theodossiev ancient thrace

8/19/2019 Theodossiev Ancient Thrace

1/63

THE BLACK SEA, GREECE,

ANATOLIA AND EUROPE

IN THE FIRST MILLENNIUM BC

Edited by

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

COLLOQUIA ANTIQUA

————— 1 —————

PEETERS

LEUVEN – PARIS – WALPOLE, MA

2011


2/63

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction to the Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII

Introduction to the Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX

List of Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI

List of Illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIII

CHAPTER 1 Ancient Thrace during the First Millennium BC

Nikola Theodossiev . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

CHAPTER 2 The Getae: Selected Questions

Alexandru Avram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

CHAPTER 3 The Black Sea: Between Asia and Europe

(Herodotus’ Approach to his Scythian Account)

J.G.F. Hind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

CHAPTER 4 The Scythians: Three Essays

Gocha R. Tsetskhladze. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

CHAPTER 5 The American-Ukrainian Scythian Kurgan Project, 2004–

2005: Preliminary Report

N.T. de Grummond, S.V. Polin, L.A. Chernich, M. Gleba

and M. Daragan

Skeletal Analyses: A.D. Kozak

Faunal Remains:O.P. Zhuravlev . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

CHAPTER 6 Persia in Europe

John Boardman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

CHAPTER 7 The Etruscan Impact on Ancient Europe Larissa Bonfante . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203


3/63

VI TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 8 Hallstatt Europe: Some Aspects of Religion and Social

Structure

Biba Ter z an . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

CHAPTER 9 The Elusive Arts: The Study of Continental Early Celtic

Art since 1944

Ruth Megaw and Vincent Megaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

CHAPTER 10 An Archaic Alphabet on a Thasian Kylix

M.A. Tiverios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317

CHAPTER 11 The Iron Age in Central Anatolia

Hermann Genz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331

CHAPTER 12 The Role of Jewellery in Ancient Societies

Iva Ond r ejová. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369

CHAPTER 13 The Mushroom, the Magi and the Keen-Sighted Seers

Claudia Sagona and Antonio Sagona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387

List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439


4/63

* I would like to thank Gocha Tsetskhladze for his kind invitation to contribute to thisvolume dedicated to Jan Bouzek. I wish to extend my gratitude to the Andrew W. MellonFoundation, the Council of American Overseas Research Centers, the American School ofClassical Studies at Athens, the American Academy in Rome, the Institute for Advanced Stud-ies in the Humanities at the University of Edinburgh, the Center for Advanced Study in theVisual Arts at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC, the Netherlands Institute for

Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences in Wassenaar, the Maison des Sciencesde l’Homme in Paris, and the Centre d’Étude des Peintures Murales Romaines in Soissons fortheir generous support and the various fellowships which have enabled me to work on myresearch projects.

ANCIENT THRACE DURING THE FIRST MILLENNIUM BC*

Nikola THEODOSSIEV

Abstract

The paper provides a general discussion of ancient Thrace in the 1st millennium BC.Thrace was located on the northern fringe of Greece, in the northern part of south-

eastern Europe, and was inhabited by a number of tribes known as Thracians. Theterritorial extent of Thrace is discussed and the chronology of this period is outlined.Greek and Roman historical sources on ancient Thrace are examined, as are the varioustribes and the political history of the most powerful tribal kingdoms. Attention is paidto the social structure of the tribal communities and to Thracian religion. Economiccontacts and trade are also discussed, particularly to illustrate the dynamic relationsand long-distance contacts of the region throughout the eastern Mediterranean. Thevarious cultural interactions and ethnic interrelations between Thracians and Greeks,Persians, Scythians, Macedonians, Illyrians, Celts and Romans are outlined, togetherwith such topics as settlement patterns, the urbanisation process and sanctuaries. Thra-cian funerary practices are examined, especially the rich aristocratic burials and thenumerous Late Classical and Hellenistic Thracian monumental tombs. So too are Thra-cian metalwork and its iconography, particularly the significant gold and silver treas-ures/hoards, and lastly Thracian coinage.

Ancient Thrace, located on the northern fringe of the Greek world, was amongthe most dynamic regions of the eastern Mediterranean and played an impor-tant role in ancient history and culture. Since the early 20th century, a numberof scholars from different countries have studied the region, examining a vari-

ety of topics and publishing important work. I am pleased to offer an over-view of ancient Thrace in a volume in honour of Prof. Jan Bouzek, a brilliant


5/63

2 NIKOLA THEODOSSIEV

1 In this article I do not deal with the North Thracian territories inhabited by the Getae andthe Daci, except for present-day north-eastern Bulgaria. See A. Avram’s chapter in the presentvolume. Also, I do not deal with an area of south-western Thrace which became a constituentpart of the Macedonian kingdom during the Classical and Hellenistic periods.

scholar whose career is closely related to the region, where he has been per-sonally involved for many years in both theoretical and field research, and onwhich he has written many works of the greatest importance.

TERRITORIAL SCOPE AND CHRONOLOGY1

Ancient Thrace was an extensive but variable historical and geographicalregion of south-eastern Europe (Fig 1). It covered the following modern coun-tries (from north to south): Moldova, the south-western part of the Odessa

Province of the Ukraine, the eastern and southern parts of Romania, Bulgaria,eastern Serbia, the eastern part of the Republic of Macedonia, parts of northernGreece and the European part of Turkey (Danov 1976; Mihailov 1972; A. Fol1972; 1974; 1975b; 1997; A. Fol and Spiridonov 1983; R. Hoddinott, 1981;Oppermann 1984; Spiridonov 1991; Archibald 1998; D. Popov 1999). Duringthe 1st millennium BC Thrace spread from the West Pontic coast (in the east)to the Morava river valley, the area between the middle river valleys of theStruma/Strymon and Vardar, and the lower Axios (Vardar) river valley (to thewest); and from the Transylvanian Alps and the Moldavian Carpathians (in the

north) and the Dniester river (in the north-east), to the Bosporus (in the south-east), the northern coast of the Sea of Marmara, including the Gallipoli penin-sula, and the North Aegean coast, including the islands of Samothrace andThasos, and the Chalkidiki peninsula (in the south). Historically, separateThracian tribes were attested in central Greece, north-west Anatolia and someAegean islands, but in antiquity these areas belonged to other historical andgeographical regions.

The frontiers of ancient Thrace were relative, variable and quite dynamic,and during the 1st millennium BC certain Thracian areas belonged to the Greek

colonies, the Achaemenid empire, Macedonia and the Roman Republic. More-over, ancient Thrace was not a homogeneous region inhabited by homogene-ous ethnic groups, and the ancient Thracians never formed a unified nation orentirely centralised kingdom controlling their whole territory. In fact, ‘Thra-cians’ is a cumulative and relative ethnonym that included a great number ofvarious tribes, often sharing a common culture, religion and language, but


6/63

ANCIENT THRACE DURING THE FIRST MILLENNIUM BC 3

F i g . 1 .

T h r a c i a n s i t e s a n d t r i b a l t e

r r i t o r i e s o f t h e C l a s s i c a l p e r i o

d

( a f t e r Z . H .

A r c h i b a l d , ‘ T h r a c i a n s a n d S c y t h i a n s ’ . C A

H

V I , 2 n d e d .

[ C a m b r i d g e 1 9 9 4 ] , 4 4 6 , m a p 1 4 ) .

1 .

A l e x a n d r o v o ; 2 .

A r z o s ; 3 .

A s e n o v g r a d ;

4 .

B e d n y a k o v o ; 5 .

B r e z o v o ; 6 . B

o u k y o v t s i ; 7 .

B r a n i c h e v o ; 8 .

C h i r

p a n ; 9 .

D a s k a l A t a n a s s o v ; 1 0 .

D e r v e n i ;

1 1 .

D i d i m

o t i k h i o n ; 1 2 .

D o l n o S a h r a n e ; 1 3 .

D u l b o k i ; 1 4 .

D u v a n l i ; 1 5 .

E d i r n e ;

1 6 .

E z e r o v o ; 1 7 .

G l o z h e n e ; 1 8 . G

o t s e D e l c h e v ; 1 9 .

G r a d n i t s a ; 2 0 . I

z g r e v ;

2 1 .

K a l o y a n o v o ; 2 2 .

K a z a n l a k ; 2 3 .

K i r k l a r e l

i ; 2 4 .

K y o l m e n ; 2 5 .

K o p r i n k a ; 2 6 .

K o z a r e v o ; 2 7 .

K r i v o d o l ; 2 8 .

L e t n i t

s a ; 2 9 .

L u k o v i t ; 3 0 .

L o v e c h ; 3 1 . M

a d a r a ;

3 2 .

M e z e k

; 3 3 .

M u m d y i l a r ; 3 4 .

N e v r o k o p ; 3 5

. N o v o M a h a l a ; 3 6 .

N o v o s e l e t s ; 3 7 .

O p u l c h e n e t s ; 3 8 .

O r y a h o v o ; 3 9 . P

a n a g y u r i s h t e ; 4 0 .

P a s t o u s h a ; 4 1 . P

a z a r d -

y i k ; 4 2 . P

h i l i p p i ; 4 3 P o m o r i e ; 4 4 .

P u d r i y a ; 4

5 .

P u r o v a y ; 4 6 .

P u s t r o v o ; 4 7 .

R a z

l o g ; 4 8 .

R o z o v e t s ; 4 9 .

S e u t h o p o l i s ; 5 0 .

S k a l i t s a ; 5 1 .

S l a v y a n o v o ; 5 2 .

S m o -

l y a n ; 5 3 . S t a r a Z a g o r a ; 5 4 .

S t a r o S e l o ; 5 5 . S

t o y a n o v o ; 5 6 .

S t r e l c h a ; 5 7 .

S v e t l e n

; 5 8 .

S v i l e n g r a d ; 5 9 .

T a r n e v e t s ; 6 0

. T a t a r e v o ; 6 1 .

C h e r n o z e m ; 6 2 . T e

t e v e n ;

6 3 .

T o r o s ; 6 4 .

T o p o l o v g r a d ; 6 5 .

T o p o l o v o ; 6 6 .

T r o i a n ; 6 7 .

T u r n o v o ; 6 8 .

V e l i n

g r a d ; 6 9 .

B e r o e a ; 7 0 .

V e t r e n ; 7 1 .

V o i n i t s i n e ; 7 2 .

V u l c h i t r u n ; 7 3 .

V u

r b i t s a ;

7 4 .

Y a n k o v o ; 7 5 .

Y o u r u k l e r ; 7 6

. Z l o k o u t c h e n e ; 7 7 .

K a b y l e .


7/63


sometimes being quite different, while mixed groups consisting of local peoplewho lived besides the Greeks, Persians, Paeonians, Illyrians, Macedonians,Scythians, Celts and Romans inhabited particular areas of Thrace, which wereturned into zones of interaction.

The 1st millennium BC in Thrace is defined as the Iron Age, during whichvarious major developments occurred: the gradual political consolidation ofthe Thracian tribes and the rise of tribal kingdoms, the most significant beingthe Odrysian kingdom; important historical events in Thrace, such as the last-ing Greek colonisation on the North Aegean and West Pontic coasts; increasedproductive activity among the Thracian tribes, a developing economy and

intensive trade; and distinctive changes in Thracian material culture, such asthe adoption of iron metallurgy, the appearance of rich aristocratic burials, theproduction of new types of pottery, weaponry, jewellery, toreutics, etc. – allthe result of dynamic internal developments of the tribal communities, besidesvarious multilateral contacts and interactions throughout the eastern Mediter-ranean, the North Pontic regions and Central Europe.

The Thracian Iron Age divides into two: Early and Late. A number ofimportant publications deal with the chronology and periods of the Early IronAge (Chichikova 1974b; Hänsel 1976; Toncheva 1980a; Gergova 1986;

1987, 7–18; Taylor 1989b; Gotsev 1990, 17–20; Bouzek 1997; Archibald1998, 26–34; Borislavov 1999, 5–12; Nikov 2000). The recent studies clearlydemonstrate that the beginning of the Early Iron Age should be placed between1050 BC and 950 BC; its end between 550 BC and 450 BC, depending on thespecific historical, economic and cultural features in the different areas ofThrace. The Early Iron Age is usually divided further into two phases – thefirst from the late 11th or early 10th to the 9th century BC, and the secondfrom the 8th to the late 6th or early 5th century BC, although some studies onspecific areas of Thrace during the Early Iron Age provide more detailed chro-

nology and precise division by phases and sub-phases. The Late Iron Age cov-ered the period from the middle of the 6th or middle of the 5th century BCdown to the late 1st century BC or into the first several decades of the 1stcentury AD, when the main part of ancient Thrace was annexed by the Romanempire (Domaradzki 1994b; 1998a; Archibald 1998; Theodossiev 2000c,11–13). The Late Iron Age in Thrace is usually divided into the Classical andHellenistic periods, following the model of classical archaeology, but severaldetailed studies on the northern areas of Thrace clearly demonstrate that theLate Iron Age chronology and periodisation here was somewhat different,

often related to the La Tène phases (Theodossiev 2000c, 11–13; Stoyanov2000; cf. Domaradzki 1994b; 1998a).


8/63


LITERARY AND EPIGRAPHIC SOURCES

While the ancient Thracians were a non-literary people and no domestic his-torical sources are known, a number of Greek and Roman authors give infor-mation on the region and the local tribes. Ancient writings provide some pos-sibility to study Thracian political history, culture, religion and society, but, onthe other hand, they do not contain sufficient data to enable those studyingThrace to draw comprehensive conclusions and to reconstruct the whole situa-tion. Moreover, ancient written sources sometimes contain uncertain, exagger-ated or biased information as their Greek or Roman authors, foreigners, sought

to understand and explain a ‘barbarian’ reality in a peripheral region whichmost had never visited and whose language they did not speak, relying onsecond-hand and fragmentary information to compile their accounts. In fact,the ancient authors rarely discuss Thrace, mentioning it but incidentally, usu-ally when the local tribes interfered in some event related to Greek or Romanhistory.

During the 20th century and since, study of ancient written sources aboutThrace advanced significantly. Many scholars have published importantworks, discussing a number of sources and studying various theoretical and

methodological issues (Katsarov 1916; 1930; Casson 1926; Todorov 1933Danov 1976; 1998; Mihailov 1972; A. Fol 1972; 1975b; 1997; A. Fol andSpiridonov 1983; Papazoglu 1978; Tacheva 1987; Loukopoulou 1989; Spir-idonov 1991; Stronk 1995; Yordanov 1998; Yordanov and Velkov 1984;Archibald 1998; 2003; D. Popov 1999; Boteva-Boyanova 2000; Theodos-siev 2000c; Boshnakov 2003; Delev 2004). Alongside these, several volumeshave provided collections of translations of ancient written sources (Katsarovand Dechev 1949; Lewis 1958; Velkov et al. 1981; Gocheva 2002), althoughfurther work is necessary to collect all the information available in ancient

writings. Some Thracian personal and tribal names have turned up in Myce-naean documents (Best 1989). However, the earliest literary evidence onThrace was given in Homer’s epics, although this information does not seemto be sufficiently reliable from an historical point of view. Later, a number ofancient authors – Herodotus, Euripides, Thucydides, Plato, Xenophon, Dem-osthenes, Aeschines, Polybius, Livy, Diodorus, Strabo, Conon and PompeiusTrogus, among many others – provide reliable and relatively objective,although not complete accounts, usually receiving first-hand informationfrom Greeks and Romans living in the region or having personal experience

in Thrace – like Thucydides and Xenophon. Many ancient writers living dur-ing the Imperial age also described various earlier events related to Thracianhistory and culture of the 1st millennium BC, for example Pomponius Mela,


9/63


Pliny, Julius Florus, Plutarch, Arrian, Pausanias, Appian, Polyaenus, Ptolemyand Athenaeus.

While literary works are often ambiguous, a number of Greek inscriptionsprovide reliable information on Thrace in the Classical and Hellenistic periods( IGBulg; Mihailov 1980; Fraser 1960; A. Fol 1972; 1975b; Tacheva 1987;Loukopoulou 1989; Manov 1998b; Dimitrova 2006). Some of them, like thosefound at Seuthopolis (D. Dimitrov and Chichikova 1978; Velkov 1991, 7–11;Manov 1998a), Pistiros (Velkov and Domaradzka 1994; Domaradzki 1995;Archibald 1998, 317; Boshnakov 1999), Sboryanovo (Chichikova 1990) andMesambria (Galabov 1950), contain valuable information on Thracian history,

religion and topography, and clearly demonstrate that Greek was the officiallanguage of the Thracian aristocracy, while a certain number of Greeks inhab-ited inland Thrace, living in emporia or among the local people. Followingvarious political and ritual practices in the eastern Mediterranean, a significantnumber of Thracian silver vessels of the late 5th and 4th centuries BC wereinscribed in Greek; these inscriptions are usually brief and contain the namesof local aristocrats or some Odrysian kings, such as Cotys I, Kersebleptes,Seuthes III and others (Venedikov 1972; Mihailov 1987; Der thrakische Sil-berschatz 1988; A. Fol 1990; Vassileva 1992–93; Theodossiev 1997a, 174;

Zournatzi 2000; Delemen 2004b, 60–69; Kitov n.d). Although the Thraciansnever created literature of their own, in the course of various contacts andinteractions they adopted the Greek alphabet quite extensively, and in certaincases the script was used in the funerary ritual for recording the names of thedead aristocrats – as in the tombs at Smyadovo (Fig. 2) (Atanasov andNedelchev 2002) and Alexandrovo (Fig. 3) (Kitov 2002; 2004a; Kitov andTheodossiev 2003, 34–42), which date to the 4th or the early 3rd century BC.In addition, several inscriptions with Greek letters but in the Thracian lan-guage are known. Thus, the inscriptions on a gold ring from Ezerovo (Det-

schew 1976, 566–82) and on a stone funerary slab from Kyolmen (Theodos-siev 1997b), both of the 5th or the early 4th century BC, consist of relativelylong texts, but all attempts at translation have been highly uncertain, and muchmore epigraphic material and bilingual data are needed before proper transla-tion of anything written in the Thracian language can be made.

TRIBES AND POLITICAL HISTORY

Several scholarly works have provided comprehensive analyses of the ethno-nymic situation in ancient Thrace and locate the separate tribes known fromthe written sources (Danov 1976; A. Fol 1972; 1975b; 1997; A. Fol and


10/63


Fig. 2. Inscription on the facade of the tomb at Smyadovo,4th century BC (after Atanasov et al. 2002).

Fig. 3. Graffito in the tholos burial chamber of the Alexandrovo tomb,second half of the 4th or early 3rd century BC (courtesy Georgi Kitov).


11/63


Spiridonov 1983; Papazoglu 1978; Yordanov and Velkov 1984; Tacheva1987; Spiridonov 1991; Stronk 1995; Archibald 1998; D. Popov 1999;Boteva-Boyanova 2000; Theodossiev 2000c; Boshnakov 2003). The exactnumber of the Thracian tribes will never become known – for example, at theend of the 1st century BC Strabo (7. frg. 48) counted 22 tribes, while in theImperial age, Pliny ( Natural History 4. 11. 40) wrote that Thrace was sepa-rated into 50 strategiae (these might reflect some ethnic division, besidesbeing administrative units) and Ptolemy (3. 11. 6) described 14 strategiae.Some modern scholars consider that the actual number of the different Thra-cian tribes throughout the entire 1st millennium BC was up to 80.

One of the major problems in studying the ethnonymic reality in ancientThrace is to propose an exact chronological ‘stratigraphy’ of the differentethnonyms for the separate regions and to explain clearly the quite dynamicethnonymic situation, as attested in Greek and Roman sources. It is not alwayseasy to understand why in ancient literary works different tribal names appearand disappear in one and the same region, and why certain ethnonyms spreadfar beyond their initial geographical location. Sometimes, this might be sim-ply a result of a deficiency of knowledge and error. In other cases, the dynamicsituation might reflect tribal migration. However, in most cases the appear-

ance of any Thracian tribe in the written sources was a result of its politicaladvance and significant military power – which were good reasons for ancientauthors to take note and to record the tribe; while disappearance was due tomilitary weakness when certain tribes fell under the political control of othermore powerful communities. The appearance of the ethnonyms in Greek andRoman sources depends also on geographical location: thus, the tribes livingnear the North Aegean and West Pontic shores were noted much earlier bythe ancient authors than the tribes located deep in the Thracian interior. Simul-taneously, ancient writers usually had more complete knowledge of the east-

ern and southern areas of Thrace, where they described a number of tribes,than with the western and northern hinterland, where the ethnonyms attestedin written sources are less numerous. It is clear also that the ethnonymicsituation as attested in Greek and Roman sources does not depict the true real-ity; very often the names of powerful tribes, such as the Odrysians, spreadacross extensive areas of ancient Thrace and covered the names of the minortribes who existed at the same time. While the Odrysians, the Getae and theTriballi were among the most powerful ethnic communities that establishedstrong tribal unions and kingdoms, a number of other tribes played political

roles and are mentioned or relatively well described in ancient sources; inalphabetical order, they are the Agrianes, Apsynthioi, Astai, Bessoi, Bisaltai,Bistones, Bottiaoi, Brenai, Dakoi, Danthaletai, Dersaioi, Dioi, Dolonkoi,


12/63


Edonoi, Kainoi, Karpoi, Kebrenoi, Kikones, Korpiloi, Krestonaioi, Krobyzoi,Laiaioi, Maidoi, Melanditai, Mygdones, Nipsaioi, Odomantoi, Paitoi, Saioi,Sapaioi, Satrai, Serdoi, Sithones, Sintoi, Skaioi, Terizoi, Thynoi, Tranipsai,Trausoi, Treres, Tilataioi, and others (cf. Detschew 1976). Of course, manyother tribes are only mentioned briefly in ancient sources. In fact, the trueethnic reality in Thrace and the names of all minor tribes will never becomeclear.

The political history of the Thracian tribes has been studied thoroughly byseveral scholars (Katsarov 1916; 1930; Casson 1926; Todorov 1933; Danov1976; Mihailov 1972; A. Fol. 1972; 1975b; 1997; Papazoglu 1978; R. Hod-

dinott 1981; Oppermann 1984; Gattinoni 1992; Lund 1992; Yordanov 1998;Yordanov and Velkov 1984; Tacheva 1987; Loukopoulou 1989; Stronk 1995;Archibald 1998; D. Popov 1999; Boteva-Boyanova 2000; Theodossiev 2000c;Boshnakov 2003; Delev 2004). An interesting example of a joint Thraco-Athenian state-community, as attested in written sources, is related to thepolitical activity of the Athenian aristocrat, Miltiades the Elder, who estab-lished his rule in Thracian Chersonesos in ca. 560 BC, being tyrant of both theAthenian colonists and the Dolonkoi. Later, this Athenian ruler was succeededby his relatives Stesagoras and Miltiades the Younger, who married Hegesipyle,

the daughter of the Thracian king, Oloros.In the late 6th century BC, the Edonoi established one of the most signifi-cant early Thracian kingdoms in the lower Strymon valley. Some of the Edo-nian kings, like Getas and Pittakos, were attested in the records. At the sametime, far to the north, in the extensive areas of north-eastern Thrace, the Getaeformed a powerful tribal union, which was already known to Greek writers atthe end of the 6th century BC. From the middle of the 4th century BC downto the end of the Hellenistic period, some of the Getic kings, such as Kotelas,Dromichaites, Zalmodegikos, Zoltes, Remax and Byrebistas, played important

roles in the political events of north-eastern Thrace. Another powerful tribalunion was established in the north-western Thracian lands by the Triballi, whohad significant military power by the last quarter of the 5th century BC.Ancient sources inform us of two Triballian kings, Chales and Syrmos, whowere, obviously, strong rulers of the second and third quarters of the 4th cen-tury BC.

Undoubtedly, the most significant supra-tribal state in Thrace was the Odry-sian kingdom. The Odrysians inhabited south-east Thrace and were histori-cally attested in the late 6th century BC at the earliest. Their first king known

to ancient authors was Teres, who reigned during the first half of the 5th cen-tury BC, to be succeeded by Sparadokos, Sitalces, Seuthes I, Medokos (knownas Amadokos I as well) and Hebryzelmis. One of the most powerful Odrysian


13/63


kings was Cotys I (383–359 BC); he imposed his political control upon exten-sive regions of ancient Thrace and maintained diplomatic relations with thelocal Triballian and Getic rulers to the north. After his murder, the Odrysiankingdom split into three parts, ruled respectively by Kersebleptes, by Ama-dokos II and Teres II, and by Berisades and Ketriporis. In 341 BC the Macedo-nian king, Philip II, conquered the Odrysian kingdom, and Alexander the Greattook possesion of almost the entirety of Thracian territory soon afterwards. Inthe time of the Diadochi, Lysimachus continued Macedonian control over asignificant part of the Thracian lands and declared himself ‘king of Thrace’but, at the same time, a powerful Odrysian king emerged, Seuthes III. From

the beginning of the 3rd century BC onwards, the Odrysian kingdom declinedand split further, and many different kings are attested in the written sources.After 42 BC, Reskouporis I established the Sapaian dynasty with its capitalat Bizye; he was succeeded by Roimetalkas I, Reskouporis II, Cotys V,Roimetalkas II and Roimetalkas III, the last Thracian ruler. In AD 45, theRoman emperor Claudius annexed the Thracian kingdom.

SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND RELIGION

A number of studies have dealt with the social structure of the Thracian tribesduring the 1st millennium BC (Katsarov 1916; 1930; Danov 1976; A. Fol1970; 1997; Tacheva 1987, 94–108, 115–29; Domaradzki 1988; Spiridonov1991; Archibald 1998; 2003; Porozhanov 1998; D. Popov 1999; Theodossiev2000c, 48–53; Bouzek and Domaradzka 2003; Stefanovich 2003, 41–63). Theliterary and epigraphic evidence, as well as certain archaeological data, enableus to conclude that the Thracian communities usually comprised two mainsocial strata. The upper consisted of kings, tribal chieftains, the aristocracy and

elite groups; they were the main owners of the lands and the production. Thelower comprised semi-dependent peasants who were small landowners withinthe frames of the royal economy. These semi-dependent peasants were themain producers of goods and the main resource of the armed forces recruitedin time of war. It seems that through the weakness of the royalty or some othercircumstances, in certain regions and at certain times some Thracian commu-nities gained independence from the tribal kingdoms and were ruled by theirown leaders.

The Thracian aristocracy consisted of various noble clans who had different

levels of power and control during the 1st millennium BC. Local chieftainscontrolled the great number of separate Thracian tribes known from thesources. The tribal chieftains often came under some supreme political control


14/63


and economic dependence when a stronger ruler managed to incorporate theseparate tribes into some form of tribal union or kingdom (in fact, the king-doms were supra-tribal states). The best example of such a structure is pro-vided by the Odrysian kingdom during the second half of the 5th and first halfof the 4th century BC. The Odrysian state was ruled by a supreme king fromthe royal dynasty, usually with hereditary power. He was surrounded by anentourage, which included paradynasts ( paradynastoi) – local tribal chieftainsor governors who controlled separate regions of the kingdom – and tribal aris-tocrats called eupatridai andgennaioi (cf. Thucydides 2. 97. 3). Very close tothe supreme king were his wives and kin, his band of military warriors, serv-

ants and others.Thracian religion has been examined by a great number of scholarly works,displaying different patterns of study and deploying various methodologies(Perdrizet 1910; Katsarov 1916; 1936; Danov 1976; Pittioni 1977; D. Popov1981; 1989; 1995; Cole 1984; B. Hoddinott 1989; R. Hoddinott 1989; A. Fol1986; 1990; 1997; Beschi 1990; Bogdanov 1991; Marazov 1992; 1994; Loz-anova-Stancheva 1993; Rabadzhiev 1994; 2002; Vassileva 1994; 1998;Archibald 1999; Theodossiev 2000c, 53–70; 2002; Sîrbu and Florea 2000a;2000b; Dimitrova 2002; Brown 2002; Roller 2002; 2003; Gocheva 2003;

Delemen 2004a; Özbayoglu 2004; Ursu Naniu 2004). Their quite differentinterpretations of the written and archaeological evidence and the contradictoryresults of their studies clearly demonstrate the significant difficulties in examin-ing the religion of any ancient non-literary ethnic community that inhabited thefringes of the Graeco-Roman world during the 1st millennium BC.

A number of literary sources and toreutic works show that a female GreatGoddess, known by different local names in different regions, was a centraldeity in the Thracian religion, as in Phrygia. The written records provide somenames of Thracian goddesses: Bendis, Ganea, Kotys/Kotytto, Rheskyntis,

Zerynthia and others. In addition, literary and epigraphic sources attest that inthe different regions of Thrace a male deity was worshipped, known asDeloptes, Darzalas, Zerynthios, etc. A number of written sources testify thatmythical Thracian kings and priests, such as Zalmoxis, Rhesos and Orpheus,were considered as anthropodaimones and deities, while toreutic works andfunerary paintings clearly reveal the cult of the king-hero. Simultaneously,some ancient authors, like Herodotus (4. 33. 5; 5. 7. 1), gave Greek or Romantheonyms to the gods worshipped by the Thracians, which is usually inter-preted as the literary device of ‘translating’ the Thracian religious reality for

their readers. However, several 4th–early 3rd-century BC inscriptions from theThracian hinterland, such as those from Pistiros (Velkov and Domaradzka1994; Domaradzki 1995; Archibald 1998, 317), Seuthopolis (Velkov 1991,


15/63


7–11; Manov 1998a) and Sboryanovo (Chichikova 1990), testify to the cultsof Dionysos, Apollo, Artemis Phosphoros and the Samothracian Great Gods,which clearly reveals the Hellenisation of Thracian religion, at least in thecircles of the Thracian aristocracy.

ECONOMIC CONTACTS AND TRADE

During the 1st millennium BC, the Thracian tribes were involved in active tradewith each other and with neighbouring regions, besides being engaged in long-

distance contacts (Bozhkova 1987; 2000; Stoyanov 2000; Stoyanov et al. 2004,16–23; Theodossiev 2000c, 92–100; Nehrizov and Mikov 2000; Archibald2001a; 2001b; Bouzek and Domaradzka 2003). Undoubtedly, most importantfor the Thracians were economic relations with the Greek colonies on the NorthAegean and the West Pontic shores, which maintained large-scale trade withThracian coastal areas and with the interior (Danov 1976; Mihailov 1972;Boardman 1980; Isaac 1986; Bozhkova 1992; Domaradzki 1995; Tsetskhladze1998a-b; 2003; Balabanov 2000, 97–99; Oppermann 2004). During the Classi-cal period, the Greeks established inland market-places and trade settlements

(see Thucydides 1. 100. 2; Ps.-Scylax Periplus 67; Arrian Anabasis 1. 1. 6;etc.) such as Pistiros and the Belanian emporia of the Prasenoi, as attested inthe inscription from Vetren (Velkov and Domaradzka 1994; Domaradzki 1995;Archibald 1998, 317; Boshnakov 1999; Tsetskhladze 2000).

The usual exports from Thrace included slaves, livestock, honey, beeswax,grain, wine, timber, charcoals, tar, metals, etc., while imports into the Thracianhinterland consisted of Attic black- and red-figure pottery, silver and gold ves-sels, luxury bronze tableware, gold and silver jewellery, weapons, wine, oliveoil and other goods (Danov 1976; Bozhkova 1987; Reho 1990; 1992;

Archibald 1998, 177–96; Theodossiev 2000c, 92–100; Lazarov 2003). It isusually supposed that the initial barter/commodity exchange was graduallyreplaced by the introduction of money, although both forms of exchange werealways used in trade between the Greeks and the Thracians.

The great number of imported Classical and Hellenistic amphorae in Thraceprovides clear information of regular economic contacts with significant Greektrade and production centres, such as Thasos, Rhodes, Sinope, Cnidus, Hera-cleia Pontica, Kos, Scythian Chersonesos, Corinth, Chios, Colophon, Acan-thus, Amphipolis, Ainos and others (Lazarov 1978; D. Dimitrov et al. 1984;

Bozhkova 1987; 1988; L. Getov 1995; Stoyanov et al. 2004, 16–23). Suppos-edly, long-distance trade contacts were usually indirect, being maintained viathe Greek colonies on the Thracian shores.


16/63


A number of coins, minted both in Greek poleis and in Anatolia, penetratedinto Thrace from the 6th century BC onwards, clearly testifying to intensivetrade (Thompson et al. 1973; Gerasimov 1975). In addition, the Greek coloniesin Thrace issued their own coins for the needs of the local trade (Mushmov1912; Svoronos 1919; Gaebler 1935; Gerasimov 1975; Youroukova 1979),Maroneia (Schönert-Geiss 1987) and Mesambria (Karayotov 1992) amongmany others. During the Early Hellenistic period, a significant quantity of gold,silver and bronze coins minted by the Macedonian kings circulated within theThracian territories, most of which became part of the Macedonian kingdom forseveral decades or more (Mushmov 1912; Thompson et al. 1973; Youroukova

1979; K. Dimitrov 1997; Theodossiev 2000c, 92–100; Draganov 2000–01). Inthe 2nd–1st centuries BC, Late Hellenistic Greek coins were in continuous usein Thrace, for example Thasian tetradrachms were widespread, while a signifi-cant number of Roman Republican denarii clearly indicates that the Romanmilitary conquest of the northern Balkans was preceded by economic and tradeexpansion (Thompson et al. 1973; Theodossiev 2000c, 92–100; Paunov andProkopov 2002; Prokopov 2006).

CULTURAL INTERACTIONS AND ETHNIC INTERRELATIONS

During the 1st millennium BC, ancient Thrace was a place of various interrela-tions and dynamic interactions between the different ethnic groups that inhab-ited or settled the region. Certain areas of Thrace came to be occupied byethnically different groups or by mixed populations. Although abundant his-torical and archaeological evidence is available and in receipt of continuedexamination, further analysis of it is needed to obtain an overview of theexchange of ideas and the level of multilateral interaction, and to understand

more completely the complex web of ethnic and cultural contacts and relationsthat took place.

One of the most important historical events with a significant impact uponthe Thracian tribes was the Greek colonisation of the North Aegean and WestPontic shores (Danov 1947; 1976; Venedikov et al. 1963; Daux 1967; Markov1977; 1980; Boardman 1980; 1994; Balabanov 1983; Cole 1984; Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1985; 1992; Ognenova-Marinova 1985; Porozhanov 1985; Sam-saris 1985; Isaac 1986; Loukopoulou 1989; Panayotova 1994; Pelekidis 1994;Triantaphyllos 1994; Lazaridis 1997; Lehmann 1998; Tsetskhladze 1998a;

2003; Archibald 1998; 2002; Manov 1998b; Tacheva 1999; Owen 2000;Tsatsopoulou-Kaloudi 2001; Bonias and Dadaki 2002; Graham 2002; Damy-anov 2003; Dimitrova and Clinton 2003; Musielak 2003; Avram et al. 2004;


17/63


Oppermann 2004; Dimitrova 2006). While various archaeological materialindicates active pre-colonial contacts between the Greeks and the Thracians(Bouzek 1985; 1997; Gergova 1987; Nikov 1999; 2000), the earliest Greekcolonies in Thrace, such as Mende, Acanthus, Potidaea, Thasos, Abdera,Maroneia, Samothrace, Sestos, Cardia, Selymbria, Byzantium, Apollonia andIstros, were established between the middle of the 8th and the end of the7th century BC, and even more intensive colonisation lasted throughout the6th and 5th centuries BC. Greek colonisation stimulated multifarious ethnicand cultural relations and interactions between the Greeks and the Thracians,and led to gradual Hellenisation of the Thracian aristocracy and certain tribes

who inhabited the coastal areas. Simultaneously, Thracian culture also influ-enced Greek literature, iconography and cult (Danov 1976; Mihailov 1972;D. Popov 1981; A. Fol 1997; Beschi 1990; Archibald 1998; Tsiafakis 1998;2002; Brown 2002). Actually, the whole process followed the typical model ofinteraction between centre and periphery throughout the ancient world (cf. Alcock 1993; Randsborg 1993; Babic 2004). The inscription from Vetren, aswell as some literary sources, clearly testifies that in the Classical period theGreeks had already settled in the Thracian hinterland and established emporia such as Pistiros, while being politically engaged with the Thracian kings

(Velkov and Domaradzka 1994; Domaradzki 1995; Domaradzka and Domar-dzki 1999; Archibald 1998, 317; Boshnakov 1999; Bouzek 2000a–b; Tset-skhladze 2000). On the other hand, a number of Thracians, usually mercenariesor slaves, spread throughout ancient Greece and the entire Hellenistic world(Griffith 1935; Best 1969; Danov 1976; Mihailov 1972; A. Fol 1972; 1975b;1997; Velkov and A. Fol 1977; Tacheva 1987; Archibald 1998).

Other very important contacts between the ancient Thracians and the Mace-donians, Paeonians and Illyrians occurred within the interaction zone in thewestern frontier areas of Thrace (Bouzek 1986; 1997; Bouzek and Ondr ejová

1988; Gergova 1987; Vasic 1987a–b; 1991; 2000; Greenwalt 1997; Theodos-siev 1998a; 2000a; 2000c; Borza 1999; Babic 2004). At the same time, in thecourse of the Argead political expansion northward and eastward from the late6th century BC onwards, a great part of Thrace was gradually annexed by theMacedonian kingdom, which in fact led to Hellenisation of the Thracian interior

– especially during the Late Classical and Early Hellenistic periods (Casson1926; Badian 1980; Hatzopoulos 1980; Hatzopoulos and Loukopoulou 1992;1996; Borza 1990; Adams 1997; Archibald 1998; Yordanov 1998; Domar-adzki 1998a; Chambers 1999; K. Dimitrov 1999; Stoyanov 1999). From the

8th–7th centuries BC onwards, intensive cultural and ethnic processes occurredin north-eastern Thrace where the local tribes interacted and mingled with theScythians (A. Fol 1975a; Melyukova 1976; 1979; Toncheva 1980a–b; Yordanov


18/63


1990; Yordanov and Velkov; Zazoff 1991; Agre 1994; Fialko 1995; Damy-anov 1998; Andruh 2000). Another significant event for the political and cul-tural development of the local tribes was the Persian occupation of AegeanThrace during the late 6th and the first decades of the 5th century BC (Ven-edikov 1969; Marazov 1977; Balcer 1988; Zahrnt 1997; Boardman 2000;Zournatzi 2000; Yordanov 2003). Later, the large-scale Gallic invasion inThrace at the very end of the 280s and the early 270s BC, was followed byCeltic settlement in certain Thracian areas and the establishment of a Gallickingdom with its capital Tylis that existed till 213 BC (Katsarov 1919; Danov1975–76; Fischer 1983; Luschey 1983; Domaradzki 1984; Tacheva 1987;

Szabó 1991; Cunliffe 1997; Megaws et al. 2000; V. Megaw 2004; Theodos-siev 2000c). The Celtic inrush and settlement had quite a strong impact uponThracian culture, which adopted a number of La Tène elements, while mixedpopulations of Thracians, Celts, Illyrians and Scythians appeared in certainareas of Hellenistic Thrace. After the fall of Macedonia in 168 BC, the Romanstate launched regular military campaigns against the Thracian tribes andannexed most of the Thracian territories, which were set up as Roman provincesin AD 15 and AD 45. These political events clearly mark the end of the IronAge in Thrace and the beginning of a powerful process of Romanisation and the

adoption of Roman civilisation (Tacheva 1987; Theodossiev 2000c).

SETTLEMENT PATTERN AND URBANISATION

Many ancient literary and epigraphic sources provide information on varioussettlements and some towns in inland Thrace (A. Fol 1970, 163–74). In addi-tion, intensive archaeological investigation has brought to light abundant evi-dence that has enabled scholars to study and publish, descriptively and ana-

lytically, on a wide variety of topics covering the whole of Thracian territoryor specific regions (Chichikova 1974a–b; Spiridonov 1979; Changova 1981;Domaradzki 1982; 1990; 1992; 1998a; Gergova and Iliev 1982; Gergova1986; 1990; 1995; Georgieva and Bachvarov 1985; Bobcheva 1985; Ivanov1985; Balabanov 1986; Triantaphyllos 1988; 1994; Lehmann 1998, 169–73;Gotsev 1990, 13–15; 1992; 1997; Archibald 1998; 2000; 2002; Borislavov1999, 13–21; Stoyanov 2000; Theodossiev 2000c, 14–19; Tonkova 2000;Delev et al. 2000; Bozhkova and Delev 2002; H. Popov 2002; Kitov andAgre 2002, 53–80; Kissyov 2004).

The settlement pattern in ancient Thrace was quite dynamic and consists ofvarious types of habitation. Most widespread during the 1st millennium BCseems to be the slightly fortified and open settlement, located on the plains as


19/63


well as on hills or mountain slopes. Some of these may be specified as Thra-cian villages, well-described in ancient written sources (for example Xeno-phon Anabasis 7. 4). Most settlements were inhabited for one to two centuries,and quite a few display greater continuity (throughout the entire 1st millen-nium BC or even from the Late Bronze Age down to the Imperial period),although further stratigraphic investigations are needed in order to identifywhether there is true cultural continuity on such sites or not. Sometimes thesettlements were quite extensive, while the usual domestic architectureincluded dugouts and rectangular huts constructed with posts and lath-and-plaster or, rarely, with dry stone masonry. One of the most representative open

settlements was excavated at Pshenichevo: it dates to the Early Iron Age andcovers about 6 ha. Very important as well is the settlement at Koprivlen, datedto the 7th–6th centuries BC, which displays remarkable monumental domesticarchitecture of stone-built quadrilateral buildings.

Also widespread were hillforts, usually built on barely accessible elevationsmost often in the mountains. The fortification walls were up to 3–4 m in thick-ness and were constructed of roughly cut and irregularly arranged dry freestone blocks, while sometimes up to four-course fortification walls were builtto protect particular sites. Some of the hillforts were residential centres, known

as tyrseis in the literary sources (see Xenophon Anabasis 7. 2. 21), inhabitedby local tribal chieftains or kings, together with their kin, military bands andservants. Other hillforts with larger areas were presumably fortified settle-ments inhabited by various social groups. Additionally, as the literary sourcesattest, the larger hillforts were used as refuges for the population from the sur-rounding open settlements in case of military danger. The archaeological mate-rial clearly indicates that many mountain hillforts were related to the extrac-tion of ore and to metallurgy; presumably they were production centres. Inaddition, mountain hillforts with strategic locations were undoubtedly used as

strongholds to control important passes and roads or to defend tribal frontiers.Some hillforts, for instance Gradishteto at Leskovets, were inhabited right

through from the 8th–6th centuries BC to the Imperial period, although thedating of their fortification walls is still questionable. Actually, the fortifica-tion walls of most Thracian hillforts were constructed in the Late Iron Age andfewer fortresses in the Aegean regions of Thrace were built in the Early IronAge – before Greek colonisation: Kremasto at Ergani, Vrychos in Samothrace,and others. While most Thracian hillforts display quite primitive fortificationwalling, some inland fortresses – like Krakra at Pernik and Kastro at Kalyva,

dating from the middle of the 4th century BC – were constructed entirely usingGreek architectural techniques and style of masonry, and were presumablybuilt by the Macedonian king, Philip II.


20/63


Among the earliest examples of Thracian towns on the North Aegean coastis Ismaros, which is located on the Agios Georgios hill at Maroneia and existedalready in the 9th–8th centuries BC (Triantaphyllos 1988; 1994). In ancientsources, Ismaros is described as a Kikonian polis (HomerOdyssey 9. 39–42;Strabo 7. frg. 44). Later, because of multilateral contacts and interaction at thetime when Aegean Thrace became part of the Achaemenid empire, and ofinterrelations with the Greek colonies on the North Aegean and West Ponticcoasts and with Macedonia, a process of urbanisation began in certain regionsof the Thracian hinterland, starting in the Archaic period and continuingthrough the Classical into the Early Hellenistic (Balabanov 1986; Tacheva

1987, 129–47; Archibald 1998; H. Popov 2002; Stoyanova 2002b). Thus, theGreek historians mention the Edonian towns of Daton (Herodotus 9. 75) andDrabeskos (Thucydides 1. 100. 3; 4. 102. 2), while another town called Myrki-nos was established by the Ionian Greeks at the time of the Persian king Darius(Herodotus 5. 11. 2; 5. 124. 2); later it was known as an Edonian polis (Thucy-dides 4. 107. 3). One of the most important sites is the Greek emporion Pisti-ros near Vetren, inhabited by a mixed population of Greeks and Thracians(Velkov and Domaradzka 1994; Domaradzki 1995; Bouzek et al. 1996; 2002;Bouzek 1999; Domaradzka and Domaradzki 1999; Boshnakov 1999; Tset-

skhladze 2000; H. Popov 2002, 77–92); another was Seuthopolis, the capitalof the Odrysian king, Seuthes III, which was built entirely in accordance withHellenistic architecture and comprised insulae including houses with pastas,

prostas and peristylon. Seuthopolis existed from ca. 320 BC to ca. 260 BC(Dimitrov and Chichikova 1978; Dimitrov et al. 1984; Velkov 1991, 7–11;H. Popov 2002, 122–34). Other significant Late Classical and Hellenistictowns in southern Thrace were Kabyle (Velkov 1982; 1991; Domaradzki1991; H. Popov 2002, 111–22) and Philippopolis (Koleva 2000; H. Popov2000; 2002, 93–111), but further archaeological investigation is necessary to

obtain a clear picture of their overall architectural appearance. The Getic townat Vodnata Tsentrala in Sboryanovo displays another kind of urban model,which was typical of the northern regions of Thrace and differed from theEarly Hellenistic towns in southern Thrace (Stoyanov 1999; 2000; Stoyanovet al. 2004; H. Popov 2002, 156–65).

SANCTUARIES AND RITUAL PLACES

Some ancient historical sources provide scarce information on Thracian sanctuar-ies. Undoubtedly, the most famous was the sanctuary of Dionysos, whose exact

location is still unclear (Herodotus 8. 111; Suetonius Divus Augustus 94. 6;


21/63


cf. A. Fol 1990). Other ancient writings state that the Thracians worshippedtheir deities in various natural places: in sacred mountains, such as Ganos,Rheskyntion and Kogaionon; in cult caves, like the grottoes of Zerynthia,Rhesos and Salmoxis; and in sacred forests, such as the grove at Ismarosdedicated to Apollo (A. Fol 1990; D. Popov 1989; 1995; Theodossiev 2000c,19–24; 2002).

Among several pertinent inscriptions, the most important is that fromSeuthopolis (D. Dimitrov and Chichikova 1978; Velkov 1991, 7–11; Manov1998a; Archibald 1999; Rabadzhiev 2002, 10–54), which records that twotemples – of Dionysos and of the Samothracian Great Gods – were situated

within the city of Seuthes III, while an altar of Apollo and a phosphorion existed in Kabyle. Actually, the Seuthopolis inscription indicates well theHellenisation of Thracian ritual and cult during the Early Hellenistic period, atleast in towns inhabited by a mixed population. In addition, many decoratedritual escharai, presumably associated with the cult of Hestia, are found withinthe most houses and the ‘palace’ in Seuthopolis (D. Dimitrov and Chichikova1978; D. Dimitrov et al. 1984; Archibald 1999; Rabadzhiev 2002, 53–54),while similar ritual hearths are known in other settlements from inland Thrace,such as Philippopolis, Pistiros and Kabyle.

Intensive archaeological excavation over recent decades has yielded impor-tant evidence, revealing the great variety of Thracian sanctuaries and ritualplaces, many of them related to contemporary settlements or necropoleis. Anumber of recent scholarly studies have brought together the investigationsand analysed the material (Venedikov and A. Fol 1976; A. Fol 1982; Trianta-phyllos 1985; Domaradzki 1986; 1990; 1994a; Gotsev 1990, 16–17; Geor-gieva 1991; V. Fol 1993, 38–66; Tonkova 1997; 2003; Kissyov 1998a–b;Archibald 1999; Borislavov 1999, 25–30; Theodossiev 2000c, 19–24).

Most impressive are the rock sanctuaries, predominantly located in south-

eastern Thrace, frequently adjacent to rock-cut tombs or megalithic dolmensfrom the Early Iron Age. The sanctuaries consist of stairs, platforms, solardiscs, altars, ritual basins, thrones, seats and other elements, cut into the rockmassifs. A number of very similar rock sanctuaries are known in Anatolia,especially in Phrygia, and they clearly demonstrate the strong relationship incult practices (Vassileva 1994; 1997; 1998; cf. Haspels 1971; De Francovich1990). Many sanctuaries in other parts of Thrace are also situated on hills ormountain peaks; they consist of various combinations including enclosingstone walls, escharai, bothroi, votive deposits of metal objects, coins and pot-

tery, remains of ritual feasts and animal sacrifices, etc. Many of the peak sanc-tuaries functioned without major interruption through the entire 1st millen-nium BC and even from the Late Bronze Age to Roman Imperial times.


22/63


Some archaeological investigations may, in addition, illustrate what ancientliterary sources have to say about sacred caves in Thrace. Unfortunately, theexcavated material is so far too sparse for us to be able to specify the exactThracian rituals performed inside the caves, but the cult drawings in the Magu-rata Cave, most probably coming from the Late Bronze or Early Iron Age,show personages that could represent a female goddess and a male deity.

During the 1st millennium BC the most common type seems to have beenthe open-air pit sanctuaries and ritual places, usually located in the plains area.Some of the sites consist of hundreds of bothroi dug into the ground and werein continued use from the Late Bronze Age down to late antiquity. The bothroi

vary significantly in size and shape, and contain pottery, coins and metalobjects, embers, ritual hearths, animal sacrifices, the remains of ritual feasts,etc. In certain cases, as in the sanctuaries at Gledachevo and Staliiska Mahala,the remains of human sacrifices (human body-parts or whole skeletons) datingto the Late Iron Age are found inside the bothroi.

MORTUARY PRACTICES AND MONUMENTAL TOMBS

The funerary rites of the Thracian tribes were not well described by ancientauthors. Herodotus (5. 8. 1) wrote that deceased Thracian nobles were buriedby cremation or inhumation in tumuli, after three days of prothesis duringwhich numerous sacrifices were made and funeral feasts were arranged; differ-ent contests, including single combat, followed the completion of the tumuli.Later information by Xenophon ( Hellenica 3. 2. 2–5) supplements Herodotus’description: in 399 BC, after a battle in Bithynia, the Thracian Odrysians buriedtheir dead fellows, drank a lot of wine and arranged horse racing in memory ofdeceased. Earlier, in the late 6th century BC, the mixed inhabitants of Thracian

Chersonesos – Dolonkoi and Athenian colonists – followed the custom, makingsacrifices and arranging horse races and other athletic games in memory ofMiltiades the Elder (Herodotus 6. 38. 1). A number of other ancient sourcesrelated to the mythological figures of Zalmoxis, Rhesos and Orpheus provideadditional information on the eschatological conceptions of the Thracian aris-tocracy and testify that some Thracian kings and priests were deified after deathand were worshipped as immortal heroes and anthropodaimones who wouldreturn from the underworld (Theodossiev 2000b). Some of this mythologicalevidence contains quite reliable descriptions, such as Conon (45. 4–6), who

wrote that the grave of Orpheus was a large tumulus encircled like a temenos,which was a heroon and later became a sanctuary, being respected by sacrificesand by other things used in worshipping the gods.


23/63


While ancient written sources are relatively scarce, the intensive archaeo-logical excavations underway continue to reveal significant amounts of infor-mation on the great variety of the rites and practices of the Thracian tribesduring the 1st millennium BC. Many general studies of Thracian funerary ritu-als have appeared, analysing both archaeological and written sources, as haveother studies exploring in detail these practices in individual regions of Thraceor publishing particular burial sites (Mirchev 1962; 1965; Chichikova 1974b;Bobcheva 1975; Venedikov 1976b–c; Toncheva 1980a–b; Triantaphyllos1980; Delev 1984; Gergova 1986; 1989; 1995; Petropoulou 1986–87;Domaradzki 1988; 1998a–b; Özdogan 1988; 1991; Gotsev 1990; 1994; 1998;

Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1992; Radev 1992; V. Fol 1993; Stoyanov 1992;1997; Kissyov 1993; 1998a; Kitov 1993; 1994a; Kitov and Agre 2002;Gocheva 1994; Koicheva 1994; Panayotova 1994; Totevski 1994; Nehrizov1996; 1999; Bouzek 1997; Kull 1997; Yılmaz 1997; Archibald 1998; Leh-mann 1998, 169–70; Borislavov 1999; Theodossiev 2000c; Kulov 2002;Stanchev 2002; Georgieva 2003; Georgieva et al. 1998).

The burial rites of the Early Iron Age are well examined. Among the mostremarkable funerary constructions are the megalithic dolmens widespread insouth-eastern Thrace and Samothrace. They were usually covered with small

tumuli and come in three types: single chamber, with antechamber and funeralchamber, with complex layout. Another type of megalithic funerary monumentspread through south-eastern Thrace is the rock-cut tomb consisting of a singleburial chamber of irregular shape; these display their closest similarities withthe rock-cut tombs of Anatolia (Vassileva 1994; 1997; 1998; cf. Haspels1971; De Francovich 1990). While megalithic funerary monuments were typi-cal of the eastern Rhodope, the practices in the western part of the mountainswere quite different: burial constructions were usually small tumuli with bothcremation and inhumation burials and with various remains of ritual activities

– bothroi, hearths, animal or sometime human sacrifices, ritual gifts placedwithin the tumular embankments, remains of funerary feasts, etc. Many tumuliin the western Rhodope were used for multiple or secondary burials, whilecertain necropoleis display remarkable continuity and sometimes functionedthroughout the entire 1st millennium BC. Information on Early Iron Age mor-tuary practices in south-western Thrace is sparse, but it is clear that both flatgraves and small burial mounds were used, similar to neighbouring Paeonia(cf. Mitrevski 1997). North-eastern Thrace is a region where intensive archae-ological investigation has provided a relatively complete picture of burial rites

in the Early Iron Age. The usual constructions were small tumuli, like those atSboryanovo, Ravna, Dobrina, Kragulevo, etc., with single, multiple or second-ary inhumation and cremation burials and various kterismata. However, the


24/63


burial mounds at Belogradets, dating to the 8th–6th centuries BC, are largerand have monumental stone-built funeral and ritual constructions, anthropo-morphic funerary stelai, and a rich burial inventory. In addition, the tumuli atBelogradets indicate contacts with the Scythians, similar to the late 8th- orearly 7th-century BC burial mound at Polsko Kosovo. The archaeological dis-coveries in north-western Thrace show that during the Early Iron Age the localtribes made extensive use of flat graves, following the traditions of the LateBronze Age, and small tumuli, which appeared in the 8th–7th centuries BC,and practised both cremation and inhumation. Some burial mounds, like thoseat Leskovets, Sofronievo, Altimir and Tarnava, display significant variety of

funeral rites.In certain regions, the Rhodope mountains and north-western and north-eastern Thrace, the Late Iron Age continued the traditions of the Early IronAge in some way. However, a number of innovations are evident throughoutThracian territory. Both flat graves and tumuli were widespread during theperiod, displaying regional differences in the correlation of cremations to inhu-mations and some unusual practices (partial cremation, inhumation of indi-vidual parts of the human body, etc.). The tumuli of the Late Iron Age werebigger than the earlier ones, sometimes up to 25 m in height and more than

100 m in diameter. The constructions within the burial mounds were multi-farious: grave pits, platforms, pyres, urns, cist graves, sarcophagi, stone-builtchambers, and many others. Very often, the tumuli were used for multiple andsecondary burials, and contain various combinations of different funerary con-structions. A number of additional ritual activities and constructions were alsotypical of the tumuli, such as animal or, rarely, human sacrifices (equine andcanine sacrifices were most common), non-burial stone constructions, ritualhearths, bothroi, the remains of funerary feasts, ritual deposits of metal orceramic objects, etc.

At the very end of the Early and the beginning of the Late Iron Age, richaristocratic and royal burials appeared in Thrace, being typical for the periodfrom the late 6th to the first half of the 3rd century BC. Thracian elite gravesusually contain gold and silver vessels and jewellery, various weapons,imported Greek pottery and bronze tableware, besides a number of other funer-ary gifts. Among the earliest rich aristocratic necropoleis is the burial groundat Sindos (Bouzek and Ondr ejová 1988; Theodossiev 1998a; 2000a), locatedin the interaction zone between Thrace and Macedonia and providing animpressive burial inventory, in particular spectacular golden funeral masks.

The most remarkable Thracian royal cemetery from the late 6th to the early4th century BC is the tumular necropolis at Duvanli; it yielded significantamount of gold and silver objects, luxurious Greek imports, and many other


25/63


finds (Filov 1934; Bouzek and Ondr ejová 1988). Other rich elite burials of thelast quarter of the 5th century BC are found at Dalboki (Vickers 2002, 56–75)and in the Svetitsata tumulus at Shipka (Kitov 2004b); this last includes animpressive gold funeral mask (Fig. 4) as well as other precious grave-goods(Fig. 5). Another aristocratic burial of this time was excavated in tumulus No. 1at Chernozem (Kissyov 2005); it contains significant local and imported grave-goods, a gold pectoral (Fig. 6) and silver kylix (Fig. 7) being very spectacular.During the 4th and the early 3rd century BC, rich aristocratic tumular burialsspread through the entire Thracian territory, yielding various grave construc-tions and burial inventories: gold and silver jewellery, vessels and appliqués

of horse trappings, weaponry, red-figure Attic pottery, Greek bronze table-ware, etc. Examples include the tumuli at Koprivets (Stanchev 1994; 2004),

Fig. 4. Golden funerary mask from the Svetitsata tumulus at Shipka,last quarter of the 5th century BC (after Kitov 2004b).


26/63


Fig. 5. Greek gold ring from the Svetitsata tumulus at Shipka showinga spear-carrying athlete, last quarter of the 5th century BC(after The Valley of the Thracian Rulers [Calendar, 2005]).

Fig. 6. Gold pectoral from tumulus No. 1 at Chernozem featuring a Gorgon andanimal figures, last quarter of the 5th century BC (after Kissyov 2005).


27/63


2 For comparanda, see Kurtz and Boardman 1971; Miller 1972; 1993; 1994; Pandermalis1972; Ceka 1975; 1985; Gossel 1980; Oleson 1982; Torelli 1985; Fedak 1990; Steingräber2000.

Golemani (Marazov 1998, 205–06), Dolna Koznitsa (Marazov 1998, 104–11;Staikova-Alexandrova 2004), Kralevo (Ginev 1983; 2000; Marazov 1998,118–21), and Mogilanskata Mogila in Vratsa (Theodossiev 2000c, 145–47,no. 248).

In the same century and a half, rectangular tumular (corbel- or barrel-vaulted,etc.) and beehive tholos tombs spread across Thrace. More than 100 monumentsare known so far (Filov 1937a; Bittel 1942; Mansel 1943; 1973; Mikov 1955;Tomlinson 1974; Venedikov 1974a–b; 1976a; Onurkan 1988; Stoyanov 1990;Valeva 1993; 1999; Gergova 1996; Yılmaz 1996; Hat¥as 1997; 2002a–b; Tset-skhladze 1998c; Chichikova 1999; Steingräber 1999; 2001; Rousseva 2000;2002; Delemen 2001; Stoyanova 2002a–b; Bouzek and Domaradzka 2003;Theodossiev 2004; forthcoming).2 The appearance of the Thracian monumental

Fig. 7. Greek silver kylix from tumulus No. 1 at Chernozem showing Bellerophonand Chimaera, last quarter of the 5th century BC (after Kissyov 2005).


28/63


tombs and their architectural features were definite results of the economicadvance of the local aristocracy and multilateral contacts, relations and interac-tions, predominantly with Anatolia, Greece and Macedonia, but also with Illyriaand Italy. Thus, many of the Thracian tombs were built entirely in the mannerof Late Classical and Early Hellenistic architecture.

A 4th-century BC rectangular tomb discovered at Smyadovo (Atanasov andNedelchev 2002) displays the rare use of the Greek script in the Thracianfunerary ritual: a two-line inscription GONIMASJHJ SEUQOU GUNJ(‘Gonimaseze the wife of Seuthes’) is placed on the facade (Fig. 2) and clearlyidentifies the deceased. Another significant monument is the painted tholos

tomb at Alexandrovo of the second half of the 4th–early 3rd century BC (Kitov2002; 2004a; Kitov and Theodossiev 2003); while the impressive funerarypaintings show heroic banqueting, hunting and combat scenes (Figs. 8–10),some with clear iconographic parallels throughout the eastern Mediterranean(cf. Borchhardt 1968; Sevinç et al. 2001; Delemen 2004a), a small graffito(Fig. 2) in the beehive chamber depicts the deceased and gives his name –

Fig. 8. Hunting horseman from the paintings in the tholos chamberof the Alexandrovo tomb, second half of the 4th or early 3rd century BC

(after Kitov et al. 2003).


29/63


Fig. 10. Hunt of a boar from the paintings in the tholos chamber of the Alexandrovotomb, second half of the 4th or early 3rd century BC (after Kitov et al. 2003).

Fig. 9. Hunt of a stag from the paintings in the tholos chamber of the Alexandrovotomb, second half of the 4th or early 3rd century BC (after Kitov et al. 2003).


30/63


3 I would like to thank Prof. K. Clinton for his consultation.

KOHIMACJC XRJCTOC.3 The Early Hellenistic tholos tombs at Starosel(Figs. 11–12) (Kitov 2001–02; 2003a; Kitov and Theodossiev 2003) andMezek (Filov 1937a–b) are among the most impressive burial constructionsknown in Thrace and display quite monumental funerary architecture. AnotherEarly Hellenistic rectangular tomb with remarkable architecture and an intactelite burial is found in the Naip tumulus near Tekirdag (Delemen 2004b),while the Zhaba Mogila tumulus at Strelcha comprises two funerary monu-ments of 350–300 BC: a tholos tomb (Fig. 13) and a rectangular corbel-vaultedtomb with impressive pediment (Fig. 14) showing two lions in relief (Kitov1979). The barrel-vaulted tomb at Sveshtari (A. Fol et al. 1986; Chichikova

1989; 1992; Valeva 1997), coming from the second quarter of the 3rd centuryBC, and decorated with caryatids in relief and a drawing depicting scene ofheroisation, is the most remarkable funerary monument in northern Thrace.

Fig. 11. Monumental staircase and facade of the tholos tomb at Starosel,Early Hellenistic period (after Kitov et al. 2003).


31/63


Fig. 13. Antefix from the tholos tomb in Zhaba Mogila at Strelcha, 330–300 BC(photograph: N. Theodossiev).

Fig. 12. Tholos burial chamber with Doric semi-columns and frieze of the tomb atStarosel, Early Hellenistic period (after Kitov et al. 2003).


32/63


A number of significant monuments were excavated in the Kazanlak region.Thus, the tholos tomb in the Shushmanets tumulus (Kitov 1996; 1997; 1999;

2003b) from the second half of the 4th century BC displays an unusual com-bination of Greek architectural orders (Figs. 15–16), while the sarcophagus-like tomb of 330–320 BC (Fig. 17) in the Ostrusha tumulus (Kitov 1994b;Kitov and Krasteva 1994–95; Kitov et al. 1997; Barbetet al. 1995; Valeva2002) provides remarkable paintings (Figs. 18–19) on the ceiling of the mon-olithic rectangular burial chamber, entirely in the spirit of Early Hellenisticart. The monumental tomb in the Golyamata Kosmatka tumulus (Kitov n.d.)that dates to ca. 300 BC has a unique layout consisting of adromos, rectangu-lar corbel-vaulted antechamber, second beehive tholos antechamber and mon-

olithic rectangular burial chamber; two inscribed silver vessels from the burialchamber, part of a rich funeral inventory (Figs. 20–22), indicate that the mon-ument was related to the Odrysian king, Seuthes III (ca. 330–300 BC),

Fig. 14. Parts of a pediment showing two lions from the corbel-vaulted tombin Zhaba Mogila at Strelcha, second half of the 4th century BC

(photograph: N. Theodossiev).


33/63


while a bronze head (Fig. 23) found in front of the tomb, broken from a life-size statue, is a masterpiece of Early Hellenistic sculpture and is most proba-bly a portrait of Seuthes himself. The tholos tomb in Kazanlak (Frova 1945;1953; Verdiani 1945; Picard 1947–48; Mikov 1954; D. Dimitrov 1966;Zhivkova 1974; Ognenova-Marinova 1977; Blázquez 1994), from the veryend of the 4th or the first decades of the 3rd century BC, contained remarkablefunerary paintings showing an heroic banquet and combats, entirely in the

spirit of Early Hellenistic art. The rectangular corbel-vaulted tomb at Maglizh(Getov 1988; Barbet and Valeva 2001), dated to the middle of the 3rd centuryBC, is among the latest examples of Thracian painted funerary monuments.

Fig. 15. The barrel-vaulted entryway supported byIonic column of the tholos tomb in the

Shushmanets tumulus at Shipka, second half ofthe 4th century BC (after Kitov 1997).

Fig. 16. The beehive burial chamber withDoric semi-columns and supported by non-fluted

Doric column of the tomb in the Shushmanetstumulus at Shipka, second half of the 4th century BC

(after post-card).


34/63


Fig. 17. The monumental tomb in the Ostrusha tumulus at Shipka, 330–320 BC(after Kitov 1994b).

Fig. 18. Portrait of a woman on the ceiling of the sarcophagus-like burial chamber inthe Ostrusha tumulus at Shipka, 330–320 BC (courtesy Philip Sapirstein).


35/63


Fig. 20. Gold appliqué of horse trappings featuring human face,from the tomb in the Golyamata Kosmatka tumulus at Shipka, ca. 300 BC

(after The Valley of the Thracian Rulers).

Fig. 19. Scene showing two men on the ceilingof the sarcophagus-like burial chamber inthe Ostrusha tumulus at Shipka, 330–320 BC

(after Valeva 2002).


36/63


Fig. 21. Gold appliqué of horse trappings showing stag head in the Thracian ‘AnimalStyle’, from the tomb in the Golyamata Kosmatka tumulus at Shipka, ca. 300 BC

(after The Valley of the Thracian Rulers).


37/63


Fig. 22. Bronze greave with the head of Athena, from the tomb in the Golyamata

Kosmatka tumulus at Shipka, ca. 300 BC (afterThe Valley of the Thracian Rulers).


38/63


Fig. 23. Bronze head of a life-size statue most probably depicting Seuthes III, foundin front of the tomb in the Golyamata Kosmatka tumulus at Shipka, ca. 300 BC

(after Kitov n.d.).


39/63


TOREUTICS AND TREASURES

The toreutics of ancient Thrace are among the most attractive of archaeologi-cal materials. They have received intense scrutiny from specialists world widewho have use different methods of examination and proposed various interpre-tations within the contexts and contacts of the eastern Mediterranean, the NearEast and the Pontic region (Filov 1917; 1934; Amandry 1959; Byvanck-Quar-les van Ufford 1966; 1989a–b; 1990; Strong 1966; Venedikov 1969; Ven-edikov and Gerasimov 1976; Berciu 1974; Marghitan 1976; Melyukova 1976;1979; Pittioni 1977; Marazov 1977; 1978; 1992; 2002; Minchev 1978; Barr-

Sharrar 1982; 1986; Taylor 1982; 1987; 1989a; Alexandrescu 1983; 1984;Fischer 1983; Luschey 1983; Pfrommer 1983; 1987; 1990; 1993; Archibald1985; 1989; 1998; Bergquist and Taylor 1987; Dörig 1987; Abka’i-Khavari1988; Ewigleben 1989; B. Hoddinott 1989; Schneider 1989; 1990; Schneiderand Zazoff 1994; Vickers 1989; 1991; Stoyanov 1991; 2003; Zazoff 1991;Zazoff et al. 1985; Kaul 1993; Shefton 1993; Boardman 1994; 2000;Rabadzhiev 1994, 89–102; Fialko 1995; Kemenczei 1995; von Bülow 1997;Kull 1997; Damyanov 1998; Ebbinghaus 1999; Tsetskhladze 1999a; Sîrbuand Florea 2000a–b; Theodossiev 2000c; 2003; Zournatzi 2000; Kitov and

Agre 2002, 181–219, 261–74; Ursu Naniu 2004).A number of treasures and burial hoards comprising silver and gold objects,both of local Thracian production and imported, form the legacy of the Thra-cian aristocracy and provide options to examine a variety of topics. The mostspectacular works come from the Classical and Hellenistic periods. The shapesknown in Thracian toreutics were usually borrowed from Achaemenid andGreek metalware and ceramics, and include phialai, calyxes, goblets, skyphoi,kantharoi, jugs, rhyta, etc.

A very important focus of research is on the rich iconography of the local

toreutics from the 4th century BC onwards, which clearly shows the creativityand influences that formed the indigenous art. Some images of the Great God-dess and her male companion – the king-hero – remain without parallelsbeyond Thrace, and seem to belong to local tradition, but many other represen-tations find a number of iconographical comparanda throughout the easternMediterranean. The Thracian king was usually depicted as a hunter-rider(Fig. 24), while the images of the Great Goddess show more diversity.

Other Classical and Early Hellenistic representations in Thracian metalworkare indicative of even stronger foreign influence and originated in Greek, Ana-

tolian and Scythian art. Special attention must be given to the images ofKybele, Artemis ( potnia theron), Heracles and Bellerophon, who appeared inthe Early Hellenistic period. The presence of these characters testifies to the


40/63


Hellenisation of local craftsmen and of the local aristocracy, who were awareof Greek myths. The strong syncretism evident in the iconography, especiallythe Thracian elements, may suggest, however, that some local deities andheroes were represented in the form of Greek and Anatolian personages.

Some Early Hellenistic figures in Thracian toreutics, like the Lamassu,obviously originated in Iranian art and indicate cross-cultural contacts. Pre-sumably, most of these connections were a result of the Eastern campaigns ofAlexander the Great, when some members of the Thracian aristocracy partici-pated in the actions of the Macedonian army and returned home with newsyncretic ideas.

In fact, the cultural diversity and free exchange of ideas between differentethnic communities in the eastern Mediterranean, Near East and the Ponticregion during the 1st millennium BC gave rise to various interactions that

influenced the forms and features of Thracian metalwork, of course on thebasis of local traditions. Simultaneously, Thracian toreutics also influenced theart of the Celts and the Scythians. This is why the metalwork appears to be

Fig. 24. Gold ring from Peichova Mogila at Starosel featuring a hunting scene,second half of the 4th century BC (after Kitov 2001–02).


41/63


among the best evidence showing that Thrace was closely related to the rest ofthe ancient world and actively participated in syncretic cultural processes andmultilateral interaction.

Most of the Thracian treasures have been well illustrated in a number ofexhibition catalogues (Gold der Thraker 1979; Het Goud der Thraciërs 1984;Gold of the Thracian Horsemen 1987; Berti and La Porta 1997; Marazov1998; Ancient Thrace 2000). Among the earliest finds, ones that deservespecial attention are the gold cup from Belene, which shows schematic deco-ration and dates to the beginning of the Early Iron Age (Gold of the Thracian

Horsemen 1987, 130, no. 162), and the 7th–6th-century BC hoard from

Kazichene, comprising a bronze cauldron, a ceramic vessel and a decoratedgold cup, 1.050 kg in weight (Gold of the Thracian Horsemen 1987, 129–30,nos. 159–161). Another important find is the treasure from Barzitsa, of whicha pair of gold earrings and one gold and three silver hoops (presumably spiralbracelets) survived, being dated to the period from the 11th to the 8th–7th cen-turies BC (Gergova 1982; Gold of the Thracian Horsemen 1987, 139–41,nos. 185–189).

One of the most significant hoards is the Rogozen treasure, comprising 165silver vessels: 108 phialai, 54 jugs and three cups (goblet, skyphos, kotyle), a

total weight of some 19.900 kg ( Der thrakische Silberschatz 1988; Byvanck-Quarles van Ufford 1989b; 1990; Archibald 1998, 265–69; Theodossiev2000c, 135, no. 196). The hoard is quite heterogeneous and belonged to theTriballi aristocracy. Some vessels are decorated with mythological scenes andimages and obviously were produced in northern Thracian workshops; othersare of imported origin: Greek, Macedonian and, presumably, Achaemenid. Anumber of stippled or incised inscriptions show that some vessels were posses-sions of the Odrysian kings, Cotys I (383–359 BC) and Kersebleptes (359–341BC), who presumably offered the precious objects as political gifts to the Trib-

alli chieftains during negotiations. Two inscriptions mention Satokos, presum-ably the son of the Odrysian king, Sitalces, and another one gives the name ofDidykaimos, not attested in the literary sources. The vessels from the Rogozentreasure were accumulated over a long period and date from the middle of the5th to the beginning of the 3rd century BC.

Another important find is the Borovo treasure, comprising a silver pitcher-rhyton decorated with two friezes showing Dionysiac scenes but with a formoriginating in the Persian toreutics, three rhyta with Greek and Achaemenidshapes and decoration, and a two-handled bowl (Gold of the Thracian Horse-

men 1987, 205–07, nos. 338–342; Archibald 1998, 264–65; Stoyanov 1998;Theodossiev 1998b). The vessels are heterogeneous and some of them mayoriginate from toreutic workshops in north-western Anatolia. Three inscriptions


42/63


in Greek were stippled on the pitcher-rhyton and two rhyta, indicating that theobjects belonged to the Odrysian king, Cotys I, who presumably offered thesilver vessels as diplomatic gifts to unknown Getic ruler.

The most spectacular hoard from Thrace is the Panagyurishte treasure, com-prising nine gold vessels with a total weight of 6.164 kg (Svoboda and Concev1956; Concev 1959; Simon 1960; Venedikov 1961; Gold of the Thracian

Horsemen 1987, 237–41, nos. 420–428; Archibald 1998, 271–74; Kitov andAtanasov 2000; Stoyanov 2004). The amphora-rhyton is decorated with Greekmythological scene, presumably showing the Seven against Thebes, but itsshape undoubtedly originates in Achaemenid metalware. The three anthropo-

morphic head-vases display the images of Athena, Aphrodite and Hera. Thetwo rhyta ending in stag heads depict the Judgment of Paris (Alexander) andtwo Labours of Heracles (the Hind of Ceryneia and the Cretan Bull). The rhy-ton ending with a ram’s head shows Dionysos, Eriope and Maenads, while therhyton with a male-goat protome depicts Hera, Artemis, Apollo and Nike. Thelast vessel is a phiale decorated with circles of African heads in relief. ThePanagyurishte treasure dates to the last decades of the 4th century or the early3rd century BC; most probably, it was produced in some prominent workshopin north-western Anatolia.

Two other important treasures, those found at Letnitsa (Pittioni 1977; Goldof the Thracian Horsemen 1987, 197–203, nos. 315–333; Venedikov 1996)and Lukovit (Chichikova 1980; Gold of the Thracian Horsemen 1987, 220–33,nos. 375–410; Archibald 1998, 269), date to the second half of the 4th–early3rd century BC and contain a wide variety of silver objects of Thracian origin:appliqués of horse trappings decorated in the ‘Animal Style’ or showing Thra-cian mythological scenes and vessels (jugs and phialai). The hoards from Gal-iche (Gold of the Thracian Horsemen 1987, 260–64, nos. 472–483; Theodos-siev 2000c, 114–15, no. 70) and Yakimovo (Marazov 1979; Gold of the

Thracian Horsemen 1987, 268–71, nos. 494–502; Theodossiev 2000c, 147– 48, no. 250) come from the 2nd–1st centuries BC and consist of silver objectstypical of Late Hellenistic Thracian toreutics: bracelets, round appliqués, akantharos and conical bowls, some of them showing the images of the king-rider and the Great Goddess.

COINAGE

The Thracian coinage provides a great variety of types minted in silver andbronze, which form a reliable source for studying political history, economy,trade, iconography and religion. The earliest coins appeared at the end of the


43/63


6th century and in the first decades of the 5th century BC and were minted insilver by the tribal kingdoms of the Derrones, Bisaltai, Tyntenoi, Ichnai andOrreskioi in south-western Thrace, on the border with Macedonia and Paeonia.Of special interest in this period are the silver coins of Getas, king of the Thra-cian Edonoi, which read: GETAS JDONEON BASILEUS (in several vari-ants), and are one of the earliest examples displaying the use of the title basi-leus in ancient coinage. Later, a number of Odrysian kings, both attested inhistorical or epigraphic sources but unknown in ancient written sources, besidessome kings who ruled other tribal states, minted different bronze and silvercoins from the middle of the 5th century BC down to the first decades of the

1st century AD. Among the most important coins from the Classical and EarlyHellenistic periods are those of Sparadokos, Saratokos, Seuthes I, Medokos(known as Amadokos I as well), Hebryzelmis, Cotys I, Amadokos II, Teres II,Ketriporis, Kersebleptes, Seuthes III and Spartokos, some of them showingquite realistic portraits of the kings. A number of other rulers, such as Adaios,Cotys II, Mostis, Cotys III, Sadalas II, Reskouporis I, Roimetalkas I, Cotys V,Roimetalkas II and Roimetalkas III, minted various coins throughout the entireHellenistic period until the last Thracian kingdom was annexed by Rome inAD 45. While the Early Hellenistic Macedonia

theodossiev ancient thrace

Documents