thracology ilieva

Funerary rites in the EIA Aegean Thrace: problems and perspectives of research*

Petia ILIEVA

Abstract: The study of death in the EIA Thrace relies on what has survived and came to light under the form of “archaeological finds”, “grave offerings”, “grave types” etc. By contrast to the study of ancient Greece where the combination of text, iconography and archaeology provides a fuller and more detailed account on the Greek attitude to death, in the case of Thrace the main and in most cases the only source of information is the material evidence.

The term “Aegean Thrace” marks the costal zone of Southeastern Thrace. Consid-ering that sites of Early Iron Age date from the territory east of the Hebros valley remain virtually obscure due to the almost total absence of archaeological research in the region, the present study focuses mainly on the lands between Nestos and Hebros.

The chronological aspect implies that the existing material remains unquestionably mark the region as part of the cultural koine of EIA Thrace represented in a local, coastal variety.

Despite the extremely fragmentary nature of our knowledge of the burial customs in the EIA Aegean Thrace, based on limited number of excavated graves and in the prevailing cases on preliminary reports, the aim of the study is to: a/ summarize the until now known data on the funeral rites and grave types in the area and their common features or variations; b/ trace their relation with those of the neighboring regions; c/ outline the “blank fields” in the archaeology of death in the EIA Aegean Thrace and the possibilities for future study.

Keywords:

IntroductionThe study of death in the EIA Thrace relies on what has survived and came to light un-der the form of “archaeological finds”, “grave offerings”, “grave types” etc. By contrast to the study of ancient Greece where the combination of text, iconography and archaeology

Funeral Rites, Rituals and Ceremonies from Prehistory to Antiquity X-X

* I would like to thank Dr. O. Ozbek for the invitation to participate in the international workshop “Funeral rites, rituals, and ceremonies from Prehistory to Antiquity” held in Çanakkale University, 2-6 October 2006 and Dr. T. Hodos for the improvement of the English text.

Petia Ilieva2

provides a fuller and more detailed account on the Greek attitude to death, in the case of Thrace the only possible source of information is the material evidence. It gives a partial picture of what the ancient Thracians “did about death” (Kurz, Boardman 1971, 17) and is hardly able to answer “why”.

The term “Aegean Thrace” marks the costal zone of Southeastern Thrace1. Considering that sites of Early Iron Age date from the territory east of the Hebros valley remain virtually obscure due to the almost total absence of archaeological research in the region, the pres-ent study focuses mainly on the western half of the area2, i.e. the lands between Nestos and Hebros. The chronological aspect implies that the existing material remains unquestion-ably mark the region as part of the cultural koine of EIA Thrace3, represented in a local, coastal variety. Only burial grounds representative for the local communities, not related to the Greek apoikiai in chronological or spatial terms, are of interest in this case.

Despite the extremely fragmentary nature of our knowledge of the burial customs in the EIA Aegean Thrace, based on limited number of excavated graves and in the prevailing cases on preliminary reports, the aim of the study is to: a/ summarize the until now known data on the funeral rites and grave types in the area and their common features or varia-

1 The naming of the region with different geographic or modern geopolitical designations varies according to the perspective of study. The traditional name Thrace (Данов 1969; Isaac 1986) is usually combined with additional definitions as “Aegean”, “western”, “eastern”, “southern”, “inland” etc. Most of them are geographically related and it is only “Aegean Thrace” that implies additional meanings revealing the features of these lands: they are si-multaneously part of Thrace and of the Aegean basin, it is the contact zone of meeting and coexisting of the char-acteristics of these two “worlds” suggested by the geographical names. “Aegean Thrace” is therefore more than a technical geographical definition and implies the idea of cultural context whose varying aspects are reflected in the ancient literary tradition and in the archaeological “record” of the area. Under this name D. Triantaphyllos (1990, 297-322) recognizes the Aegean coastal zone of Thrace, including the territory between Abdera and the Hebros delta with the immediate hinterland of Mounts Ismaros and Zonaion and the lower Filiouri River valley. The island of Samothrace should be added to this territory. Although the coastal area east of the Hebros delta as far as the Gulf of Melas still remains archaeologically unknown, in regard to its geographical position and the ancient written sources there is no reason to be designated differently.

2 The territory of Thrace, south of the modern state border of Bulgaria, is usually named with varying region-al designations which from geographical and cultural perspective confront the idea of the southern lands of Thrace and originate in modern geopolitical situation. Greek Thrace, which includes the territory between lower Nestos and Hebros valleys according to the administrative division of the country, is usually named “Western Thrace” (Τριαντάφυλλος 1973, 241-255; 1981, 61-64; 1984, 179-207; Фол, Спиридонов 1983, атлас 32, карта “за-падна Тракия”; Ников 1999, 34) while the Turkish part of south Thrace designates as “Eastern” (Özdogan 1998, 29-40; Ников 1999, 32-33). Indeed these two politically based geographical determinations indicate that the lands on both sides of Hebros are “eastern” and “western” for each other and for the natural geographical barrier – the lower flow of the river. Geographically and culturally, however, the term “Western Thrace” should mark a completely different area. It should be applied to the lands bordered by the lower Strymonas and Nestos prior to their annexation to the Macedonian state (cf. Τουράτσογλου 1999, 14, fig. 17), which are known in modern Greek archaeological studies as “Eastern Macedonia” (Κουκούλη-Χρυσανθάκη 1993, 679-735, σχεδ. 1; Τουράτσογλου 1999, 331).

3 Although Morris 1998, 1-91 includes Thrace in his Northern Greek region together with Thessaly, Epirus and Macedonia, the nature of the material remains does not support such an interpretation. The arrival of the Greek apoikists turns the coastal strip into part of the Aegean koine and this happens not earlier than the first half of the 7th c. BC for the area between Strymonas and Nestos, including the island of Thasos, while the zone between Nestos and Hebros plus the island of Samothrace was gradually settled by Greek apoikists from mid-7th c. BC until the beginning of 6th. What I am advocating is that neither EIA Thrace nor its interior including the immediate hinterland of the coastal poleis after the permanent Greek settling can be recognized as “Northern Greece”. Despite the existence of Greek imports, which increase considerably after the first quarter of the 5th c. BC, the social and cultural background of Thrace, as known mainly from the archaeological record, differs considerably from the Greek one. That’s why the appearance of EIA cemeteries or single graves of unquestionably “non-Greek” nature in his “burials” section cannot be justified (for detailed discussion see Илиева 2006, unpublished PhD thesis).

Funerary rites in the EIA Aegean Thrace: problems and perspectives of research 3

tions; b/ trace their relation with those of the neighboring regions; c/ outline the “blank fields” in the archaeology of death in the EIA Aegean Thrace and the possibilities for fu-ture study. The methodological approach that has been followed is neither unique nor a new one, but an attempt “to collect all the evidence, to find out what belongs to a general pattern and what is unique” (Morris 1998, 7).

Grave typesBuilt graves: “Built” graves are extremely characteristic in terms of distribution. One such grave has been excavated in the dolmen necropolis in Dikella locality at the village of Roussa4 in the East Rhodope region and a second example has come to light from the necropolis of the later Samothracian apoikia Zone5. They are built of stone slabs in dry masonry forming a chamber, circled by a platform of tightly set, rough stones and covered by a tumulus6 (fig. 1).

Their typologically closest parallels can be found among the grave types in the Kastri and Larnaka cemeteries on the island of Thasos (cf. Κουκούλη-Χρυσανθάκη 1992). The Zone grave was partly destroyed when it was found (Βαβρίτσας 1967, 93, εικ.69α) but it is not difficult to recognize its typological affinities with Thasian examples of IA and B2 variants (Κουκούλη-Χρυσανθάκη 1992, 634-635; 650) and with the one from Roussa. It dates to the 8-7th c. B.C. and shows a later construction than the Thasian forms7. The existence of built graves in Aegean Thrace and Eastern Rhodope is interesting considering the fact that they are known only from the EIA cemeteries of Thasos which vary in plan but display a uniform building technique which appears east of Lake Bistonis. While this building technique cannot be described as “megalithic”, it finds some analogies in the megalithic tradition familiar in the Aegean Thrace8. Similar to the appearance of rock-cut tombs and

4 Preliminary report on the excavation results: Τριαντάφυλλος 1981, 61-64 (=Triandaphyllos 1983, 145-163).5 Preliminary report on the excavation results: Βαβρίτσας 1966, 67-70; 1967, 89-95. For comment on the grave, see

also Κουκούλη-Χρυσανθάκη 1992, 526. This grave, known as grave 1, because of the existence of a second one dating to the EIA found close to it, was incorporated in the area which later turned into the necropolis of Zone (previously Mesembria or Mesembria-Zone: for the identification of the site as Mesembria, see Kazarow 1918, 3-66; for recently accepted identification as Mesembria-Zone or Zone, see Τσατσοπούλου 1997, 619-620; Γαλάνη-Κρίκου 1997, 631-641). The necropolis is located west of the ancient polis, in Shaplı dere locality and not “near Makri” (as in Archibald 1998, 73).

6 The grave at Dikella cemetery consists of a rectangular chamber probably roofed by flat stone slabs found inside the chamber and a dromos situated asymmetrically to the main axis of the chamber. Its foundations are set in the natural rock and the walls are slightly inclined inwards, which resembles “classical” dolmen construction. By contrast the Zone grave consists of a false rectangle constructed by a single long wall oriented E-W and short one N-S, incorporated in a circle space formed in the inner part of a stone peribolos and connected with the cir-cular inner wall which indeed replaces the missing half of the rectangle. These features give reason to Koukouli-Chrysanthaki to interpret the construction as a circular chamber with a built kline (Κουκούλη-Χρυσανθάκη 1992, 634-635).

7 The chronology of the grave is based on the grave equipment: ceramics and fibulae of different types found in the grave and in the stone peribolos around it (see Βαβρίτσας 1966, 67-70; 1967, 89-95; Τριαντάφυλλος 1990, 307; Κουκούλη-Χρυσανθάκη 1992, 526).

8 For the megalithic type of graves in Aegean Thrace see below, Megalithic graves. The connection between the megalithic and built graves is indicatively described as “tendencies to megalithism” including the use of big stone slabs for the short walls and the covering (Κουκούλη-Χρυσανθάκη 1992, 650). It is suggestive, also, that the Roussa example appears in a dolmen cemetery and its long side walls incline slightly to the inside of the chamber, in the same way as the dolmen construction.

Petia Ilieva4

dolmens SSW of their main area of distribution9, the built graves which appear NNE of Thasos mark one of the directions of contact between the coastal lands and the inland of Southeastern Thrace10 (map 1).

The built graves of the Zone cemetery area and Dikella have been recently connected with a circular tomb with false vault at Brestovitsa, south of Plovdiv (Archibald 1998, 65), on the base of their construction11, but it is worth mentioning that with the Aegean ex-amples, including some of the Thasian ones, it is the peribolos of rough stone slabs which is circular and not the grave in its central part, which is usually rectangular.12 Therefore this cannot be a reasonable ground to assume a connection between the built grave construc-tions and the appearance of the false vault in Thrace.

While there is no direct evidence of the funeral rite in the Roussa grave, although the ex-cavator suggests that remains of a cremation held on unidentified pyre were placed in it, bones found in the chamber of the Zone grave indicate an inhumation burial (Βαβρίτσας 1967, 93). Inhumations in built graves are well known on Thasos, mainly from the Larnaki cemetery, while at Kastri they are in co-existence with cremation burials (Κουκούλη-Χρυσανθάκη 1992, 640-641). Unfortunately any kind of grave equipment in the Roussa grave and traces of ritual practices around it, such as vessels or remains of funeral meals, are absent, restricting considerably the possibility for analyzing “what kind of things people thought it was appropriate to bury with their relatives or offer to the immortals” (Morris 1998, 4-5). By contrast the grave from Zone could be defined almost as “rich” as it is a source of one cut-away jug with incised decoration, diagnostic for the ceramic repertoire of the EIA Macedonia, roughly handmade small clay vessels, a considerable quantity of fibulae of different types and a clay anthropomorphic figurine.13 The entire assemblage gives ground for the suggested chronology of the 8th – 7th c. BC.

In pithoi: a second grave dating to the EIA excavated in the Zone necropolis in close asso-ciation with the one referred to above displays a simpler built technique. The grave itself is rectangular in plan, lined and roofed by stone slabs, and is situated in the center of a massive peribolos (fig. 2).14 Its stone peribolos of closely arranged rough, stone slabs is similar to that of the built grave 1. Eight local, handmade vessels around the peribolos wall and in

9 See below, Megalithic graves.10 This point might be supported by different ceramic and metal finds, mainly grave equipment, from Aegean

Thrace and its hinterland in East Rhodope and Mount Sakar, which find good parallels in the territory West of Nestos River and clearly indicate contacts with Thasos and the opposite shore which became its Peraia after the establishment of the Greek apoikia, during the EIA (for a detailed study and full bibliographic references, see Илиева 2006, 50-93, unpublished PhD thesis).

11 The early date of the Brestovitsa tomb, in 6th c. BC as suggested by Archibald (1998, 65) and based on unpub-lished material, is not paralleled among the datable tombs of this type in Thrace.

12 The only exception is the plan of grave 1 in Zone necropolis, which is circular, but in fact it consists of a thick circular peribolos with a circular central space used as the grave, where additional constructions resembling an exedra (kline ?) has been built (Κουκούλη-Χρυσανθάκη 1992, 634).

13 See the preliminary publication by the excavator, Βαβρίτσας 1966, 67-70; 1967, 89-95. D. Triantaphyllos pub-lished the cut-away jug as part of the grave equipment (Τριαντάφυλλος 1990, 306, εικ. 13). For the chronology and study of the grave finds, see Τριαντάφυλλος 1990, 307; Κουκούλη-Χρυσανθάκη 1992, 526; Илиева 2006, unpublished PhD thesis.

14 Preliminary report on the excavation results: Βαβρίτσας 1966, 67-70; 1967, 89-95. See also n.2. See also Τσατσοπούλου 1990, 587-594.


close association with it15 indicate a burial complex and not a single grave, since bones were found inside two of them, suggesting their function as urns for cremation remains. There is no evidence for the burial type in the central grave, however. The entire complex was covered with a tumulus.

Cremation remains buried in pithoi came to light during the excavation of an Archaic cemetery under the bed of the Filiouri River.16 Out of four pythoi dating to the EIA, two were used as urns. All of them were found close to the Archaic cist graves and most proba-bly indicate an earlier phase of the same necropolis. The ceramics coming from the pithoi suggest a date around the 8th c. BC17 (Τριαντάφυλλος 1990, 301). To the same phase of the cemetery belongs a cremation 0, 80 x 0, 70 m., situated close to Archaic cist grave 12, but in a deeper level. It remains unclear whether it is a cremation in situ on the pyre itself or a grave where cremation remains had been placed directly on the ground. It consists of a small number of human bones, laid on the ground and mixed with ceramic fragments, stones, animal bones and shells. According to the excavator’s report, in the trench where the pithoi were found there was a layer with traces of fire, handmade pottery of the EIA and shells. Considering the existence of the grave with similar features, it might be as-sumed that this “layer” was indeed a second grave of this type. It remains unclear whether these pre-archaic graves were covered by tumuli as the river bed has destroyed any pos-sible traces. Cremation burials and placing of their remains in urns or directly on the ground are well known from the EIA inland Thrace, south of Mount Haemus and from the Rhodope mountain region as well as from the territory of Eastern Macedonia and the island of Thasos. Therefore, graves of this type close to the Aegean coast of Thrace are not an isolated phenomenon.18

The practice of burying of the dead in a pithos was additionally confirmed by the 1998 excavation of graves under the bed of the Kossynthos River.19 Three pithoi used as grave

15 Five of the vessels are pithoi; there is also one big vessel with a biconical profile, a deep bowl a with wide mouth and slightly outward rim, and a rough biconical vessel belonging to the category of kitchen ware. Although the vessels are partially preserved and not datable in precise terms, the pottery complex of grave 2 suggests that chronologically it precedes the built grave 1, i.e. it probably should be dated prior to the 8th - 7th c. BC (see Κουκούλη-Χρυσανθάκη 1992, 634).

16 Report on the excavation results: Τριαντάφυλλος 1984, 179-207. The necropolis is situated in Ambelia locality (Baglar başi), 3km northeastern of the village of Mikron Doukaton. It was found by chance under the water of Filiouri River during excavation works for changing the course of the river bed. Some of the graves were de-stroyed or partly disturbed by the river and additionally by the machines.

17 Ceramics dating to the EIA were found inside the pithoi and out of context in the area between the later cist graves. Considering their presence the excavator suggests the existence of a local Thracian settlement “…long before the coming of the Greek apoikists on the shores of Thrace” (Τριαντάφυλλος 1984, 195; recently Archibald 1998, 74 accepts this view). On the other hand the four pithoi with unquestionable burials in two of them and additional cremation burials found under the cist graves, laid on the terrain, indicate that the functional characteristic of the site during the EIA did not differ from that of the Archaic period and that it probably was a necropolis. The excavator accepted a date in the 10th – 9th c. BC for the EIA graves in the origi-nal publication of the cemetery (Τριαντάφυλλος 1984, 179-207) but revisited it to the 8th c. BC in a later study (Τριαντάφυλλος 1990, 301-302). Considering the dating of the Archaic necropolis to the first half of the 6th c. BC, Ch. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki suggests that the date of the EIA pottery precedes the end of the 7th c. BC (Κουκούλη-Χρυσανθάκη 1992, 526-527). There is no positive evidence indicating a stratigraphic and chrono-logical connection between the two phases of the necropolis, i.e. it is not sure whether there was an interruption in its use as burial place or it was continuously functional.

18 For detailed study and bibliographic references: Стоянов 1997, 119-130; Κουκούλη-Χρυσανθάκη 1992, 633. 19 For the preliminary report on the excavation results, see Τριαντάφυλλος, Καλλιντζή 1998, 1-18. Kossynthos is

the river passing trough the modern town of Xanti and it flows into Lake Bistonis.

Petia Ilieva6

containers for inhumation burials, horizontally laid on the ground, were found during rescue excavations. The dead were placed in the vessels in a supine position, with their hands along the body, the heads being at the vessel’s mouth, which was then closed by a schist slab or river stones20 (fig. 3). Considering that the graves were situated under the river bed, similar to the example from the Filiouri cemetery, the probable existence of tu-muli remains hypothetical. It is indicative, however, that the pithoi were buried extremely shallow under the ground level and, additionally, a stone peribolos circling grave 1 thus suggests an initial existence of at least a low tumulus over the grave. Based on the grave finds from all the three graves including a sword, iron knives, a fibula and ceramics found in and outside the pithoi, the excavators suggest a date in the 8th c. BC for the cemetery (Τριαντάφυλλος, Καλλιντζή 1998, 6).21 While all the artifacts are directly associated with the graves, suggesting their function as burial gifts, there is no material traces of rituals conducted after the funeral ceremony.22

The grave types already discussed are well paralleled in cemeteries located west of the Nestos valley, indicating that culturally related subregions formed along the Aegean coast of Thrace and its immediate hinterland. The best analogies are observable in the graves of the EIA necropolis of Drama Industrial Area and in that excavated under an archaic tumulus on Kastas Hill near Amphipolis.23 Three low tumuli excavated in Drama cov-er a platform of rough stones in which were incorporated inhumation burials in pithoi and cremations formlessly placed directly on the ground level (see ΑΔ 1979, 333-334; Κουκούλη-Χρυσανθάκη 1993, 685-686). The cremation “spot” graves include animal bones resembling the two abovementioned examples excavated in Filiouri cemetery. EIA graves obviously related to the examples referred to mark the earliest phase of the chron-ologically later tumulus on Kastas Hill.24 The earliest graves probably belonged to the first phase of the EIA in Thrace,25 including inhumation burials in pithoi and cremations

20 Grave 1 was probably a family grave because remains of three adults, two women and a man were found inside it. Grave 3 displays an interesting burial feature. It seems that the pithos was vertically cut before the burial and the body was indeed set in a half vessel (Τριαντάφυλλος, Καλλιντζή 1998, 5).

21 The grave equipment, including the metal finds and the ceramics, is well paralleled in sites in Macedonia and inland Thrace. The iron sword is similar to such one from Vergina (Ανδρόνικος 1969, 261, εικ. 101, ΧΙ), while the knife finds analogies in Vergina (Ανδρόνικος 1969, 266, εικ. 104, ΑΑ1, Χ) and in the EIA cemeteries of Thasos (Κουκούλη-Χρυσανθάκη 1992, 588-592), where the type appears in the IIB3 period (900-750 BC). The iron fibula finds good parallels in inland Thrace (see Gergova 1987; Стоянов 1997, 74-80, nr. 127-130), where the type might be dated between the 10th and 8th c. BC. Two one-handled deep cups found outside grave 3 are well paralleled in Aegean Thrace, Eastern Macedonia and Thasos where they appear at the beginning of the 11th c. BC and continue until the mid-8th c. BC (Κουκούλη-Χρυσανθάκη 1992, 536; 1993, 680).

22 The fact that there are no preserved tumuli contributes to the absence of evidence for post funeral practices at the grave. Although there are no written ancient testimonia for the exact nature and naming of such ceremonies in Thrace, as they are known for Greece (Kurtz, Boardman 1971, 151-154), with the exception of Hrd. V, 8.1, they are attested in Thrace by numerous archaeological finds (see most recently Стоянов 1997, 96-97).

23 The necropolis on Kastas Hill obviously belongs to the settlement situated on the neighboring hill known as Hill 133. A settlement with a long period of habitation, from the EIA until the first half of 5th c. BC, was located on it, and has been identified with the Ennea Hodoi (Pritchett 1964, 46-48).

24 Preliminary reports of the excavation research held by Lazaridis: ΠΑΕ 1976, 88-98; 1977, 38-45. For summariz-ing study see Κουκούλη-Χρυσανθάκη 1993, 682-684.

25 It corresponds to the 10-8th c. BC according to the chronological system of the EIA in Thrace developed by Gergova on the basis of the fibulae and ornaments of the costume found in Thrace (Gegova 1987; for the date of the graves based mainly on pottery types see Κουκούλη-Χρυσανθάκη 1993, 683). The graves of this earlier phase of the cemetery at Kastas differ considerably in type, funeral rite and grave equipment from the later cist


placed on the ground which were covered by tumuli and incorporated in a stone layer related to the platforms of the Zone grave and the Drama examples.

Cist graves: the cemeteries on Kastas Hill and at Filiouri River are sources of a second group of graves additionally confirming the relation of the grave types and funeral prac-tices on both sides of Nestos valley. Representative for the second Archaic phase of the Filiouri necropolis are 14 cist graves dated to the first half of the 6th c. BC,26 i.e. chrono-logically belonging to a period when the Aegean coast has already been settled by Greek apoikists; in cultural terms the coastal zone of Thrace does not belong to the EIA. The grave pits are lined with rough stone slabs, and in some cases the bottom of the grave and the buried human remains were covered with the same slabs. The funeral rite is uniform - inhumations in supine position without a rule in the orientation, and hands crossed on the stomach. In some cases only the cranium and a single bone were preserved, the rest of the skeleton being probably destroyed from the moisture of the river. One grave is double and although the skeletons are badly preserved they were found in anatomical order and were probably buried together. The grave equipment of the Archaic graves is far more diverse than that of the EIA predecessors, with imported goods.27 The later, second phase of the cemetery on Kastas Mound is represented by similarly constructed cist graves of the Archaic period, dating between the late 7th and mid-5th c. BC.28 Inhumations in supine position were practiced here and the burial gifts are considerably richer, of high quantity and variety, including numerous imports, when compared with the earlier graves.

The excavation contexts of the graves at Filiouri River do not allow for any conclusions to be drawn concerning an initial existence of tumuli. Considering the cemeteries with this type of grave from the coastal sites of Macedonia and Chalkidiki, it might be assumed that the Filiouri graves were also not covered with a tumulus. The appearance of this grave type in local, “non-Greek” context reflects the arrival of the Greek apoikists and the influence they exercised on the immediate hinterland of the coastal settlements (Κουκούλη-Χρυσανθάκη 1992, 636). These cemeteries with cist graves seem to be among the most diagnostic mate-rial record for the relations of the apoikiai with their hinterland, a kind of “local response” combining the adoption of new grave type with burial gifts of “local” style.

graves, which appear around the end of 7th c. BC and which Morris 1998, 47 mistakenly designates as “the earli-est examples”.

26 See Τριαντάφυλλος 1984, 179-207. Concerning the geographical position of the necropolis the excavator as-sumes the possibility that during its archaic phase it belonged to the chora of Maroneia (see Τριαντάφυλλος 1984, 195-196; see also n. 29).

27 There are two imported vessels: a skyphos, most probably a Thasian product following Cycladic prototypes, and a kylix of Ionian type, probably the product of a local, North Aegean pottery workshop (see Τριαντάφυλλος 1984, 184-188; Илиева 2006, unpublished PhD thesis with detailed analysis and further bibliography). The rest of the vessels, both wheel- and handmade, imitate shapes foreign to the EIA pottery repertoire of Thrace, with which the local inhabitants came in contact after the arrival of the Greek apoikists. While the cemetery be-longed probably to a local community, it remains difficult to identify it with Thracian tribes of the region known from literature, such as the Kikones (see Archibald 1998, 74 who suggests such an identification), from the ar-chaeological record alone. Despite the diversity in the material remains in different parts of the vast area of an-cient Thrace, the existence of cultural subregions is also clear. Such a criterion could not be a sufficient ground for the precise location of the numerous Thracian tribes as they are known from the Greek literary tradition, especially for the coastal areas after the establishment of the Greek apoikiai.

28 Like the EIA graves, the later ones have been excavated by D. Lazaridis. For the preliminary publication of the results, see ΠΑΕ 1973, 43-54; 1974, 58-64; 1975, 61-71; 1976, 88-98; 1977, 38-451981, 18-25; 1982, 43-51.

Petia Ilieva8

Megalithic graves: this grave category is represented by a group of dolmens on the is-land of Samothrace and a rock-cut tomb in the vicinity of Petrota village, on the north slopes of Month Zonaion.29 The tomb has a rectangular plan and a semi-circular, arch-like vault carved from a single, massive natural rock, thus resembling an artificial cave (fig. 4). Similar and almost identical constructions are well known from the eastern part of Mount Rhodope in Bulgaria,30 with the highest concentration of rock-cut tombs of dif-ferent types along the Arda valley and its tributaries, the Krumovitza River in the north and the Varbitza River in the south (Кулов 1991, 80). The Petrota example constitutes the most southern monument of this type, at present, situated in immediate proximity to the Aegean shore. Although it belongs to a type that is more rarely represented in the Arda valley when compared with the far more numerous tombs with rectangular cham-ber (“trapezoid longitudinal section and opening on the top, entrance on one of the short sides and small, open antechamber”: Нехризов 1994, 10), it undoubtedly marks the southern extent of the distribution of this group of megalithic monuments. The recent interpretation of the cave of Pan on the island of Thasos31 as “originally carved as a rock-cut Thracian tomb” suggests a different view of the function, characteristic and distribu-tion pattern of the Thracian rock-cut tombs (Owen 2000, 139-143).32 Owen compares the Thasian monument with two of the most popular examples of the type, those belonging to the complexes at Tatoul and Glouhite Kamani in East Rhodope33. Despite the temptation to draw parallels it is worth remembering that the date of these tombs, the second phase of the EIA,34 is not confirmed by directly associated archaeological finds.35

29 For the Samothracian dolmens, see Ανδριώτης 1929, 54-64; Moutsopoulos 1989, 246-279; Lehmann 1998, 170; Matsas, Bakirtzis 2001, 104; Μάτσας 2004, 234-236. For the Petrota tomb, see Τριαντάφυλλος 1981, 61-64 (=Triandaphyllos 1983, 145-163); 1990, 305-306, εικ.11. Indeed the tomb is situated between the villages of Asketes and Petrota, north-west of the later Samothracian apoikia Zone. Owen 2000, 143 defines the locality as belonging to “the (later) hinterland of Maroneia” without confirming this contribution with written or ar-chaeological evidence. In fact the limited volume of research in the hinterland of the North-Aegean apokiai east of Bistonis Lake gives preliminary character of the conclusions concerning the study of their chora. D. Triantaphyllos had already assumed that the Philiouri River valley and the naturally fortified sites of Ismaros Mount turned into part of the territory of the polis of Maroneia quite soon after its foundation (Τριαντάφυλλος 1984, 16). Although logical, such an assumption is based more on geographical determination than on archaeo-logical evidence, especially for the early period of the Chian apoikia. If one follows the features of the landscape around Maroneia, expansion of its territory in a western direction towards the Philiouri valley where the narrow coastal strip joins the plain of Komotini, looks highly probable and preferable from a geographical viewpoint (For discussion, Илиева 2006).

30 For the rock-cut tombs in the Eastern Rhodope see, Миков 1955, 15-48; Балкански 1978, 63; 1978a, 10; Делев 1982, 398-423; Колев 1984, 55-66; Delev 1984, 17-45; Кулов 1991, 73-85; Нехризов 1994, 5-11; Стоянов 1997, 126 and most recently the brief discussion in Owen 2000, 139-143.

31 It is situated on the rocky slope of the Thasian acropolis (see Guide de Thasos 1967; Devambez 1976, 117-123) and its artificially achieved shape closely resembles that of the well-known monument (tomb) carved in the rock in the Tatoul complex, and shares features generally fitting to the above description of the Petrota tomb.

32 The appearance of a rock-cut tomb on the island of Thasos might be supported by the existence of similar monuments in the Pangeus area (Moutsopoulos 1971, 482-489), which appeared considerably westward from their core area of distribution.

33 For these two monuments, see Фол (ed.) 1976, 1982, 258-259.34 It corresponds to the 8-6th c. BC according to the chronological system of the EIA in Thrace developed by

Gergova on the base of the fibulae and ornaments of the costume found in Thrace (Gergova 1987).35 In the complex at Glouhite Kamani were found artefacts dating to the 5th c. AD, traces of a church with the

lower part of walls with preserved paintings, and a fortification wall, previously unknown. These architectural elements most probably date to Late Antiquity or the medieval period. The approximate chronological position might be confirmed by a large number of ceramics datable to these periods. These monuments and the associ-ated material came to light as a result of illegal digging on the site, which was registered in 1999-2000. It seems


The only datable rock-cut tombs in the East Rhodope area known at present are those at the villages of Shiroko pole (Миков 1955, 29) and Pchelari (Нехризов 1994, 6-8). The grave equipment found together with indications for inhumation burials in both tombs indicates a date in the 8th-7th c. BC, i.e. in the very end of the first and the beginning of the second phase of the EIA in Thrace. Analogous date in the 8th -7th c. BC might be as-sumed for the Petrota tomb on the Aegean shore, based on ceramic evidence found in close proximity,36 although not directly associated with it (Τριαντάφυλλος 1990, 306).

The Petrota tomb has been interpreted as part of a necropolis with five rock-cut tombs (Owen 2000, 143, fig. 3).37 Indeed in a study of the megalithic monuments in modern Greek Thrace published in 1981 D. Triantaphyllos mentions two tombs with arch-like vaults cut into the rock, although summarizing the study in 1990 he writes of only one example (Τριαντάφυλλος 1981, 63-64; 1990, 305-306). Describing the Petrota tomb he mentions the existence of 19 circular cuttings in the rock close to the tomb, each with flat base of approximately 1, 20-2, 20 m. in diameter and 0, 30-1, 30 m.deep, but with-out any archaeological material in them. He suggests an analogy with similar monuments from the territory of Bulgaria, mentioning that they have been characterized as rock-cut tombs38 which probably give basis to Owen’s assumption for the existence of a necropolis

that there was a small military base at the site in Late Antiquity and the medieval period with which a water cairn cut in the highest point of the rock and stairs cut into the rock for access to the cairn should be connected. Owen 2000, 143, n.32 mentions a sarcophagus cutting that appears “on the flat rocky surface above a rock-cut tomb”. In fact the only cutting above the tomb is the cairn. The tomb is cut in the base of the main rock massive which is part of the complex with the wall and the church situated immediately in front of the tomb entrance. This fact questions considerably its chronology and function as a tomb (see Stoyanov 1997, 123: “…allow the assumption a number of the rock sites may have had some other purpose or that they at least functioned in an-other period”). The existence of rock-cut trapezoid niches on the neighboring, smaller rocks suggests some kind of activity at the place during the Iron Age, but a direct association with the tomb is difficult to support.

With concern to the opinion that the rock-cut tombs “are often associated with rock art and rock complexes” (Owen 2000, 142) and to conclusion that “the pathways through the landscape are charted by both rock-cut tombs and rock art such as cupules (which often appear within rock-cut tombs), sacrificial stones…” (Owen 2000, 142, n.25) one should remember that the existence of rock altars, cuttings, “sacrificial stones” etc. as evidence about the nature and date of an archaeological site needs to be used with caution because in most cases these monu-ments are not associated with archaeological finds and stand alone without context (Фол (ed.) 1982, 256-259). A recently held geoarchaeological survey in “Chobra Tash” rock complex in East Balkan range, previously known as a Thracian sanctuary with niches, “throne”, “stairs”, “central altar” and “sacrificial platform” brought to light remarkable results in this regard (Георгиева, Николов 2005, 56). The cooperation of archaeologists and geolo-gists proved that there are no traits of human activity and that the “rock-cut” formations are indeed natural phe-nomena (Георгиева, Николов 2005, 56-57). Concerning the rock-cut tomb which is also known at the site, which “might be compared with monuments from the first half of the 1st millennium BC” (Георгиева, Николов 2005, 57), only use during the late medieval period has been ascertained; there are no finds from the Iron Age.

36 The pottery has come to light after illegal digging south of the tomb, but close to it, and the clay vessels were found in a stone pile, out of context (Τριαντάφυλλος 1990, 306). Three partially preserved and two fragments of vessels known as cut-away jugs (prohoi) decorated with shallow channeling, incised and stamped geometric deco-ration are published (Τριαντάφυλλος 1990, 306, σχ.5). The shape is familiar from the EIA ceramic repertoire of Macedonia, and its appearance at Petrota and in the EIA grave 1 in the necropolis of the later Samothracian apoikia Zone (Τριαντάφυλλος 1990, 306-308; see also n. 13) indicates contacts with Aegean Thrace. The geo-graphically closest parallels are identifiable on the island of Thasos (Κουκούλη-Χρυσανθάκη 1992, 708-722), in the EIA necropoleis in the Drama Industrial area (Κουκούλη-Χρυσανθάκη 1993, 685-686, σχεδ. 15) and in Amphipolis Hill 133 (Κουκούλη-Χρυσανθάκη 1993, 682-684, σχεδ. 6).

37 The graphic sign on the map Owen 2000, 142, fig.3 indicates a concentration of 5+ rock-cut tombs at the site of Petrota tomb.

38 D. Triandaphyllos does not mention the source of this interpretation in Bulgarian archaeological bibliography. As far as I know this kind of cutting, which is popularly known as “sharapana”, are not considered grave construc-tions by Bulgarian archaeologists. It is interesting that in a summarizing study Ian Morris mentions “a round stone hut” found at Petrota in a pre-colonial context (Morris 1998, 49). He does not explain precisely which one

Petia Ilieva10

with more than five graves which in fact does not exist (Τριαντάφυλλος 1990, 306, εικ.12; Owen 2000, 143, fig. 3).

The southernmost distribution point of megalithic graves of dolmen-type is the island of Samothrace, with six monuments belonging to this category39 (fig. 5). As a rule the dol-mens in Thrace are situated on the southern slopes of low hills, usually grouped, with vary-ing concentration and distance between the graves in one group.40 The Samothracian ex-amples follow a similar model of display, although they suggest a local adaptation as most of them are situated in the north and north-eastern slopes of Vryhos hill41 (Μάτσας 2004, 235). Considering the fact that they are an almost unique example of a dolmen necropolis situated close to a chronologically relevant settlement, and thus can be directly associated with it, it is highly probable that their localization reflects a common spatial organization of the complex that includes both settlement structure and cemetery space. While four of the Samothracian examples follow the ascertained common model for placing the en-trance opening on the short southern side, varying to southeast or southwest, it is striking that a single example from Samothrace42 is orientated with its entrance facing to the north (Стоянов 1997, 126; Τριαντάφυλλος 1981, 63; Μάτσας 2004, 236). Being the only excep-tion at present, it remains unclear whether we are dealing with a conscious orientation, adaptation to the landscape or chance, which is the least possible explanation considering the unquestionable “importance of the orientation of the dead” (Стоянов 1997, 126).

While four of the dolmens on Vryhos hill are of single chambers, the fifth one has been recognized as a “double grave” with an additional chamber (Μάτσας 2004, 236), indicat-ing that developed variants of the plan appeared even in the southernmost points of the “megalithic culture”. The existence of this example allows us to assume that the preva-lence of one-chamber constructions did not result from lack of knowledge or technical skill to build more complicated types. Similar to the examples from inland Thrace, the locally available stones43 were used as building material for the Samothracian dolmens. Their construction employs massive stone slabs that generally resemble the appearance of the examples from the Strandja-Sakar area in Bulgaria. In three cases44 the roofing of the dolmens is preserved in situ, consisting of two stone slabs for each grave. Probably a

of the 19 circular stone cuttings around the tomb he is referring to as a “hut”, but if we accept his interpretation there will be at least two unique features: the “hut” type as a dwelling space unparalleled at present in Thrace, and the spatial organization of the rock-cut tomb and domestic structure in its immediate vicinity. His date as pre-colonial also needs additional confirmation as the chronology of such cuttings may vary considerably, last-ing until the medieval period (see n.35).

39 Five dolmens are registered on the slopes of Vryhos Hill as is one megalithic grave resembling a dolmen in Krimniotissa locality in the southern part of the island. For bibliographic reference, see n.29.

40 For summarizing studies on dolmen type graves in the Bulgarian part of Southeastern Thrace, see Фол (ed.) 1976; Делев 1982, 263-390; Стоянов 1997, 121-126; Delev 1984, 17-45. For the only excavated dolmen necropolis in the modern Greek part of East Rhodope, see Τριαντάφυλλος 1973, 241-255; 1981, 61-64 (=Triandaphyllos 1983, 145-163).

41 The archaeological survey of the hill revealed the existence of a significant settlement of the end of the LBA and the EIA (Μάτσας, Καράδημα, Κουτσουμανής 1989, 607-613; Μάτσας 2004, 227-257).

42 It is dolmen II (Μάτσας 2004, 235).43 Ryodacites (Μάτσας 2004, 235).44 These are dolmens I, II and V (Μάτσας 2004, 235).


single-slab covering was difficult considering that the graves on Vryhos hill have dimen-sions between 3-4 m. in longitudinal axis and 2, 5-3, 5 m. in width, and limited possibilities for cutting a single slab from the hard local stone. All five dolmens display a well shaped “entrance” opening situated in the center of the one short side. The dolmens ІІІ and ІV45 share a specific feature common to the examples from Bulgaria – the long side slabs are slightly inclined towards the inside of the chamber resulting in a trapezoid section which increases the stability necessary to support the massive roof slab (Делев 1982, 401). A peribolos of rough stones with different dimensions encircling three of the dolmens (І, ІІІ и V)46 may indicate the possible existence of a small tumulus similar to the numerous examples from inland Thrace.

The construction technique of grave VI in Krimniotissa locality in the southern part of the island allows us to include it in the category of megalithic graves, although not of dol-men type (Μάτσας 2004, 236). Sharing common features with the dolmens, it is an over-ground construction adapted to the features of the terrain, with long sides of different height necessary for levelling the space for the big covering slab which lays almost directly on the ground at the northern side. The “entrance” opening forms naturally in the west-ern short side and its existence resembles that of the dolmen graves. Despite some techni-cal differences between the grave and the “classical” dolmen construction, typologically it belongs to the category of the megalithic graves.

None of the Samothracian dolmens has been studied through archaeological excavations, resulting in a total absence of information about the funeral rites associated with them and a limited possibility for dating them. The dimensions of the Samothracian examples, which achieve at 4 m. at its longitudinal axis, suggest that from a practical viewpoint the practice of inhumation for adults is possible.47 This contrasts with some monuments from Rhodope, Sakar and Strandja mountains where megalithic graves between 1, 15 and 1, 40 m. long are inappropriate for such burials (Τριαντάφυλλος 1973, 244; Stoyanov 1997, 119).

Considering the appearance of megalithic graves on the Aegean shore of Thrace and on the island of Samothrace, their absence east of lower Hebros valley, south of Strandja Mount and the Ergene River valley where they obviously are not distributed, is worth men-tioning (Özdogan 1987, 12-17).

Problems and perspectives of researchWhile the information regarding the funeral rites and grave types from the Aegean coastal zone of Thrace and its immediate hinterland gives a general picture, different aspects re-main unclear and may direct the perspectives for future research.

45 Μάτσας 2004, 236.46 Μάτσας 2004, 236.47 Indeed, according to the opinion prevailing until recently, inhumation in a supine position was practiced in the

dolmens, but different examples indicate a variety of burial types including cremation or hoker inhumations (for detailed discussion with bibliographical references, see Stoyanov 1997, 119-123).

Petia Ilieva12

Geographical perspective: if the topic is to be analyzed through the prism of geography it might be emphasized that the plain of Komotini which bridges the coastal zone with the inlands is still a “blank field”.48 The connection between the Samothracian dolmens and the closest geographical examples in Eastern Rhodope is absent in the south- easternmost slopes of the same range and in the mountains of Ismaros and Zonaion, although the Petrota rock-cut tomb relates the coastal zone with the core area of distribution of mega-lithic graves.

The chronological aspect: the Balkan-orientated nature of the grave equipment during the EIA and the limited number of chronologically relevant studied sites restricts the opportu-nities to suggest a chronology that is more precise than two centuries, or to define develop-ment in the funeral rites and grave types. Unquestionably the appearance of cist graves is to be dated at the end of the EIA and marks already existing contacts with the Greek apoikiai on the coast, but their relation to the earlier local burial customs remains unclear, even in the cases when they belong to the same cemetery, as at Filiouri or Kastas Mound.

Burial customs: the absence of written or iconographic evidence analogous to the Greek literary tradition and visual arts makes the archaeological record the only accessible source of information regarding the nature of the funeral rites practiced in the EIA Aegean Thrace. Being an incomplete reflection of the past reality, it creates a number of un-certainties in our interpretation of the burial customs. Graves with inhumation burials in non-anatomic order, i.e. evidence of the practice of mutilation of the dead body or post-mortem operations, such as those known from inland Thrace,49 are not recognised at present in the coastal zone of the Aegean. If their absence does not result from the lim-ited number of studied sites, it may mark an essential difference of that geographical and cultural subregion in relation to inland. The burial rites related to the megalithic graves of Samothrace remain hypothetical. The localization of the pyre place in the cases of cremation burials is also archaeologically unattested. Animal sacrifices, similar to that of a dog from the Drama Industrial area necropolis,50 are not documented at present.

Spatial model: with a single exception - the dolmen necropolis on the slopes of Vryhos hill on Samothrace - none of the remaining cemeteries from the territory of Aegean Thrace can be associated with a corresponding settlement, i.e. the nature of the spatial relation between the living space and that of the dead members of the community remains un-known.

48 The necropolis at Filiouri River is a single exception as the only excavated non-Greek cemetery with graves preceding the arrival of the Greek apoikists in the region, located in the area between Bistonis Lake in the west, the easternmost parts of Rhodope, the southern slopes of Rhodope on the north and the Ismaros and Zonaion mountains in the south.

49 For a recent detailed study of the phenomenon and full bibliographic references for the examples from inland Thrace, see Georgieva 2003, 313-323. For a possible example from the South Necropolis of Samothrace, see Ilieva 2005, in press.

50 A dog buried in a pithos was found in tumulus B (Κουκούλη-Χρυσανθάκη 1993, 686, εικ. 22). Although in the burned “spots” under the cist graves at Filiouri river, interpreted here as cremation graves, animal bones were found, thus resembling the cremations at Drama Industrial area necropolis where burnt animal bones were found among the cremated remains, it is the only evidence suggesting possible animal sacrifices related in an unknown way to the burial rite.


SummaryThe variety of grave types and burial rites recognized from the limited number of studied sites of EIA date in Aegean Thrace indicates unquestionably that a uniform funeral pattern did not exist and confirms that the coastal area is not an exception to the general diversity of grave constructions and burial customs well known from inland Thrace during the discussed period.

The numerous variations of pithoi burials, including single cremations in Filiouri cemetery, cremations in pithoi incorporated in a stone platform encircling a central grave in Zone example 2, or pithos inhumations in a supine position at Kossynthos River, have much in common with burials excavated west of the lower Nestos val-ley (mainly in Central and Eastern Macedonia). The appearance of certain pottery shapes characteristic of the EIA repertoire of Macedonia east of the Nestos River in addition to the similarity in burial complexes suggests that the inhabitants of Aegean Thrace were in contact with their immediate neighbors in Eastern Macedo-nia, from its coastal zone to the southern slopes of Rhodope range, as the Drama Industrial area necropolis indicates.

Other grave constructions attested in Aegean Thrace show clear typological affini-ties with Balkan-related types (dolmens, rock-cut tombs), while others (built graves) are representative of Thasos and additionally confirm the sub-regional contacts in the North Aegean littoral in a northern direction, at least in regard to the Roussa example.

The simultaneous existence of inhumation and cremation burials, often in the same necropolis, is again not an exception to widely practiced biritualism in inland Thrace, or even in Macedonian cemeteries. The practice of both rituals confirms the relationship between the processes that develop in the EIA Aegean Thrace with similar cultural phenomena in the neighboring territories west and north. Al-though the picture of the burial rites obtainable from archaeologically explored sites is quite general and does not allow us to recreate the sequence and nature of the practices accompanying the funeral ceremony and subsequently, some observa-tions might be suggested. It seems that in the cases of cremation remains mixed with burnt animal bones, known from the earlier graves at Filiouri River and from Drama Industrial area necropolis, probably both the human body and the sacri-ficed animal (or parts of it) were placed and burnt together on the pyre. In other cases, as in Kossynthos grave 3 or Zone grave 2, a kind of liquid or semi-liquid food offered to the dead person might be assumed. Indications of post-burial offerings, usually best preserved in the tumulus, have not been attested in the cases when the tumulus has been archaeologically surveyed. In the cases when the existence of a tumulus is probable but has not been preserved and excavated, any kind of assump-tion remains speculative.

Petia Ilieva14

BibliographyΑνδριώτης, Ν. 1929. Προϊστορικοί τάφοι εν Σαμοθράκη, Πρακτικά της Ελληνικής Ανθρωπολογικής Εταιρίας,

54-64.

Ανδρόνικος, Μ. 1969. Βεργίνα Ι. Το νεκροταφείο των τύμβων, Αθήνα.

Archibald, Z. 1998. Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace: Orpheus unmasked, Oxford.

Балкански, И. 1978. Тракийски скални гробници, in: Ахридъ І, Кърджали, 63-66.

Балкански, И. 1978a. Крумовград, археологически паметници, Крумовград.

Данов, Хр. 1969. Древна Тракия. Изследвания върху историята на българските земи, Северна Добруджа, Източна и Егейска Тракия от края на ІХ до края на ІІІ в.пр. н.е., София.

Делев, П. 1982. Проблеми на Тракийските мегалитни паметници, in: Мегалитите в Тракия ІІ. Тракийски паметници 3, София, 398-423.

Delev, P. 1984. Megalithic Thracian tombs in south-eastern Bulgaria, Anatolica 11, 17-45.

Devambez, P. 1976. Guide de Thasos, Athens and Paris.

Фол, А. (ed.) 1976. Мегалитите в Тракия І. Тракийски паметници 1, София.

Фол, А., Т. Спиридонов 1983. Историческа география на тракийските племена до ІІІ в.пр. Хр., София.

Γαλάνη-Κρίκου, Μ. 1997. Ανασκαφή στη Μεσέμβρια-Ζώνη: τρίτος νομισματικός τύπος, In: 2o Διεθνές συμπό-σιο θρακικών σπουδών «Αρχαία Θράκη», Κομοτηνή 1992, 631-641.

Георгиева, Р., М. Николов 2005. Археологически разкопки в м. “Чобра таш” край гр. Котел, in: ХХІV Среща на музеите от Югоизточна България, 56-58.

Gergova, D. 1987. Früh- und ältereisenzeitliche Fibeln in Bulgarien, PBF, Abteilung XIV, Band 7. München.

Ilieva, P. 2005. Samothrace: Samo- or Thrace?, paper from a conference “Crossing cultures. Identities in the mate-rial world”, 07-09.01.2005, Bristol, in press in the proceedings of the conference.

Илиева, П. 2006. Егейска Тракия между Бистонида и Пропонтида (8-6 в. пр. Хр.), дисертация за присъждане на научна и образователна степен “доктор”, (unpublished PhD thesis), София.

Isaac, B. 1986. The Greek settlements in Thrace until the Macedonian Conquest, Studies of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society 10, Leiden.

Kazarow, G. 1918. Zur Archäologie Thrakiens, AA, 3-66.

Колев, Б. 1984, Още няколко неизвестни скални гробници в Източните Родопи, ИМЮБ VІІ, 55-66.

Κουκούλη-Χρυσανθάκη, Χ. 1992. Προϊστορική Θάσος. Τα νεκροταφεία του οικισμού Καστρί, Αθήνα.

Κουκούλη-Χρυσανθάκη, Χ.,1993. Η πρώιμη εποχή του σιδήρου στην Ανατολική Μακεδονία, Αρχαία Μακεδονία, τ. 1, 679-733

Кулов, Г. 1991. Тракийската култура през бронзовата и ранножелязната епоха по средното течение на р. Арда и нейните притоци, ИМЮБ ХVІІ, 73-86.

Kurtz, D., J. Boardman 1971. Greek Burial Customs, London.

Λαζαρίδης, Δ. 1973. Ανασκαφαί και έρευναι Αμφιπόλεως, ΠΑΕ, 43-45, πίν. 53-71.



Λαζαρίδης, Δ. 1976. Ανασκαφή Αμφιπόλεως, ΠΑΕ, 88-98, πίν. 56-72.

Λαζαρίδης, Δ. 1977. Ανασκαφές και έρευνες Αμφιπόλεως, ΠΑΕ, 38-45, πίν. 19-33.

Λαζαρίδης, Δ. 1981. Ανασκαφές και έρευνες Αμφιπόλεως, ΠΑΕ, 18-25, πιν. 26-45.

Λαζαρίδης, Δ. 1982. Ανασκαφές και έρευνες Αμφίπολης, ΠΑΕ, 43-51, πίν. 19-35.

Lehmann, K. 1998. Samothrace, a guide to the excavations and the museum, Thessaloniki, 6th ed.

Μάτσας, Δ. 2004. Η Σαμοθράκη στη πρώιμη εποχή του Σιδήρου, in: Το Αιγαίο στην πρώιμη εποχή του Σιδήρου, Αθήνα, 227-257.

Matsas, D., A. Bakirtzis. 2001. Samothrace. A short cultural guide, Athens.

Миков, В. 1955. Произходът на куполните гробници в Тракия, ИАИ ХІХ, 15-48.

Morris, I. 1998. Archaeology and archaic Greek history, in: Archaic Greece: New approaches and new evidence (ed. N. Fisher and H. van Wees), London, 1-93.

Moutsopoulos, N. 1971. Les sgraffites du Pangaion, in: In Memoriam Panayotis A. Michelis, Athens, 482-489.

Moutsopoulos, N. 1989. Tournee au Rhodope du Sud et a Samothrace, in: Thracians and Mycenaeans (ed. J. Best, N. de Vries), Leiden-Sofia, 246-279.


Нехризов, Г. 1994. Принос към проучването на скалните гробници в Източните Родопи, Минало 2, 5-11.

Ников, К. 1999. Културни контакти на Южна Тракия с Егейския свят през ранната желязна епоха по данни на керамиката. Дисертация за присъждане на образователна и научна степен “доктор” (unpublished PhD thesis), София.

Özdogan, M. 1987. Taşlıcabayır, a Late Bronze Age burial in Eastern Thrace, Anatolica XIV, 7-39.

Özdogan, M. 1998. Early Iron Age in Eastern Thrace and the megalithic monuments. in: Thracians and Phrygians. Problems of Parallelism, Proceedings of International Symposium on the Archaeology, History and Ancient Languages of Thrace and Phrygia, Ankara 1995 (ed. Tuna Lynch), 29-40.

Owen, S. 2000. New Light on Thracian Thasos: A Reinterpretation of the “Cave of Pan”, JHS 120, 139-143.

Pritchett, W. K. 1964. Studies in Ancient Topography I.

Стоянов, Т. 1997. Могилен некропол от Ранножелязната епоха (= Early Iron Age tumular necropolis), София.

Τουράτσογλου, Ι. 1999. Μακεδονία. Ιστορία, μνημεία, μουσεία. Αθήνα.

Τριαντάφυλλος, Δ. 1973. Μεγαλιθικά μνημεία (dolmen) και βραχογραφίαι εις την Δυτικήν Θράκην, ΑΑΑ 2, 241-255.

Τριαντάφυλλος, Δ. 1981. Τα μεγαλιθικά μνημεία της Δυτικής Θράκης, Θρακηκά χρονικά 36, 61-64.

Τριαντάφυλλος, Δ. 1984. Αρχαικό νεκροταφείο στη Δυτική Θράκη, ASAtene, Roma 179-207.

Τριαντάφυλλος, Δ. 1990. Η Θράκη του Αιγαίου πριν από τον ελληνικό αποικισμό, Θρακική επετηρίδα 7, 297-322.

Τριαντάφυλλος, Δ., Ντ. Καλλιντζή. 1998. Αρχαιολογικά ευρήματα στον Κόσσυνθο της Ξάνθης, ΑΕΜΘ 12, 1-18.

Τσατσοπούλου, Τζ. 1997. Η ανασκαφική έρευνα στη Μεσημβρία του Αιγαίου την τελευταία δεκαετία, in: 2o Διεθνές συμπόσιο θρακικών σπουδών «Αρχαία Θράκη», Κομοτηνή 1992, 616-630.

Βαβρίτσας, Α.Κ. 1966. Ανασκαφή Μεσέμβριας Θράκης, ΠΑΕ, 67-70, πίν.65-72.

Βαβρίτσας, Α.Κ. 1967. Ανασκαφή Μεσέμβριας Θράκης, ΠΑΕ, 89-95, πίν.67-73.

Petia Ilieva16

Fig. 1 Built grave 1 from the necropolis of Zone (after Βαβρίτσας 1966, πιν. 71β).

Fig. 2 Grave 2 from the necropolis of Zone (after Βαβρίτσας 1970, εικ. 3).

0 1 2


Fig. 3 Pithos inhumation, Kossynthos (after Τριαντάφυλλος, Καλλιντζή 1998, πίν. 1).

Fig. 4 Rock-cut tomb, Petrota (after Τριαντάφυλλος 1990, εικ.11).

Fig. 5 Samothracian dolmen (after Lehmann 1998, fig. 85).

Petia Ilieva18

Map 1 Map of places mentioned in the text.

thracology ilieva

Documents