive floors maybe constitutes a kind of symbolism, which is not fully understood as yet. Do they form part of the decoration of the building or part of the offerings, together with the skulls of smaller horned animals which were found in the same levels? The bull is a particularly powerful symbol in the Near East and is found in the public buildings at Jerf el Ahram, and at Murreybet and in the house shrines at Çatal Hüyük (MEL-

The Dimensions of the house-model nr. 2: Preserved Length 0,080 m, maximum width 0,23 m, maximum

height (without the base) 0,16 m, minimum height 0,08 m., height of the base 0,043 m.

In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Promachon-Topolnica. A Greek-Bulgarian Archaeological Project

Fig. 25 a. Sector Promachon, Phase II. Clay house-model Fasade (nr. 2).

Fig. 25 b. Sector Promachon, Phase II. Clay house-model (nr. 2). (Scale 1:4). Drawing – © I. Vajsov.

Fig. 26. Sector Promachon, Level 33, Phase II. Clay house-model (nr. 1) (Scale 1:4). 1967) and Hacilar (MELLAART 1970) and of course it is also present in Europe. Bucrania whether natural or covered in clay, in relief or sculpted in the round, frequently appear in the settlements of the Tisza and Vinča cultures (VASIć 1936; CHAPMAN 1981) and are also found

LAART

The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

in Macedonia. However, the symbolism in the buildings where they are found is not clear and archaeologists hold conflicting opinions. In the building in Phase I at Dikili Tash, which was decorated with bucrania plastered with clay, the excavators (DARCQUE /TREUIL 1997; TREUIL /

Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla

Fig. 27. Sector Topolnica. New proposal for the reconstruction of house nr. 2. (Reconstruction by Ch. Koukouli-Chrisantaki). This reconstruction supports the idea that the structure had a pitched roof similar to the ones on the discovered house-models (Figures 25 and 26).

Fig. 28. Sector Topolnica, Phase II. Reconstruction of house nr. 2 (Reconstruction I. Vajsov in Todorova/Vajsov 1993, 160, Fig. 131). Drawing â&#x20AC;&#x201C; ÂŠ I. Vajsov. In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Promachon-Topolnica. A Greek-Bulgarian Archaeological Project

DARCQUE 2000) did not offer any particular interpretation. The building at Parţa in Roumania, (L AZAROVICI 1989; Ch. L AZAROVICI at al. 1994, 2001; Ch. L AZAROVICI/C-M.M. L AZAROVICI 2003; C-M.M. L AZAROVICI 2004) however, which dates to the end of the Late Neolithic period, was identified by the excavator as a shrine. However, in the case of the semi-subterranean structure in the Promachon-Topolnica settlement, the frequent and repeated presence of bucrania in a specific location in successive layers of unusual character can, in our view, be seen as a principal characteristic, which differentiates the semi-subterranean structure from the other houses of the settlement. On the other hand, the collaborative activity in a large subterranean structure is not unique: At the Neolithic settlement of Makriyalos. a large pit has been excavated with large quantities of animal bones and pottery sherds. It is dated to the earliest settlement phase and the palaeological and taphonomic study of the finds detected clear evidence for communal activity (PAPPA et al. 2003). The significance of the results from a detailed study of the palaeozoological material from the Promachon-Topolnica subterranean room and their potential to surprise is indicated by the recognition of a fragment of human skull among the bones (Figs. 30–31). It is the second fragment of human bone: the first was a piece from a jawbone from the earlier excavations. New information is also expected from the palaeogeomorphology study of the region which may perhaps show whether such pits oc-

cur naturally. The study of the micromorphology is expected to provide specific answers to questions about the composition and nature of the deposits within the semi-subterranean structure. Carbon 14 datings, which are in progress in the Archaeometry laboratory at Democritos, will date the succession of the strata with greater precision.

Fig. 30. Fragment of a human „ramus mandibulae“. Sector Promachon, Phase II.

Fig. 31. Fragment of human skull. Sector Promachon, Phase II.

The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

Fig. 29. Tell Jerf el Ahmar. Houses around the subterranean circular „community“ building (according to STOREDEUR et al. 2000).

Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla

References AURENCHE 1980 O. Aurenche, Un exemple de l’architecture domestique au VIII millénair. – In: J. Margueron (ed.), La maison XLVII de Mureybet. Le moyen Euphrate, zone de contact et d’échanges (1980), 35–54. A NDREOU et al 1996 S. Andreou, M. Fotiadis and K. Kotsakis, Review of Aegean Prehistory V: The Neolithic and Bronze Age of Northern Greece. – American Journal of Archaeology 100 (1996), 537–597. BĂČVAROVA 2002 Д. Бъчварова, Петрич през вековете (Sofia 1999). BAILEY 2000 D.W. Bailey, Balkan Prehistory. Exclusion, incorporation and identity (London–New York 2000). BAKALAKIS /SAKELLARIOU 1981 G. Bakalakis and A. Sakellariou, Paradimi. Internationale Interakademische Kommission für die Erforschung der Vorgeschichte des Balkans. Monоgraphien Bd. II (Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mainz am Rhein 1981), 15–20, Beil. 4–9, 13II–14. BLÉCON et al. 1992 J. Blécon, M. Séfériadés and R. Treuil, La stratigraphie et la chronologie. –In: R. Treuil (ed.). Dikili Tash. Village préhistorique de Macédoine orientale. I. Fouilles de Jean Deshayes (1961–1975), volume 1. – Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique (Supplément) XXIV (Paris 1992), 19–37. BOJADŽIEV 1987 J. Bojadziev, Probleme der absoluten Datierung der prähistorischen Kulturen für die Zeitspanne 5000–3500 v.u.Z. – Acta Interdisciplinaria 14, 1987, 11–22. BOJADŽIEV/VAJSOV 1988 Я. Бояджиев, И. Вайсов, Разкопки на неолитното селище „Кременица“ при с. Тополница – Петричко. – АОР през 1987, XXXIII Национална конференция по археология. 1988, 26–27. BOJADŽIEV/VAJSOV 1989 Я. Бояджиев, И. Вайсов, Разкопки на неолитното селище „Кременица“ при с. Тополница, Петричко. – АОР през 1988, XXXIV Национална конференция по археология, 1989, 8–9. BOJADŽIEV/VAJSOV 1990 Я. Бояджиев, И. Вайсов, Разкопки на обект „Кременица“ при с. Тополница през 1989. – АОР през 1989, XXXV Национална конференция по археология, 1990, 14–15. BOJADŽIEV/VAJSOV 1991 Я. Бояджиев, И. Вайсов, Разкопки на обект „Кременица“ при с. Тополница, Петричко. – АОР през 1990, XXXVI Национална конференция по археология, 1991, 14–15. CHAPMAN 1981 J.C. Chapman, The Vinča Culture of South-East Europe, Parts 1 and 2. – BAR International Series 117, 1981.

In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

CHAPMAN 1989 J.C. Chapman, The Early Balkan Village. –In: P. Paczky (ed.). –In: Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and its Near Eastern Connections. International Conference 1987 Szolnok-Szeged. – Varia Archealogica Hungarica II (Budapest 1989), 33–35. CHOHADZIEV 1986 St. Chohadziev, Frühäneolitische Keramik aus der prähistorischen Siedlung bei Slatino. – Studia Praehistorica 8, 1986, 185–202. CERNYCH 1988 E. Cernych, Aibunar, A Balkan Copper Mine of the 4rth Millenium B.C. – PPS 44, 1978, 203–217. CHRYSOSTOMOU 1991 P. Chrysostomou, Οι νεολιθικές έρευνες στην πόλη και την επαρχία Γιαννιτσών κατά το 1991. – Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑEMΘ) 5, 1991, 111–125. COQUEUGNIOT 1998 E. Coqueugniot, De el Moughra (Moyen Euphrate) un village néolithique dans son environ-nement naturel a la veille de la domestication. –In: M. Fortin, O. Aurenche (eds.). Espace naturel espace habité en Syrie du nord (10e–2e millénaires av. J.C.), 1998, 109–114. CRADDOCK 1995 T. Craddock, Early Metal mining and production, 1995, 122–126. DOMARADZKI et аl. 2001 M. Domaradzki, Materiaux concernant l’archeologie de la Struma moyenne (М. Домарадски и колектив. Материали за археологията на Средна Струма.) – Разкопки и проучвания XXVII (Sofia 2001). DARCQUE /TREUIL 1997 P. Darcque, R. Treuil. Un „bucrane“ néolithique. – Dossier d’Archéologie 222, 1991, 26–27. DEMOULE et al. 1988 J.-P. Demoule, K. Gallis, L. Manolakakis. Tradition entre les cultures néolithiques de Sesclo et de Dimini. Les catégories céramiques. – Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 112/1, 1988, 1–58. GARAŠANIN D./M. GARAŠANIN 1979 D. Garašanin, M. Garašanin, Supska Stublina, praistorijsco naselje Vinčanska gruppa, 1979. GEORGIEV 1982 E. Georgiev, Dismantling a Neolithic Kiln from the Prehistoric Settlement of Kremenitsa near the Vilage of Topolnitsa Blagoevgrad District (Е. Георгиев. Демонтиране на неолитна пещ от праисторичес-кото селище Кременица край с. Тополница, Благоевградски окръг. – Интердисциплинарни изследвания IX, 1982, 119–124. GIMBUTAS 1976 M. Gimbutas, Neolithic Macedonia. As reflected by excavation at Anza Southeast Yugoslavia. – Monumenta Archaeologica I (Los Angeles 1976).

Promachon-Topolnica. A Greek-Bulgarian Archaeological Project GIMBUTAS 1986 M. Gimbutas, Mythical Imagery of Sitagroi Society. –In: C. Renfrew, M. Gimbutas, E.S. Elster (eds.), Excavations at Sitagroi. A Prehistoric Village in Northeast Greece, vol. I. – Monumenta Archaeologica 13 (Los Angeles 1986), 225–301. GÖRSDORF/BOJADŽIEV 1996 J. Görsdorf and J Bojadžiev, Zur absoluten Chronologie der bulgarischen Urgeschichte. Berliner 14 C-Datierungen von bulgarischen archäologischen Fundplätzen. – Euroasia Antiqua 2 (Mainz am Rhein 1996), 105–173. GRAMMENOS et al. 1992 D. Grammenos, М.Pappa, D.Ourem-Kotsou, K. Skourtopoulou, E. Giannoylh, X. Maragou, S.M. Balamoti, G. Siridis, E. Marki and R. Christidou, Ανασκαφή νεολιθικού οικισμού Θέρμης Β και βυζαντινής εγκατάστασης παρά τον προϊστορικό οικισμό Θέρμη Α. – Ανασκαφική περίοδος 1989. Μακεδονικά ΚΗ (Thessaloniki 1992), 381–501. GRAMMENOS /KOTSOS 2002 D. Grammenos, S. Kotsos, Σωστικές ανασκαφές στο νεολιθικό οικισμό Σταυρούπολης Θεσσαλονίκης, (Thessaloniki 2002). GUIBERT/ROCQUE 2000 F. Guibert, C. Rocque, La datation par thermoluminescence. – Dossier d’Archéologie 253, 2000, 23. EVANS 1986 R.K. Evans, The Pottery of Phase III. –In: C. Renfrew, M. Gimbutas, E.S. Elster (eds.), Excavations at Sitagroi. A Prehistoric Village in Northeast Greece, vol. I. Monumenta Archaeologica 13 (Los Angeles 1986), 393–428. H AUPTMANN 1999 H. Hauptmann, The Urfa region. –In: M. Özdogan, N. Basgelen (eds.). Neolithic Turkey. The cradle of civilization. New discoveries vol. 2, 1999, 65–86. HILLER 1989 S. Hiller, Das Neolithicum in Karanovo und seine chronologische Stellung zu den gleichzeitigen Kul-turen in Nordgriechenland und Serbien. –In: S. Hiller (ed.). Tell Karanovo und das Balkan Neolthicum, 1989, 165–179. JOVANOVIĆ 1980 B. Jovanović. Primary Copper mining and production of Copper. – Scientific Studies in Early Mining and Extractive Metallurgy, British Museum Occasional Papers 20, 1980, 81–40. JOVANOVIĆ /GLIŠIĆ 1960. B. Jovanović, J. Glišić, Station néolithique dans la localité de Kormadin près de Jakovo. – Starinar 11, 1960, 128–132. KEIGHLEY 1986 J.M. Keighley, The Pottery of Phases I and II. –In: C. Renfrew, M. Gimbutas, E.S. Elster (eds.), Excavations at Sitagroi. A Prehistoric Village in North-east Greece. vol. I. – Monumenta Archaeologica 13 (Los Angeles 1986), 345–392. KOROŠEC 1959 J. Korošec, Prehistorijska glinena plastika u Jugoslavij I. Neolitiske plastiène izrapevine u Vinči. – Arheoloski radovi i rasprave Jugoslavenske I, 1959, 61–117.

The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

KOROŠEC 1960. J. Корошец. Око питања значења статуета са двема главама. – Научни зборник Матице српске (Нови Сад) 26, 1960, 5–18. KOROŠEC 1962. J. Korošec, Prehistorijska glinena plastika u Jugoslavij II. – Arheoloski radovi i rasprave Jugoslavenske II, 1962, 103–174. KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI 2000 X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, Προϊστορικός οικισμός Πρoμαχώνoς-Τopolnica. – Aρχαιολογικον δελτίον 50, 1995, 627–629. KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI/BASSIAKOS 2002 Ch. Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, I. Bassiakos, Nonslagging copper production of 5th millennium: The evidence from the neolithic settlement of Promachon-Topolnica (Estern Macedonia, Greece). –In: 8th EAA Annual Meeting 24–29 September 2002, Thessaloniki, Hellas. Abstracts book (Thessaloniki 2002), 193–194. KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1995a X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, I. Ασλάνης, Φ. Kωνσταντoπoύλoυ, Πρoμαχώνaς-Topolnica. Ενα πρόγραμμα ελληνo-βoυλγαρικής συνεργασίας. – Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑEMΘ) 6, 1992 (1995), 561–575. KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1995b X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, I. Ασλάνης, Φ. Kωνσταντoπoύλoυ, M. Βάλλα, Ανασκαφή στον προϊστορικό οικισμό Προμαχώνας-Topolnica κατά το 1995. – Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑEMΘ) 9, 1998, 435–440. KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1996 X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, I. Ασλάνης, Φ. Kωνσταντoπoύλoυ, Πρoμαχώνaς-Topolnica: Ελληνoβoυλγαρικές έρευνες στoν προϊστoρικό oικισμό. – Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑEMΘ) 7, 1993 (1996), 505–512. KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1997a Ch. Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, H. Todorova, I. Aslanis, J. Bojadziev, F. Konstantopoulou, I. Vajsov, M. Valla, V. Draganov, The Promachonas/Topolnica a Settlement: Programe for Greek-Bulgarian Cooperation. (X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, H. Todorova, I. Ασλάνης, J. Bojadziev, Φ. Kωνσταντoπoύλoυ, I. Vajsov, M. Βάλλα, V. Draganov. Nεoλιθικός οικισμός Πρoμαχώνoς-Τopolnica. Πρόγραμμα ελληνoβoυλγαρικής συνεργασίας.). – Δέκα Xρόυια Aρχαιολογικό έργο στη Mακεδoυία και Θράκη (ΔXΑEMΘ) (Thessaloniki 1997), 123–127. KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1997b Ch. Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, H. Todorova, J. Aslanis, J. Bojadziev, I. Vajsov, M. Valla, Promachonas-Topolnica. (X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, H. Todorova, I. Ασλάνης, J. Bojadziev, I. Vajsov, M. Βάλλα. Πρoμαχώνoς-Topolnica. Νεολιθικός οικισμός ελληνοβoυλγαρικών συνόρων). – Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑEMΘ) 10b, 1997, 745–767. KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1997c X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, I. Ασλάνης, Φ. Kωνσταντoπoύλoυ, M. Βάλλα, Προμαχώνας-Topolnica 1997: Ανασκαφή ενός προϊστορικού οικισμού στα ελληνοβουλγαρικά σύνορα. – Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑEMΘ) 11, 1997, 549–555.

Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla

KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1998a X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, H. Todorova, I. Ασλάνης, J. Bojadziev, Πρoμαχώνας-Topolnica: Πρόγραμμα ελληνοβoυλγαρικής συνεργασίας. In: Δ. Σερρω, Οι Σέρρες και η Περιοχή τους από την Αρχαία στη Μεταβυζαντινή Κοινωνία, Πρακτικα συνεδρίου, A΄ Tόμος (Thessaloniki 1998), 7–24. KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1998b X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, I. Ασλάνης, Φ. Kωνσταντoπoύλoυ, M. Βάλλα, Ανασκαφή νεολιθικού οικισμού Προμαχώνα-Topolnica 1998. – Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑEMΘ) 12, 2000, 67–76. KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1999 X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, I. Ασλάνης, Φ. Kωνσταντoπoύλoυ and M. Βάλλα, Ανασκαφή στον προϊστορικό οικισμό Προμαχώνα-Topolnica κατά το 1999. – Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑEMΘ) 13 (Thessaloniki 1999), 111–116. KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 2000 X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, I. Ασλάνης, M. Βάλλα, Προμαχώνας-Topolnica 2000. – Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑEMΘ) 14, 2000, 87–98. KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 2001 X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, I. Ασλάνης, M. Βάλλα, Προμαχώνας-Topolnica 2001. – Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑEMΘ) 15, 2001, 75–82. KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 2004 X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, I. Ασλάνης, I. Vajsov, M. Βάλλα, Προμαχώνας-Topolnica 2002–2003. – Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑEMΘ) 17, 2004, 91–110. L AZAROVICI 1989 Ch. Lazarovici, Das neolithische Heiligtum von Parta. – Varia Archaologica Hungarica II (Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and its Eastern Connections International Conference 1987, Szolnok– Szeged), 1989, 149–174. L AZAROVICI et al. 1994 Ch. Lazarovici, Fl. Draşovean, Z. Maxim, Complexul neolitic de la Parţa. – Analele Banatului, Arheologie-Istorie III, 1994, 106–134. L AZAROVICI et al. 2001 Ch. Lazarovici, Fl. Draşovean, Z. Maxim, Parţa. – Monografie arheologică vol. I.1 and vol. I.2, (Timişoara 2001). L AZAROVICI, Ch./C-M.M. L AZAROVICI 2003 Ch. Lazarovici, C-M.M. Lazarovici, The NeoEneolithic Architecture in Banat,Transylvania and Moldavia. –In: D. Grammenos (ed.), Recent Research in the Prehistory of the Balkans. Publications of the Archeological Institute of Northern Greece Nr.3, (Tessaloniki 2003), 391–394. L AZAROVICI C-M.M. 2004 Sanctuaries of the Precuteni-Cucuteni Cultures (C-M. M. Lazarovici. Sanctuarele PrecucuteniCucuteni). – Arheologia Moldovej XXV (Bucareşti 2004), 47–67. M ANIATIS /FAKORELLIS 2000 I. Maniatis and G. Fakorellis, Αποτελέσματα ραδιοχρονολόγησης δειγμάτων από τον Προμαχώνα-Topolnica. –In: X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, I. Ασλάνης, M. Βάλλα. Προμαχώνας-Topolnica 2000. – Tο

In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑEMΘ) 14, 2000, 93. M ANIATIS et al. 2004 I. Maniatis, K. Gogidou, M. Kyriazi, Αποτελέσματα ραδιοχρονολόγησης δειγ-μάτων από τον Προμαχώνα-Topolnica. – In: X. KoυκoύληXρυσανθάκη, I. Ασλάνης, I. Vajsov, M. Βάλλα. Προμαχώνας-Topolnica 2002–2003. – Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑEMΘ) 17, (Thessaloniki 2004), 101. MELLAART 1967 J. Mellaart, Catal Huyuk, A Neolithic town in Anatolia (London 1967). MELLAART 1970 J. Mellaart, Excavations at Hacilar (Edinburg 1970). MYLONAS /BAKALAKIS 1938 Г.Е. Мυλονας, Г. Мπακαλκμς, Ανασκαφα νεολιθικν συνοικισμν Ακροποτάμου καί Πολυστύλου. – Praktika, 1938, 103–106. MYLONAS 1941 G.E. Mylonas, The Site of Akropotamos and the Neolithic Period of Macedonia. – American Journal of Archaeology 45, 1941, 557–576. NIKOLOV 1976 Б. Николов, Градешница. Праисторически селища (Sofia 1976). PANTELIDOU-GAFA 1991 M. Pantelidou-Gofa, H νεολιθική Νέα Μάκρη, (Athen 1991). PAPPA /BESSIOS 1995 M. Pappa, M. Bessios, Νεολιθικός οικισμός Μακρύγιαλου, 1995. – Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑΕΜΘ) 9, 1995, 175–176. PAPPA et al. 1998 M. Pappa et al, Nεολιθικός οικισμός Μακρύγιαλου. Συμπληρωματικές Έρευνες 1997–1998. – Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑΕΜΘ) 12, 1998, 283–289. PAPPA /BESSIOS 1999 M. Pappa, M. Bessios, The Neolithic Settlement at Makrayalos, Northern Greece: Preliminary Report on the 1993–1995 Excavations. – Journal of Field Archaeology 26, 1999, 177–195. PAPPA et al. 2000 M. Pappa, M. Nanoglou, S. Nitsou. Ανασκαφή νεολιθικού οικισμού Θέρμης. – Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑΕΜΘ) 14, 2000, 179–186. PAPPA et al. 2003 M. Pappa, P. Halstead, K. Kotsakis, S. Kotsou, U. Duska, Evidence for landscape feasting at Late Neolithic, Makriyalos, Northern Greece. –In: G. Barret, P. Halstead (eds.). Food cuisine and Society in Prehistoric Greece, Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology (2003). PERNICHEVA 1983 L. Pernièeva, Prehistory of the Strumešnica. –In: J. Sliwa, M. Domaradski (eds.), – The Lower Strumešnica Valley in Prehistoric, Ancient and Early Medieval Times (Krakow 1983), 11–31. PERNICHEVA 1995 L. Pernicheva, Prehistoric cultures in the Middle Struma Valley: Neolithic and Eneolithic. –In: D.

Promachon-Topolnica. A Greek-Bulgarian Archaeological Project Bailey, I. Panajotov (eds.), Prehistoric Bulgaria. Monogr. World Arch. 22, 1995, 99–140. PERNICHEVA 2002 L. Pernicheva, Die prähistorische Siedlung Balgarcevo. –In: M. Lichardus-Itten, J. Lichardus, V. Nikolov (eds.). – Beitrage zu jungsteinzeitlichen Forschungen in Bulgarien (Saarbruken 2002), 271–324. POPOVA 1992 Tz. Popova, Etude anthracologique et carpologique de cing sites archéologiques de Bulgarie. Premiers résultats. – Bulletin Soc. bot. Fr., 139, Actual. bot. (2/3/4) („Société botanique de France“ Paris 1992), 395–405. R ENFREW/SLATER 2003 C. Renfrew, E.A. Slater. Metal Artifacts and Metallurgy. –In: E.S. Elster and C. Renfrew (eds.). Prehistoric Sitagroi: Excavations in Northeast Greece 1968–1970, vol. 2: The Final Report, Monumenta Archaeologica 20 (Los Angeles 2003), 301–324. SEFERIADES 1983 M. Séfériadés, Dikili Tash: Introduction à la préhistoire de la Macédoine orientale. – Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 107, 1983, 653–657. SREJOVIć 1984. Д. Среjовић, Уметности и религиjа. –In: Винча у праисториjи и средњем веку (Beograd 1984), 42–56. STOJANOVA-SERAFIMOVA 1970 Д. Стоянова-Серафимова, Праисторически селища край Благоевград. – Археология 1970/2 (Sofia 1970), 69–81. SCHMIDT 2000 K. Schmidt, Göbekli Tepe, Southeastern Turkey. A Preliminary report on the 1995–1999 Excavations. – Paleorient 26, 1, 2000, 48–54. STORDEUR et al. 2000 B. Stordeur, M. Brenet, G. Der Aprahamian and L. Poux, Les bâtiments communautaires de Jerf El Ahmar et Murreybet horizon PPNA (Syrie). – Paleorient 26/1, 2000, 29–43. TODOROVA 1982 Х. Тодорова, Проучвания на къснонеолитното и ранноенеолитното селище при с. Тополница. – АОР през 1981, 13. TODOROVA 1983 Х. Тодорова, Разкопки на обект „Тополница“, Благоевградски окръг. – АОР през 1982 XXVIII Национална конференция по археология, 1983, 11–13. TODOROVA 1984 Х. Тодорова, Разкопки на обект „Кременица“ при с. Тополница, Благоевградски окръг. – АОР през 1983 XXIX Национална конференция по археология, 1984, 18–19. TODOROVA /BOJADŽIEV 1985 Х. Тодорова, Я. Бояджиев, Разкопки на обект „Кременица“ при с. Тополница, Благоевградски окръг. – АОР през 1984 XXX Национална конференция по археология, 1985, 18–19.

The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

TODOROVA /BOJADŽIEV 1986 Х. Тодорова, Я. Бояджиев, Разкопки на неолитното селище Кременика край с. Тополница, Благоевградски окръг. – АОР през 1985, XXXI Национална конференция по археология, 1986, 19–20. TODOROVA /BOJADŽIEV 1987 Х. Тодорова, Я. Бояджиев, Разкопки на неолитното селище „Кременица“ край с. Тополница, Благоевградски окръг. – АОР през 1986, XXXII Национална конференция по археология, 1987, 35–36. TODOROVA /VAJSOV 1993 H. Todorova, I. Vajsov, The Neolithic in Bulgaria (Х. Тодоров, И. Вайсов. (Новокаменната епоха в България. Краят на седмото–шестото хилядолетие преди новата ера) (Sofia 1993). TODOROVA 1993 Х. Тодорова, Селища и архитектура. –In: H. Todorova, I. Vajsov 1993. The Neolithic in Bulgaria (Х. Тодорова, И. Вайсов. (Новокаменната епоха в България. Краят на седмото–шестото хиля-долетие преди новата ера) (Sofia 1993), 148– 167. TREUIL/DARCQUE, 1998. R. Treuil, P. Darcque, Un «bucrane» néolithique à Dikili Tash (Macédonine orientale): parallèles et perspectives d interprétation. – Bulletin de Co-rrespondance Hellénique 122, 1998, 1–25. TSIRTSONI 1991 Z. Tsirtsoni. Morpholodie et fonctions de la poterie. – Dossier d’Archéologie 222, 1991, 28–35. TSIRTSONI 2000 Z. Tsirtsoni. Les poteries du début du Néolitihique Récent en Macédoine I. – Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 124, 2000, 1–55. TSIRTSONI 2001 Z. Tsirtsoni. Les poteries du début du Néoltihique Récent en Macédoine II. Les fonctions des récipients. – Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 125.I, 2001, 1–39. VAJSOV 1993 И. Вайсов. Духовен живот на неолитното население в България. –In: H. Todorova, I. Vajsov, The Neolithic in Bulgaria (Х. Тодорова и И. Вайсов. (Новокаменната епоха в България. Краят на седмото–шестото хилядолетие преди новата ера) (Sofia 1993), 187–235. VASIć 1936 M.M. Васић, Преисториска Винча III. Пластика (Теракоте) (Beograd 1936). YIOUNI et al. 1994 Π. Γιούνη, X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, Π. Πλουμή, Τεχνολοικ ανάλυση τη νεολιθικ κεραμικ από τον Προμαχώνα-Topolnica. – Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑEMΘ) 18, 1994 (1998), 343–348.

Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla

1 3

1 2 4

3 6

5 7

Fig. 32. Sherds with incised decoration. Phase IV (Scale 1:2).

Fig. 33. Graphite-painted ware, Phase IV (Scale 1:2).

Fig. 34. Sherds of a painted vase of Strumsko types. Phase IIIA. In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Fig. 35. Bichrome painted pottery Dimitra types. Phase III (various scales).

Promachon-Topolnica. A Greek-Bulgarian Archaeological Project

7 5

Fig. 36. Painted sherds Akropotamos type (Brown-on-Orange/Red), Phase III (Scale 1:2).

Fig. 37. Sherds with bituminous decoration Topolnica type. Phase II. The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

Fig. 38. Sherds with bituminous decoration Topolnica type. Phase II.

Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla

Phase IIIB

Phase IIIA

1 Phase II

Fig. 39. Sector Promachon, West Proﬁle Square IET (Phases II, III, and IV, cultural vertical accumulation 8,35 m.

Fig. 40. Sector Promachon. 1– sherd decorated with bitumen Phase I; 2 – clay lamp and bucranium in situ Phase II.

Fig. 41. Painted decoration. Sector Promachon, square I, level 6, phase III.

Fig. 42. Askoi. Square IET Level 28 Sector Promachon, Phase II.

In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Promachon-Topolnica. A Greek-Bulgarian Archaeological Project

Fig. 43. Miniature clay bowls â&#x20AC;&#x201C; toy. Sector Promachon, Phase III.

Fig. 44. Small bowls. Sector Promachon, Phase II.

Fig. 45. Clay bowls. Sector Promachon, Phase II.

Fig. 46. Spondylus bracelet. Sector Promachon, Phase III. The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

Fig. 47. Flint artifacts. Rock crystal. Sector Promachon. Phase III.

Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla

3 1

Fig. 48. Flint artifacts in prehistoric assemblages from Phases I, II and III Promachon-Topolnica. (Scale 1:1)

Fig. 49. Stone tools from Phase II and III Promachon-Topolnica: 1 – small hammer, 2 – saw, 3 – ﬁshnet weight (Scale 1:2).

Fig. 50. Clay spindle whorls. Sector Pronahon: 1 – Phase II, 2 – Phase IV. In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Fig. 51. Clay bowl. Sector Topolnica, House nr. 2, Phase II. Photo – © K. Georgiev.

Promachon-Topolnica. A Greek-Bulgarian Archaeological Project

Fig. 52. Bone tools from Phases II and III. 3 – fragment of a bone needle; 2, 4 – awl; 5 – spoon; 6–7 – chisel (Scale: 1, 3–71:2; 2 1:1).

Fig. 53. Marble artifacts, Phases II and III. 1 – ladle; 3–5 – bracelet fragments; 2 – amulet. (Scale: 1:2).

Fig. 54. Anthropomorphic marble ﬁgurine. Sector Promachon, Phase II (Scale 1:1).

Fig. 55. Marble head from an anthropomorphic ﬁgurine. Level 10, Phase III (Scale 1:1).

The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla

Fig. 56. Seated female ﬁgurine holding a small child. Sector Promachon, Level 31, Phase II.

Fig. 57. Standing anthropomorphic twin-headed ﬁgurine. Sector Promachon, Level 31, Phase II.

Fig. 58. Female ﬁgurine with child. Sector Topolnica (Scale 1:2). Photo – © K. Georgiev.

Fig. 59. Hollow anthropomorphic seated ﬁgurine. Sector Promachon, Level 10, Phase III.

In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Promachon-Topolnica. A Greek-Bulgarian Archaeological Project

Fig. 60. Massive male ﬁgurine. Sector Promachon, Level 10, Phase III (Scale 1:2).

Fig. 61. Standing female ﬁgurine. Sector Promachon, Phase III (Scale 2:3).

Fig. 62. Head of a male (?) ﬁgurine. Sector Promachon, Level 4, Phase III (Scale 1:2).

Fig. 63. Anthropomorphic vessel appliqué. Sector Promachon, Phase III (Scale 1:2).

The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla

Fig. 64. Sector Promahom, Level 37 b, Phase I. „in situ” clay anthropomorphic bust Vinča B2 type.

Fig. 65. 1–2 – Fragments of male clay ﬁgurines, Phase III; 3–4 – ﬁgurine-busts, Phase II. Sector Promachon (Scale 1:2).

Fig. 66. Clay anthropomorphic plastic Vinča B2 type. Level 37 b, Phase I. (Scale 2:3).

Fig. 67. Sector Promachon, Level 31, Phase II. Anthropomorphic head. (Scale 1:2).

In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Promachon-Topolnica. A Greek-Bulgarian Archaeological Project

Fig. 68. Sector Promachon, Phase II. Standing female ﬁgurine.

Fig. 69. 1–2 – in situ phallomorphic sculpture found near hearth. Sector Promachon, Level 8, Phase II.

Fig. 70. Sector Promachon, Level 32, Phase II. Massive head of a male (?) ﬁgurine (Scale 2:3).

Fig. 71. Sector Promachon, Level 8, Phase II. Phallomorphic sculpture found near hearth.

The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla

Fig. 72. Sector Topolnica, Phase II. Miniature clay lamp (Scale 1:1). Photos – © K. Georgiev.

Fig. 73. Sector Topolnica, Phase II. Deep three-legged clay bowl. House nr. 2. Photo – © K. Georgiev.

Fig. 74. Sector Topolnica, Phase II. Clay bowl with a hollow foot from. House nr. 2. Photo – © K. Georgiev.

5 cm

Fig. 75. Fragment of vases with red colar decoration, Ptomachon Type. Sector Topolnica, Phase III. Photo – © K. Georgiev. In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Promachon-Topolnica

A typology of painted decorations and its use as a chronological marker Ivan Vajsov Промахон-Тополница. Типология на рисуваната украса и ролята и΄ като хронологически индикатор Иван Вайсов През късния неолит, в края на VI хил. пр. Хр., в района на Средна и Долна Струма, се установява културата Тополница-Акропотамос. Нейната поява променя коренно облика на района и структурата на неолитната поселищна система, която през този период се състои от многобройни обширни поселения, разположени по платата около реките. Към тях се отнася и селището Промахон-Тополница Проучването му е от изключително значение за праисторията на Балканския полуостров. Дългогодишните разкопки на обекта (1980–2003 год.), провеждани както на българска (1980–1991 год.), така и на гръцка (1992–2003 год.) територия, донесоха многобройни нови открития. Става дума за епонимен обект, дал името на къснонеолитната култура Тополница–Акропотамос. Материалите от селището Промахон-Тополница са опорна точка в изследванията на тази култура. Едни от най-характерните признаци на културата Тополница–Акропотамос е украсената с помощта на битум и рисуваната с тъмнокафява и черна боя керамика. Още в началото на проучванията украсената с битум керамика бе определена като „тип Тополница“ (Fig. 5–8A). Анализът на формите, украсени с битум, сложната технология на нанасянето му, както и някои аналогии от Централна Европа показват, че съдовете с битумна украса са имали определено култово предназначение. За отбелязване е, че тази орнаментация се появява още през ранната фаза на културата. Резултатите от анализа на тъмнокафявата и черна рисунка и проследяването на нейното развитие в стратиграфския контекст на Промахон-Тополница промениха досегашните представи за развитието на този тип украса. В Промахон-Тополница бе установено, че най-ранната, висококачествена (импортна) рисувана керамика, „тип Акропотамос А“ (Fig. 9) и украсената с битум керамика са генетичната основа за появата на рисувания с широки тъмни линии орнамент „тип Струмско“ (Fig. 12, 24). От своя страна, орнаментът „тип Струмско“ е базата, от която се развива класическата за Средна и Долна Струма керамика с тънка тъмно-кафява/черна рисувана украса „тип Акропотамос В“ (Fig. 16, 26). Тази констатация променя досегашното виждане, според което класическата тъмна украса тип „Акропотамос В“ предхожда широката тъмна рисунка „тип Струмско“. Друго важно откритие направено в Промахон-Тополница, е констатирането на най-ранната на Балканите графитна украса на керамиката. Установена бе генетична връзка между тъмната рисунка „тип Струмско“ и широката графитна рисунка, които се оказаха синхронни. Общи са не само орнаменталните им схеми, но и керамичните форми. Това откритие също променя традиционното виждане, че родината на графитната украса на керамиката е Тракия. Този факт се потвърждава от наблюденията ни върху по-ранните къснонеолитни съдове с графитирана повърхност от обекта Промахон-Тополница, които позволиха да бъде проследен процесът на възникване на графитната рисунка именно в района на Средна Струма. За отбелязване е, че в културата Калояновец (Караново ІV) в Тракия, синхронна на Тополница–Акропотамос (късен неолит), графитирани съдове са напълно непознати. Проследяването на развитието на мотивите и орнаменталните композиции на рисуваната керамика от Промахон-Тополница позволи очертаването на общите тенденции в развитието на орнаментиката от късния неолит към началото на ранния енеолит в района на Средна Струма, а с това и установяването на наличието на безспорен континуитет между двете епохи. Като цяло може да се каже, че в района на Средна и Долна Струма културата Тополница-Акропотамос налага един орнаментален канон, който се запазва и след нейното заникване. Така, културата оставя своя отпечатък, във вид на влияния и технически иновации, върху големи части от Югоизточна Европа.

Προμαχώνας -Topolnica. Η τυπολογία της γραπτής κεραμικής και η χρήση της στη χρονολόγηση Ivan Vajsov Κατά τη Ύστερη Νεολιθική (τέλη της VIης χιλιετίας πρ. Χρ.) στη περιοχή του μέσου και κάτω Στρυμώνα διαμορφώνεται ο πολιτισμός Ακροπόταμος-Topolnica. Η εμφάνησή του συνδέεται με αλλαγές του υλικού πολιτισμού όπως και με νέα δάταξη των οικισμών. Οι ανασκαφές στον Προμαχών-Topolnica έλαβαν χώρα από το 1980 έως το 2003 (στο βουλγαρικό μέρος από το 1980 έως το 1991, στον ελληνικό μέρος από το 1992 έως το 2003) και έφεραν στο φώς πολλά καινούργια ευρήματα. Η ανακάλυψη χαρακτηριστικής κεραμεικής με Bitumen-διακόσμηση και αγγεία με μοτίβα γραμμένα με σκουροκαστανή βαφή είχε ως συνέπεια να ονομαστεί ο πολιτισμός της Ύστερης Νεολιθικής στην Κοιλάδα του Στρυμόνα «Ακροπόταμος-Topolnica». Η κεραμεική με Bitumen-διακόσμηση (Εικ. 5–8A), γνωστή στην επιστημονική

The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

Ivan Vajsov βιβλιογραφία ώς τύπος Topolnica εμφανίζεται κατά τις πρώιμες φάσεις του πολιτισμού και όπως δείχνουν η περίπλοκή της τεχνική και συγκρίσεις με κεραμεική από την Κεντρική Ευρώπη θα είχε παίξει σημαντικό ρόλο σε τελετουργίες. Ενα από τα σημαντικότερα αποτελέσματά της ανασκαφής στο Προμαχών -Topolnica αποτελούν παρατηρήσεις για την χρονική θέση των γραπτών ρυθμών της Ύστερης Νεολιθικής. Βάσει στρωματογραφιμένου υλικού από τον οικισμό ξέρουμε πώς πρώτα εμφανίζονται η κεραμεική του τύπου Ακροπόταμος Α (Εικ. 9) μαζί με την Bitumen-κεραμεική, μετά ακολουθεί ο γραπτός ρυθμός με πλατιές γραμμές του τύπου Στρούμσκο και στη συνέχεια η διακόσμηση με λεπτές καστανές γραμμές του τύπου Ακροπόταμος Β (Εικ. 16, 26). Άλλο εξίσου σημαντικό αποτέλεσμα της έρευνας στον οικισμό είναι η ανακάλυψη της πρωιμότερης κεραμεικής με διακοσμιτικά μοτίβα εκτελεσμένα με γραφίτη στο χώρο των Βαλκανίων. Όπως δείχνουν τα κοινά διακοσμητικά θέματα και όμοια σχήματα των αγγείων η κεραμεική με γραφίτη κατάγεται από την κεραμεική του τύπου Στρούμσκο (Εικ. 12, 24). Η παραδοσιακή αντίλειψη κατα την οποία η κεραμεική με γραφίτη πρωτοεμφανίζεται στην Θράκη πρέπει να αναθεωρηθεί, διότι η ομάδα από την περιοχή του Στρυμόνα είναι σαφώς πρωιμότερη. Οι έρευνες στον οικισμό Προμαχών-Topolnica έκαναν δυνατή μια βασισμένη σε στροματογραφικές παρατηρήσεις χρονολογική διάταξη των κεραμεικών ρυθμών της Ύστερης Νεολιθικής και Πρώιμης Χαλκολιθικής περιόδου. Τα διακοσμηιτικά στοιχεία της κεραμεικής του πολιτισμού Προμαχών-Topolnica διαδιδονται από την περιοχή του Στρυμόνα σε ευρήτερες περιοχές της νοτιοανατολικής Ευρώπης.

Introduction The results of the systematic excavations carried out on the prehistoric settlement of the so-called Promachon-Topolnica are of especial importance for the prehistory of Southeastern Europe. Before 1981, when the investigations began in the part of the site that is located in Bulgaria (referred to as Topolnitsa), very little information was known about prehistoric life in the Middle Struma (Strymon in Greek) River valley. At this time, a Polish-Bulgarian archaeological survey team under the direction of M. Domaradzki was trying to remedy this lack of information. A major project was undertaken to survey in detail, the area in the river valleys of the Middle Struma River and the smaller Strumešnica River (DOMARADZKI et al. 2001). The data and prehistoric artifacts that were collected were later published by L. Perničeva (PERNICHEVA 1983), which has been used by many to support or deny different outlooks for the development of prehistory in Southwest Bulgaria. The majority of these artifacts and data were the result of surface ﬁnds or small test pits that could only provide information for the most general trends for this part of Southeastern Europe. Almost as soon as systematic excavation was undertaken at Promachon-Topolnica it became clear that the opportunity for a more precise understanding of the prehistoric cultures along the Middle Struma River valley would be possible, as well as in the neighboring areas from the Late Neolithic and Early Eneolithic. The impact on prehistoric research in Northern Greece would also beneﬁt from the investigation of PromachonTopolnica, as the published research from some of the relevant excavated sites in Northern In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Greece was scanty at that time. In 1980 the results of the excavations in Sitagroi (RENFREW et al. 1986), had not yet been fully published. In addition, the material from the excavations at tell Dimitra and Vasilika had only been published in the early 1990’s (Dimitra excavations 1978–1980; GRAMMENOS 1991, 1997:27) (Vasilika excavations 1981–1983; GRAMMENOS 1991:30). The publications con cern ing Dikili Tash contained only some of the results from the excavations and the chronological framework. (See Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique for 1961, 1968, 1970, 1973 with relevant articles, also see the publication by D. Theocharis and K. Romiopoulou for 1961 in the Greek publication ПАЕ, and the article by J. Deshayes in 1970 in Зборник народног музеjа vol. VI published in Belgrade, Yugoslavia). This left the Late Neolithic along the Middle Struma River valley pretty much an open question. The unique geographical position of the Promachon-Topolnica settlement (it is the most south-western point in Bulgaria and a contact zone with the Aegean world) was one of the reasons for H. Todorova to begin excavations on this most important site for Southeastern European prehistory. The results of the 23 yearlong systematic excavation of this settlement have supported her farsighted view. In this study, which is based on the results of the 23 years of excavation and study of the Late Neolithic settlement Promachon-Topolnica, I would like to present the development of the decorative patterns as they relate to the context of the site and its stratigraphy. I will follow the connections on the settlement and the neighboring settlements within the framework of the Late Neolithic Topolnica-Akropotamos

Promachon-Topolnica. A Typology of Painted Decorations and Its Use as a Chronological Marker culture (Phase I–III) and the Early Eneolithic Dikili Tash-Slatino culture (Phase IV). In order to provide a general chronological framework I will use C14 dates, as well as other published data about the site. The material presented here and conclusions derived from it comes from the Bulgarian excavations in the sector called Sector Topolnica as well as information, publications, and results from the excavations in the Greek sector that goes under the name of Sector Promachon that appeared from 1995–2004 in the Greek publication – Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑEMΘ). Stratigraphy of Promachon-Topolnica The stratigraphy of Promachon-Topolnica is especially complicated. The site formation process does not follow the classical settlement mounding process. During the first years (1980–1982) of excavation in the Bulgarian Sector Topolnica, when the trenches were test soundings, it was believed that the site had four layers. However, during the excavations the complexity of the horizontal and vertical stratigraphy began to indicate a different picture. Some of the trenches showed only two layers, some three and some four and even five in a few cases. When we exclude the topsoil and plowed layer of c. 20 cm (that was designated as layer 0) where the material was mixed, the next three horizons (Phases I–III) were culturally homogenous, i.e., it characterizes the chronological diapason of the settlement life at Promachon-Topolnica. However, while trying to differentiate the dug-in features we encountered a number of difficulties, e.g., fill belonged not to the inhabitants from a particular layer but rather was from earlier occupants. This construction technique was often used in the settlements of the Topolnica-Akropotamos culture. Sometimes this is the reason for the confusion in the designation of the cultural layers in the early publication of the preliminary results in the Bulgarian journal Археологически открития и разкопки (АОР). The analyses of the results from the excavations in Sector Topolnica and Sector Promachon have finally lead to a more precise understanding of the stratigraphy of the settlement. It is now clear that we have four phases (Phases I–IV), with a Phase III that has two stages of development. This is manifested most clearly in the horizontal plan, but is also confirmed in the vertical stratigThe Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

raphy. For example, the layering in Dwelling Pit 3 (Sector Topolnica) and in the dug-in cult structure that was investigated in trenches IET, IA, IB and IZ in Sector Promachon (see KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. in this volume). The Stages of Settlement Occupation The first stage consists of Phases I–II, and is represented by the dug-in features that are located under a layer of burnt white ash; the second stage is Phases IIIA–IIIB that follows the white burnt ash layer. The third stage is Phase IV whose layers are only preserved is some areas and some dug-in features that are scattered over the entire area of the settlement. The following are the occupation stages at Promachon-Topolnica. 1. In Phase I we have the remains of a large sanctuary in Sector Promachon that was dugin into the virgin soil that was made up of alluvial deposit, which later made up the infrastructural matrix of the settlement in Phase II. Dugin dwelling pits up to two meters deep were also found. A conflagration ended this phase. This event was studied in the two sectors and is represented by a thickness of between 20–40 cm of white ash layer that defines the end of Phase II in the settlement. Phase II lasted for a fairly long time as can be seen from the dwellings and sanctuaries that were often renewed and frequently rebuilt. In some places local burning can be noticed, but this did not end settlement occupation. It appears that the cult area was frequently used for ceremonies and additional infrastructural construction was also added. 2. After the settlement area was destroyed by the fire in Phase II it was leveled in Phase IIIA and aboveground houses with posts were constructed. The cult area was moved to the east in Sector Topolnica where large clay compositions of massive anthropomorphic figures were added. During Phase IIIB the settlement develops quickly and covers a large part of the plateau. It is at this time that a defensive palisade is built in the eastern section of the settlement. 3. At this point it is not possible to state categor i cal ly if the settlement was completely abandoned at the end of Phase IIIB, since

Ivan Vajsov a large part of the settlement is still unexcavated. However, in the excavated sectors, it has been ascertained that there is digging-in from Phase IV that disturbed the layers in Phase III.

(GÖRSDORF/BOJADŽIEV 1996, 129), Strumsko II (cal BC 4940–4810, (GÖRSDORF/BOJADŽIEV 1996, 142), and Sitagroi II (RENFREW 1986, 173); and Phase IV with the four horizons in the tell SlatinoČardako (CHOHADZIEV 1997, 5–7).

Absolute Chronology To date, 15 samples of bone and charcoal from Promachon-Topolnica have been analysed: 7 from Sector Topolnica and 8 from Sector Promachon. All of the samples from Topolnica were dated by the Berlin laboratory (GÖRSDORF/ BOJADŽIEV 1996), of these the three that had been collected in 1982 and analyzed were shown not to be reliable as they had been contaminated by contemporary radioactive sources (BOJADŽIEV 1993, 92). The eight samples from Sector Promachon were published in Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑEMΘ) nos. 14 and 17 (KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 2000, 93; 2004, 101, Table. 6). These dates clearly show the chronological boundary between Phases II and III in Promachon-Topolnica. During 2003 many charcoal samples were collected in Sector Promachon that should hopefully furnish us with absolute dates for Phase I in PromachonTopolnica. The 14C analyses of the 12 samples have provided a clear clustering of the absolute chronological dates for Phases II and III. After calibration (Fig. 1) the general chronological framework for these phases in PromachonTopolnica is the following:

Decoration Typology at Promachon-Topolnica While tabulating and inventorying the ceramic material in Promachon-Topolnica for sta tis ti cal analyses a number of ornamental styles were identiﬁed as being chronologically sensitive. The manner in which the decoration was carried out was divided in the following manner: A – incision, B – surface decoration, C – bitumen decoration, D – painted (black/dark brown color and graphite), E – pricking, jabbing and stabbing, F – relief, G – channeling and H – a combination of incision with white incrustation (Figs. 2–3).

Phase I– 5320–5300 BC (?) Phase II – 4 samples (5300–5070 BC) Phase III – 5 samples (5070–4700 BC)1 Phase IV – 2 samples (4460–4250 BC) A comparative analysis of the dates from other Late Neolithic sites in the Middle Struma River valley region has been made difﬁcult because of the disparity in processing from the different laboratories. In spite of this according to the 14 C dates we can see that Phase II in Promachon-Topolnica is coeval with Anzabegovo IV (GIMBUTAS 1976, 29–32) and Dikili Tash I (cal BC 5620–5260, SEFERIADES 1983b, 640, Fig. 4); Phase III with Bălgarčevo III (cal.BC 5070–4940, 1

Incised Decoration (Type A) Four types of Incised decoration are encountered in Promachon-Topolnica. It is important to follow the differences through the stratigraphic context so that we can identify which form influenced which in the conservative atmosphere of the Topolnica-Akropotamos culture. Incised Decoration Type A1 (Fig. 2:A1) Type I is used to decorate special vessels like the anthropomorphic and zoomorphic askoi, clay lamps (Figs. 11; 21B:8; 22:9, 14) and the possibly socalled hollow drum-shaped stands (?). Type A1 is characteristic for the Topolnica-Akropotamos cul ture. One of the characteristic an thro po morphic motives is interlocked or crossed hands with 3 or 4 fingers. This motive is found only on ceramic lamps (Figs. 11:b; 21B:8), anthropomorphic and zoomorphic askoi and some flat lids (Fig. 22:3). The areas that are separated from the incised fields are painted with a red pastel color while the incisions are filled with a white paste. Here I would like to stress that this type of decoration encouraged N. Kalicz and J. Makkay (K A LICZ /M A KK AY 1977, 109) to see a di rect connection between Macedonia and Thessaly with the area of the Szakálhát culture in Central Europe. This thesis was also later supported by M. Séfériadès (SEFERIADES 1983a, 74; 1983b, 653).

For the archaeomagnetic data see KOVACHEVA 1995; 1997 and KOVACHEVA /GIGOV 1997.

In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Promachon-Topolnica. A Typology of Painted Decorations and Its Use as a Chronological Marker

Topolnica-Akropotamos culture

Fig. 1. Calibrated 14C dates from Promachon-Topolnica (OxCal, ver. 3.5). The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

Ivan Vajsov

7.1. Narrow Pseudo-channels (G1)

7.2. Wide, grooved channels (G2)

6.1. Protuberances (F1)

6.3. Plastic lines - relief rows (F3)

6.2. Circular protuberances, pressed-in center (F2)

8. INCISED DECOARTION WITH WHITE INCRUSTATION (H)

7. CHANNELS (G)

6. RELIEF DECORATIONS (F) 6.4. Anthropomorphic and zoomorphic extensions (F4)

4.1.1. Akropotamos Type (D1.1)

4.1.3. Strumsko Type (D1.3)

Wine red painted decoration (D1.2)

4.3.1. Wide dark red band with a wide black edge (D3.1)

4.3.2. Wide dark red bands with thin black edge (D3.2)

6.5. Hedgehog type conical protuberances (F5)

4.1. Painted dark/black to brown (D1)

4.2. Deep red (wine) band-like decoration Promachon Type (D2)

4.3. Polychrome painted decoration Dimitra Type (D3) 4.4.1.Broad stroked painted decoration (D4.1)

4.4.2. Combination broad and thin stroked painted decoration (D4.2)

4.4.3. Dikili Tach-Slatino Type decoration (D4.3)

2.1. Red slip (B1)

2.2. Graphitized surface (B2)

2.3. Black topped (B3)

1.1. Thick incised lines (A1)

1.3. Thick incised lines – Gradešnica Type (A3)

1.2. Thin incised lines – Larissa Type (A2)

4.4. Graphite painted (D4)

5. STABBED DECORATIONS (E)

4. PAINTED DECORATIONS (D)

3. BITUMEN (C)

2. DECORARTIVE SURFACE TREATMENT (B)

1. INCISED DECORATION (A)

1.4. Incised decoration – Ladder type (A4)

4.1.1.1. Akropotamos A Type (import) – D1.1.A 4.1.1.2. Akropotamos B Type (classic) – D1.1.B

Fig. 2. General Structural Classiﬁcation of the Decorations. It should however, be noted that the Szakálhát culture has attested general characteristics that are more similar to the Vinča B culture than the Szakálhát culture. In the beginning of this study I was also seduced into looking for connections between the Topolnica-Akropotamos culture and the Szakálhát culture. However, the results of the research from Promachon-Topolnica has shown that the close manifestations of the PromachonTopolnica culture are more likely due to relations with the Vinča B as an intermediary culture than to direct contacts. Incised Decoration Type A2 (Larissa Style) 2 (Fig. 3:A2). Here the decorations are applied with very thin incised lines on black matt-surfaced vase-like shapes. Most of the vessels are single handled with a swelling near the rim. Type A2 zigzag incisions are usually found on high-necked vessels near the top of the vessel and underscore the anthropomorphic area of the vessels. In Sector Topolnica, 23 black anthropomorphic jug rim sherds were found. Incised Decoration Type A3 (Gradešnica Style) (Figs. 3:A3; 17:3, 5, 8; 28:3–4, 6, 8–9, 10–11, 15, 17–18). Characteristic of this style is the presence of 2 or 3 parallel incised lines The incised lines are often in meander or spiral form. Hatched 2

triangles are also used as ﬁller for metopes (Figs. 17:3, 8 28:6, 10, 15, 18). In the professional literature this is often referred to as the Gradešnica Style of incised decorations and it is a chacteristic marker for the Early Eneolithic Gradešnica culture that is encountered in Northwestern Bulgaria (NIKOLOV 1974; TODOROVA 1986, 123–126, Рис. 43–46, PERNICHEVA1995, 128). The appearance of this ceramic complex in Promachon-Topolnica is probably due to the general developmental tendency during the transition from the Late Neolithic to the Early Eneolithic in the Central Balkan region. Incised Decoration Type A4 (Marica I style) (Figs. 3:A4; 17:1–2, 4, 6–7; 28:1–2, 5, 7, 13, 16) This decoration type is composed of narrow linked rows of lines and spirals that are con nect ed like sheaves made up two and more often three parallel lines while the area in between is densely hatched. In the professional literature this is referred to as a ladder motive (Figs. 17:1–2, 4, 6–7; 28:1–2, 7). H. Todorova has deﬁned this motive as typical of the Marcia I culture (TODOROVA 1986, 98–101, Рис. 23:I, Photo 4; SCHLOR 2000, 16 Fig. 3; K ATSAROV 2003, Fig. 9). In PromachonTo polni ca there are two vari a tions: A – the incised decoration appears alone (Figs. 3:1.4.A;

For the Larissa pottery see GALLIS 1987 and DEMOULE /GALLIS /M ANOLAKAKIS 1988, 33–40.

In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Promachon-Topolnica. A Typology of Painted Decorations and Its Use as a Chronological Marker 28:1–2, 7, 16) and B – a combination of incised decoration accompanied by fields in-filled with graphite decoration (Figs. 3:1.4.B; 28:13). Surface Treatment Decorations (Type B) In Promachon-Topolnica there are several types of surface treatment: red surface slip type B1 (Fig. 3:B1), use of graphite as a surface decoration type B2 (Figs. 3:B2; 21B:7) and the two-tone use of black and red called black topped type B3 (Figs. 3:B3, 10; 22:6, 11). When these techniques are used for surface decoration, not only are modeling considerations necessary for the vessel but also how it is to be fired. In general, it appears as though the surface of the vessel was first decorated and then fired for the final effect. Bitumen decoration – Topolnica type (Type C) This is one of the most characteristic decorative techniques in the settlement PromachonTopolnica, as well as for the Topolnica-Akropotamos culture. This type of design ornament was found for the first time in Sector Topolnica and was later taken to be the basis for the ornamental technique called bitumen decoration To polni ca type (Figs. 5; 8A; 8:1–6; 21B:1–7, 11–12; 21A; YIOUNI et all. 1994, 344–345). Bitumen decoration was made from thick bitumen that was applied before firing. At the same time bitumen was not the main decorative material, rather it was used as glue applied to the surface of the vessel upon which other decorative wood elements (e.g., birch bark) could be applied. In Promachon-Topolnica a large number of sherds using bi tu men in this way have been found. When bitumen is used the decorative motifs are incised in glued squares or rhomboid fields (Figs. 8A; 21B:5; 21A:1). Closely placed triangles, e.g., a herringbone motif when used with this ornamentation type is only present on the inside of vase-like shaped vessels. The most common motifs are spirals (Figs. 5:2a, 7a; 8A; 8:5; 21B:4; 21A:1) and zigzag (Figs. 5:3–4, 6, 8; 8:3–4, 6; 21B:1, 6–7, 11; 21A:2) elements. Painted Decoration (Type D) The main classificatory criteria for painted decoration is the thickness of the design stroke. Preliminary statistical analysis showed, that this is an important chronological marker for The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

the Topolnica-Akropotamos culture. Next in importance are the changes in compositional schemes – from densely in-filled fields towards a more open-work design. These changes can be followed in the stratigraphy at PromachonTopolnica. In Promachon-Topolnica painted decoration is divided into four basic types: Type D1 – a dark/reddish brown color decoration applied to the vessel (e.g., Akropotamos Figs. 9; 15–16; 26A:1–12, 14–19; 26B and Strumsko types Figs. 12; 14; 24); Type D2 – vessel decorated in bands with a deep red (wine) color in the so-called Promachon type (Fig. 3:D2); Type D3 – polychrome paint decoration of the so-called Dimitra type (Figs. 3:D3; 23) and Type D4 – pottery decorated using graphite as the paint (Figs. 3:D4; 23; 27). In our classification the first type is called D1 (dark/black-brown color) and is divided further into three subtypes, of which two of those Types D1.1 and D1.3 are met with in two variations. Type D1.1 is known as the Akropotamos type (Fig. 3:D1.1). The ornament is painted using thin dark brown lines on a light background. From a stylistic and chronological standpoint there are two variations: The first is called (D1.1.A) Akropotamos A (Figs. 3:D1.1.A; 11; 23:1–2, 4). This decoration is painted on imported vases of good quality fine ware using a dark brown paint (Munsell Chart Colors: 2YR/3:4; 2YR/3:6). This decoration is of course executed in thin lines and is known as Type E Akropotamos according to Mylonas, (see early publications by MYLONAS /BAKALAKIS 1938, Fig. 3; MYLONAS 1941, Figs. 3:1–4; 5:6–9) and Type A1 according to Perničeva (PERNICHEVA 1994, 123). This is referred to as brown on cream pottery. This type is very different from the Classical Akropotamos B type that has a wide distribution along the Middle Struma River during the Topolnica-Akropotamos culture. The difference between these two variants is not only in the technology for making the pottery but also in how the decorative schemes are employed. The pottery from Akropotamos Type A is made from refined clay. Most common motifs are the spiral combined with sheaves of three diagonal lines.

86 The second variant (D1.1.B), Classical Akropotamos Type B is a painted ware, which is the most characteristic marker for the TopolnicaAkropotamos culture (TODOROVA /VAJSOV 1993, 113–116, Fig. 101; TODOROVA 2003, 275–276, Fig. 14). This pottery is painted with dark brown strokes (Munsell Chart Color: 2YR/2:4) on a light beige/orange surface (Figs. 3:D1.1B; 16; 26A:1–12, 15–19). Perničeva (PERNICHEVA 1994, 275–276; 1995 123–124, Figs. 8:254, 258, 265, 268, 269) correctly noted that this type of pottery is characteristic for the Middle Struma River valley and she called it the Topolnica-Damjanica Type. However, from the very beginning of the excavations at Promachon-Topolnica in 1980 this type of decoration was being referred to as the Classical Akropotamos Type. Even the compositions that use this type of decoration and derive their motifs from the pottery of Akropotamos Type A pottery have intrinsic differences. The most evident difference is that Akropotamos Type A motifs are independent, while the Akropotamos Type B motifs are interdependent and connected to each other. It is characteristic for Akropotamos Type B to have in-filled isosceles triangles with spiral derivatives (e.g., concentric el lip soi dal spirals) (Figs. 16:1–4, 7–9, 11–15, 17; 26A:1, 4, 6, 8–11, 15, 17, 19; 26B:3, 7, 9). In addition to the technological differences in the way the vessels are produced, the Akropotamos Type A vessels are thin walled and made from refined clay, which is foreign to PromachonTopolnica, while Akropotamos Type B is made from local clay sources, with slight traces of local sand and small amounts quartz. The shapes of the vessels and the firing technique for Akropotamos Type B are still within the norms of the local traditions and differ from the final vessel end product where we have painted decorations of the Akropotamos Type A. The second sub-type (D1.2) (Figs. 3:D1.2; 26A:13) is also fine ware painted with thin lined decorations with a wine colored red paint. In spite of the fact that at Promachon-Topolnica this type is almost an exception (only 5 sherds have been found) it is included in the general decorative typology, since for general analysis it can function as a chronological indicator (see PERNICHEVA 1995 128, Figs. 11:390–391). The third sub-type (D1.3) (Figs. 3:D1.3; 12; 24) is the so-called Strumsko Type. In the beginning In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Ivan Vajsov of the excavations on Topolnica this pottery had been called Proto-Galepsos by H. Todorova. Here the decoration is painted in broad strokes (0,5–0,7 cm), black/brown lines (Munsell Chart Color: 10YR/3:1). There is a difference in the hue of the painted decoration at Promachon-Topolnica from the motifs of the Strumsko type and Akropotamos type. The painted broad band decorations in the Strumsko Type and Akropotamos Type are deeper and the hue more concentrated (Munsell Chart Color: 10R/3:1) The thin lines of the Akropotamos Type are also slightly lighter in color (Munsell Chart Color: 2.3YR/2:4). Although these differences are small, the most noticeable distinction is that the Akropotamos Type uses a thinner paint consistency. We make this distinction clear by using the terms black/brown lines for the densely painted Strumsko Type and brown/black lines (or a watery black) for the lighter hue Akropotamos Type. It is our feeling that the Galepsos Type is too general and does not offer a basis to seek typological connections. It is evident that the wide black/brown painted decorations of the Strumsko Type at Topolnica-Promachon has nothing to do with the later broad stroked painted decoration of the Galepsos Type (Type C1 according J.-P. Demoule) known from Dikili Tash III (DEMOULE 2004, 75–76, 95; Pl. 1; 18:2 56:11217; XV:1; E; F:1–2), Sitagroi III (EVANS 1986, Figs. 12.9:1–2, 12.10:1–4; PAPADOPOLUS 2002, Fig. 3), Galepsos (DESHAYES/GARAŠANIN 1964) and Krioneri (MALAMIDU 1999, Fig. 1:7). The only similarity between the painted decoration of the Strumsko Type and the Galepsos Type is that both use a broad stroke to apply the dark paint; everything else (motifs, composition etc.) are different. Even the forms of the decorated vessels are different. For this reason it is more correct to call this type of ornament the Strumsko Type, after the name of the site Strumsko (Kajmenska Čuka (excavated 1993–2000) is the Late Bronze Age site which sits on top of a section of the earlier excavated Strumsko site) near Blagovegrad, Bulgaria (PERNICHEVA 1992; 1995, 126–129, Figs. 11:395–403; 12:405–420; STEFANOVICH/BANKOFF 1998). The Strumsko Type also appears in two variants: Strumsko Type Variant A (D1.3.A) (Figs. 3:D1.3.A; 12; 24:1–9, 11, 13–14) where the lines and motifs are entirely hatched and Strumsko Type Variant B (D1.3.B) where there is a combination of a thick edge on the basic motif and thin in-ﬁlled

Promachon-Topolnica. A Typology of Painted Decorations and Its Use as a Chronological Marker ORNAMENTATION: APPLICATION TECHNIQUE

ORNAMENTATION: APPLICATION TECHNIQUE D3. Polychrome painted decoration

A1. Thick incised lines

A3. Thick incised lines – Gradešnica Type

A4.B. Combination – incised decoration with graphite in-ﬁlled ﬁelds

2. DECORARTIVE SURFACE TREATMENT (B): B2. Graphitized surface

B3. Black topped

3. BITUMEN (C) D1.1. Akropotamos Type

D1. Painted dark/black to brown

4. PAINTED DECORATIONS (D)

D1.1A (import) Brown on Cream

D1.1B (classic)

D3.1. Type A – Wide dark red band with a wide black edge

D3.2. Type B – Wide dark red bands with thin black edge

D4.1. Type A – Broad stroked painted decoration

D4. Graphite painted

B1. Red slip

4. PAINTED DECORATIONS (D)

1. INCISED DECORATION (A)

A2. Thin incised lines – Larissa Type

A4. Incised decoration – Ladder type (Marica I style) A4.A. A Incised decoration

D4.2. Type B – Combination broad and thin stroked painted decoration

D4.3. Type C – Dikili-Tash-Slatino Type decoration (Struma style)

D1.2. Wine red painted decoration

D1.3. Strumsko Type

5. STABBED DECORATIONS (small circular hollows) (E).

D1.3A

D1.3B

D2.1. Deep red (wine) band-like decoration Promachon Type

D.2. Deep red (wine) band-like decoration

6. RELIEF DECORATIONS (F)

F1. Type A – Protuberances

F3. Plastic lines - relief rows F4. Anthropomorphic and zoomorphic extensions

F2. Type B – Circular protuberances, pressed-in center

F5. Hedgehog type conical protuberances

7. CHANNELS (G): G1 – Narrow Pseudo-channels; G2 – Wide, grooved channels 8. INCISED DECOARTION WITH WHITE INCRUSTATION (H).

Fig. 3. Breakdown of the Decoration types in Promachon-Topolnica according to Technique and Ornamentation. The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

Ivan Vajsov

decorations as though the potter artist is striving for a decorative open-work effect (Figs. 3:D1.3.B; 15; 24:12, 14). In this regard the Strumsko Type Variant B can be considered as a prototype for the Akropotamos Type B, which underscores the genetic relationship of the decorations of the Strumsko Type, and Akropotamos Type B. Painted Decoration Type D.2 represents the application of broad fields of red paint (Fig. 3: D2 and Fig. 73 KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. in this volume). The motifs are mostly arcs and lines. The compositions are often filled with circles. A large amount of this type of pottery was found in Sector Promachon and is the basis for the so-called Promachon Type. Painted Decoration Type D.3 is actually bicolored painted pottery of the Dimitra Type (Figs. 3:D3; 23). It is similar in style to the ornamental compositions with broad red fields of the Promachon Type; the difference is that the decoration motifs are applied with a thick red-brown paint (Munsell Colors: 10R/4:8), which often forms into a low relief with tha black/brown contour (Munsell Colors: 2.5YR/2:2). This type of decoration which is encountered in Akropotamos, Galepsos and Dimitra was named by D.H. French in 1964 Dimitra ware (FRENCH 1964, 33). In retrospect, Dimitra ware is not the most appropriate name for this pottery; however, it has already been accepted in the literature and there is no pressing need to change it (GRABSKA-KULOVA 1993, 136; PERNICHEVA 1995, 124, Figs. 8:271–273, 275–126, 10:356). Painted Decoration Type D.4 (Strymon type) is one of the most interesting decorative styles encountered in Promachon-Topolnica – these are decorations, which use graphite to make the ornamental motifs and compositions (Fig. 3:D4). Type D.4 is also subdivided into three sub types. Graphite Type A (D4.1) (Figs. 3:D4.1; 13; 23) makes its earliest appearance in the region along the Struma River. These are graphite decorations, which are applied as broad lines. Graphite Type B (D4.2) (Fig. 3:D4.2) is composed of both thin and broad lines and is a transitional type between Graphite Type A (broad lines) and Graphite Type C (thin lines). Graphite Type C (D4.3, Struma style) (Figs. 3: D4.3; 18; 27:13–17) the graphite decoration In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

uses thin lines for the ornamental motif. This type is typical for the Early Eneolithic Dikili Tash-Slatino (Sitagroi III) culture. Jabbed and Stabbed decorations (Type E) This decoration is made up of a single group or groups of three to five jabs. This decorative technique is found rarely alone, most often it is in combination with white incrustation of the ladder type (Fig. 3:E). There are a few cases where the jabs are in combination with a wide channel or groove. Relief decorations (Type F) In Promachon-Topolnica there are different treatments for small bumps, protuberances, swellings and knobs (Figs. 3:F1–F2; 21B:2; 22:8, 11–12) often depending on the size of the handle where in some cases it plays a functional role. Sometimes these relief decorations are in the shapes of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic knobs and swellings that decorate the upper part of the handles and rims of some of the open bowls. In some cases relief shaped knobs mark the nose on anthropomorphic jugs and zoomorphic askoi (Fig. 32 KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. in this volume). Very rarely relief rows define the form of the vessel. In Promachon-Topolnica densely placed conical knobs are present – the so-called hedge-hog technique is also used to decorate the body of the anthropomorphic and zoomorphic cult askoi and some of the flat lids that appear in Phase II. Channeling (Type G) In Promachon-Topolnica channeling is used as a decoration for fine ware. It is used mostly for narrow channels – the so-called Pleat type which are most often located on the upper part of the vessels with the black topped decoration (Figs. 10; 21B:7; 22:6, 11). Usually the channels are applied after the application of the graphite decoration. Channeling is used independently and in combination with relief knobs that fill in separate areas (Figs. 10; 22:11). The compositions are usually simple consisting of arcs and diagonal channeling that are placed next to each other. In Pro ma chon-To polni ca only two imported sherds with wide diagonal channelings have been found – these are typical for the Late Neolithic complexes of Hotnica and Podgorica located in

Promachon-Topolnica. A Typology of Painted Decorations and Its Use as a Chronological Marker

Northern Bulgaria, Karanovo IV-Kalojanovec in Thrace and Vinča B2 in Serbia. Phase I Ceramic Repertoire Ornaments Until now Phase I is the earliest level; however, it is present in only two areas: the earliest layering is in the partially excavation Pit Dwelling 3 in Sector Topolnica (the layer is between 0,20–0,30 m) and the lowest layers of the large dug-in structure (sanctuary) which is located in trenches IA, IB, IZ and IET in Sector Promachon where the level is not completely excavated but probably reaches a depth of between 0,50–0,70 m. The most characteristic ceramic trait for this layer is the bitumen decoration of the socalled Topolnica Type. This type of decoration is known in Central Europe. This is one of the decorative variants called Šarice Type (JIRA 1911; VENCL 1961). However, here the decoration is present during the fourth and last phase of the Linerbandkeramik culture (the first half of the Vth millennium BC). It is interesting, that in Promachon-Topolnica as well as in Central Europe in the Šarice Type culture, the bitumen decoration was not used as the basic decorative material, i.e., the ornament was not itself used for the decoration. It was used only as a gluing agent upon which decorative elements from wood (e.g., birch bark) were glued. This is the same for the Šarice Type pottery (VENCL 1961, 118, 123) in the Czech Republic and in Promachon-Topolnica there are remains of bark that was glued on the vessel using bitumen (Fig. 6). In general, this gluey material was already used in the Paleolithic (M ANIA 2004, 191–195). In Promachon-Topolnica, as well as in Central Europe (VENCL 1961, 119) vessel sherds have been discovered, where bitumen was used on the old breaks indicating that in Promachon-Topolnica bitumen was used as a gluing agent even for some of the broken anthropomorphic figurines. In Sector Topolnica two small stone adzes were found where the part that was attached to the handle was covered with bitumen (Figurine 4). The technology for applying the Topolnica Type decoration had the following steps: 1. The vessels was first modeled, burnished and then fired. The surface area of the largest part of the vessel was usually a light beige color (Munsell Chart Color: 10YR/7:4). The The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

Fig. 4. Stone adzes with traces of bitumen (Scale 1:2). Photos – © I. Vajsov. clay that was used for the vessels was ﬁnegrained with small inclusions of sand (grain size 0,1–0,5 mm). There are small grains of quartz, which indicates local production. 2. Different forms were cut from the birch bark: triangles, rows and rectangles. 3. The birch bark pieces were prepared, then covered with bitumen and then pasted on the still warm surface of the vessel. The decorative elements are arranged only on the upper part of the vessel: e.g., broad horizontal rows between 10–12 cm encircled the high-necked vessels, while 2–4 cm rows – with sharp breaks (Figs. 5:8; 21B:11) are also present. In addition vertical rectangles and/or running rhombs were arranged at about 5 cm. from each other in the area between the neck and the shoulder (Fig. 5:3). Handles were also decorated birch bark that had been glued on with bitumen. The thickness of the applied bitumen varies between 0,1–0,2 mm. The changes in color from light beige to dark red on the surface of the vessel is probably due to the reaction between the bitumen and the warm surface temperature of the vessel after ﬁring. A similar effect appears on the surface of the vessels of the Šarice type where a pitch like decoration is present.

Ivan Vajsov The production technology of bitumen will not be treated here, but the conclusions by H. Wag ner and R. Graf for the bitumen decora-tion on the Damjanica ware are still important „... etwa durch Destillation von Holz oder anderen organischen Substanzen...“ (WAGNER /GRAF 1993, 153). 4. After the birch bark was glued on, the most difficult challenge was to cut out the decorations. This was an extremely precise task that was done using a very thin and sharp pointed tool. It was often made from an acacia tree thorn – a tree that is widespread in the region. The incision of the motifs was done without pressing down (Fig. 6), such that for the most part there were no traces left on the surface of the vessel. The aim was through finely incised lines to highlight the decoration and to provide contrast between the black surface under the bitumen and the lighter surface of the glued on bark. The artist who implemented the incision of the motifs and perfectly executed the zigzag motifs and the spiral had an especially talented hand and the precision of a real artist (Figs. 5:7a; 21B:4). 5. To complete the vessel decoration the frame of the ornamental fields was cutout and highlighted while the rest of the vessel surface was carefully cleaned.

The primary motifs that were used in the Topolnica Type were triangles, wide rows, zigzag (Figs. 5:3, 6, 8; 21B:1, 6, 11), herringbone (Figs. 5:7b; 21B:4) and spirals (Figs. 5:2a, 5, 7a; 21B:4). In Phase I, which is the lowest level, the only motifs used were an angular zigzag ornament. Large rectangular fields are in-filled in the upper areas of the carinated and vase-like vessels (Figs. 5:3, 8 and Figs. 18–19 in KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. in this volume). The most frequently encountered motif is wide fields, that are divided into crowded rows of zigzags (Figs. 5:3, 8; 21B:6, 11 and Figres 18–19 in KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. in this volume). Sometime in Phase II the zigzag motif is wavy like, however in Phase I that is an exception. It is the rule that the motifs that are arranged on the vessel surface are always developed in the horizontal plan. In the beginning this was also followed when the handles were decorated (Figs. 5:1; 21B:2,4); however, in the later levels, probably under the influence of In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

the painted decorations of the Strumsko Type and Akropotamos Type motifs the handles were treated only with diagonal lines. Even though the Topolnica Type bitumen decoration always appears only on the upper section of the vessel – from the rim to the transition – sometimes the upper section of the rim on the interior was also decorated with running triangles of the herringbone type decoration (Figs. 5:2b, 7b). A densely filled, 2–3 cm wide, band of bitumen decoration (Figs. 5:8; 21B:11) em pha siz es the carinated bowl transition on many vessels. Sometimes this decorative pattern was applied in vertically arranged zigzag lines (Figs. 5:4; 21B:11). The Topolnica Type also uses rhomboid shapes in conjunction with the basic motif, as well as an individual element that separates spiral-like motifs. In Central Europe in the Šarice Type small triangles are sometimes used for this purpose (VENCL 1961, 120). However, in the Topolnica Type the spiral motif is never found alone. The composition is made up of groups of several spirals that are arranged on wide rectangular fields, while derivative forms like arcs are used to decorate the empty fields. In the Topolnica Type, although rare among the decorative motifs, horizontal and diagonal lines are encountered, which appear for the most part to be accidental technical mistakes and have no relation to the general design structure of the composition. Bitumen decoration is encountered mostly on specific vessel forms, e.g., carinated profiles, vase-like shapes with high necks and with one or two handles that are attached at the transition between the upper part of the body for small handles or on the rim transition for larger handles. These vessels were specially manufactured and specially prepared for the bitumen decoration. Initially the decorations only used the bitumen technique, although in later periods these vessel forms were decorated with the thin stroked dark brown designs of the Akropotamos Type. It should be noted that the sharply carinated profiled vessels from the later levels at Promachon-Topolnica are present in anthropomorphic vessel shapes. The fact that bitumen is used only for some types is not accidental, especially since the number of bitumen-decorated vessels is statistically small and this probably points to some kind of ritual or symbolic use for these vessels.

Promachon-Topolnica. A Typology of Painted Decorations and Its Use as a Chronological Marker

3 4

5 6

Fig. 5. Ceramic sherds painted using bitumen Topolnica Type (Type C). Sector Topolnica. 1, 3, 8 – Level II; 2, 4–7 – Level II (Scale 1:2). Photos – © K. Georgiev and I. Vajsov.

Fig. 6. Magniﬁed image of Figure 5:7a sherd with incised ornament in bitumen. Photo – © I. Vajsov. The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

Fig. 7. Bitumen with glued bark. Sector Topolnica, Level I. Photo – © I. Vajsov.

Ivan Vajsov

Fig. 8A. Carinated ceramic vessel with bitumen decoration Sector Topolnica, House no. 2, Phase II. Photo – © K. Georgiev. S. Vencl in his earlier study of the vessels of this type from the then Czech Republic (VENCL 1961, 120) came to a similar conclusion, especially since it is clear that the use of ephemeral decorative materials, like bitumen and birch bark, would exclude these vessels from everyday use. Perhaps, for example, these vessels were used for the collection and storage of blood and organs from the ritual sacrifice of animals. The Topolnica Type bitumen decorations are also known from the Vinča culture complex region. M. Garašanin in his 1951 work on the Vinča culture noted that in the so-called Vinča-Turdaş period the surface of the zoomorphic vessels were covered with decorations made using a black pitch-like material. (GARAŠANIN 1951, 35). It is difficult to determine when bitumen in Europe was used for the first time as a decorative technique, but at this time it appears as though the use-distribution moves from the west towards the east. The basis for this conclusion is the results from the earliest ceramic repertoire In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

at Promachon-Topolnica, where some characteristics of the northwest Vinča-like traits have been noted. In general, the remaining Phase I vase-like and carinated bowl shapes have a rounded smooth transition between the neck, the body and the vessel. This characteristic trait supports the idea for cultural contacts between the Vinča B2 culture and Promachon-Topolnica that appear to have been stronger than with Northern Greece. This is inderscored by the discovery in 2003 in Sector Promachon of imported clay plastic that have direct analogies in the Vinča B2 period (see Figs. 60, 62, 66 KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. in this volume). Typical for the Vinča plastic in this period is the triangular shaped face (mask type) where the eyes are indicated using two connected slit-lines at 90° (SREJOVIĆ 1984, 46–51, Figs. 33:a–b, v). The general characteristics of the material culture during the early phases has a strong Vinča-like character, which had been supported

Promachon-Topolnica. A Typology of Painted Decorations and Its Use as a Chronological Marker Bitumen decoration – Topolnica type (Type C)

Painted decoration Akropotamos Type, Variant A (import) – D1.1.A

Absence individual surface sherds come from earlier horizons

(5070–4700 BC)

PHASE

III B

1 7

III A

8 9

(5300–5070 BC)

10 11

II 12

Fig. 8. Frequency (Presence-Absence) of vessel shapes with bitumen decoration of the Topolnica Type and Imported vessels with Akropotamos Type A decoration. Promachon-Topolnica. by the observations of M. Kaczanowska and J.K. Kozłovski that the Vinča technology for ﬂint production was the one that was used for a long time because of the deep roots of this cultural tradition (K ACZANOWSKA /KOZLOVSKI 1991, 24–23). It appears that the initial stages of settlement at Promachon-Topolnica are coeval with the expansion of the Vinča culture and the cultural areas that fell under its inﬂuence. The entire process of cultural in di vid u al iza tion of the large Late Neolithic culture complexes is characteristic of the Late Neolithic in Southeastern Europe (TODOROVA 1993 79–83). This can be observed in cultures such as Vinča in Serbia, and Hotnica in Northern Bulgaria and Karanovo IV-Kalojanovec in Thrace. This process of occupying large territories and the later individualization of the new characteristics traits can also been seen in Phase I at Promachon-Topolnica of the Topolnica-Akropotamos culture. Along the Middle Struma River during this time the founding of new settlements is The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

characteristic in the foothills and on the river terraces. This is quite clear from the mapping that took place during the 1970s with the PolishBulgarian survey that registered a number settlements at the mouth of the Strumešnica River: e.g., Mitino-Ajdarica, Părvomaj, Kamena, Drenovitsa and Petrovo (PERNICHEVA 1981, Fig. 1; DOMARADZKI et al. 2001, Map 1–2). Because of the similarities with the geographical location of Promachon-Topolnica it is possible these sites were founded at the same time. The selection of a strategic location close to rivers is not by chance. The founding of new settlements in the Late Neolithic is different from those considerations by the Early Neolithic inhabitants and is one of the characteristics that indicate that the settlers are not autochthonous. It should also be noted that earlier (?) settlements like Dolna Ribnica was located on the higher areas of the mountain foothills. It is true that the new settlers were looking for protected terraces to locate their new settlements, speaks for the

94 need for protection, probably a product of the expansion-like character of the new settlers who had arrived from the north, and had faraway tribal connections with Vinča. The earliest settlement in Promachon-Topolnica is related to the following cultural horizon: Promohon-Topolnica Phase I / Vinča B2 / Karanovo IVA-Kalojanovec / Kurilo-Sapareva banja / Sitagroi II (Early) / Dikili Tash I. Phase II Ceramic Repertoire Decoration During Phase II bitumen continues to be used, except that the decorations now include spirals. Most likely this is the result of the appearance of a new category of painted pottery, where the decoration is applied using thin dark brown lines – the Akropotamos Type. The appearance of this pottery type – even though few in number – is essential for the meaning of the later developments in painted pottery for the entire To polni caAkropotamos culture. This pottery is essentially different from the other manifestations in the ceramic repertoire, both in technology as well as its decorative system (Fig. 9). The pottery of the Akropotamos Type A is of a very high quality. The vessel surface is burnished and a cream color is dominant (Munsell Chart Colors: 10YR 7:4 and 2,5YR 6:8). The clay is very fine. It is only under a microscope with a 30X magnification that the small grains of sand are just visible (gain size 0,01 mm). The absence of quartz pieces indicates that this pottery is not locally made pottery – obviously this pottery type is imported. The decoration was applied with a watery brown paint before the vessel was fired. The thickness of the strokes varied between 0,2–0,3 cms. In addition to the technological differences that highlight this pottery the ornamental repertoire used in the compositions is also different. The derivative forms are later used in the painted pottery of the Strumsko Type and Akropotamos Type B although the entire style is different. The ornaments for Akropotamos Type A are made up of combinations of single spirals (Figs. 9:1–3, 7; 22:2; KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1998, Fig. 14) with diagonal sheaves of three and four straight lines (Figs. 9:1, 7, 10). Sheaves of three lines that are leaning to one side decorate the high stand-like drum that was discovered in level 28 in Sector Promachon (see Fig. 32 in KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. in the volume). In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Ivan Vajsov The handles are decorated in this same manner. Sheaves of groups of three thin wavy lines and/or running hatched rhombs are also encountered (Figs. 9:7, 9; 22:2, 4). The development of the spiral and its derivatives can be followed on the later painted pottery of the Strumsko Type and on the classical Akropotamos Type B. The running hatched rhombs are also present on the imported pottery in Akropotamos Type A. It is very possible that the appearance of Akropotamos Type A acted as a catalyst for the use of the spiral with the bitumen decoration in the Topolnica Type. Painted brown-on-cream pottery is typical for Sitagroi II (KEIGHLEY 1986, Figs. 11.12:5–8; 11.14:6,11; 11.15:5–7, 9–10, 13, 15, 16; Plate LXXX; LXXXI: 1–12, 3–4; Color Plate C). However, in Sitagroi II the Akropotamos Type B (Figs. 16 and 26B:1–12, 14–19; 26A) classical painted ware of the Topolnica-Akropotamos culture is missing. In addition, it appears that in Sitagroi II, there is some mixing of the material that has taken place, probably as a result of digging-in from the upper levels into the lower ones. This would explain why the material from the well-stratified layers in Promachon-Topolnica is found in lower levels in Sitagroi II where they are published together. This is the case where an incised sherd typical for Sitagroi III (the first phase of the Dikili Tash–Slatino culture) is classified as Sitagroi I (KEIGHLEY 1986, Fig.11.8:13). In the professional literature this type of incised decoration is known as the Gradešnica Type because it is typical for the Early Eneolithic Gradešnica culture in northwestern Bulgaria (TODOROVA 1986, 123–126; VAJSOV 1981). The stratigraphy from a number of Neolithic sites in western Bulgaria will not support an earlier date for the appearance of this phenomenon. The results of the latest research at Dikili Tash and Promachon-Topolnica bring clarity to the chronology in Sitagroi. Phase II is an important period in the development of the Promachon-Topolnica settlement, particularly since this the time when the settlement develops its infrastructure. Further construction and completion of the dug-in sanctuary, as well as Dwelling 2 in Sector Topolnica were finished. New layers were created from the materials that were deposited in the sanctuary building in Sector Promachon (Figs. 23–24, 32 KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. in this volume).

Promachon-Topolnica. A Typology of Painted Decorations and Its Use as a Chronological Marker

3 2

5 7

Fig. 9. Fragments of painted Brown-on-Cream (Imported fine ware with thin lines of the Akropotamos Type A), Sector Topolnica, 1–4, 6–12 Phase II; 5 Phase III (Scale 1:2). Photos – © I. Vajsov. It is during this time that for the first in Pro ma chon-Topolnica black topped pottery appears (Figs. 10; 21B:7; 22:6, 11). This very unique form of decoration is used mostly on closed carinated bowls. Using this technique a two-colored effect is achieved: a dark/black upper part and a red/brown lower part. In order to obtain the effect, immediately after firing the still warm vessel is placed upside down – up to the transition in a damp organic mass – most likely, wet leaves. In most cases the upper black vessel section that will be fired in reduction is completely covered with graphite. The black topped bowls in Promachon-Topolnica are carinated in shape. The rims are flat or slightly slanting inwards. In a few cases, the black topped bowls have a slightly outward flaring neck. This is also the case with the vase-like shaped vessels that are decorated with bitumen, where the carinated transition is always strengthened on the interior, which is a common practice for ceramic production the Late Neolithic. The lower half of the vessel is The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

taller than the upper section. Sometimes this type of bowl has a single handle that is attached at the transition and the rim, or a small vertically placed handle that is placed slightly above the transition. The vessel decoration consists of very ﬁne, and from time to time hard to discern pleated channels that appear immediately under the rim and transition, and between small protuberances. These channels are diagonally located, and straight or arc-like. In Promachon-Topolnica channels in concentric circles like those found in Dikili Tash have not been found (DESHAYES 1970, Fig. 10; 1973, FIG. 3; TSIRTSONI 2000, Fig. 8; 2001, 15, Fig. 5). All of the vessels that were made using the black topped technique are of local production in Promachon-Topolnica. It is also in Phase II that the askoi appear, that have anthropomorphic and zoomorphic traits. (Figs. 21B:9 and 32, 39 in KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. in this volume). In Phase II appear the clay lamps that are so characteristic of the Topolnica-Akropotamos

96 culture (Figs. 11; 22:9; TODOROVA /VAJSOV 1993, Photo 95; KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1998, Fig. 14:15). This vessel has two parts of which the upper circular part has a wide, high and thin, rectangular knob-handle with one hole in the base. The lower part is a hollow, square leg. The body and the front-sided handle are decorated with the characteristic incised ornament with interlocked or crossed hands with 3 or 4 (Fig. 11; 21B:8; KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1996, Fig. 7:7; 1997, Fig. 14:18) fingers (incised decoration Type A1). Normally the incision is filled in with a white paste, and the empty fields are painted a red pastel color. This type of decoration is used on some early hollow drum-shaped stands (?) and some flat lids. The material culture of Phase II continues to have a Vinča-like character. The askoi are a form that is known from the southern parts of the Vinča territory and their appearance in Promachon-Topolnica is not surprising. Local and imported forms appear that are common for the Vinča spiritual culture. For example, placed together with ceramic vessels in the sanctuary are clay anthropomorphic plastic figurines that are locally made following the shapes found in the Vinča territory (seated figurines with a child cradled in the arms, twin headed standing figurines etc.). Contacts with the regions to the south are also found. For example, from here come the painted decorations using a dark brown color on the imported pottery of the Akropotamos Type A. Phase IIIA Ceramic Repertoire Decoration Phase IIIA is the stage that follows a great conflagration in the settlement. The dug-in sanctuary in Sector Promachon burns down. Along with the nearby structures, House no. 2 in Sector Promachon (Fig. 21A) also destroyed by fire, as well, as the covering construction on Pit Dwellings no. 3. On the foundation of the previous settlement a new one is built. The location of the sanctuary is now moved from its location in Sector Promachon and is now rebuilt aboveground in Sector Topolnica. During Phase IIIA the number of black topped pottery decorated bowls increases slightly. Paint ed decoration with wide bands of the Strumsko Type bowls appear (Fig. 12 and 24; KOUKOU-LI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1997, Fig. 9:3; 2000, In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Ivan Vajsov Fig. 17:17), as do bicolored Dimitra Type decorations (Fig. 23) and broad band red decorations of the Promachon Type (KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1998, Fig. 7:11). The Strumsko Type Variant A decorative ornamen ta tion is now the most common for the Topolnica-Akropotamos culture type of ornamentation. The most common motifs are straight lined and curvilinear, applied in wide (0,5–0,7) black/brown strokes. This is the manner in which the rounded carinated bowls with two handles that connect the rim to the upper part of the vessel are decorated. The decorations on the upper and lower parts of the bowl complement each other. The application of broad horizontal bands emphasizes the rim and the transition of the bowl. Sometimes at about 2 cm above the bottom of the vase another line is added. These lines are in-filled with arcs and lines. Wide diagonal lines are found on the handles. The motifs are densely hatched so that the distance between the lines is hardly discernable (Figs. 12:6–7, 9, 16, 23, 25–26; 24:1–3, 8–9). The Strumsko Type pottery uses two kinds of hatching: densely placed diagonal lines and slightly curved arcs (leaning to the right or the left) and dense hatching in a net pattern (Figs. 12:26; 14:2, 6; 24:6). However, the appearance of hatched net patterns is a new phenomenon. In Promachon-Topolnica net pattern hatching is typical for the later thin lined graphite decoration in Phase IV. Here thin vertical lines are placed at a distance from each other between 0,3–0,5 cms. This specific manner of hatching is a chronological indicator for the ceramic corpus from the Early Eneolithic (e.g. Krioneri, Dikili Tash etc.). However, the ornaments in the Strumsko Type have ornaments where the triangular fields are completely infilled, while the Early Eneolithic thin graphite decorations search for an open work effect (Fig. 18:1b, 2, 3a). In the Strumsko Type black-brown decoration in-filled net patterns are common and this cannot be accidental. Even the continuity between the decorations of the Strumsko Type and the Classical Akropotamos Type B (Fig. 12:21, 25; 14; 24:12) that is evident in the later Akropotamos Type B does not have net patterns as a form of in-filling. The net pattern remains characteristic for the settlements of the Topolnica-Akropotamos culture. In the Strumsko Type the upper part of

Promachon-Topolnica. A Typology of Painted Decorations and Its Use as a Chronological Marker

Fig. 10. Single handled carinated bowl with three protuberances on the transition; black topped technology, decoration narrow channels „pleat type“, Phase II (a – Scale 1:4). Photo – © K. Georgiev. the bowls is decorated with rows of running triangles. They form an independent frieze of running triangles (Figs. 12:6,11–12, 21, 26–27; 24:1, 9–12), or a frieze of overlapping triangles (Figs. 12:3, 5, 16, 20, 23, 25; 24:8,15). In the first case the triangles are hanging with a marked line and ornament the lower section of the vessel. The empty areas are filled with horizontal „S“-like hanging terminations (Figs. 12:1, 3. 6, 8, 11–12, 18, 21, 25, 27; 24:7, 12) – and the lower section is filled with vertical sheaves of two lines each (Figs. 12:21; 24:12), There is also a variant of the „S“-like terminations where one end is attached to one of the transition lines, while the other

ends in a sphere (Figs. 12:13, 15, 17; 24:5). This is characteristic only for the Strumsko Type and is not used in the thin lined decorations of the Akropotamos Type. It is during Phase IIIA that graphite is used for the ﬁrst time to decorate ceramic vessels. This use is coeval with the use of wide black/brown decorations of the Strumsko Type. The earliest graphite decorative motifs are broad lines (0,5– 2,0 cm) (Figs. 13 and 23). This develops under the inﬂuence of the black/brown decoration of the Strumsko Type (Figs. 12, 24). The motifs and shapes are similar to the ones in the Strumsko Type. The difference is in the vessel surface color.

Figure 11. Small clay lamp, Sector Topolnica, Phase II. Photos – © K. Georgiev. The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

98 The pottery that is painted with a black/brown color has a brown-reddish surface color (Munsell Chart Colors: 2.5YR/6:6; 2.5YR/4:8; 10R/5:8), and when decorated with graphite the surface color – black/black brown (Munsell Chart Colors: 10R/3:3; 10R 2:2). The modeling technique and technology and the trace elements in the clay, point to the fact that both types of ceramics are local production. In the beginning, the motifs that are used come from the black/brown Strumsko Type decoration (arcs, diagonal lines, wide vertical lines highlight the base etc.) and begin to use compositions made up of densely placed wavy vertical lines and spirals. The discovery in Promachon-Topolnica of this earliest decoration use with graphite gives the answer to the question of the origin of graphite decoration in Southeastern Europe. The graphite decoration in Promachon-Topolnica is earlier than the thin ware that is typical for the classical first phase of the Early Eneolithic culture Dikili Tash-Slatino (EVANS 1986, Figs. 12.2–12.7; DEMOULE 2004, Pl. 32:21634; 33: 17508, 15196; 34:10760; 36:22712, 22709; 41:14563). Consequently, in the region of the Middle Struma River, graphite is used as a decorative material from as early as the Late Neolithic. It was first used as a slip for the application of graphite on the surface of the upper part of the black topped vessels, which gives the appearance of a slight silver reflection (Phase II in PromachonTopolnica). The manifestation during the Late Neolithic of a graphite treated surface is noticed on other settlements along the Upper and Middle Struma River (VANDOVA 2004) where the characteristics of graphite were well known. The effect of reduction that is used in the black topped technology is widely used specifically with the vessels with the earliest graphite decoration treatment. These have a dark vessel surface. In the Upper and Middle Struma a new phenomenon is noted – black vessels. This new trend of black vessels needed modifications for a new technology when decorating the vessel, since during reduction all of the mineral colors differences in the graphite are lost. H. Todorova called attention to the fact, that the decorations were in-filled with wide graphite bands, and formed large arcs and bands are encountered for the first time during the Early Eneolithic in Thrace, in the region of the Marica In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Ivan Vajsov I culture (TODOROVA 1986, 101). The results from Promachon-Topolnica indicate, that the genesis of this type of decoration should be connected to the ornaments painted in black/brown color of the Strumsko Type. Over time this hypothesis has undergone some changes on how the graphite ornament began in Early Eneolithic. In the Promachon-Topolnica settlement it is possible to follow the changes going backwards in time: first it was used only for wide graphite bands (Phase IIIA), then the lines slowly get thinner and the are combined with thin lines (Phase IIIB), while in the end only thin graphite lines (Phase IV). In the tell site Slatino-Čardako (Upper Struma River) it is the lowest levels where the graphite decorations are wide while the upper ones have the thinner lined dec o ra tions. (CHOCHADZIEV 1997, 37). During the Late Neolithic graphite decoration appears on two ceramic shapes: carinated bowls with a low ridge and two handles that reach from the rim to the transition that are decorated with the Strumsko Type ornamentation, and sharply carinated vase-like shapes with a high neck that are decorated with the To polni ca Type bitumen decoration and anthropomorphic vessels ornamented with the dark brown decoration of the Akropotamos Type B. In the Sector Topolnica from this Phase two rim sherds from anthropomorphic bowls, decorated with wide graphite decorations have been found (Figs. 13:5, 9). In Phase IIIA bicolored pottery of the Dimitra Type first appears (Fig. 23). The decoration is similar to the Strumsko Type where the black/brown contour is broad and outlined. The motifs are applied before firing with a thick reddish paint. This ornament is encountered on the surface of rounded carinated bowls with a lengthened lip as well as with some shapes of dishes. During Phase IIIA the settlements belonging to the Topolnica-Akropotamos culture in the Middle Struma River valley expanded markedly. The location and similarity of the material from Phase IIIA and Phase IIIB in Promachon-Topolnica and in Damjanica allows the same conclusion for both sites. Phase IIIB Ceramic Repertoire Decoration The Promachon-Topolnica settlement expands significantly during this phase. It is now

Promachon-Topolnica. A Typology of Painted Decorations and Its Use as a Chronological Marker

6 9

11 12

16 17

19 20

Fig. 12. Sherds of Black/Brown painted decoration on an Orange/Red background – thick lined Strumsko Type (Type D1.3), Sector Topolnica, Phase IIIA (Scale 1:2). Photos – © I. Vajsov. The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

100 that a defensive palisade is constructed in the Sector Topolnica. In comparison with Phase IIIA there are no great changes in construction techniques in the settlement. The dwellings are almost entirely aboveground. Some of them have shallow dug-in storage facilities. The use of the sanctuary in Sector Topolnica continues. Phase IIIB sees the decrease of the broad band black/brown ornamentation of the Strumsko Type, as well as changes in the technique of how the decorations are applied and how the final visual effect is obtained. A combination of thick and thin lines now begins to be used in decorations. Thick lines are used to separate ornamental fields motifs contours – thick horizontal lines are used to mark the rim and transition – while thin lines are used for arcs, and in-filling of motifs (Figs. 14; 24:12). This is the time of the Classical Phase of the Topolnica-Akropotamos culture and its open work decorations. Thin lines are very much in use now. Akropotamos Type B decorations play the most important role now. The motifs and compositions that are used in the classical thin lined decorations in Akropotamos Type B are the following: 1. Upside down isosceles triangles in-filled in the middle with concentric ellipsoidal spirals that extend at the ends in an arc (Figs. 16:12–13). Sometimes the motifs are decorated like a garland (Figs. 16:14, 17; 26A:1, 8, 19; 26B:3, 7). This is similar to the Strumsko Type decorations, which is the basic motif that hangs from the highlighted rim line, like the upside-down triangles in a row on the vessel neck. Occasionally, a garland is combined with one that is already hanging from the line that highlights the transition line (Figs. 16:13–15). In this case, the area between the triangles decorates the lower part of the vessel with in-filled sheaves of three vertical lines (Figs. 16:4; 26A:19; 26B:1, 2b, 5b, 7). 2. Frieze is used in the Strumsko Type (Figs. 12:9, 16, 20) and Akropotamos Type B ornamental compositions in the upper section of the bowl or on the neck of the jug. On the bowl the isosceles triangles are upside-down and hanging from the highlighted rim line, while on the jug neck there are running isosceles triangles where the baseline is on the line that highlights the transition (Figs. 16:3, 11). The In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Ivan Vajsov upper and lower triangles are separated by a space that is formed by negative ellipses. 3. Diagonal, vertical and angular sheaves of three lines each are used for decoration on the handles (Fig. 16:6), lower section of the bowls and the hollow conical small chairs. 4. Two wavy parallel lines (Fig. 16:16) that terminate in „S“-like oval spheres of the Strumsko Type (Figs. 12:10–13, 24). 5. Notched bands of the ladder type (Fig. 16:10 and Fig. 38 KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. in this volume; 1998, 7:13). Stylistically this motif reminds one of the incised ladder type in Phase IV. The ladder type painted motif of Phase III and the same type incised one of Phase IV do not have any genetic connection. The origins of the ladder motif on painted decoration lie in Thessaly, the area of the early Dimini culture. There are just few fragments with similar painted incision found in Promachon – Topolnica, while this style comes to be identified with the Dimini area (see HAUPTMANN 1981, Tafel B: 2; IX; 5:14; 8:9, 16, 18; 19:1–2,5; 21:15). In general, the concept of ornamental compositions that comprise motives of two contours en clos ing a filled space belongs definitely to Thessaly. From a morphological point of view, the Dimitra type diachronic ornament is also the same. We can consider the Akropotamos B type ornament that is classical of Strouma. 6. There is another motif that has analogies to the incised ornaments from Phase IV: these are the small ellipses that are hatched with diagonal lines (Fig. 16:18). The Phase IV par al lels are clear (Fig. 17:7 and Fig. 10:1,4 in KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. in this volume). 7. Small spiral motifs in-fill the empty spaces between the hanging triangles (Fig. 15). During Phase III in Promachon-Topolnica the Larissa Type black pottery appears, it is modestly decorated with many small incised lines (Fig. 3: A2). The vessels that are decorated are mostly single handled bowls with a high neck. Sometimes they have an anthropomorphic enlargement on the rim. Bicolored decoration of the Dimitra Type continues to be used, where in contradistinction to the previous phase the edges of the decora-

101

Promachon-Topolnica. A Typology of Painted Decorations and Its Use as a Chronological Marker

Fig. 13. Sherds of Graphite painted ware Type D4.1 (thick lined). Sector Topolnica, Phase IIIA (Scale 1:2). Photo â&#x20AC;&#x201C; ÂŠ I. Vajsov.

2 3 4

Fig. 14. Sherds of Black/Brown painted decoration on an Orange/Red background. Combination style Strumsko Type (thick lined painted decoration and the thin lined Akropotamos Type). Phase IIIB (Scale 1:2).

The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

102

Fig. 15. Sector Topolnica, House no. 1, Phase IIIB. Akropotamos B dark brown painted spiral decoration. Photo – © I. Vajsov. tions are already marked by thin lines (Fig. 25:15 and Fig. 12 in KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. in this volume; TODOROVA /VAJSOV 1993, Рис. 101:10; PAPATHANASSOPOULOU 1996, 249, Catalogue no. 84; KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1997, Fig. 16:15). Graphite decoration continues in use; however, it is beginning to disappear gradually as a technique. Now it is combined with thick and thin lines. In general, the ceramics belonging to Phase III are light, yellow/orange color (Munsell Chart Color: 10R/6:8). Phase III at Promachon-Topolnica of the Topolnica-Akropotamos culture is part of the cultural horizon: Promohon-Topolnica (Phase III) – Vinča B2/C (the Vinča hiatus – the so called Gradac Transitional Phase) – Karanovo IVC. Phase IV Ceramic Repertoire Decoration Phase IV is the upper level at PromachonTopolnica. This is the humus and plow zone (c. 20 cm) that contains mixed material. From this period there are only a few undisturbed dug-in pits. It is difﬁcult to identify any architectural remains from this phase. What is characteristic for this period is the appearance of pottery decorated with thin graphite lines (Figs. 18 and 27:13–17; KOUKOULIIn the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Ivan Vajsov CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1998, Fig. 9:11 1998a, Fig. 9:2), which are one of he hallmarks of the first phase of the Dikili Tash-Slatino culture. Positive graphite decorations cover both the interior and exterior of the vessel. In addition to the spiraled mo tifs there are angular geometric motifs, in-filled with thin net-like hatchings (Fig. 18:2–3a), spirals, spiraled meanders, arcs and groups of two or more parallel lines. On the bowls where the design area is divided into three areas spiraled motifs are arranged on the area that bulges the most – the central area of the vessel (Fig. 27:15–17). Reduction firing is used all the time. The second typical marker for this phase is the Gradešnica Type incised decoration (Figs. 17:8; 28:6, 10–11; KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1995, Fig. 1:3; 1997, Fig. 9:4). During the Early Eneolithic this decoration type was used mostly for coarse thick-walled ware. The thickness of the incisions is between 0,2–0,3 cm and the incisions are in-filled with a white paste. The lines outline spirals, meander-like motifs, metopes, hatched ellipses and triangles – as well as similar motifs that are common in the graphite ornament repertoire. There appears a type of ornamental organization in metopes. Spirals are composed of two parallel lines. This ornamental band is divided in two by an extra line (Fig. 17:8). This also happens with the incised ladder type ornament. The Gradešnica Type ornament on vessels is usually applied in a light brown color, while the clay has inclusions of small sand-like grains. At the same time the appearance of the incised ladder type decoration makes it debut (Figs. 17:1, 4, 7; 28:1–2, 5, 7). The ves sels that use this decorative motif are usually black. The ladder type decoration is almost always incrusted with a white paste. The compositions are organized into metopes. The ladder type ornament is used to in-fill one or two nearby fields. It differs from the Gradešnica Type ornament in that the incisions are thin – 0,1–0,2 cm. Often, incised spiral-like motifs are accompanied with graphite fields. The empty fields between the spirals are in-filled hatched rhombs and some stab marks (Fig. 17:7). In the settlement (Phase IV) one sherd was even discovered where the ladder type decoration was made using graphite (Fig. 27:13). Phase IV in Promachon-Topolnica undergoes

Promachon-Topolnica. A Typology of Painted Decorations and Its Use as a Chronological Marker

103

6 7

16a

17 16b

Fig. 16. Sherds of Brown painted decoration on Brown-on-Orange/Red background Akropotamos Type (thin lined, Type D1.1B). Sector Topolnica, Phase IIIB (Scale 1:2). Photo â&#x20AC;&#x201C; ÂŠ I. Vajsov and K. Georgiev. The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

104

Ivan Vajsov

1 2

Fig. 17. Incised sherds from Sector Topolnica, Phase IV. 1–2, 4, 6–7 – Marica I sherd, excised decoration with graphite. (Scale 1:2). Photo – © I. Vajsov and K. Dimitrov.

4 3a

Fig. 18. Sherds of Graphite painted ware Type D4.3 – Dikili Tach-Slatino (thin lined). Sector Topolnica, Phase IV (Scale 1:2). Photo – © I. Vajsov. In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Promachon-Topolnica. A Typology of Painted Decorations and Its Use as a Chronological Marker Painted decoration Bitumen decoration To polni ca Type Akropotamos Type/D1.1 (Type C) A (import) B (classik)

PHASES

Painted decoration Strumsko Type (Type D1.3) Variant A Variant B

Graphite painted (Type D4) Variant A

Variant B

Variant C

105

Decorartive Surface treatment Graphite (Type B2)

Level IV

B Level III A

Level II

Level I

Fig. 19. Promachon-Topolnica. Frequency chart of the main decoration types by Phase. The chart presents the frequency for each ornament separately and not as a percent of the total ceramic repertoire ( = 10%). many changes in the entire material culture repertoire. The ceramic forms are more open, which is a sure sign for the Early Eneolithic. Black ceramic dishes appear and cylindricalconical bowls appear with small protuberances on the han dle, which is another marker of the Early Eneolith ic Dikili Tash-Slat i no culture (CHOHADZIEV 1997; DEMOULE 2004, Figs. 23:40600; 36:17852; 46:15356). These changes are probably related to population changes in the settlement. Phase IV is related to the culture horizon: Promachon-Topolnica (Phase IV) – Vinča C1 – Phase I of the Dikili Tash-Slatino – Krioneri – Gradešnica A – Marica I. Conclusions The importance of the discoveries at Promachon-Topolnica is signiﬁcant for the prehistory of the Struma/Strymon River Valley. The discovery of a sanctuary is not the only reason, rather the excellent stratigraphy of the discovered artifacts and features, is a ﬁrm foundation upon which to investigate the formation of the lifeways of the Topolnica-Akropotamos culture. This investigation rests on the evolution of the decorations in the settlement and resolves some questions concerning the prehistory of the Struma/Strymon River Valley. For example, The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

1. That it is now clear that the well-stratiﬁed ceramic decorations at Promachon-Topolnica prove the local origin of the painted pottery of the Akropotamos Type B and the earliest use of graphite decoration in Southeastern Europe. 2. That there is a sharp division between the imported painted pottery of the Akropotamos Type A and the local production Akropotamos Type B. 3. That in contradistinchon, to the presently ac cept ed view that the thin lined decoration of the dark brown Akropotamos Type B preceded the broad lined Strumsko Type decoration – it is now demonstrated that the case is exactly the opposite. The probable reason for this has to do with the later classical decoration of the Galepsos type. This problem is now resolved, not by the research from Pro ma chon-Topolnica but with the latest publications from Dikili Tash and Krioneri. It is now possible to clearly distinguish between the Late Neolithic and the Early Eneolithic Dikili Tash-Slatino and Galepsos-Krioneri. 4. That as a result of the investigations and systematic excavations at PromachonTopolnica it is now possible to deﬁne the prehistoric sites from this part of Southeastern Europe by

106

Ivan Vajsov

C Karanovo IV–Kalojanovec

Phase III

Phase I

Damjanica

Bălgarčevo

Level IV

Marica I B

Phase II

Southwest Bulgaria Kovačevo

Level II

Level III Level II

Level III

B A

Level I

Serbia

Strumsko

Slatino

Level III

Kăro V Chardako 3–4

Level II Level I

B A

Sapareva banja

Vinča Culture

Vinča depth

hiatus Kăro VI

Radomir

Level I Level I

Gradaèka faza

Phase IV

Thrace

Vinča-Pločnik

Promachon-Topolnica

6,5 m B2/C hiatus 6,0 m

Level II

B2 Turdaş II

7,4 m

Fig. 20. Promachon-Topolnica and Periodization of the Late Neolithic settlements in Southwest Bulgaria. comparing the coeval levels between sites, and this can be the basis for the construction of a chronological system that illustrates the true

development of the Late Neolithic and Early Eneolithic in the Middle Struma/Strymon River valley.

References A LEXANDROV/BAKAMSKA 1992 С. Александров, А. Бакъмска, Сондажно проучване на праисторическото селище РадомирВлахово. АОР през 1991 (Sofia 1992), 35–36. A RVANITIDU 1990 С. Арванитиду, Керамика тип „Акропотмос“ в Югозападна България и Северна Гърция. – Unpublished Master’s thesis (University of Sofia, Sofia 1990). A SLANIS 1992 Ι. Ασλανησ, Η προϊστορια τησ Μακεδονιασ I. Η νεολιθικη εποχη (Athen 1992). BOJADŽIEV 1993 Я. Бояджиев, Абсолютна хронология на култура Акропотамос–Тополница. – In: V. Nikolov (ed.), Prähistorische Funde und Forschungen. Festschrift zum Gedenken an Prof. Georgi I. Georgiev (Sofia 1993), 91–96. COMMENGE-PELLERIN/TSIRTSONI 2004 C. Commenge-Pellerin, Z.Tsirtsoni, Les récipients en céramique: formes et décors du Néolithique Moyen. – In: René Treul (ed.), Dikili Tash. Village préhistorique de Macédoine orientale, Vol. I,2. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, Supplment 37 (Paris 2004), 27–61. DEMOULE 2004 J.-P. Demoule, Les récipients en céramique du Néolithique Récent (Chalcolithique): description, évolution et contexte régional. – In: René Treul (ed.), Dikili Tash. Village préhistorique de Macédoine orientale, Vol. I,2. – Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique (Supplment) 37 (Paris 2004), 63–270. DEMOULE /GALLIS /M ANOLAKAKIS 1988 J.-P. Demoule, K. Gallis, L. Manolakakis, Transition entre les cultures Néolithiques de Sesklo et se Dimini: Les catégories céramiques. – Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 112/1, 1988, 1–618.

In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

DEMOULE /LICHARDUS-ITTEN 1994 J.-P. Demoule and M. Lichardus-Itten, Fouilles Franco-Bulgares du site néolithique ancien de Kovaèevo (Bulgarie du Sud-Ouest). Rapport Préliminaire (campagnes 1986–1993). – Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 118/2, 1994, 561–618. DESHAYES 1970 J. Deshayes, Les fouilles de Dikili Tash et l’archéologie Yugoslave. – Зборник народног музеjа у Београд VI, 1970, 21–43. DESHAYES 1973 J. Deshayes, Dikili Tach. – Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 97, 1973, 464–473. DESHAYES /GARAŠANIN 1964 J. Deshayes and M. Garašanin, Note sur la céramique de Galepsos. – Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique LXXXVIII/1, 1964, 51–66. DOMARADZKI et al. 2001 M. Domaradzki, Materiaux concernant l’archeologie de la Struma moyenne (М. Домарадски и колектив. Материали за археологията на Средна Струма.) – Разкопки и проучвания XXVII, Sofia 2001. EVANS 1986 R.K. Evans, The Pottery of Phase III. – In: C. Renfrew, M. Gimbutas, E.S. Elster (eds.), Excavations at Sitagroi. A Prehistoric Village in Northeast Greece. vol. I. – Monumenta Archaeologica 13 (Los Angeles 1986), 393–428. FRENCH 1964 D.H. French, Prehistoric pottery from Macedonia and Thrace. – Prähistorische Zeitschrift 42, 1964, 30–48. GALLIS 1987 Die stratigraphische Einordnung der Larissa-Kultur, eine Richtigstellung. – Prähistorische Zeitschrift 62, 1987/2, 147–163.

Promachon-Topolnica. A Typology of Painted Decorations and Its Use as a Chronological Marker GARAŠANIN 1951 M.V. Garašanin, Hronologia vinčanske grupe (Lubljana 1951). GIMBUTAS 1976 M. Gimbutas, Neolithic Macedonia. As reflected by excavation at Anza Southeast Yugoslavia. – Monumenta Archaeologica I (Los Angeles 1976). GRAMMENOS 1991 Δ.Β. Γραμμένος, Νεολιθικεσ ερευνεσ στην κεντρκη και Ανατολικζ Μακεδονια (Athen 1991). GRAMMENOS 1997 Δ.Β. Γραμμένος, Νεολιθικη Μακεδονια (Athen 1997). GÖRSDORF/BOJADŽIEV 1996 J. Görsdorf and J. Bojadžiev, Zur absoluten Chronologie der bulgarischen Urgeschichte. Berliner 14 C-Datierungen von bulgarischen archäologischen Fundplätzen. – Euroasia Antiqua 2, 1996, 105–173. GRABSKA-KULOVA 1993 M. Grabska-Kulova, Neolithische bemalte Keramik aus der Siedlung Damjanica im mittleren Strumatal. – Saarbrücker Studien und Materialen zur Altertumskunde 2, 1993, 121–151. GREBSKA-KULOVA 1994 М. Гребска-Кулова, Мястото на рисуваната керамика тип „Акропотамос“ в пeриодизацията на късния неолит в Югозападна България. – Annuary of Departament of Archaeology – NBU I (Sofia 1994), 283–291. H AUPTMANN 1981 H. Hauptmann, Deutsche Ausgrabungen auf der Otzaki-Magula in Thessalien III. Das Späte Neolithikum und das Chalkolithikum (Bonn 1981). 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). CHOHADZIEV 1986 St. Chohadziev, Frühäneolitische Keramik aus der prähistorischen Siedlung bei Slatino. – Studia Praehistorica 8, 1986, 185–202. CHOHADZIEV 1997 Ст. Чохаджиев, Слатино – праисторически селища (Велико Търново 1997). JIRA 1911 J.A. JIRA, Neolithische bemalte Keramik in Bömen. – Mannus, Zeitschrift für Vorgeschichte, Bd. III, 1911, 225–254. K ATSAROV 2003 G. Katsarov, Earlier Chalcolithic Decorated Pottery from Plovdiv. Approach to the Typology of the Ceranic Ornamentation of the Maritsa Culture – Yasa Tepe Tell. –In: L. Nikolova (ed.), Early Symbolic Systems Communication in Southeast Europe. – BAR International Series 1139, 2003, 209–239. K ACZANOWSKA /K AZLOVSKI 1991 M. Kaczanowska and J.K. Kozłovski, Vinca – eine lokale Evolution oder eine Diffusion? Ein Beantwortungsversuch vom Standpunkt der Entwicklung der spalindustrien aus Betrachtet. – Banatica 11, 1991.

The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

107

K ALICZ /M AKKAY 1977 N. Kalicz and J. Makkay, Die Linienbandkeramik in der Großen Ungarischen Tiefebene (Budapest 1977). KEIGHLEY 1986 J.M. Keighley, The Pottery of Phases I and II. –In: C. Renfrew, M. Gimbutas, E.S. Elster (eds.), Excavations at Sitagroi. A Prehistoric Village in Northeast Greece, vol. I. – Monumenta Archaeologica 13 (Los Angeles 1986), 345–392. KOVACHEVA 1995 M. Kovacheva, Bulgarian Archaeomagnetic Studies. –In: D. Bailey, I. Panajotov (eds.), Prehistoric Bulgaria. – Monogr. World Arch. 22, 1995, 209–224. KOVACHEVA 1997 M. Kovacheva, Archaeomagnetic database from Bulgaria: the last 8000 years. – Phys. Earth planet. Int., 102, 1997, 145–151. KOVACHEVA /GIGOV 1997 M. Kovacheva and V. Gigov, Archaeomagnetic dating of two neolithic sites located in Southwestern Bulgaria. –In: Proceed. of 2d Southwestern conference on archaeometry, Delphi, April 1991. PACT 45–IV.6, 1997, 295–305. KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1995 X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, I. Ασλάνης, Φ. Kωνσταν-τoπoύλoυ, M. Βάλλα, Ανασκαφή στον προϊστορικό οικισμό Προμαχώνας-Topolnica κατά το 1995. – Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑEMΘ) 9, 1995, (1998), 435–440. KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1996 X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, I. Ασλάνης, Φ. Kωνσταντoπoύλoυ, Πρoμαχώνaς-Topolnica: Ελληνoβoυλγαρικές έρευνες στoν προϊστoρικό oικισμό. – Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑEMΘ) 7, 1993 (1996), 505–512. KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1997 Ch. Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, H. Todorova, J. Aslanis, J. Bojadziev, I. Vajsov, M. Valla, Promachonas-Topolnica. (X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, H. Todorova, I. Ασλάης, J. Bojadziev, I. Vajsov, M. Βάλλα. Πρoμαχώνoς-Topolnica. Νεολιθικός οικισμός ελληνοβoυλγαρικών συνόρων). – Tο Αρχαιολογικο εργο στη Μακεδονια και Θρακη (ΑEMΘ) 10b, 1997, 745–767. KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1998 X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, I. Ασλάνης, Φ. Kωνσταντoπoύλoυ, M. Βάλλα, Ανασκαφή νεολιθικού οικισμού Προμαχώνα-Topolnica 1998. – Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑEMΘ) 12, 1998 (2000), 67–76. KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1998a X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, H. Todorova, I. Ασλάης, J. Bojadziev, Πρoμαχώνας-Topolnica: Πρόγραμμα ελληνοβoυλγαρικής συνεργασίας. –In: Δ. Σερρω, Οι Σέρρες και η Περιοχή τους από την Αρχαία στη Μεταβυζαντινή Κοινωνία, Πρακτικα συνεδρίου, A΄ Tομοε (Thessaloniki 1998), 7–24. KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 2000 X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, I. Ασλάνης, M. Βάλλα, Προμαχώνας-Topolnica 2000. – Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑEMΘ) 14, 2000, 87–98.

108 KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 2004 X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, I. Ασλάνης, I. Vajsov, M. Βάλλα, Προμαχώνας-Topolnica 2002–2003. – Tο Αρχαιολογικο εργο στη Μακεδονια και Θρακη (ΑEMΘ) 17, 2004, 91–110. MALAMIDU 1999 Δ. Μαλαμιδου, Ανασκαφή στον προϊστορικό οικισμό «Κρυονερι» Ν. Κερδυλλιων. – Tο Αρχαιολογικο εργο στη Μακεδονια και Θρακη (ΑEMΘ) 13, 1999, 509–522. M ANIA 2004 D. Mania, Königsaue – Jäger am Ascherslebener See vor 80 000 Jahren. –In: H. Meller (ed.). Paläolihikum und Mesolithikum. Kataloge zur Dauerausstellung im Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte Halle (Halle 2004), 175–196. MILONAS /BAKALAKIS 1938 G.E. Milonas and G. Bakalakis, Ανασκαφαι νεολιθικων συνοικισμων Ακροποτάμου καί Πολυστύλου. – Praktika, 1938, 103–106. MILONAS 1941 G.E. Milonas, The Site of Akropotamos and the Neolithic Period of Macedonia. – American Journal of Archaeology 45, 1941, 557–576. NIKOLOV 1972 Б. Николов, Богове от глина. – Изкуство ХХII, 9, 1972, 36–40. NIKOLOV 1974 B. Nikolov, Gradešnitza (Градешница. Праисторически селища) (Sofia 1974). PAPATHANASSOPOULOS 1996 G.A. Papathanassopoulos (ed.), Neolithic Culture in Greece (Athens 1996). PERNICHEVA 1983 L. Pernièeva, Prehistory of the Strumešnica. –In: J. Sliwa and M. Domaradski (eds.), The Lower Strumešnica Valley in Prehistoric, Ancient and Early Medieval Times (Krakow 1983), 11–31. PERNICHEVA 1992 Л. Перничева, Изследования халколита в среднем поречие реки Струма. – Studia Praehistorika 11–12, 1992, 221–235. PERNICHEVA 1994 Л. Перничева, Периодизация на неолита в Югозападна България. – Annuary of Departament of Archaeology – NBU, Vol. I, 1994, 269–282. PERNICHEVA 1995 L. Pernicheva, Prehistoric cultures in the Middle Struma Valley: Neolithic and Eneolithic. –In: D. Bailey, I. Panajotov (eds.), Prehistoric Bulgaria. Monogr. World Arch. 22, 1995, 99–140. PERNICHEVA 2002 L. Pernièeva, Die prähistorische Siedlung Bălgarčevo, Kreis Blagoevgrad. –In: M. LichardusItten, J. Lichardus, V. Nikolov (eds.), Beiträge zu jungsteinzeitlichen Forschungen in Bulgarien. Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde, Band 74 (Bonn 2002), 271–324. R ENFREW et al. 1986 C. Renfrew, M. Gimbutas, E.S. Elster (eds.), Excavations at Sitagroi. A Prehistoric Village in Northeast Greece. vol. I. – Monumenta Archaeologica 13 (Los Angeles 1986).

In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Ivan Vajsov SEFERIADES 1983a M. Séfériadès, Les Fouilles de Dikili Tach: Quelques parallélismes culturels entre la Macédoine orientale grecque Régions du Moyen Danube au Néolithi-que. – Nachrichten aus Nidersachsens Urgeschichte 52 (Hildesheim 1983), 69–76. SEFERIADES 1983b M. Séfériadès, Dikili Tach: Introduction à la préhistoire de la Macédoine orientale. – Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique CVII (Paris 1983), 636–677. SEFERIADES 1989 M. Séfériadès, Dashayes’ excavations at Dikili Tach: The neolithic finds. –In: S. Bökönyi (ed.). Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and its Near Eastern Connections. International Conference 1987 Szolnok– Szeged. – Varia Archaeologica Hungarica II (Budapest 1989), 277–289. SCHLOR 2000 I. Schlor, Beziehungen zwischen Bulgarien und Nordgrechenland während des Chalkolithikums – Karanovo, Dikili Tash und Sitagroi. –In: F. Blakolmer (ed.). Österreichische Forschungen zur Ägäischen Bronzezeit 1998. Akten der Tagung am Institut für Klassische Archäologie der Universität Wien 2.–3. Mai 1998. Wiener Forschungen zur Archäologie, 3 (Wien 2000), 13–27. SREJOVIć 1984. Д. Среjовић, Уметности и религиjа (Kunst und Religion). – In: Винча у праисториjи и средњем веку (Beograd 1984), 42–56 and 203–207. STEFANOVICH/BANKOFF 1998 M. Stefanovich, H.A. Bankoff, Kajmenska Čuka 1993–1995. – In: M. Stefanovich, H. Todorova, H. Hauptmann (eds.), In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, Vol. 1, James Harvey Gaul in Memoriam (Sofia 1998), 255–338. TODOROVA 1993 Х. Тодорова, Периодизация и абсолютна хронология на новокаменната епоха на Балканския полуостров. –In: H. Todorova, I. Vajsov. The Neolithic in Bulgaria. (Х. Тодорова и И. Вайсов. Новокаменната епоха в България. Краят на седмото–шестото хилядолетие преди новата ера (Sofia 1993). TODOROVA 1986 Х. Тодорова, Каменомедната епоха в България (петото хилядолетие преди новата ера) (Sofia 1986). TODOROVA 2003 H. Todorova, Prehistory of Bulgaria. –In: D.V. Grammenos (ed.), Recent Research in the Prehistory of the Balkans. Publication of the Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece, Nr. 3 (Thessaloniki 2003), 257–328. TODOROVA /VAJSOV 1993 H. Todorova, I. Vajsov, The Neolithic in Bulgaria (Х. Тодорова, И. Вайсов. (Новокаменната епоха в България. Краят на седмото–шестото хилядолетие преди новата ера) (Sofia 1993). TREUIL/TSIRTSONI 2000 R. Treuil and Z. Tsirtsoni, Late Neolithic Houses at Dikili Tash a Contextual Approach. –In: S. Hiller and V. Nikolov (eds.), Karanovo, Band III. Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa (Wien 2000), 213–216.

Promachon-Topolnica. A Typology of Painted Decorations and Its Use as a Chronological Marker TSIRTSONI 2000 Z. Tsirtsoni. Les poteries du début du Néoltihique Récent en Macédoine I. Les types de récipients. – Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 124.I, 2000), 1–55. TSIRTSONI 2001 Z. Tsirtsoni. Les poteries du début du Néoltihique Récent en Macédoine II. Les fonctions des récipients. – Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 125.I, 2001, 1–39. VAJSOV 1981 И. Вайсов, Антропоморфната пластика на култура Градешница. – Изкуство ХХХI,1981/9–10, 46–50. VANDOVA 2004 V. Vandova, Late Neolithic Clay Vassels with Graphitized Surface from the Struma Valley. –In: V. Nikolov, K. Băčvarov, P. Kalchev (eds.), Prehistoric

109

Thrace. Proceedings of the International Symposium in Stara Zagora 30.09–04.10.2003, (Sofia-Stara Zagora 2004), 122–132. VENCL 1961 S. Vencl, Studie o Šareckém typu. – Sborník Národního Muzea v Praze, Series A–Historia XV, 1, 1961, 93–123. WAGNER /GRAF 1993 H. Wagner and R. Graf, Unterchung keramischer Bemalung an ausgewählten Scherben aus Damjanica. –In: Saarbrücker Studien und Materialen zur Altertumskunde 2, 1993, 153–155. YIOUNI et al. 1994 Π. Γιούνη, X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, Π. Πλουμήσ, Τεχνογικη αναλυση τησ νεολι-θικησ κεραμικησ απο τον Προμαχώνα-Topolnica. – Tο Αρχαιολογικο εργο στη Μακεδονια και Θρακη (ΑEMΘ) 18, 1994 (1998), 343–348.

Fig. 21A. Sector Topolnica. Dwelling nr. 2, Phase II. Subterranean structure. Photos – © H. Todorova. The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

110

Ivan Vajsov

Fig. 21A. Promachon-Topolnica. Bitumen Decoration Topolnica Type (C): 1 Sector Topolnica. House nr. 2, Phase II; 2 Black topped with Bitumen Decoration, Sector Promachon, Phase III. Scale 2:5. â&#x20AC;&#x201C; ÂŠ I. Vajsov. In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Promachon-Topolnica. A Typology of Painted Decorations and Its Use as a Chronological Marker

111

3 4

6 7

Fig. 21B. Promachon-Topolnica. 1–7, 11–12 Bitumen Topolnica Type (C); 13 Black topped with Graphite Surface and Bitumen (Type B2+B3+C); 9 Askoi. Phase II. Scale 1:3. Drawing – © I. Vajsov. The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

112

Ivan Vajsov

3 4

5 6

7 8

11 12

Fig. 22. Promachon-Topolnica. 1–2, 4 Painted Decoration Akropotamos Type A; 6, 11 Black topped; 9 Clay lamp. Phase II. Scale 1:3. Drawing – © I. Vajsov. In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

113

Promachon-Topolnica. A Typology of Painted Decorations and Its Use as a Chronological Marker

15 14

17 18 19

Fig. 23. Promachon-Topolnica – Graphite decoration (Type D 4.1), Phase IIIA. Scale 2:5. Drawing – © I. Vajsov. The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

114

Ivan Vajsov

2 3 4

8 9

10 12

Fig. 24. Promachon-Topolnica. Strumsko Type Painted Decoration (1–10, 13, 15–16 Type D1.3A; 11–12 Type D1.3B) Phase IIIA. 1–9, 11, 13, 15–16 Scale 1:2; 10, 12, 14 Scale 1:3. Drawing – © I. Vajsov. In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Promachon-Topolnica. A Typology of Painted Decorations and Its Use as a Chronological Marker

1 2 3

4 5

Fig. 25. Promachon-Topolnica. Bichrome Painted Decoration Dimitra Type (1–14 D3.1 Type; 15 D3.2 Type). 1–14 Phases IIIA, 15 Phase IIIB. Scale 1:3. Drawing – © I. Vajsov. The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

115

116

Ivan Vajsov

5 6

7 8

13 14

16 17

Fig. 26A. Promachon-Topolnica. Painted Decoration Akropotamos B Type (D1.1.B). 13 Painted Decoration Akropotamos B, Sub-type D1.2. Phase IIIA. Scale 1:3. Drawing â&#x20AC;&#x201C; ÂŠ I. Vajsov. In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Promachon-Topolnica. A Typology of Painted Decorations and Its Use as a Chronological Marker

117

1 3

5 2b

Fig. 26B. Promachon-Topolnica. Painted Decoration Akropotamos B Type (D1.1.B). 1–3, 5–7, 9 Sector Topolnica, House nr. 1, Phase IIIA. Scale 1:3. Drawing – © I. Vajsov. The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

118

Ivan Vajsov

13 14

Fig. 27. Promachon-Topolnica. Phase IV pottery. Graphite painted Type D4.3 (Struma style). Scale 1:3. Drawing – © I. Vajsov. In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Promachon-Topolnica. A Typology of Painted Decorations and Its Use as a Chronological Marker

119

3 4

Fig. 28. Phase IV pottery. 4, 6, 10–11, 14–15, 17–18 Thick incised lines type A3, 1–2, 5, 7, 16 Incised decoration type A4; 12–13 Combination – incised decoration with graphite in-ﬁlled ﬁelds (A4.B). Scale 1:3. The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

120

Ivan Vajsov

Fig. 29. Pottery from Sector Topolnica, Phases II and III. Photos – © K. Georgiev. In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Промахон-Тополница

Компаративно изследване на дивите и домашни животни от сектор Тополница Николай Илиев, Николай Спасов Настоящата публикация е предварително съобщение за резултатите от изследванeто на част от костния материал, събран при археологическите разкопки на къснонеолитното селище Промахон-Тополница (в сектор Тополница). Обемът на проучения костен материал се състои от 2502 бр. цели кости и фрагменти от такива от домашни и диви бозайници, ловни птици, влечуги и риби. До вид са определени 2007 бр. кости и костни фрагменти. Домашните бозайници са представени от общо 1725 кости или 85.94% от целия материал, и 72.94% от минималния брой на индивидите. Срещат се 5 животински вида: свиня, говедо, овца, коза и куче. Дивите бозайници са представени от общо 277 бр. кости или 13.81%, и 23.53% от минималния брой на индивидите, и поне 9 вида: заек, дива свиня, елен, сърна, тур, див кон, вълк, лисица и мечка. Рибите са представени с 0.1% от общия брой кости и 1.18% от броя на индивидите. Влечугите (костенурка – Testudo), съответно 0.1% и 1.18% и птиците – 0.05% и 1.18%. Домашните животни, които дават облика на животновъдството и неговата структура са: овца/коза – над 35% от броя на индивидите, говедо – над 28% и свиня – над 8%. Говедото, обаче, е на първо място по броя на костните останки и по количеството месо. Дребните преживни (овца и коза) са отглеждани в съотношение 2:1 в полза на овцата. Отглеждани са дребен (брахицарен) тип говедо, едър (примигенен) тип и кръстоски между тях, в съотношение 7.69%:69.23%:23.08% (според костната извадка), със средна височина за популацията говеда 130.3 см. Домашното куче е представено с 14 кости от 1 индивид и принадлежи на типа Canis familiaris palustris. При дивите животни представлява интерес една кост на див кон. Намерена е една единствена кост от ястребова птица. Ловът и риболовът се имали второстепенно значение в поминъка на късно неолитното население от селището Промахон-Тополница. Основното количество месо както и млякото и млечните продукти са идвали от животновъдството.

Promachon-Topolnica Comparative study of the Domestic and wild Animals from the Sector Topolnica Nikolai Iliev, Nikolai Spassov The paper presents the results of the analysis of a part of the animal remains from the excavations of the Late Neolithic settlement Promachon-Topolnica (Sector Topolnica) (South-West Bulgaria). The sample investigated consist 2502 bones and bone fragments from wild and domestic mammals, game birds, reptiles, amphibians and fishes. 2007 bones are determinated till specific level. The domestic mammals strongly dominate in the sample and had leading role in the local husbandry. It seems that this situation is typical for the Neolithic and Chalcolithic settlements from South Bulgaria, while in North-West Bulgaria the hunting husbandry is strongly developed after some data. In same time we could assume that the domestic/wild mammals’ ratio is very variable in general and largely depend of the local environment and culture. The domestic mammals are represented by 1725 bones (85.94% from the total bone sample and 72.94% from the minimum number of the individuals. The domestic forms are as follows: domestic pig, cattle, sheep, goat and dog. The wild mammals are represented by 277 bones (13.81% from the bone number and 23.53% from the minimum number of the individuals). At least nine wild mammal species are determined after the bone sample as follows: hare, red deer, roe deer, wild bore, aurochs, wild horse (one single bone remain), wolf, red fox and brown bear. The fishes represent 0.1% from the total number of bones and 1.18% from the total number of the animal individuals. The reptiles (Testudo), respectively – 0.1% and 1.18% and the birds – 0.05% and 1.18%. The domestic animals that characterize the animal husbandry and the structure of the stock-breeding in Topolnica are: sheeps/goats – more than 35% from the total number of all the animal individuals, the cattle – more than 28% and the domestic pig – more than 8 %. The cattle is however on the first place in respect to the number of bone remains, but the small ruminants are dominant after the number of the individuals and show (after the limited bone sample) a relatively primitive tradition, close mostly to the husbandry traditions of the Middle East and Asia Minor. (After the number of individuals the cattle breeding probably have dominate in some contemporaneous settlements in N.–W. Bulgaria as Malo Pole with possibly more evolved animal husbandry). In the group of the small ruminants (Ovis/Capra) the ratio between sheep and goat were 2:1. The sheep is represented by a primigenous („mufflon” type) breed with horned females and with males with very large horn cores (diameter of the cross-section 61 × 42 mm.). The sheep and goats were eaten normally at age of adults (at 1 to 5 year old) and the case is similar for the cattle and the pig. Small (brachycere) type of cattle, large, primigenous cattle (that largely dominate) as well as cross-breeds between them have existed in Topolnica in approximate ratio: 8%:69%:23%, judging after the metrical data of the metapodials and the astragals using the correlative analysis of Iliev (1994) for the typology of the cattle breeds. The body height of the

The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

510

Николай Илиев, Николай Спасов

individuals vary from 109,9 cm to 147,7 cm. The average size is larger than the one from the Chalcolithic of Dolnoslav and is close to the cattle size from the early Neolithic of Slatino-Sofia. In same time it is smaller than the cattle size from the contemporaneous (late Neolithic) settlement from North–West Bulgaria, Gradeshnitsa (Malo Pole) where only very large cattle were breed. The size of the very large cattle from Malo Pole could be related to a possible cross-breeding with wild animals from the aurochs population. The size variability of the Topolnica cattle is too large for accepting that the cattle consists a homogenous unconsolidated breed. More probable is the hypothesis for a weakly controlled cross-breeding of two different breeds that possibly indicate a former contacts of different cultures. The dog in the settlement is represented by 14 bones refered to a small bread related to the Canis familiaris „palustris“ race type, one of the two main race types of Balkan prehistoric dogs.

Увод Събраният в резултат на археологичните разкопки на къснонеолитното селище при с. Тополница в Югозападна България, до Петрич (разкопки ръководени от Проф. д-р. Х. Тодорова) костен материал представлява ценен източник за опознаване на раннохолоценската фауната на Южна България. Той дава заедно с това представа за значението на дивите животни в бита на тогавашното население, както и сведения за животновъдството и ролята му в изхранването на късно неолитното население. Материал и методика на проучване Предоставеният ни за обработване костен материал е само една част от събраното количество костни останки, поради което настоящата публикация има характер на едно предварително съобщение. Целият обем на проученият материал се състои от 2502 цели кости и костни фрагменти. Поради това, че костите представляват кухненски отпадъци (вж. по-долу) и са силно надробени и повредени, процентът неопределяем костен остатък е голям. До вид са определени 2007 броя кости и костни фрагменти. Общо неопределяеми са 495 броя костни остатъци или 19.78%. Приблизителният брой на индивидите е изчислен по метода на S. Bokonyi (БЕКЕНИ, 1969), а височината на животните при холката (в cm) е определена по методите и с коефициентите на различни автори, които ще бъдат посочени на съответните места. Разпределение на костите по видове животни Разпределението на костите по видове животни, броят на костите и индивидите, както и тяхното процентно съотношение е In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

показано в Таблица 1, а разпределението на останките по видове кости от всеки вид в Таблица 2. Целият обем на проученият костен материал се състои от кости и костни фрагменти на домашни и диви бозайници, ловни птици, влечуги и риби. Рибите са представени с 0.1% от общия брой кости и 1.18% от минималния брой на индивидите. Влечугите, съответно – 0.1% и 1.18% и птиците – 0.05% и 1.18%. От диви бозайници са определени общо с 277 кости или 13.81% от всички животински остатъци и 23.53% от минималния брой на индивидите, от 9 вида: див заек, вълк, лисица, мечка дива свиня, елен, сърна, тур и див кон. Домашните бозайници са представени общо с 1725 кости или 85.94% от всичкия животински материал и 72.94% от минималния брой на индивидите, от 5 домашни форми: свиня, говедо, овца, коза и куче. Домашни бозайници Говедото (Bos taurus l.) и проблемът за отглежданите раси говеда в неолита на Балканите. Представено е с 998 броя кости и фрагменти, 49.72% от всички животински остатъци, намерени при разкопките на селищната могила и заемат 1-во място в сравнение с другите животни. По броя на индивидите обаче е на 2-ро място – 28.23%. Наличният материал позволява да се направят някои сравнения относно остеометричната и типовата характеристика на домашното говедо, дадени в Табл. 3 и 4. Височината при холката е определена по комплексния метод на К. Атанасов, В. Василев, П. Цонев (АТАНАСОВ и др. 1980). Те са разработили коефициенти за изчисляване дължината на метаподите по ширината на проксималните и дисталните краища на

Промахон-Тополница. Компаративно изследване на дивите и домашни животни

Градешница-Мало поле – говедо Градешница-Мало поле – тур ♂♂ Градешница-Мало поле – тур ♀♀ Слатина – говедо Долнослав – говедо сектор Тополница – говедо

511

Gradeshnica-Malo Pole – cattle Gradeshnica-Malo Pole – aurochs ♂♂ Gradeshnica-Malo Pole – aurochs ♀♀ Slatina-Sofia – cattle Dolnoslav – cattle sector Topolnica – cattle

Фиг. 1. Размери на астрагали от тур и говеда от праисторически обекти в България. Fig. 1. Bos primigenius and B. taurus astragal size after data from different Bulgarian prehistoric settlements. техните фрагменти – съответно 3.41 за ширината на проксималните и 3.32 за тази на дисталния край на Мс и 4.8 и 4.1 за Mt. Тъй като фрагментите от метаподиите на говедо в случая трудно могат да бъдат диференцирани по пол, за определяне на височината при холката се използват средните стойности от коефициентите на Василев и др. (1979) за крави и на Цалкин (1960) за животните с неопределен пол, а именно 6.02 за Мс и 5.36 за Mt. Поради липса на цели метаподи, за определяне височината при холката сме използвали 13 бр. сравнително добре запазени проксимални и дистални фрагменти от Мс и Mt – Табл. 4. От посочената таблица се вижда, че ръста на къснонеолитното говедо от Тополница варира в твърде широки граници – от 109,92 см до 147,68 см. По Мс височината при холката е средно 126,4 см, а по Mt – 134,2 см. Или осреднената височина по различни методи при холката е 130,3 см. Расовият състав на популацията е определен въз основа на данните от метричния анализ на метаподиите по схемата на Н. Илиев (1994) за типовата характеристика на говедото. Според нея, ориентировъчните ръстови граници на големите раси са следните: говедата (с дължина на metacarpus до 188 мм. при крави, до 180 мм. при бици The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

и до 183 мм. при волове; и с дължина на metatarsus съответно до 210, до 201 и до 204) с височина при холката до ~ 112 см спадат към дребния (брахицерен) тип говеда. Говеда (с дължина на метакарпус над 210 при крави, над 202 при бици и над 205 при волове; и с дължина на метатарзус съответно над 236, над 225 и над 229) с ръст при холката от ~ 125 см нагоре – към едрия (примигенен) тип. Говедата ( с междинни дължини на метаподиите и с ръст ~ 113 до 125 см се приемат за кръстоска (вж. също СПАСОВ и др., 2001, за расовия тип на говедото в енеолита на Долнослав). В Тополница през късния неолит са били отглеждани, според анализа на метаподиите, три ръстови морфотипа говеда – дребен (брахицерен), едър (примигенен) и кръстоска между тях в съотношение 1:9:3 или ~7%:68%:23%, при значително преобладаване на едрия (примигенен) тип. Това се потвърждава и от метричния анализ на скочните кости (astragalus) – 17 бр. От тях само един с най-голяма дължина 63 мм принадлежи на кръстоска, а останалите 16 бр. с най-голяма дължина от 65,5 мм до 76,2 мм принадлежат на едър (примигенен) тип говедо (вж. ИЛИЕВ 1994). Ръста на говедото превъзхожда това на брахицерното говедо (вж. напр. за Долнослав – СПАСОВ и др. 2001) и се приближава до това от ранния неолит

512

Николай Илиев, Николай Спасов

Фиг. 2. Размерно разпределение на астрагалите на тур (Bos primigenius) и примигенно говедо (Bos taurus) в извадката от късния неолит на Градешница–Мало поле, северозападна България. Fig. 2. Astragal size of the long-horned cattle and of the aurochs (B. primigenius) from the sample of the late Neolithic settlement at Gradeshnitsa-Malo Pole in North-West Bulgaria. на Слатино-София (наши данни) (фиг 1). Ръстът на говедото от сходното по възраст къснонеолитно находище от С–З. България – Градешница-Мало поле е по-голям. В това находище изглежда е било отглеждано само много едро примигенно говедо от чист расов тип, което би могло да говори за етнически или културни различия. В Градешница– Мало поле е отглеждано особено едро говедо, макар и отличимо по размера на костите от тура (фиг. 2). Много е възможно високият ръст на говедото от Градешница-Мало Поле (фиг. 1) да е свързан с вторично поглъщателно кръстосване с дивия бик–тур. Широкият вариационен ред и данните от метричния анализ на костните останки на говедото от Тополница говорят за голяма нееднородност. Можем да дадем няколко обяснения на това явление: 1. Отглежданото говедо принадлежи към дребно (брахицерно) кръстосвано вторично с тура. Това изглежда много малко вероятно тъй като животните с междинен ръст са относително малко. 2. Отглеждана е хомогенна, но неконсолидирана примитивна порода. Това също изглежда не особено вероятно поIn the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

ради големия ръстов размах на вариациите. 3. Най-вероятна ни се струва хипотезата за съществуването на две раси с различен ръст и техните кръстоски. Трудно е да се каже дали става дума за насочена селекция на два морфотипа (частично изолирано отглеждане на определени морфотипове с цел развъдно-подобрителната работа) или за нарочното или (по-скоро) стихийно кръстосване между тях. Второто изглежда все пак по-вероятно: възможно е резултатът от тази нееднородност да се дължи на неотдавнашно поглъщателно смесване на две породи говеда (обмен?), свързано с контактът между две различни култури. Средната височина на групата, която приемаме за явна кръстоска е 120,33 см. В ръстово отношение те показват сходство с местната сивоискърска порода, чийто ръст варира около 118,0 см. Наличният костен материал не дава възможност да се определи половата структура на говеждите стада. Дребни преживни (Ovicaprinae). Както е известно диференцирането на костите на

Промахон-Тополница. Компаративно изследване на дивите и домашни животни тези два вида е трудно и често невъзможно. При проучването им сме се съобразявали с указанията на В. Громова (1953) и някои други автори за видовата и половата индентификация на овцата и козата, както и на нашия личен опит в тази насока. Събраните кости, както отбелязахме са много силно фрагментирани и в значителна степен повредени. От овца и коза са намерени общо 512 кости или 25.51% от общия брой кости и 35.3% от броя на индивидите. Те принадлежат на 30 индивида. По броя на намерените кости дребните преживни заемат 2-ро място след говедото но са на 1-во място по броя на индивидите. Видово диференциране бе извършено само на 61 костни останки, въз основа на които и броя на индивидите бе определено съотношението между тях – 2:1 в полза на овцата. Това показва, че е съществувало известно предпочитание към отглеждането на овцата, вероятно заради някои нейни продуктивни качества – месо и вълна. Овца (Ovis aries L.). От костните останки на дребните преживни на овцата принадлежат 39 кости – 1.94%, които произхождат от 9 индивида – 10.59%. Липсата на цели черепи или части от тях, подходящи за метрично изследване, затруднява краниологичната характеристика на вида. Намерени са няколко рогови израстъка (proc. cornualis): един повреден на женски индивид, който не можахме да rpмерим и три частично запазени на мъжки индивида, два от които са с обхват на основата 150 и 135 мм и трите с голям диаметър на основата – 35,34 и 32,0 мм. The horn cores на един черепен фрагмент на много едър мъжки индивид имат: обхват на основата 165 и 164 мм, голям диаметър на основата – 61 и 60 мм и малък диаметър на основата – 42 и 41 мм. Размерите на роговите израстъци на овните от късния неолит от Тополница се включват във вариационния ред на роговите израстъци на овцете през халколита от Овчарово, с граници: обхват на основата 127 и 170 мм, голям диаметър на основата – 48–63 мм и малък диаметър на основата – 31–43 мм. До тези размери се приближава и измерен рог от Усоето – също късен неолит, с размери: обхват на основата 134 мм: голям The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

513

диаметър на основата – 50 мм и малък диаметър на основата – 35 мм (ВАСИЛЕВ 1985). Наличните рогови израстъци от Тополница, макар и малко на брой дават основание да приемем, че през късния неолит, по долното течение на река Струма е била развъждана рогата популация овце. Мъжките имат примигенни, много едри рога от муфлонов (O. musimon) тип. Изглежда този расов тип е бил разпространен у нас в късния неолит. През халколита в редица праисторически селища у нас е била установена отдавна доместицираната безрога „медна овца“. Липсата на челни кости от безроги овце не може, обаче, да потвърди наличието на безроги овце в този район през късния неолит. Измервания бяха направени още на няколко вида кости: Една сравнително добре запазена лопатка (scapula) на овца има наймалка дължина на шийката 22 мм, дължина на дисталния край – 33 мм, дължина на ставната повърхност – 21,5 мм, ширина на ставната повърхност – 20,5 мм и дължина (разстоянието) от basis spinae scapula – margo cavitatis glenoidalis – 23,5 мм. За да се докаже видовата принадлежност на лопатката, използвахме индекса прилаган в такива случаи от M. Sobocinsky (1980): distantio basis spinae long colli 22

23.5 = 1.07

В тази формула при коефициент до 1.2 лопатките принадлежат на овце, а при коефициент по-висок от 1.2 – на кози. В нашият случай лопатката принадлежи на овца тъй като има коефициент 1.07. Два дистални фрагмента от раменна кост (humerus) имат ширина на дисталния край 25,5 и 27,0 мм и ширина на trochlea – 24,5 и 25,5 мм; един ляв фрагмент на лъчева кост (radius) има ширина на дисталния край 23,2 мм; проксималните краища на един ляв и един десен фрагмент на метакарпус (metacarpus) имат ширина 22,0 и 18,8 мм и дебелина на проксималния край – 16,4 и 12,2 мм и най-малка ширина на диафизата – 14,5 и 12,0 мм; един десен фрагмент от бедрената кост (femur) е с ширина на дисталния край 41,3 мм и проксимална ширина на трохлеята – 21,0 мм; измерени са осем

514

Николай Илиев, Николай Спасов Species

bone remains No. %

Individuals % No.

Pisces

0,1

1,18

Testudo

0,1

1,18

Aves

0,05

1,18

Total

0,25

3,54

Wild mammals Hare

0,25

1,18

Wild boar

140

6,98

9,4

Red deer

115

5,73

4,7

Roe deer

0,1

1,18

Aurochs

0,3

1,18

Artiodactyla indet.

0,05

1,18

wild horse

0,05

1,18

wolf

0,1

1,18

red fox

0,2

1,18

brown bear

0,05

1,18

Total

277

13,81

23,54

Sus scrofa dom.

201

10,01

8,23

Bos taurus

998

49,72

28,23

Ovis/Capra

451

22,47

Ovis

1,94

10,59 4,71

Dommestic animals

Capra

1,1

C. familiaris

0,7

1,18

Total

1725

85,94

72,92

A sum total:

2007

100

Табл. 1. Видов състав на фауната и разпределение на останките по видове. Table 1. Specific composition of the animals from sector Topolnica. дистални краища на сравнително добре запазени фрагменти от подбедреници (tibia), които варират от 22,0 до 24,0 мм или средно – 22,69 мм. В този случай прави впечатление малката вариационна ширина. Тя се вмества във вариационните ширини на дисталните краища на подбедрениците на халколитните овце от Овчарово, където варира от 22–27 мм (ВАСИЛЕВ 1985) и от Голямо Делчево – от 23–26 мм (ИВАНОВ/ВАСИЛЕВ 1975). Средната дистална ширина на подбедрениците от Тополница съвпада с най-ниските стойности на тези от Овчарово и Голямо Делчево. Тесният вариационен ред показва, че овцата при късния неолит в Тополница е била доста еднородна и доста изравнена по ръст. Изглежда, че овцете от Тополница са били (въпреки едрите рога на овните) ниски и дребни, типичIn the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

но за епохата. Липсата обаче на подходящи кости, не ни позволява да определим нейната височина и да направим някои сравнения с овце от други праисторически обекти. Коза (Capra hircus L.). Козата от Тополница е представена с 22 кости или 1.1%. Те принадлежат на 4 индивида – 4.71. Остеологичният материал e силно раздробен и значително повреден, почти негодни за измерване. Намерен е един сравнително добре запазен рогов израстък (procesus corunalis) на женски индивид с размери: голям диаметър на роговата основа 32 мм и малък диаметър на роговата основа – 26 мм. Той притежава характерните белези на Capra hircus „tipodegadeus“. Размерите на роговият израстък на късно неолитната женска коза от Тополница се включват във вариационния ред на роговите израстъци на халколитните кози от Овчарово и Голямо Делчево, където големият диаметър на основата – от 19–30 мм и 19–26 мм (ВАСИЛЕВ 1985). Гигантски рогови израстъци на (?) домашни пръчове (сравними по диаметрите на основата на рога с тези на едри мъжки индивиди на C. aegagrus) са намерени при разкопките в ранния неолит на Ковачево, в близост до Тополница (разкопки провеждани под ръководството на M. Lichardus, J.-P. Demoule, R. Katincharov, I. Kulov). За съжаление няма съответстващи находки от Тополница, които да бъдат сравнени с тях, но роговите израстъци от женския индивид не подсказва вероятност за такъв размер при мъжките рога. На два фрагмента на раменна кост (humerus) е измерена ширина на дисталния край 30,8 и 28,0 мм и ширина на трохлеята – 29,0 и 24,5 мм, два фрагмента от лъчева кост (radius) имат ширина на проксималния край 27,0 и 29,0 мм. Домашна свиня (Sus scrofa domestica L.). От домашната свиня са намерени 201 кости или 49.72%. Те принадлежат на 7 индивида – 8.23%. По броя на костните останки домашната свиня заема 3-то място след говедото и овца/коза, но по броя на индивидите – 3-то място след говедото. Костните останки са силно раздробени и не сме в състояние да проследим евентуалното й сходство с древната източно-европейска свиня. Липсата на

515

Cranium

Proc. corunales

Maxilla

Dent. maxilares

Mandibula Vertebrae

Costae Scapula

Radius

Ulna

Заек

Дива свиня

Елен

Сърна

Тур

Бовид?

Див кон

Вълк

Лисица

Мечка

Домашна свиня

Говедо

Овца/коза

Овца

Коза

Куче

2 2

Dent. mandibulares

Humerus

Птици

№

Костенурка

Показатели

Риба

Промахон-Тополница. Компаративно изследване на дивите и домашни животни

Metacarpus

Pelvis (os coxae)

1 1

139

230

107

4 11 4

Femur Tibia

Metatarsus

Astragalus

Calcaneus

Falanx I

Falanx II Falanx III

Carpalia, tarsalia Общо:

2 2

140

1 115

20 1

2 1

1 1

1 6

201

998

451

Табл. 2. Разпределение на видовете кости по видове животни. Table 2. Distribution of the different kind of bones by species.

подходящи кости не ни позволява също така да определим и нейната височина. Един кътник М3 има дължина 30,0 мм; на един (atlas) ширината на краниалната ставна повърхност е 61,0 мм, а дължината на дорзалната дъга – 28,0 мм. Направени са измервания на 6 сравнително добре запазени лопатки (scapula): Най-малка дължина на шийката 19–19,6 18,2–22 Дължина на вентралния край 28–30,1 29–30 Дължина на ставната повърхност 22–24,2 23 The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

Ширина на ставната повърхност 20–19,2 19–20. Два дистални фрагмента на раменна кост (humerus) имат ширина на дисталния край 33 и 35 мм; ширина на трохлеята – 27 и 28 мм; три проксимални фрагмента на лъчева кост (radius) имат ширина 22,5, 26,2 и 25,0 мм; размерите на три ацетабулума (acaetabulum) са – дължина на ацетабулума – 27,0, 29,5 и 30,0 мм и ширина на ацетабулума – 26, 29 и 29 мм; на една подбедреница (tibia) е измерена ширина на дисталния край – 28,0 мм. Куче (Canis familiaris L.). В материала от Тополница домашното куча е представе-

516

Николай Илиев, Николай Спасов Показатели

Procesus corunales

Показатели

63–76,2

70,02

Astragalus

Голям диаметър на основата

48,5

Най-голяма дължина

Малък диаметър на основата

Най-голяма ширина на дисталния край

40–50

43,43

Най-голяма дебелина

34–43

38,77

Humerus Ширина на дисталния край

73; 77; 78

Calcaneus

Шрина на трохлеята

70; 74.2; 76,8

73,67

Най-голяма дължина

139

Най-голяма ширина

50,5

66,5–70,5

Radius Ширина на дисталния край

64; 67; 84

71,67

Tibia

Falanx I Най-голяма дължина

Ширина на проксималния край

60; 61; 63,3

61,43

Metacarpus

64,7

Ширина на проксималния край

27,8–29,2

32,32

Ширина на дисталния край

25,8–29,2

27,76

Ширина на проксималния край

57; 68,2

Falanx II

Дебелина на проксималния край

31; 39,4

Най-голяма дължина

40,5–50

45,9

Ширина на дисталния край

55–68

62,75

Ширина на проксималния край

26–33,5

30,58

Ширина на дисталния край

24,2–30,5

28,24

Ширина на проксималния край

47; 54,5; 54,6

52,03

Дебелина на проксималния край

32,2

Диагонална дължина

58–78

68,94

Ширина на дисталния край

56–67,2

61,17

Дорзална дължина

43,1– 65,5

59,42

Дебелина на дисталния край

31; 2–38

34,97

Ширина на задния край

16,2–28,5

22,93

Metatarsus

Falanx III

Табл. 3. Остеометрична характеристика на кости от говедо. Table 3. Osteometric characteristic of the cattle from sector Topolnica. но общо с 14 кости – 0.7%. Те принадлежат най-малко на 1 индивид – 1.18%. Местното население през късния неолит е консумирало изглежда кучешко месо. В сравнение с другите праисторически обекти у нас по отношение на количеството на костните останки и броя на индивидите неолитното куче от Тополница е представено с нисък процент. Близък е до този на кучетата от раннонеолитните и късно неолитните селища в Мало поле, край Градешница (по наши данни), Ракитово (КОВАЧЕВ 1985) и Ясатепе, но значително по-нисък от този на халколитните селища Овчарово, Голямо Делчево и Виница и раннобронзовото селища Езеро (ВАСИЛЕВ 1985; ИВАНОВ /ВАСИЛЕВ 1979). Особено богат е костния материал от кучета (по наши данни) от енеолита на Долнослав и ранния бронз на Урдовиза. От посочената таблица 6 се вижда, че през неолита като че ли присъствието на кучетата в праисторическите селища е било по-ограничено в сравнение с тези от по-късните епохи. Това може да се дължи на по-слабия интерес на неолитното население към отглеждането на кучета, или пък броя на празноскитащите (безстопанствените) кучета е бил по-голям In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

в по-късни епохи? Този въпрос представлява интерес и би следвало да се направят повече сравнения за неговото изясняване и с други праисторически селища у нас и в региона. От намерените кости от куче годна за частична измерване е само една долна челюст (mandibula). Измерена е по алвеолите само зъбната редица: Дължина на Р1–М3 – 61 мм; Дължина на Р1–Р4 – 30,5 мм; Дължина на М1–М3 – 33,0 мм Малките размери показват, че намерената долна челюст принадлежи на куче с дребен ръст сходно с расата Canis familiaris „palustris“ – широко разпространена през неолита дребна форма (вж. SPASSOV/ILIEV 1994). Липсата на подходящ костен материал не позволява да се направи по-задълбочена расова характеристика. Дали и тук, както в редица други праисторически обекти е живяла и по-едра порода кучетае въпрос, който остава открит. Диви бозайници Див заек (Lepus euraeus Palli). Представен е с 5 кости – 0.25% и един индивид – 1.18%. Намерен е един ацетабулум (acaetabulum) с

517

Промахон-Тополница. Компаративно изследване на дивите и домашни животни

Дистална Коефициент Дължина № Метаподии Проксимална ширина ширина Mc

Дължина Mt

Коефициент

Височина при холката

Тип

Metacarpus

68,2

–

3,41

232,56

–

6,02

140

едър

Metacarpus

–

3,41

194,37

–

6,02

117,01

кръстокса едър

Metacarpus

–

3,32

212,48

–

6,02

127,91

Metacarpus

–

3,32

212,48

–

6,02

127,91

едър

Metacarpus

–

3,32

182,6

–

6,02

109,92

дребен

Metacarpus

–

3,32

228,76

–

6,02

135,91

едър

Metatarsus

54,6

–

4,8

–

262,08

5,36

140,47

едър

Metatarsus

–

4,8

–

225,6

5,36

120,92

кръстокса

Metatarsus

54,5

–

4,8

–

261,6

5,36

140,22

едър

Metatarsus

–

67,2

4,1

–

275,52

5,36

147,68

едър едър

Metatarsus

–

4,1

–

246

5,36

131,86

Metatarsus

–

61,5

4,1

–

252,15

5,36

135,15

едър

Metatarsus

–

4,1

–

229,6

5,36

123,06

кръстокса

Табл. 4. Изчисляване дължината на метаподии и височината на индивидите (Bos Taurus) при холката. Table 4. Calculated metapodial length and cattle height from sector Topolnica. дължина на ацетабулума – 13 мм и ширина на ацетабулума – 12,8 мм и един фрагмент от раменна кост (humerus) с ширина на дисталния край 12 мм. Дива свиня (Sus scrofa L.). По броя на намерените кости – 140 броя, или 6.98%, които принадлежат на 8 индивида, дивата свиня заема 1-во място сред дивите бозайници. Намерените костни останки от нея са силно фрагментирани, повредени и почти негодни за измерване – носят белезите на кухненски отпадъци. На един фрагмент от долна челюст (mandibula) е измерен кътник М3 с дължина 42,2 мм. Един фрагмент на раменна кост (humerus) има ширина на дисталния край 51 мм и ширина на трохлеята – 39,5 мм; на един ацетабулум (acaetabulum) е измерена дължина на ацетабулума 42 мм и ширина на ацетабулума – 37,5 мм. Пет дистални фрагмента от подбедреницата (tibia) имат следните размери: ширина на дисталния край – 35, 38, 42, 42.5 и 44 мм или средна – 40,3 мм. Един метатарзус (metatarsus) има найголяма дължина 120 см, ширина на проксималния край – 22 мм, най-малка ширина на диафизата – 18 мм и ширина на дисталния край 22,5 мм. За определяне височината при холката сме използвали коефициентите на M. Teichert (1969). Изчислена по тази трета The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

метатарзална кост тя е 112,08 см. Принадлежи на едър мъжкар, който в ръстово отношение надвишава най-едрите екземпляри от Овчарово и Голямо Делчево, с височина при холката 110 и 107 см (ВАСИЛЕВ 1985). Елен (Cervus elaphus L.). Еленът е представен с 115 кости или 5.73%, които принадлежат на 4 индивида. И тук костните останки носят белезите на кухненски отпадъци – силно натрошени и значително повредени. Годни за измерване са незначителен брой кости. Ширината на дисталния край на един фрагмент от лъчева кост (radius) е 51,4 мм; на един метакарпус (metacarpus) е измерена ширина на дисталния край 51,6 мм и дебелина на дисталния край – 33 мм и принадлежи на мъжки индивид; един метатарзус (metatarsus) има най-малка ширина на диафизата 25,5 мм; две скочни кости (astragalus) имат найголяма дължина 57,3 и 59,5 мм, най-голяма ширина на дисталния край – 37.2 и 38 мм и най-голяма дебелина – 31,1 и 32,5 мм. Сърна (Capreolus capreolus L.). Сърната е представена с две негодни за измерване лопатки (scapula) – 0.10% от общия брой животински кости и 1 индивид – 1.18%. Тур (Bos primigenius Bejanus L.). Дивото говедо е представено с 6 кости или 0.3% от целия костен материал и 1 индивид – 1.18%

518 от броя на индивидите. Трябва да се има пред вид, естествено че този процент се влияе не само от мястото, което турът заема в ловната практика на локалното население, но той би варирал и според количеството на намерените костни останки от обекта въобще. Кости от тур са намирани в много наши праисторически селища (SPASSOV/ILIEV 1994). С най-малки проценти той е застъпен в Ясатепе (ИВАНОВ 1959) – 0.24 от костите и 0.50 от минималния брой на индивидите, с висок процент – в раннонеолитното селище край с. Ракитово (КОВАЧЕВ /МИНКОВ 1983) – 4.37 от общия брой на костите и 6.70 от общия брой на индивидите. Още по-висок е процентът на останките на тура в потъналото в морето край Китен раннобронзово селище Урдовиза и най-вече в къснонеолитното селище Градешница-Мало поле – ~ 24% от общия брой на костите (при повече от 12 000 изследвани кости) и към 40% от броя на костите на диви бозайници, съответно – над 23% от броя на индивидите (СПАСОВ /ИЛИЕВ, непубл. данни). Годни за измерване са една петна кост (calcaneus) с размери: най-голяма дължина 147,8 мм и най-голяма ширина – 48,9 мм, една първа фаланга (Phalanx I) с дължина 70,5 мм и една трета фаланга (Phalanx III Casia ungularia) с размери: диагонална дължина 91,1 мм, дорзална дължина – 71 мм и ширина на задния край на стъпалната повърхност – 35 мм. Див кон (Equus sp.). От кон е намерена една единствена кост – (os tarsi centrale) или 0.05% от всички костни останки, която принадлежи на 1 индивид – 1.18% от всички кости. Тъй като няма данни за толкова ранно одомашняване на коня логично е да отнесем останката към див кон, за което косвено говори и това че става дума за единична находка. Видовата принадлежност (принадлежност към тарпана или евентуално към ширококопитен кон – вж. SPASSOV /ILIEV 1998), трудно може да се определи с достоверност. Вълк (Canis lupus L.). Както обикновено хищни;ците са представени с единични кости. От върк са идентифицирани 2 кости или 0.1% от общия брой кости и един индивид – 1.18%. Намерени са един фрагмент от In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Николай Илиев, Николай Спасов долна челюст (mandibula) и един фрагмент от подбедреница (tibia), силно повредени и негодни за измерване. Лисица (Vulpes vulpes L.). Представена е с един фрагмент от долна челюст (mandibula) силно повреден и негоден за измерване – 0.2% от целия костен материал и един индивид – 1.18%. Мечка (Ursus arctos L.). От мечка е намерена само една метакарпална кост (metacarpus III) – 0.05% от общия брой кости и един индивид – 1.18%. Останки от мечка са намирани в редица български праисторически обекти от неолита до бронзовата епоха като Ясатепе и Ковачево (Старозагорско), Ковачево (до Сандански), ГрадешницаМало поле, Голямо Делчево, Долнослав, Овчарово, Езеро и Урдовиза. Особено едър индивид (индивиди?) е идентифициран по няколко кости от териториално близкото раннонеолитно селище Ковачево, район на Сандански (вж. споменатите по-горе разкопки): сравненията показват че става дума за индивид (индивиди?) с тегло значително над 300 кг. и архаична морфология на горния P4 (SPASSOV, непубл.). Птици (Aves). В изследвания остеологичен материал костните останки от птици са твърде оскъдни – да не кажем, че съвсем липсват. От домашни птици не е намерена нито една кост, а от диви – само една. Това по всяка вероятност де дължи, че птичите кости не са събирани – те са малки по размери и трошливи. Но като се има предвид, че условията за развитието на птицевъдството в този район са много благоприятни, както и природните дадености за лов на пернат дивеч, при едно по-прецизно събиране, кости от птици в материала не би следвало да липсват. Намерена е една единствена кост от ястребова птица (Acepitridae) – проксимален фрагмент от лакетна кост (ulna) 0.05%, която принадлежи на един индивид – 1.18% (определението е на Dr. Z. Boev, NMNH-Sofia). Намирането на кости от риби е съвсем логично пред вид близостта на р. Струма. Практикувало се е и събирателството на костенурки (Testudo). От костенурка са намерени два карапакса, които принадлежат на един индивид.

Промахон-Тополница. Компаративно изследване на дивите и домашни животни Битът на населението и използваните касапски техники според следите по костите Изследваният костният материал носи, както бе отбелязано, изключително белезите на кухненски отпадъци – следи от насичане при разфасоването на труповете, надробяване на по-дребни, удобни за консумация парчета, следи от тяхната кулинарна обработка – обгаряне и допълнително натрошаване при консумацията. На един единствен гръден прешлен на говедо (от изследвания материал) има ясна следа от надлъжно разсичане. Това показва, че труповете на закланите животни са разчленявани освен напречно, по начин съобщен от Ст. Иванов (1959б), и чрез надлъжно разсичане на трупа по дължината на гръбначния стълб, метод, който се практикува и сега. Този начин на обработка на труповете на закланите животни изглежда, че се е прилагал в по-редки случаи. От нашите праисторически обекти, единствено в Дуранкулак е установено (НИНОВ 1987) надлъжно разсичане на говеждите трупове. То, обаче, бе установено от нас и в техниките практикувани при отделни случаи за обработка на труповете на свине и овце. Тази техника е практикувана по-нашироко при разфасоването на труповете на свинете в ранновизантийското селище в кв. Бяла вода, Перник (ИЛИЕВ и др. 1992). Животновъдството и ловът в бита на населението Анализът от получените резултати показва, че животновъдството заема важно място в икономиката на късно неолитното население от Тополница, докато ловът е имал второстепенно значение като допълнителен източник на месо и суровини. Костите от домашните бозайници съставляват 86.16% от всички останки от бозайници, а дивите – 13.84%. Общо риби, влечуги и диви птици са представени с 0.25% от общия брой кости и 3.53% от броя на индивидите. Количеството на индивидите при домашните бозайници е 75.61%, а на дивите – 24.39%. Съществуват мнения, че в неолита и енеолита на Балканите ловът е имал често преобладаващо значение, докато животноThe Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

519

въдството става като правило доминиращо в бронзовата епоха VASSILEV 1982. Изглежда, че праисторическото население бързо се е адаптирало към конкретните условия и доминирането на едни или други практики за набавяне на местна храна и животински суровини е свързано както с локални традиции така и с локалните природни условия. Нашите (непубликувани) изследвания на костните останки от друго къснонеолитно селище от Северна България – Градешница-Мало поле показва доминиране на лова над животновъдството. 61% от костните останки и 62% от броя на индивидите там принадлежат на диви бозайници, най вече на тури благороден елен. Тази съпоставка потвърждава изглежда мнението на Vassilev (1982) че в праисторическите селища на Северозападна България ловът обикновено доминира над животновъдството, докато в Южна България (енеолитът на Созопол е изключение от това правило – SPASSOV/ILIEV 1994) животновъдството най-често преобладава. Домашните животни, които дават облика на животновъдството и неговата структура и са обект на развъдно-стопанска дейност в Тополница са: овца/коза – 49.18% от домашните животни, говедо – 39.34% и свине – 11.48%. Последните данни показват, че най-добре развито е овцевъдството и козевъдството, за чието отглеждане в Тополница има блогоприятни условия – равнини и лесно достъпни хълмове с обилна паша и вода. Сравнението с къснонеолитното селище в Северна България – Градешница-Мало поле показва наново известни разлики, този път в доминирането на предпочитания вид стопански животни. Там останките от говедото заемат 50% от тези на индивидите от домашните животни, а на дребните преживни – 33.3%. Тъй като изследваният костен материал не е особено голям – общо ~ 1000 кости е трудно да се каже, обаче, доколко тези съотношения отговярят на реалните. Все пак най-вероятно отглеждането на едри преживни е било по-застъпено от това в също къснонеолитната Тополница. Предпочитание в Тополница е имало към развъждането на овцете. Те са отглеждани за вълна, мляко и месо. Убивани са животни

520

Николай Илиев, Николай Спасов

Ovis/Capra dom. pig № Prehistoric settlements Cattle % % %

№ Праисторически селища Костни%останки Индивиди %

11,48

Тополница – късен неолит

0,81

Мало поле – ранен неолит

Ракитово – ранен неолит

0,42

5,58

Rakitovo – early neolithic Topolnica – late Neolithic

39,34 54,4

49,18 22,6

Yasatepe – late Neolithic

33,33

16,67

Malo Pole – late Neolithic

56,86

31,37

11,77

Ovcharovo – Chalcolithic

37,2

27,8

Goliamo Delchevo – Chalcolithic

29,5

40,5

Vinitsa – Chalcolithic

40,6

31,4

Ezero – Early Bronze Age

39,8

35,7

24,5

Табл. 5. Съотношение между видовете животни отглеждани от населенията на праисторическите селища у нас (по брой на индивидите според изследвания костен материал). Table 5. Specific ratio between the animals from the Bulgarian prehistoric animal husbandries after the number of the individuals in the investigated settlements.

от различна възраст: до 6 месеца – 3.09%; от 6 м. до – 1 година – 12.89%; от 1 – 2 години – 28.35%; от 2 – 5 години – 51.55%; над 5 години – 4.12% На второ място по значение в икономиката на селището и почти равностойно на овцевъдството и козевъдството се пада на говедовъдството. Говедата са отглеждани в стопанството преди всички за мляко и работа, а за месо и суровини – след като достигнат определена възраст. И при тях са убивани животни в различна възраст, но най-вече в зряла: до 1 година – 4.59%; от 1 – 2.2 години – 7.34%; от 2.5 – 5 години – 39.45%; от 5 – 10 години – 46.48%; над 10 години – 2.14% На трето място по численост се пада на домашната свиня. Условията за нейното отглеждане са изключително благоприятни и вероятно се е практикувало табунноIn the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

1,61

Ясатепе – късен неолит

–

5,5

Овчарово – халколит

4,14

7,62

Голямо Делчево – халколит

3,22

9,4

Езеро – раннобронзова епоха

3,58

7,14

Езеро – късен халколит

5,2

9,32

Виница – халколит

–

27,2

Табл. 6. Численост на домашните кучета според броя на костните останки и изчисления от тях брой индивиди в различни праисторически селища в България. Table 6. Number of the dog specimens per site after the number of bone remains and the calculated minimum number of the individuals in different Bulgarian prehistoric settlements. то (стадното) отглеждане на свинете. Свиневъдството е задоволявало нуждите на населението от месо, мазнини и суровини. На един поясен прешлен има ясна следа от надлъжно разсичане, което показва, че и в този случай както при говедото, понякога се е практикувало надлъжното разсичане на трупа. Възрастовия анализ направен по преобладаващи кости (humerus и tibia – 71 екземпляря) и паралелно с това по долни зъби и мандибули (35 екземпляра) показва че са убивани животни в различна възраст, а именно: Juv. ( до 12 м.) – 21.57%; Subad. до 2 години – 30.81%; Ad. от 2 – 7 години – 40.48%; Vet. над 7 години – 7.14% От домашните животни със значение в икономиката на селището за изхранването на населението делът на копитните е 98.38%. Известно е, че численият превес на говедото над останалите селскостопански животни, се приема за показател, определящ степента на развитие на животновъдството. Според Bokonyi (1992) Балкано-Карпатски-

Промахон-Тополница. Компаративно изследване на дивите и домашни животни те неолитни традиции в животновъдството следват предноазиатските с доминирането на по-примитивния стил на отглеждане главно на дребни преживни. На таблица 5 се виждат структурните особености на животновъдните стопанства на Тополница, сравнено с тези на други праисторически селища. Изглежда, все пак, че доминиращото отглеждането на едър рогат добитък по нашите земи има традиции още от неолита, където говедото преобладава в редица археологически обекти. Доминнирането на дребните преживни в неолита на Тополница е явление, не чак толкова често у нас и приближаващо може би наистина това селище до по-архаичните предноазиатски традиции. Все пак се въздържаме от окончателен коментар, тъй като предстои обработката на още значително количество останки от находището и е възможно, както отбелязахме вече, някои от посочените резултати да бъдат повлияни. Относно лова и неговото значение в бита и поминъка на късно неолитното население от Тополница, данните показват, че ловуването е имало формата на целенасочена ловно-стопанска дейност, с предпочитание към определени ловни обекти, с цел разно-

521

образяването на менюто и набавянето на допълнителни количества месо и суровини. Така нопример 69.56% от дивите животни се отнасят към копитните – преобладаващо елен и дива свиня (най-често преобладаващи в кухненските отпадъци и от други праисторически обекти), убивани заради вкусовите качества на месото и заради кожите. Останалите видове диви животни, птици, земноводни и риби са представени с еднакъв процент, който съставлява 4.35%. Едни от тях (заек, сърна, тур, див кон и мечка) са ловувани заради месото и кожите, а хищниците (лисица и вълк) – заради ценните им кожи. Делът на ловните птици, както се спомена е 4.35%. Равностоен е делът – 4.35% от риболова и събирателството. Анализът на цялата животновъдна и ловно-стопанска дейност на обитателите на късно неолитното селище край Тополница показва, че делът на животновъдството във връзка с изхранването на населението е 73.49% или 2/3, а на ловът – 26.51% или 1/3, което показва, че късно неолитния човек от Тополница е бил по-скоро скотовъдец, отколкото ловец и ловът за него е била второстепенна дейност.

Литература АТАНАСОВ и др. 1980 К. Атанасов, В. Василев, П. Цонев. Върху някои корелационни зависимости между размерите на метаподите на праисторическите говеда у нас. – Науч. трудове, ВИЗВМ XXVII, ч. 1, 1980. БЕКЕНИ 1969 Ш. Бекени. Новый метод высчисления количества особей животных в остеологическом материале из археологических местонахождений. – Бюлл. МОИП, Отдел Биол, 6, 1969. Василев 1982 В. Василев. Сравнительные исследования роли животноводства и охоты для праисторических роселений Болгарии. – Tracia Praehistorica, Supplementum Pulpudeva 3, 1982, 301–310. Василев 1985 В. Василев. Изследвания на фауната от селищна могила Овчарово. – Интердисциплинарни изследвания XIII, 1985, 148. ВАСИЛЕВ и др. 1979 В. Василев, К. Атанасов, П. Цонев. Проучвания върху корелационната зависимост между някои размери на метаподите и височината

The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

при холката у крави от порода българско кафяво говедо. – Научни трудове ВИМВМ XXVI, ч. 1, 1979. ГРОМОВА 1953 В. Громова. Остеологические отличия родов Capra (козлы) и Ovis (бараны). – Тр. Ком. Изуч. Четв. Периода 10, 1, 1953, 1. ИВАНОВ 1959 С. Иванов. Домашните и дивите животни в бита на населението от Ясатепе в Пловдив. – Годишник на Народния археологически музей в Пловдив 3, 1959, 81. ИВАНОВ 1959б С. Иванов. Храната от животински произход на обитателите на южната порта на Преслав. – Известия на Археологическия институт XXII, 1959, 210–218. ИВАНОВ /ВАСИЛЕВ 1975 С. Иванов, В. Василев. Проучвания на животинския костен материал от праисторическата селищна могила при Голямо Делчево. –В: Х. Тодорова и кол. (ред.). Селищната могила при Голямо Делчево. – Разкопки и проучвания V (София 1975).

522 ИВАНОВ /ВАСИЛЕВ 1979 С. Иванов, В. Василев. Проучвания на животинските костни остатъци. –В: Г. Георгиев и др. (ред.). Езеро. Раннобронзово селище (София 1979), 428–429. И ЛИЕВ 1994 Н. Илиев. Говедовъдството във Велики Преслав (IX–X в.). – Археология 3–4, 1994, 1994, 66. И ЛИЕВ И ДР. 1992 Н. Илиев, З. Боев, Н. Спасов. Животински кости от късноантична вила и ранновизантийско селище в кв. Бела вода, Перник. – Археология 1, 1992, 44. КОВАЧЕВ 1985 Г. Ковачев. Домашните животни от праисторическото селище край ракитово. – Животновъдни науки 8, 1985, 50. КОВАЧЕВ, Г., Ц. МИНКОВ 1989 Г. Ковачев, Ц. Минков. Дивите животни от праисторическото селище край Ракитово. – Годишник на Софийския университет, Биол. Факултет 77, 1989, 87–100. НИНОВ 1987 Л. Нинов. Домашните и дивите животни от средновековното укрепено селище край с. Хума, Разградски окръг. –В: Разкопки и проучвания XVII, 1987, 178. СПАСОВ и др. 2001 Н. Спасов, Н. Илиев, З. Боев. Животинските останки от енеолитния археологически обект край с. Долнослав (Пловдивска област). – Historia naturalis bulgarica 13, 2001, 159–179.

In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Николай Илиев, Николай Спасов Ц АЛКИН 1960 В. Цалкин. Изменчивость метаподий и ее значение для изучения крупного рогатого скота древности. – Бюлл. МОИП, Отдел Биол. 65, 1, 1960, 109. BOKONYI 1992 S. Bokonyi. Animal remains of Michailovac-Knjepiste. An Early Neolithic Settlement of the Iron Gate Gorge. – Balcanica XXIII, 1992, 77–83. SOBOCINSKI 1980 M. Sobocinski. Material kostnyzwiezzecy z weesno sredniowiecznego grodziska w jedwabnie (wojewodztwo torunskie). – Rocnizi Akademii Rolniezej w Poznanie, CXXI, Archeozoologia, 6, 1980, 67. TEICHERT 1969 M. Teichert. Osteometrische Untersuchungen zur Berechnung der Widderristhohe bei vor und fruhge tlichen Schweinen. – Kuhn-Archiv, 83, 3, 1969, 237. SPASSOV/ILIEV 1998 N. Spassov, N. Iliev. The late pleistocene and holocene horses of East Europe and the polyphylethic origin of the domestic horse. –In: M. Stefanovich, H. Todorova, H. Hauptmann (eds.). In the steps of James Harvey Gaul I. James Harvey Gaul – In Memoriam (Sofia 1998), 371–390.

Agriculture and Use of Space at Promachon/Topolnica. Preliminary

observations on the archaeobotanical material Soultana Maria Valamoti This paper focuses on a preliminary examination of the archaeobotanical remains retrieved from the Late Neolithic site of Promachon/Topolnica on the Greek/Bulgarian border, to the west of Strymon river, at the northeast foothills of mount Kerkini. A total of 214 samples has been examined and of these 69 have been selected for detailed study due to the rich plant remains they contained. The presentation focuses on the plant remains identified from 28 samples originating from the area where the „Voucrania“ (cattle skulls) were found. A wide range of species have been identified, including cereals, pulses and fruits. The species identified are a) the glume wheats einkorn, emmer and the „new“ type recently recognized among Greek and subsequently other European and Near Eastern assemblages, b) tworow barley of both the naked and hulled varieties, c) pulses comprising lentils, bitter vetch, grass pea and pea, d) flax, e) blackberry, fig and Cornelian cherry. The presence of wild (other than fruit) and weed species has been very limited and restricted to few samples only. As regards the range of species, Promachon is similar to other Late Neolithic sites known from northern Greece and Bulgaria. Despite the variety in the species represented in the samples, nearly all are dominated by glume-wheat chaff with the exception of one concentration of cereal (mainly emmer) and pulse (bitter vetch and lentil) grain. The presence of chaff, together with the presence of fig, suggest that the „Voukrania“ area contained spent fuel that may have originated from various sources. These alternative sources of botanical material are considered in an attempt to approach the activities that may have taken place in relation to the specific area examined. Although spent fuel can be interpreted as „refuse“, it would be too simplistic to interpret the „Voucrania“ area as a refuse dump. Ethnographic evidence suggests that ‘refuse’ disposal is loaded with meaning and is a reflection of the organization of social relations within a community. This dimension of refuse is emphasized by the archaeobotanical study of the Promachon plant remains, shifting the emphasis from species and crops to archaeobotanical composition and the use of space.

Земеделието и употребата на пространството в Промахон/Тополница: предварителни наблюдения на археоботаническия материал Султана Мария Валамоти Работата разглежда предварителните проучвания на археоботаническите материали от къснонеолитния обект Промахон-Тополница, разположен на Българо-Гръцката граница, западно от р. Срума, на североизточните склонове на Керкини (Беласица). Обработeни са общо 214 флотационни проби, като 69 от тях са подбрани за по-подробно проучване поради многообразието на останки от растения в тях. Тук внимание се обръща на останките от растения открити в 28 от пробите, произхождащи от района на сутеренния храм, където са открити многобройни „букрании“ (бичи черепи). В тях са идентифицирани много видове – житни, бобови култури и плодове. Това са: а) плевестa пшеницa еднозърненка, двузърненка и един „нов“ тип, наскоро разпознат в Гърция, а впоследствие и в европейските и близкоизточните комплекси; b) двуреден ечемик от голозърнеста и плевеста форма; с) бобови култури - леща, уров, секирче и грах; d) коноп; е) къпина, смокиня и дрян. Присъствието на диви (без плодовете) и плевести видове е много ограничено, само в няколко проби. Според обхвата на видовете селището Промахон-Тополница не се различава от останалите къснонеолитни обекти, познати от Северна Гърция и България. Въпреки разнообразието на видовете представени в пробите, в почти всички преобладава плява от плевести пшеници, с изключение на една концентрация на житни (главно двузърненка) и бобови (уров и леща) зърна. Присъствието на плява заедно със смокиня, предполага, че в сутеренния храм са били депонирани и различни растения. Алтернатвните източници на ботанически материал са разгледани с оглед изясняване на дейностите, извършвани на мястото.

Introduction The site of Promachon/Topolnica is situated at approximately 1.5 Km from the Bulgarian village of Topolnica and 6 Km from Promachon, at the southeast foothills of mount Kerkini, at the first hills to the west of the alluvial valley of Strymon river. It is an extended settlement The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

estimated to cover an area of approximately 4 hectares (KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1997; KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 2005). Excavation at the Greek sector began in 1993 and in 1994 systematic sampling for plant remains began. Over these ten years a large number of samples have been collected and processed by

524

Soultana Maria Valamoti

PR231 PR231 PR231 PR231 PR217 PR217 PR217 PR217 PR202 PR202 PR202 PR202 PR201 PR201 PR201 PR201 PR191 PR191 PR191 PR191 PR189 PR189 PR189 PR189 PR188 PR188 PR188 PR188 PR187 PR187 PR187 PR187 PR182 PR182 PR182 PR182 PR181 PR181 PR181 PR181 PR179 PR179 PR179 PR179 PR178 PR178 PR178 PR178 PR176 PR176 PR176 PR176 PR175 PR175 PR175 PR175 PR174 PR174 PR174 PR174 PR172 PR172 PR172 PR172 PR169 PR169 PR169 PR169 PR167 PR167 PR167 PR167 PR166 PR166 PR166 PR166 PR165 PR165 PR165 PR165 PR164 PR164 PR164 PR164 PR163 PR163 PR163 PR163 PR162 PR162 PR162 PR162 PR161 PR161 PR161 PR161 PR160 PR160 PR160 PR160 PR157 PR157 PR157 PR157 PR156 PR156 PR156 PR156 PR155 PR155 PR155 PR155 0% 0% 0% 10%0% 10%10% 20%10% 20%20% 30%20% 30%30% 40%30% 40%40% 50%40% 50%50% 60%50% 60%60% 70%60% 70%70% 80%70% 80%80% 90%80% 90%90% 100% 90% 100% 100%100% einkornEINCH chaffEINCH einkorn grain emmer chaf emmerEMGR grain EMGR EMGR EMGR EMCH EMCH EMCH EINGR EINGR EINGR EMCH EINCH EINCH EINGR barleyBARAC rachis wheat grain new wheat type chaff glume wheat chaff indeterminate BARAC BARAC BARAC TRITGR TRITGR TRITGR TRITGR INDETCH INDETCH INDETCH NWTCH NWTCH NWTCH NWTCHINDETCH lentilsLENS bitter vetch barleyBARGR grainBARGR cerealCERGR grainCERGRBITVETC LENS LENS LENS BITVETC BITVETC BITVETC CERGR BARGR BARGRCERGR LEG LEG LEG LEG RUBUS RUBUS RUBUS RUBUSFIG FIG FIGFIG fig large legumes indeterminate blackberry Fig. 1. Promachon/Topolnica, the Voucrana area: sample composition. In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Agriculture and use of space at Promachon/Topolnica flotation and the retrieved material, preserved by charring, is currently under study. As the title implies, the study presented here is not complete, i.e. the material from the residues has not yet been studied and the wild/weed seeds are not included in the tables but are only qualitatively discussed where appropriate. Materials and methods A total of 214 soil samples have been processed with a variant of the Ankara machine (FRENCH 1991). The mesh sizes used for the collection of plant remains were 1mm and 300 microns. Of these samples, 69 have been selected for detailed study due to the rich plant remains they contained. This presentation focuses on the plant remains identified from 28 samples originating from trench IΣΤ’, and more specifically from the large pit where the „Voucrania“ (cattle skulls) were found. This context corresponds to the pit-structures phase, or phase I, of the settlement. The samples were retrieved during the 2001 and 2002 excavation seasons. Three of the samples (155, 161, 162) may belong to the succeeding phase, phase II, characterized by the post-framed houses; these are not considered in the general discussion. These 28 samples from the area of the big pit were quite rich in plant remains; they have yielded approximately 8900 quantifiable plant remains. The identifications on which this presentation and Fig. 1 are based, were carried out using a stereomicroscope and magnifications X8–X40. Species present at the site The species identified in the samples are the following: a) the glume wheats (represented by glume chaff and grain), einkorn (Triticum monococcum L.), emmer (T. dicoccum Schuebl.) and the „new“ type recently recognized among Greek (JONES et al. 2002) and subsequently other European and Near Eastern assemblages (e.g. KOHLER-SCHNEIDER 2001), b) free-threshing wheat (T. cf. aestivum L./durum Desf., identified on the basis of rachis internodes), b) two-row barley (Hordeum vulgare L. subsp. distichum, identified on the basis of rachis internodes) of both the naked and hulled varieties as suggested by barley grain, c) pulses comprising pea (Pisum sativum L.), bitter vetch (Vicia ervilia (L.) Willd.), grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L./L. cicera The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

525 L.) and lentils (Lens sp.), d) flax (Linum usitatissimum L.), e) grape (Vitis vinifera L.), blackberry (Rubus fruticosus L. agg.), fig (Ficus carica L.) and Cornelian cherry (Cornus mas L.). The presence of wild (other than fruit) and weed species has been very limited. Among the seeds of wild/weed plants present in the samples, the following genera and species have been identified: Bilderdykia convolvulus (L.) Dumort., Bromus sp., Bugglossoides arvensis (L.) I.M.Johnston, Carex sp., Fumaria sp., Heliotropeum sp., Polygonum sp., Valerianella dentata (L.) Pollich., Neslia sp., Chenopodium album s.l., Phleum sp., Polycnemum cf. majus A. Braun/P. arvense L., Setaria sp.; this material seems to be restricted to few samples only and has not yet been quantified. As regards the range of species, Promachon/ Topolnica is similar to other Late Neolithic sites known from northern Greece and Bulgaria (e.g. RENFREW 2003; VALAMOTI/JONES 2003; VALAMOTI 2004; M ARINOVA et al. 2002; POPOVA 1991, 1995). Of the species identified, the glume wheats are those dominating all 28 samples (Fig. 1). Barley is present but in relatively low proportions, while free-threshing wheat is represented by two rachis internodes out of the total of 8900 crop and fruit identified items, i.e. it is extremely rare. The glume wheats are represented predominantly by chaff in all but two samples. Thus in the vast majority of the samples, more than 60% of each sample consists of glume bases and spikelet forks of einkorn, emmer and the new type. The grain/seed-rich samples, 155 and 187, are dominated, the former by emmer grain and lentil seeds, and the latter by blackberry seeds. The exceptional emmer grain-rich sample (155) cannot be discussed further as its phasing has not been clarified yet. Sample 187 is discussed in the next section. Species exploited at the site: human food or animal fodder? Turning to the chaff-rich samples first, it is clear that the relative proportions of the glume wheat species vary, with some samples dominated by einkorn, some by emmer and some by the new type, while most have a rather mixed composition (Fig. 1). Although this is a coarse grained analysis with no spatial information added in, due to the preliminary nature of the

526 study, the sample composition suggests that these three species may have been cultivated as separate crops or as different maslins (JONES / HALSTEAD 1995) of varying compositions (e.g. an emmer dominated maslin, an einkorn dominated maslin and a new wheat type maslin). Barley in the archaeological samples is found mainly in the form of rachis internodes (Fig. 1) suggesting the presence of winnowing by-products and therefore the use of barley at the site. It is not possible to tell if a barley/glume wheat maslin is represented. The different processing stages represented in the samples (winnowing by-product for barley and dehusking by-product for the glume wheats, HILLMAN 1981; 1984; 1985) could be interpreted as the mixing of the by-products of different crops. Alternatively, the possibility that by-products from different processing stages of a barley-glume wheat maslin were mixed cannot be ruled out. There is clear evidence that the inhabitants of Promachon/Topolnica cultivated/used einkorn, emmer and the new wheat type, or maslins of the three species in different combinations. They also cultivated barley and the same is true for lentils and bitter vetch, the two legume species that have been found in relatively large concentrations in the grain-rich sample. Although a lentil/bitter vetch maslin cannot be entirely ruled out as a possibility, it seems unlikely to have been an intentional crop as lentils are highly palatable and easy to prepare for human consumption while bitter vetch is poisonous (HODKINSON 1988; SCARBOROUGH 1991; HANSEN 2000) and requires extra treatment in order to leach out the dangerous substances. Pea and grass pea, crops known from the Early Neolithic of Greece, could have also been used at the site though the archaeobotanical evidence from Promachon does not provide clear evidence for this. Flax is found in extremely low numbers but given the limited likelihood for preservation due to the high oil content of its seeds, it can be suggested that it was probably a crop used by the inhabitants of the site. Sporadic finds of grape pips, Cornelian cherry stones, blackberry seeds and fig suggest that these species were brought to the site, though it is far from clear whether this was done by humans or their grazing ruminants. In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Soultana Maria Valamoti This discussion brings us to the intended uses of the plants, either as human food or animal fodder. In the vast majority of cases, this distinction is very difficult to make on the basis of archaeobotanical evidence (JONES 1998; VALAMOTI 2002). In the case of the wild species just mentioned, the blackberry concentration (sample 187) could represent collected and stored blackberries, it could equally likely, however, represent animal dung containing blackberry seeds, as blackberries are sought after by grazing animals (cf. VALAMOTI/JONES 2003). Some species like bitter vetch are not an ideal source of food but can be consumed with appropriate processing in times of need. As regards the remaining species, however, they could have been used for both, food or fodder, or parts of the plants could have been used for animals and parts, especially the seeds and fibre (e.g. in the case of flax), for humans. Processing can be an indicator of intended use of a crop (DENNELL 1976; H ALSTEAD 1994). In the case of the glume wheats one could argue that findings of glumes and glume bases are an indication of the processing of the glume wheats for human consumption (VALAMOTI 1995; 1998). This is supported by ethnographic observations of the use of glume wheats as well as the fact that dehusking, a time consuming process is unnecessary when spikelets are used as fodder (PEĂ&#x2018;A-CHOCARRO 1999). Although glume wheat chaff, abundant in the Promachon/Topolnica samples, is something that would have been removed had the grains been used for human consumption, the presence of chaff in the samples could have originated from the consumption of glume wheat spikelets by animals as part of animal fodder (VALAMOTI /CHARLES 2005) during winter for example, especially in the case of lactating animals. The presence of dung in the Promachon samples, although not supported by the actual find of pellets is indirectly supported by the fact that fig seeds are present in some at least of the samples in association with chaff (cf. VALAMOTI 2004). It therefore remains to future archaeobotanical research to develop a method to distinguish digested from undigested spikelets and glume wheat chaff, in order to provide some answers as regards the uses of the glume wheats as food or fodder.

Agriculture and use of space at Promachon/Topolnica Plant remains and the use of space Chaff suggests fuel, and the combined finding of fig seeds in association with these chaff-rich concentrations suggest the presence of dung as has been suggested for the sites of Makri and Makriyalos (VALAMOTI 2004). The glume wheat chaff found in the Voucrania area, could represent one or a combination of the following: a) glume wheat dehusking by-products accumulated in this area either as processing residue or as building material including dung, subsequently charred during a major conflagration episode, b) glume wheat dehusking by-products discarded and burnt as fuel, c) glume wheat dehusking by products mixed with dung to form dung cake fuel, subsequently burnt, d) spikelets consumed by animals and thus contained in dung subsequently burnt. If the dehusking by-products and dung material are indeed some form of spent fuel, generated perhaps in several events (different seasons of the year may be suggested from the presence of wild/weed seeds in few of the samples only) or, from the contribution of different households (suggested by the different glume wheat species’ proportions among the samples) in one or more episodes of burning, this may have interesting implications for the interpretation of the use of space in the context of the Voucrania pit. The question we need to ask is whether this area that contained the „Voucrania“, was simply a rubbish dump where primary or secondary refuse was deposited. Although we may be inclined to attribute such interpretations to the archaeobotanical finds that consist of burnt chaff, there are several lines of evidence, ethnographic and archaeological, that point towards alternative interpretations. Ethnographic studies in the region of Baringo, in Kenya Africa, carried out by I. Hodder (1987) suggest that the area where refuse is deposited is culture specific. Hodder’s research shows that the different types of what we could call refuse, their spatial arrangement and the rules regulating their handling are linked to social structure, The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

527 sex and status differentiation. The burning of dung, besides the utilitarian dimension we are keen to evoke, has among spatially remote cultures a strong symbolic meaning and dung heaps are ritually burnt in big festivals (Kenya: HODDER 1987; India: FULLER 2001). In the African example, dung heaps are a status indicator among cattle herders and the higher the heap, the highest the status indicated. Of course I do not wish to extrapolate modern ethnographic observations carried out among the members of an African tribe, to the 6th millennium BC. in prehistoric southeastern Europe. What I want to do is to shift our way of approaching archaeobotanical data in pure ‘utilitarian’ terms, to an approach that attributes cultural meaning to them. The possibility that burnt dung in the Voucrania area may not represent the mere dumping of spent fuel but anything ranging between the burning of dung while roasting cattle in a single feast event (or several), to the burning of animal (cattle?) dung as a status symbol in the same feasting context(s), needs to be further investigated in association with the remaining archaeological finds, stratigraphy and micromorphological analysis (cf. KOUKOULICHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 2005). Further study of the archaeobotanical evidence from Promachon/ Topolnica, including consideration of density and comparison of plant species’ composition between the Voucrania pit and that of the other pits and structures at the site, will help clarify the use and meaning of dehusking by-products and dung in this pit. Acknowledgements First of all I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Honorary director of Antiquities, for inviting me to participate in the Promachon/Topolnica excavation as archeobotanist, for entrusting me with the study of the plant remains and for securing funding for the processing of the samples. I am deeply grateful to Dimitra Malamidou (during the first years of the excavation) and Magda Valla, curators of Classical and Prehistoric Antiquities, for providing every help in the practical aspects of plant remains retrieval; Magda Valla in particular for providing all background information as regards the archaeological context of the samples. The

528 above I wish to thank for useful discussions on the origin and interpretation of the samples. Dr Yiannis Aslanis made the drawings of the Voucrania area available. Thanks go to Olga Terzidou for supervising sampling in 2002, Eleni Psarou and Stella Dilopoulou for processing of the samples in the field, Georgia Kotzamani, Alexandra Livarda and Sokratis Alixanidis for sorting of the samples and Alexandra Livarda

Soultana Maria Valamoti for preliminary identifications of the material. The study of the Promachon material is part of the project ‘Neolithic spatial and socio-economic organisation in northern Greece through the study of archaeobotanical remains’ funded by the Institute for Aegean Prehistory (INSTAP). I am deeply thankful to INSTAP for their generous support.

References DENNELL 1976 R. Dennell. The economic importance of plant resources represented on archaeological sites. – Journal of Archaeological Science 3, 1976, 229–247. FRENCH 1971 D.H. French. An experiment in water-sieving. – Anatolian Studies 21, 1971, 59–64. FULLER 2001 D. Fuller. Ashmounds and hilltop villages: the search for early agriculture in southern India. – Archaeology International 2000/2001, 43–46. H ALSTEAD 1994 P. Halstead. The north-south divide: Regional paths to complexity in prehistoric Greece. –In: C. Mathers, S. Stoddart (eds.). Development and Decline in the Mediterranean Bronze Age. – Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 8 (Sheffield, J.R. Collis Publications, 1994), 195–219. H ANSEN 2000 J.M. Hansen. Palaeoethnobotany and palaeodiet in the Aegean region: notes on legume toxicity and related pathologies. –In: S.J. Vaughn, W.D.E.Coulson (eds.). Palaeodiet in the Aegean (Oxford, Oxbow Books, 2000), 13–27. HILLMAN 1981 G. Hillman. Reconstructing crop husbandry practices from charred remains of crops. –In: R. Mercer (ed.), Farming Practice in British Prehistory (Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press 1981), 123–162. HILLMAN 1984 G. Hillman. Traditional husbandry and processing of archaic cereals in recent times. The operations, products, and equipment which might feature in Sumerian texts, part I: the glume wheats. – Bulletin of Sumerian Agriculture 1, 1984, 114–152. HILLMAN 1985 G. Hillman. Traditional husbandry and processing of archaic cereals in recent times: the operations, products, and equipment which might feature in Sumerian texts, part II: the free-threshing cereals. – Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 2, 1985, 1–31. HODDER 1987 I. Hodder. The meaning of discard: ash and domestic space in Baringo. –In: S. Kent (ed.). Method and Theory for activity area research. (New York, Columbia University Press, 1984), 424–448.

In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

HODKINSON 1988 S. Hodkinson. Animal husbandry in the Greek polis. –In: C. R. Whittaker (ed.). Pastoral economies in classical antiquity. – Cambridge Philological Society Supplementary Volume 14, 1988, 35–74. JONES /H ALSTEAD 1995 G. Jones, P. Halstead. Maslins, mixtures and monocrops: on the Interpretation of archaeobotanical crop samples of heterogeneous composition. – Journal of Archaeological Science 22, 1995, 103–114. JONES 1988 G. Jones. Distinguishing food from fodder in the archaeobotanical record. –In: M. Charles, P. Halstead, G. Jones (eds.). Fodder: Archaeological, Historical and Ethnographic Studies. – Environmental Archaeology 1, 1988, 95–98. JONES/VALAMOTI/CHARLES 2000 G. Jones, S.M. Valamoti, M. Charles. Early crop diversity: a ‘new’ glume wheat from northern Greece. – Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 9, 2000, 133–146. KOHLER-SCHNEIDER 2001 Kohler-Schneider, M. 2001. Verkohlte Kultur- und Wildpflanzenreste aus Stillfried an der March (Wien, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 2001). KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1997 Ch. Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, H. Todorova, I. Aslanis, J. Bojadziev, F. Konstantopoulou, I. Vajsov, M. Valla. Προμαχώνας-Topolnica, νεολιθικός οικισμός ελληνοβουλγαρικών συνόρων. – AEMTH 10, 1997, 745–767. KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 2005 Ch. Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, I. Aslanis, I. Vajsov, M. Valla. Προμαχώνας-Topolnica, νεολιθικός οικισμός ελληνοβουλγαρικών συνόρων. – AEMTH 17, 2005, 90–110. M ARINOVA et al. 2002 E. Marinova, E. Tchakalova, D. Stoyanova, S. Grozeva, E. Doceva. Ergebnisse archaeobotanischer untersuchungen aus dem Neolithikum und Chalkolithikum in Suedwestbulgarien. – Archaeologia Bulgarica 6, 2002, 1–11. PEÑA-CHOCARRO 1999 L. Peña-Chocarro. Prehistoric Agriculture in Spain. The application of ethnographic models. – BAR S. 818 (Oxford 1999).

Agriculture and use of space at Promachon/Topolnica POPOVA 1991 Ts. Popova. Palaeoethnobotanical investigations in south Bulgaria. – Paleoecologia e Arqueologia II, 1991, 187–189. POPOVA 1995 Ts. Popova. Plant remains from Bulgarian Prehistory (7000–2000 BC). –In: D.W. Bailey, I. Panajotov (eds.) Prehistory of Bulgaria. – Monographs in World Archaeology 22, I (Madison/Wisconsin, 1995), 193–207. R ENFREW 2003 J. Renfrew. Grains, seeds, and fruits from prehistoric Sitagroi. –In: E.S. Elster, C. Renfrew (eds). Prehistoric Sitagroi: Excavations in Northeast Greece, 1968–1970. Volume 2: The Final Report. – Monumenta Archaeologica 20) (Los Angeles, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology 2003), 1–29. SCARBOROUGH 1991 J. Scarborough. The Pharmacology of Sacred Plants, Herbs, and Roots. –In: Ch.A. Faraone, D. Obbink (eds) Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion (Oxford 1991), 138–174. VALAMOTI 1995 S.M. Valamoti. Γεωργικά προϊόντα από το νεολιθικό οικισμό Γιαννιτσά Β: μία προκαταρκτική προσέγγιση μέσω των αρχαιοβοτανικών δεδομένων. – ΑΕΜΘ 6, 1995, 177–184.

The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

529 VALAMOTI 1998 S.M. Valamoti. Η επεξεργασία της τροφής κατά τη Νεολιθική και την Εποχή του Χαλκού: τα αρχαιοβοτανικά δεδομένα. –In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Ancient Greek Technology, September 1997, Thessaloniki (Thessaloniki, Technology Museum of Thessaloniki), 1998, 249–257. VALAMOTI 2002 S.M. Valamoti. Food remains from Bronze Age Archondiko and Mesimeriani Toumba in northern Greece? – Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 11, 2002, 17–22. VALAMOTI/JONES 2003 S.M. Valamoti, G. Jones. Plant diversity and storage at Mandalo, Macedonia, Greece: Archaeobotanical evidence from the Final Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. – The Annual of the British School at Athens 98, 2003, 1–35. VALAMOTI 2004 S.M. Valamoti. Plants and People in Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece: an archaeobotanical investigation. – BAR. International Series 1258 (Oxford, B.A.R. Archaeopress 2004). VALAMOTI/CHARLES 2005 S.M. Valamoti, M. Charles. Distinguishing food from fodder through the study of charred plant remains: an experimental approach of dung-derived chaff. – Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 14, 2005, 528–533.

In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2