1

Thracian sanctuary-fortress at the village of Strashimir – The Middle Rhodopes1

Damyan Damyanov

The present paper presents the findings of the archaeological excavation work carried out by the author throughout 20072 referring to the period between 12th - 9th centuries BC. The archaeological site is located in Gradishte area situated north-west of the village of Strashimir, Municipality of Zlatograd, region. It spreads along the mountain ridge oriented southwest – northwest and on the south end of Zhulti Dyal hill, in the east part of the Middle Rhodopes3. Nowadays the hill, rising to a maximum height of 1241 m above the sea level, serves as the administrative border between the municipalities of Zlatograd – in the east and Madan – in the west. A magnificent view opens from it in all directions. It is about 160m long. Three mound-like heights stand out clearly– one rising on the southwest end and two more- close one to the other – on the northeast end of the hill. Before the excavations started the field was overgrown with deciduous beech trees, which, to some extent, brought about the destruction of the architectural remains; although the continual activities of treasure – hunters carried out in Gradishte area have been far more destructive. The archaeological excavations were carried out in three sections encompassing the three heights (culminations) along the ridge, named, according to location, respectively Southeast, Central and Northeast, Fig. 2. There is evidence that the ridge was inhabited in the Late Stone-Copper Age but, at this stage of the research and the present archaeological situation, we cannot be certain that there existed sanctuaries or habitations during the late Chalcolithic. It is possible that the thorough examination of the site would present data in support of such finding, taking in consideration the fact that there is evidence of inhabitance of ridges during the Late Stone- Copper Age in the Middle Rhodopes: to the northwest of Adata area near the village of Paspal, municipality of Ardino;4 to the north in Chukarya area near the village of Bosilkovo5 and at Svoboda peak, Municipality of Banite; to the west at Suhiya vryh (Dry peak) at the village of Beden, Municipality of Devin,6 Fig. 1. During the Late Bronze Age there existed a Thracian sanctuary at the peak. It belongs to the sanctuary-on-the-peak type – one without any architectural structure. The fragments of cult ceramics, richly decorated, were excavated mainly on the three heights, Fig. 2 Similar to the above mentioned sanctuary are some Thracian sanctuaries familiar to the archaeological science and belonging to the Late Bronze Age- in Belite kamuni area, near the village of Startsevo, Municipality of Zlatograd;7 on the peak Kostadin/Aladak (1241 m), Municipality of Nedelino;8 in Chukarya area near the village of Bosilkovo,9 on Svodboda peak (1943 m), Municipality of Banite; at Zagradski Kamuk (1416 m) near the village of Zaburdo,

1 Статията е публикувана в Thracia, 2009, 18, 451-467. 2 Дамянов 2008b: 134-137. The archaeological site has been examined in the implementation of the project “ The Thracian Trail” on the PHARE program and the Trans-Border Cooperation Project “ The encouragement of the development of the culture, tourist and human resources in a trans-border region” implemented by the municipality of Zlatograd. 3 The Middle Rhodopes are the territory of today’s Smolyan administrative region. 4 Бориславов 2002: 44-45. 5 Радунчава 1998: 9-19; Радунчева, Камарев, Вълчанова 2007: 95-98. 6 Дамянов, Бояджиев 2006: 276-279. 7 Вълчанова 1986: 67-84. 8 Лещаков 1990: 1-17. 9 Радунчева 1998: 9-19; Радунчева, Камарев, Вълчанова 2007: 95-98. 2

Fig.1. Thracian sanctuaries and fortresses in the Middle Rhodopes (by A.Kiryakov)

Fig. 2. Plan of the uncovered in Gradishte area near the village of Strashimir (by I.Sarov)

3

Municipality of ;10 at Kom peak (1569 m) near the village of Sivino;11 at St.Nikola/Sakarka peak (1518 m), near the village of Sokolovtsi; at Sv.Atanas peak in ,12 Gradishte area near the village of Podvis (1215 m); Popovitsa area near the village of Strazha – Municipality of Smolyan, Fig. 1. The end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age were marked by the arrival of settlers who invaded territories previously inhabited by indigenous population; they took their sanctuary, fortified and controlled it for some time. Later on only the southwest height was used as a sanctuary and the central and the northeast ones - as the ground for two mound burials. The southwest height is dome-shaped and is separated from the others by a saddle back. The examination of 120 square meters of its highest part shows that it had been used only as a sanctuary. No architectural tools were uncovered; neither were there any traces of working on the basic rock. The culture layer is thin and uneven – ranging from 0.05 m to 0.25 m on the north and south slopes. On the north slope, about 3 meters away from the peak, a fireplace with a diameter of 2.50 meters was uncovered. The layer of soil and coal in it is black. The soil looks greasy from the organic components in it. On the east end of the fireplace the only metal finding in this sector was uncovered – a ring (loop-shaped) from 3rd- 4th centuries. Ceramic pieces on the southeast peak are densely concentrated, especially along a stretch 3 meters wide passing through the center of the height with a north-south orientation. One cannot put together whole vessels. It is apparent that after being used, they were broken and thrown down the slope because only few pieces from a vessel can be found on the peak. The ceramics fragments are comparatively small and had been broken by people marching on the field. One of the reasons for this is the location of the southeast height – the most convenient way to the peak. The dating of the ceramics shows that Southeast height was used as a sanctuary during the whole period - from the 16th century BC to the 5th century AD. The area where the fragmented vessels were uncovered is a circle with a circumference of 10 meters in length. Beyond that parameter ceramic findings are very scarce or non-existent. The central height is the highest of the three. Its examination - an area of 200 square meters- resulted in the uncovering of the base of a wall, passing across the ridge, Fig. 3. The maximum height of the preserved pieces is 0.70 m. At the corners only one layer of the masonry of the base was preserved or it is missing. The north wall is 2.70 m thick and the thickness of the south-east one going down the slope of the field increases to 3.60m. The outer side of the wall was preserved in one or two rows of stones. It is not perpendicular but slightly slanting to the inside. The base of the wall was not dug in; it was built directly on the field (on top of the fragmented vessels). It was built from crude stones and united by mud, Fig. 4. One cannot help noticing that the stones are comparatively small, easy to carry by one man – unlike the stone blocks used for building the walls of the Thracian fortresses – sanctuaries at the villages of Gela, Municipality of Smolyan and Pavelsko, Municipality of Chepelare, Fig. 5 and Fig. 6.13 The unstable base – made without digging into the field and the usage of mud for welding had led to the movement and sinking of the masonry: also the result of the wetting and gliding of the construction after the rains or the melting of the snow and ice. It can be seen on the inner side, which in the course of time bent changing its slant alternatively to the inside to the outside till it had been completely destroyed. The usage of mud as uniting material had facilitated the penetration of the roots of the trees into the inside of the wall, which on its turn had led to its additional dislocation and deformation.

10 Кисьов 1990: 64-74. 11 Георгиева 1982: 65-102. 12 Field work of D. Damyanov – RMH – Smolyan. 13 Петрова 1975: 91-93; Koleв 1985: 251-253. 4

Fig. 3. Plan of the west fortress wall (by I.Sarov)

5

Fig. 4. The inner side of the fortress wall north-east view (photo by D.Damyanov)

Fig. 5. West wall of the Thracian fortress at the village of Gela, Smolyan region (photo by D.Damyanov) 6

The westward fortress wall is 19.50 m long. Its northwest corner has been completely destroyed. One can trace only one row of stone masonry on the outer side which follows the wall at the northwest corner; the north wall started there and continued to northeast and along the ridge. Excavation word on the southwest corner led to the uncovering of a south fortress wall which is preserved to one or two layers of stone masonry. As it was built on the slope ending with the ridge its base was broadened - to be made stable- to 3.60 m. A possible reason for that change was the fact that a higher wall would make the access to the fortress along the more accessible slope, really difficult.

Fig. 6. West wall of the Thracian fortress Zarenitsa at the village of Pavelsko, municipalityof Chepelare (photo by D.Damyanov)

After the destruction material had been cleared, we uncovered a yet unknown for this region (the Rhodopes) construction type of fortress wall. Alongside its inner side a visible path of comparatively even boulders was arranged. One or two layers of masonry ranging from 0.90 m to 1.20 m in width are preserved from the wall, Fig. 7. At its upper, higher end, a nest-0.30 m in diameter-was found; there are traces of burning wood in the soil that filled it. The hole is to the west of the path, that is, on its inner side. It is obvious that it is a mark of a bigger beam which had been built into the base and, together with some more of its kind, served as support of the wooden fence – (palisade) ending in height with a fortification, Fig. 8. Summing up the results from the examination of the fortress wall we can say with certainty that it had a broad stone base with a vertical inner side and bent to the inside outer side and a wooden fence on top of it – which was, in fact, the main fortification structure also protected by a stone path along its inner side. Most probably, the height of the battle path depended on the height of the palisade. 7

Fig. 7. Battle path along the inner side of the fortress wall, south view (photo by D.Damyanov)

Fig. 8. A hole from a supporting beam for the wooden fence (palicade) over the stone base (photo by D.Damyanov) 8

The examination of the site between the central and northeast heights has not resulted in the uncovering of the north and east bases of the fortification. This finding has led to the conclusion that the fortification in those sections had either been completely destroyed or had never been built; or that it only had a wooden fence and the building of the stone base was forthcoming. The enclosed space was not built on; no dwellings or traces of dwellings were found in the examined area (about 100 sq. m). On top of the sterile layer (whose thickness varies from 0.10 m at the ridge to 0.50 m at the south wall) a thin uneven layer of charcoal (spread in patches along field) shows traces of a fire. The layout shows that the length of the fortification could have been 40 m and its length – varying from 19.50 m to southwest to 10 m to northeast. Consequently, the approximate area of the whole fortification measures to about 390 sq. m.

In the area of where we thought the northeast corner was and at the inner side of the fortress wall – preserved in only one layer of masonry - a bronze needle was uncovered Fig. 9. It is a high-quality needle and was, most probably, used for fastening an overcoat (cape).14 It was cast from copper alloy and finished. Unlike the so far known needles, whose “working part” – the stem is with a smooth surface and almost constant cross section – round or square – this particular item has a sophisticated profile stem. It has an increasing square cross section from the point to the middle, then alternating decreasing and increasing round section ending in an opening at the end of the stem which is connected by a narrow neck to an oval head.15 Needles with similar heads were uncovered on Asia Minor, in Troy (II-V), on the Aegean islands Samos (ЕВ III) and Lesbos (Thermi ІІ-V).16 On the mainland of Greece similar needles were uncovered in Corinth, dated to the last phase of the Middle Hellenic period (МН ІІІ), in Mycenae – and the Late Hellenic period (LH I), in Mesenia – the end of the Middle Hellenic period (MH III – beginning of Late Hellenic period (LH), and the needles with an opening dated to the third phase of the Late Hellenic period (LE III).17 In the Middle Bronze Age similar samples were uncovered on the territory of today’s Italy, along the valley of the Po River. 18 Needles closest in shape to the one mentioned above were uncovered next to the shoulders of an individual re-buried during the Subminoan period (1100-1050/1020 BC.) in a chamber tomb from the late Minoan period - phase ІІ (LM II) in Knosos on the island of Crete19. One of the articles uncovered in the burial bears most similarities with the needle uncovered at Strashimir: bi-conical (ellipsoid) head, an opening in the broader hind (upper) part, square cross section of the stem changing to round cross section at the end of the needle and ornamentation of shallow etched belts of parallel lines.20 Taking into consideration the dating of the above mentioned analogues and the fact that the needle at Strashimir was uncovered among ceramic pieces from the Early Iron Age (11th -9th centuries BC) on the territory of the fortress. I believe that it can be dated to the Subminoan period. Keeping in

14 Thiel 1973: 35, Abb. 28. 15 Needle, Fig 9a, b. Shape: four-cornered front half of the stem, back half- with a round cross-section ending in oval head; opening through the hind part close to the head of the needle. Material: bronze. Ornamentation two bands of eleven embossed parallel lines each at the ends of the hind part; Color: pale green-grayish patina. Dimensions: total lenth-131.6 mm; front half length-62 mm, maximum cross section 4.5 mm x 4.6 mm; hind part – length 57 mm, diameter of cross section from 4.8 mm to 10.5 mm; head – diameter 10 mm; diameter of opening-2.4 mm; place of uncovering: northwest corner of the fortress, depth 0.20-0.30 m. Inv. N A-01724, Regional Museum of History – Smolyan. 16 Branigan 1974: 35, Plate 18, Typ Va. 17 Kilian-Drilmeier 1984: 39-42, Taf.1, 2, Fig. 69-77. 18 Carancini 1975: 170, Taf. 36: 1027-1045, Taf. 106g. 19 Hiller 1977: 177, Abb. 58d-g. 20 Hiller 1977: Abb. 58e. 9 mind the archaeological situation of its uncovering, we ca say that it was a burial gift, laid in the northwest part of the almost completely destroyed northeast mound burial. It is also possible that the needle was lost during an extreme situation such as war conflict. Such situation was the conquest of this Late Bronze Age sanctuary by the new-comers- bearers of Early Iron Age culture.

Fig. 9. Bronze needle from ХІ century BC, uncovered at the fortress at Strashimir (photo by D.Damyanov, drawing by T.Kapitanov) 1 0

The areas where needles of shape and ornamentation were uncovered similar to the one at the sanctuary of Strashimir, we can definitely say that the area of their spread encompasses the Aegean Islands, the west coast Asia Minor peninsula, the Balkan and Apennines peninsulas. Narrowing the area on the basis of greatest similarities in the shape, ornamentation, place of uncovering (graves and sanctuaries) and the dating, we can further specify its borders – from the island of Crete in the South to and the Rhodopi mountains and the north Aegean coast in the North; from the west Aegean coast of Asia Minor peninsula in the East to present day Macedonia and mainland Greece to the west. The uncovering of such a needle in the Rhodopes proves that there were contacts of the Thracians in the Middle Rhodopes with the population of the north Aegean coast, where the major crafts and trades centers were located. There they purchased luxury items and items for everyday life use; items not produced there. The orientation to the south was facilitated by the location of the fortress – South was nearer, there were more convenient roads and a mild climate; and there was, most probably the feeling of cultural belonging to the Aegean culture in the Late Bronze Age.21

Fig. 10а, b. Fragments of cups or kantharos-shaped vessel with ornamentation indented circumferences (photo by D.Damyanov, drawing by T.Kapitanov)

The ceramics found at the fortification22 can be generally divided into two categories: fine, for dining23 and coarse, for cooking. The dining ceramics is represented by cups with one or two handles, cantharos- shaped. As mostly whole vessels cannot be put together, it is not possible to say with certainty how many handles the cups had. They have thin walls, conical or ellipsoid, turned upside down, broad mouth and sub concave wall with a rounded mouth ridge. At the upper part the handles are of the “pointed ear” type, they are attached to the mouth ridge and are rising above it; in their lower part they are attached to the most bulging part of the vessel, Fig. 10 a, b and Fig. 11a, b. Most of the vessels are decorated along the equatorial line of their body with a belt of plaids and bending to one side grooves, Fig. 11a and Fig. 12a, b.

21 The ceramics from the Late Bronze Age will be published soon. 22 Only the ceramics from the Thracian fortress decorated with grooves and buckles have been published in this paper. 23 Нехризов2008: 114-116. 1 1

Fig 11a, b. Fragments of cups or kantharos-shaped vessel with ornamentation of shallow grooves (photo by D.Damyanov, drawing by T.Kapitanov)

Fig. 12a, b. Fragments of cups or kantharos-shaped vessel with ornamentation of shallow grooves (photo by D.Damyanov, drawing by T.Kapitanov)

Similar in shape, size and ornamentation cups and cantharos-shaped vessels were uncovered at a mound burial at the village of Solishta, Smoyan region24, Fig. 13; at the sanctuaries near the villages of Beden, Municipality of Devin25 and Sivino, municipality of Smolyan26. Similar in shape and ornamentation are the vessels from the Thracian fortress at Strashimir; to the east: in the East Rhodopes at the sanctuary at Zvezdel mine;27 at Ada Tepe, Krumovgrad region;28 in Sakar mountain;29 in Strandzha mountain;30 along the seaside coast: in the fortress at the village of Ravadinovo, near Sozopol31. To the west analogues can be found in the West Rhodopes at the village of Kostandovo, Pazardzhik region;32 along the valley of the Mesta River in Koprivlen, Gotse Delchev region,33 along the Valley of Struma

24 Дамянов 2008: 133-139. 25 Дамянов, Бояджиев 2006: 276-279. The ceramics uncovered at Beden will be published soon. 26 Георгиева 1982: 68, Обр. 1а. 27 Кулов 1991: 83, Обр. 7. 28 Нехризов 2008: 115-117, Т. 2/3. 29 Делев 1982: 173-262, Обр. 71, 104, 105. 30 Карайотов и колектив 1982: 270-277, Обр. 187. 31 Домарадски и колектив 1992: 33, Обр. 10. 32 Гиздова 1983: 17. 33 Alexandrov 2002: 69- 70, Fig. 39, 40. 1 2

Fig. 13. Kantharos-shaped cup, burial gift from mound burial uncovered at the village of Solishta, municipality of Smolyan(drawing by T.Kapitanov)

River;34 along the valley of Vardar River – in the settlement mounds Kastans35 and Assiros36 in Thessalonica region. To the north similar vessels were uncovered in the Thracian Lowlands: in the settlement mound at the village of Manole, Plovdiv region;37 at the village of Sredno Gradishte, Chirpan region;38 at the settlements of Pshenichevo and Čаtаlkа, Stara Zagora region;39 at the village of Bryagovo, Haskovo region;40 and in the vicinity of the town of Radnevo;41 in the Tundzha Lowlands at Asenovets, Sliven region42. In North analogues are known from: the region of the town of Lom;43 the village of Novgrad, Svishtov region;44 Devetashkata Cave, Lovetch region;45 the Thracian settlement at Tsarevets in Veliko Turnovo;46 the fortress in Shumen;47 Sboryanovo;48 the settlement mound near Russe;49 Dobrudzha50. North of the River Danube close analogues were uncovered in the regions of Muntenia, Oltenia and Muldavia.51 In the south and south east the analogues spread to: the

34 Lyubenova 1984: 151. 35 Hänsel 1985: 226-228. 36 Wardle 1980: 260, Fig. 19, Pl. 22/f. 37 Detev 1981: 173-185, Fig. 42, 57/1. 38 Грозданова, Върбанов, Тонев 2000: 198, Обр. 8/1. 39 Čičikova 1972: 92, Fig. 15; Hänsel 1976: В. 2, Тaf. 23/11. 40 Аладжов, Балабанян 1984: 192, Обр. 6/6. 41 Георгиева 1991: 94, Обр. 1а; Данкова, Велков, Ников 1991: 311, Обр. 7/а-в; Ников 1995: 116, Обр. 5д. 42 Kănčev 1974: 71-73, Fig. 10. 43 Чичикова 1968: 17-19, Обр. 7, 8. 44 Стефанов 1974: 265, Обр. 16в. 45 Миков, Джамбазов 1960: 124, Обр. 94h, i. 46 Долмова-Лукановска 1984: 239, Обр. 1/12. 47 Антонова, Попов 1984: 175, Taбло 1 и 3. 48 Stoyanov 1992: 97, Fig. 9. 49 Георгиев, Ангелов 1957: 45, Обр. 5. 50 Hänsel 1976: В. 2, Тaf. 16/4-7; Irimia 1984: 93, Abb. 4/3, 5. 51 Vulpe 1965: 118, Abb. 7/1, 12; Hänsel 1976: Вd. 1, 96, 124, Bd. 2, Taf. 12/12,13/2. 1 3 north Aegean coast, the close-by islands (the island of Thasos) 52 and the northwest coast of Asia Minor– in Troy VІІb253.

Fig. 14. Crater-shaped vessel from the Thracian sanctuary at Suhiya Vruh, the village of Beden, municipality of Devin (drawing by T.Kapitanov)

The second group of vessels to be described falls under the second category – the coarse (thick wall) cooking ceramics. The material used for those vessels contains bigger grains of sand, so they feel less smooth. Their surface is comparatively coarse and more uneven. They are either crater-shaped or beehive-shaped – an upturned conical body with a wide mouth and concave or straight wall and jutting mouth ridge, Fig. 14. The highest among them is 0.45 m high. They usually have two handles each – either vertical or horizontal: tongue-shaped and button shaped. Their ornamentation is in relief and is represented almost without any exception by applied horizontal band in relief, just below the mouth ridge

52 Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1982: 135, Аbb. 10/3, 4. 53 Димитров 1968: 3-5, Обр. 1; Schliemann 2000, 33, Taf. 34/841; Кузманов 2008: 99. 1 4 modeled with the finger or a tool, Fig. 15a, b. On some vessels there is a second strip at the level of the handle; on one of the vessels the strip winds into a more sophisticated ornament. Another important detail in the applied ornamentation are the buckles stuck to the shoulders of the body: they are spherical or conical buds, small buckles pointing upwards and differing in size buttons serving as handles as well, Fig. 16a, b and Fig. 17a, b. Taking into consideration the shape and size of the vessels, we can say with certainty that they were used during meals and for rituals – to hold liquids and liquid foods.

Fig. 15a, b. Fragments from crater-shaped vessel from the Thracian fortress at the village of Strashimir, Zlatograd Municipality (photo by D.Damyanov, drawing by T.Kapitanov)

Fig. 16a, b. Fragments of crater-shaped vessels with ornamentation of small buckles (photo by D.Damyanov, drawing by T.Kapitanov)

Analoguous vessels are found alonside finely- grooved cups and cantharos-shaped vessels. They characteristic of the Thracian sanctuaries in particular. In most cases, though, only fragments are uncovered there, fragments so scattered, that they make it practically impossible to reconstruct the whole vessel . Such small fragments were uncovered in the Middle Rhodopes at the santcuaries at Sveti Nikola ( St. Nicolas) peak, the village of 1 5 Sokolovtsi; at Sveti Atanas peak, the village of Momchilovtsi;54 the Thracian fortress at the village of Gela55, municipality of Smolyan; at the sancturary of Suhiya vruh at the village of Beden,56 municipalityof Devin. To the East, the analogues of the grooved ceramics reach as far as the Black sea coast.Fragments of such vessels were uncovered in the region of Svilengrad57, in Malkoto Kale (the little fortress) at Ravadinovo, Sozopol Municipality58. To the North the findings of analogues were uncovered: in the Thracian lowlands – in the region of Chirpan,59 Nova Zagora;60 in the Danube Plain – at the sanctury at Turlata peak near Troyan,61 at Shumen fortress,62 in Dobrudzha63. To the west of the Middle Rhodopes such analogues were uncovered: in the West Rhodopes – in the sanctuaries at the villages of Tsruntcha and Babyak,64 Blagoevgrad region; in the valley of the Struma River at the village of Gulubnik and the Thracean settlement of Krakra, Pernik region65. In the Southeast, analogues were uncovered along the north-west coast of Asia Minor peninsula – in Troy66.

Fig. 17a, b. Fragments of crater-shaped vessels with ornamentation of small buckles (photo by D.Damyanov, drawing by T.Kapitanov)

To sum up, we can say that all archaeological findings so far point at the following areas of distribution of analogues of the cups uncovered in the Middle Rhodopes, kantharos-shaped and crater-shaped vessels decorated with shallow flutes and small buckles. The area of distribution has the following borders: from the west Blacksea coast in the east spreading to West Balkan Mountain to the west (northwest) and the lower reaches of the Vardar River ( to the southwest); from the lower Danube lowlands to the north, to North Aegean coast, the north Aegean islands and the northwest coast of Asia Minor peninsula. The fact that there were fragments of grooved ceramics from the Early Iron Age in the mud soldering the examined west fortress wall on its inner side and under its base shows that

54 The ceramics material was uncovered by D. Damyanov and N.Boyadzhiev archeologists at the RMH- Smolyan during field work. 55 Петрова 1975: Unpublished material from the examination of the fortress, kept at the RMH - Smolyan. 56 Дамянов, Бояджиев 2006: 276-279. 57 Нехризов 2006: Т. 12/12. 58 Домарадски и колектив 1992: 37-38, Обр. 18. 59 Грозданова, Върбанов, Тонев 2000: 192-198, Обр. 6/12-15. 60 Кънчев 1984: 147, Обр. 11а, б. 61 Христов, Гоцев 2003: 25, Обр. 5. 62Антонова, Попов 1984: 175, Т. 4/8-19. 63 Irimia 1984: Abb. 4/8. 64 Домарадски 1986: 14, Обр. 5а; Домарадски и колектив 1999: 64-73, Т. ХХІІ. 65 Lyubenova 1984: 151, Abb. 3d, e. 66 Schachermeyr 1983: 244-252, Abb. 9, Taf. I/d. 1 6 we can date the construction of the fortress wall to the period between the end of the 12th century BC to the end of the 11th century BC. Keeping it in mind that there are no ceramics pieces from later periods and that the vessels from the above mentioned period are fewer; that there are no traces of dwellings; that there are traces of a fire; as well as the fact that there is no food waste or articles of everyday life67,we can be certain that shorly after it had been built, the stronghold was either conquered or destroyed by fire or abandoned and destroyed. It it only logical to make the following conclusion : the archaeological construction is the result of the communication between the bearers of Late Bronze and Early Iron cultures. Their contacts led, most probably, to a war conflict, the result of which was obviously the conquest of the late Bronze Age sanctuary and the construction of the Early Iron Age fortress – a refuge for strangers later on conquered by the local population. After that, the fortress was not rebuilt and its grounds were not used any longer as a sanctuary or dwelling place.On the central and northeast heights two burial mounds were built (about 0.70 m high) in which two cremation burials were carried out ( the mounds were uncovered and pillaged by fortune- hunters).68 Since then only the Southwest mound was used as a sanctuary. The examined archaeological site is, by far, the only of its kind in the Middle Rhodopes with the structure of a fortress wall from the Early Iron Age – a stone base and a wooden fence – palisade. Its structure explains the lack of Thracian fortresses in the fileds with the exception of those built in difficult to access locations and used mainly for shelters; the stone wall of such fortresses was made of bigger stone blocks and reached 2-2.50 m, Fig. 5. Examples of the latter are the Thracian fortresses - sanctuaries uncovered at the village of Gela and Zarenitsa, east of the village of Pavelsko. 69 Similar to it is the structure of the fortress wall of the Thracian fortress in the region of the village of Lyubimets in the East Rhodopes. 70 Another reason for the small limited findings of fortress remains is the fact that their building material was used at later times for building other fortresses, which us the case with the fortress system of the Byzantine empire in the Middle Rhodopes in the 6th century. Such was, most probably, the case with the Thracian fortresses – sanctuaries at the villages of Beden and Podvis71, where one can see,on site, the ruins of Bulgarian-Byzantine fortresses. The bearers of the Iron Age culture knew how to yield iron ore and to manufacture iron articles and tools which gave them a great advantage in wartime. .Coming to the Middle Rhodopes, most probably because of the metal deposit there (iron, lead, zinc),72 they first conquered the „sacred spots“ – the sanctuaries, then they fortified them which showed their intent to settle permanently or until the local ore deposits were exhausted. Such fortified sanctuaries – shelters probably existed on the peak of Kom, at the village of Sivino73, on the peak of Gradishte area at the villages of Gradat and Podvis, on Sveti Atanas peak at the village of Momchilovtsi; at Sveti Nikola peak(Sakarka) a the village of Sokolovtsi and on Suhiya Vruh at the village of Beden.74 One can say that the migration during 12th - 11th centuries BC (LH III) spread to the Aegean area,75 in whose northern periphery the rise; the new-comers from the north- northeast finally settled down in the bosom of the mountain76 ; we can draw such conclusion from the analogies in the ceramics from the first phase of the Early Iron Age.

67 At the fortress so far only vertebrae for spindle from Early Iron Age have been uncovered. 68 Дамянов 2008а: 133-137. 69 Damyanov 2007: 99-136. 70 Попов 2006: 54. 71 Damyanov 2007: 99-136. 72 Maximov 1974: 397-408, Abb. 1. 73 Гeoргиева 1982: 65-102. 74 The ceramics material from the above mentioned sites will be published soon. 75 Schachermeyr 1983: 244-252 76 Георгиев 1983: 259-268; Гоцев 1994: 138; Дамянов 2008c: 134. 1 7

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Аладжов, Балабанян 1984: Д. Аладжов, Д. Балабанян. Паметници от старожелязната епоха в Хасковски окръг. – Thracia, 1984, 6, 185-234. Антонова, Попов 1984: В. Антонова, Н. Попов. Нови данни за ранния халщат в Североизточна България (Археологически разкопки на Шуменската крепост). – Thracia, 1984, 6, 160-184. Бориславов 2002: Б. Бориславов. Спасителни археологически разкопки на култов комплекс в м. „Адата”, землище на с. Паспал, община Ардино. – Археологически открития и разкопки през 2001 г., 2002, 44-45. Вълчанова 1986: Х. Вълчанова. Ранно тракийско поселение при с. Старцево, Смолянски окръг. – Известия на музеите в Южна България, 1986, 12, 67-84. Георгиев, Ангелов 1957: Г. Георгиев, Ангелов Н. Разкопки на селищната могила до Русе през 1950-1953 година. – ИАИ, 1957, 21, 41-127. Георгиева 1982: Р. Георгиева. Тракийско селище на връх Ком в Централните Родопи. – In: Thracia Antiqua, 1982, 9, 65-102. Георгиева 1991: Р. Георгиева. Проучвания на желязната епоха в района на „Марица- изток”. – Марица-изток. Археологически проучвания, 1991, 1, 91-104. Гиздова 1983: Н. Гиздова. Археологически проучвания в Пазарджишки окръг. Постижения и проблеми. – МПК, 1983, 2, 14-22. Гоцев 1994: А. Гоцев. Проучвания на ранножелязната епоха във водосборния район на р.Сазлийка – резултати и проблеми. – В: Марица – Изток. Археологически проучвания, 1994, 2, 137-142. Грозданова, Върбанов, Тонев 2000: К. Грозданова, Ц. Върбанов, А. Тонев. Спасителни проучвания на селище от ранножелязната епоха до село Средно градище, Чирпанско. – Годишник на Департамент Археология – НБУ, 2000, 4-5, 185-201. Дамянов 2007: Д. Дамянов. Археологически проучвания на територията на община Смолян. – Rhodopica, 2007, 1, 99-136. Дамянов 2008а: Д. Дамянов. Погребални практики в Средните Родопи – ХІ-VІ в. пр. Хр. – In: Есенни четения – Сборяново. Погревални практики и ритуали, т. 5. Варна, 2008, 133-137. Дамянов 2008b: Д. Дамянов. Тракийска крепост в м. Градище при с. Страшимир, община Златоград. – Археологически открития и разкопки през 2007 г., 2008, 134-137. Дамянов 2008c: Д. Дамянов. Керамика от ранножелязната епоха от могилно погребение в Средните Родопи. – In: Phosphorion. Studia in honorem Mariae Čičikova. София, 2008, 133-139. Дамянов, Бояджиев 2006: Д. Дамянов, Н. Бояджиев. Археологически проучвания на Беденска крепост – Средни Родопи. – Археологически открития и разкопки през 2006 г., 2007, 276-279. Данкова, Велков, Ников 1991: Г. Данкова, К. Велков, К. Ников. Спасителни археологически проучвания на обект „Староселец” през 1990 г. – Марица- изток.Археологически проучвания, 1991, 1, 307-358. Делев 1982: П. Делев. Сакар планина и Източни Родопи. – In: Мегалитите в Тракия, 2. Тракия Понтика, 3. София, 1982, 173-262. Димитров 1968: Д. Димитров. Троя VІІb2 и балканските тракийски и мизийски племена. – Археология, 1968, 4, 1-15. Долмова-Лукановска 1984: М. Долмова-Луканавска. Към въпроса за тракийското селище на Царевец. – Thracia, 1984, 6, 236-251. 1 8 Домарадски 1986: М. Домарадски. Раннотракийска керамика от култов обект в м. Скалето при с. Црънча, Благоевградски окръг. – Археология, 1986, 2, 10-24. Домарадски и колектив 1992: М. Домарадски, И. Карайотов, А. Гоцев. Керамика от ранножелязната епоха от крепостта Малкото кале при с. Равадиново, общ. Созопол. – Археология, 1992, 4, 29-42. Домарадски и колектив 1999: М. Домярадски и колектив. Паметници на Тракийската култура по Горното течение на река Места. – Разкопки и проучвания, ХХVІ. София, 1999. Карайотов и колектив 1982: И. Карайотов, М. Домарадски, В. Стойкова, М. Петрова, Е. Келбечева. Странджа планина. Мегалитни паметници. Поселищна система и пътна мрежа и т. н. – In: Мегалитите в Тракия, 2. Тракия Понтика, 3. София, 1982, 263-391. Кисьов 1990: К. Кисьов. Скални светилища в Родопите и Горнотракийската низина, представени с археологически материали и обекти от Смолянско и Пловдивско. – In: Тракийска култура в Родопите и Горните поречия на Марица, Места и Струма. Смолян, 1990, 64-74. Колев 1985: К. Колев. Раннотракийската крепост „Зареница” край Нареченски бани и археологическите материали от района. – Годишник на Софийския университет „Климент Охридски” – Исторически факултет (Terra Antiqua Balkanika, ІІ), 77/2, 238- 259. Кузманов 2008: М. Кузманов. Троя и Траките. Проучвания на керамичния материал от ранножелязната епоха. – In: Phosphorion. Studia in honorem Mariae Čičikova. София, 2008, 94-108. Кулов 1991: Г. Кулов. Тракийската култура през бронзовата и ранножелязната епоха по средното течение на р. Арда и нейните притоци. – Известия на музеите от Южна България, 1991, 17, 73-86. Кънчев 1984: М. Кънчев. Селища и находки от късната бронзова и ранножелязната епоха в Новозагорско. – Thracia, 1984, 6, 134-159. Лещаков 1990: К. Лещаков. Украса на къснобронзовата керамика от връх Алада в Източните Родопи. – Археология, 1990, 1, 1-17. Миков, Джамбазов 1960: В. Миков, Джамбазов Н. Деветашката пещера. София 1960. Нехризов 2006: Г. Нехризов. Ямно светилище от желязната епоха и селище от ранната бронзова епоха при Свиленград. – In: Спасителни археологически разкопки по трасето на железопътната линия Пловдив-Свиленград през 2004 г., Велико Търново, 2006, 397- 501. Нехризов 2008: Г. Нехризов. Класификационна схема на трапезната керамика от ранната желязна епоха от Източните Родопи. – In: Phosphorion. Studia in honorem Mariae Čičikova. София, 2008, 114-132. Ников 1995: К. Ников. Украса на керамиката от ранножелязната епоха от местността „Градището” край с. Главан. – „Марица- изток”. Археологически проучвания, 1995, 3, 115-123. Петрова 1975: Н. Петрова. За проучването на тракийските крепости в Смолянски окръг. – Известия на музеите от Южна България, 1975, 1, 89-98. Попов 2006: Х. Попов. Селищен обект Куш кая в контекста на обитаването през ранната желязна епоха в района на Средна Арда, Източни Родопи. – In: Сборник есенни четения „Сборяново – 2006”. Селищен модел в Североизкочна България, т. 4. Варна, 2006, 47-65. Радунчева 1998: А. Радунчева. Скалното светилище до с. Давидково, Смолянско. – Rhrodopica, 1998, 1, 9-19. Радунчева, Камерев, Вълчанова 2007: А. Радунчева, М. Камарев, Х. Вълчанова. Скалното светилище до махала Босилково на с. Давидково, Смолянско. – Археологически открития и разкопки през 2007 г., 2008, 95-98. 1 9 Стефанов1974: С. Стефанов. Новград – старинни селища. – ИАИ, 1974, 34, 250-311. Христов, Гоцев: И. Христов, А. Гоцев. Проучване на тракийското светилище в м. Турлата край Троян. – Археология, 2003, 3, 21-30. Alexandrov 2002: S. Alexandrov. The Late Bronze Age at Koprivlen. – In: Koprivlen. Sofia, 2002, 1, 63-82. Branigan 1974: К. Branigan. Aegean Metalwork of the Early and Middle Bronze Age. Oxford, 1974. Carancini 1975: G. Carancini. Die Nadeln in Italien. – In: Prähistorische Bronzefunde, Abt. 13, Bd. 8. München, 1975. Čičikova 1972: М. Čičikova. Nouvelles donnees sur la culture Thrace de l'epoque du Hallstatt en Bulgarie du sud. – In: Thracia, 1972, 1, 79-100. Detev 1981: P. Detev. Le tell Sazkopanica. – Cultures préhistoriques en Bulgarie. Billetin de l’institut d’Archeologie, 1981, 36, 141-188. Georgiev 1983: G. Georgiev. Das Anfangsstadium der Früheisenzeit (12-9. Jh. v. u. Z.). – In: Griechenland, die Ägäis und die Levante während der “Dark Ages” vom 12. bis zum 9. Jh. v. Ch., Wien, 1993, 259-268. Hänsel 1976: В. Hänsel. Beiträge zur regionalen und chronologischen Gliederung der älteren Hallstattzeit an den Unteren Donau, Teil 1-2, Bonn 1976. Hänsel 1985: В. Hänsel. Wanderungen in Südosteuropa während der späten Bronzezeit und ihr Verhältnis zum Territorium Albaniens. – Iliria, 1985, 2, 223-239. Hiller 1977: S. Hiller. Das Minoische Kreta nach den Ausgrabungen des letzten Jahrtausents. – In: Mykenische Studien. Wien, 1977, Bd. 5. Irimia 1984: M. Irimia. Die mitlere und spate Hallstattzeit auf dem Gebiet der Dobrudscha im Licht der neuerer Entdeckungen. – In: Dritter Internationaler Thrakologischer Kongres. Sofia, 1984, 92-105. Kănčev 1974: М. Kănčev. Materiaux du siteprehistorique de l'age du bronze recent et du Hallstatt ancient pres d'Asenovec depart. de Sliven. – In: Thracia, 1974, 3, 65-85. Kilian 1975: K. Kilian. Fibeln in Thessalien von der mykenischen bis zur archaischen Zeit. – In: Prähistorische Bronzefunde, Abt. 14, Bd. 2. München, 1975. Kilian-Dirlmeier 1984: I. Kilian-Dirlmeier. Nadeln der frühhelladischen bis archaischen Zeit von der Peloponnes. – In: Prähistorische Bronzefunde, Abt. 13, Bd. 8. München, 1984. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1982: C. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki. Die frühe Eisenzeit auf Thasos. – In: Süd-osteuropa zwischen 1600 und 1000 v. Chr. Berlin, 1982, 1, 119-143. Lyubenova 1984: V. Lyubenova. Einige Charakterzüge der thrakischen Kultur während des ersten Jahrtausends v.u.z. im Gebiet der Oberen Struma. – In: Dritter Internationaler Thrakologischer Kongres. Sofia, 1984, 150-163. Maximov 1974: E. Maximov. Der Erzbergbau der Bessen. – Thracia, 1974, 3, 397-408. Schachermeyr 1983: F. Schachermeyr. Die Zeit der Wanderungen im Spiegel ihrer Keramik. – In: Griechenland, die Ägäis und die Levante während der “Dark Ages” vom 12. bis zum 9. Jh. v. Chr, Wien 1983, 241-256. Diskussion 269-271. Schlieman 2000: Н. Schliemann. Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Troja in den Jahren 1871-1873. Zürich, 2000. Stoyanov 1992: Т. Stoyanov. Early Iron Age Tumular Necropolis in the Sboryanovo Reservation. – In: Helis II, Sofia 1992, 93-114. Thiel 1973: E. Thiel. Geschichte des Kostüms. Berlin, 1973. Vulpe 1965: А. Vulpe. Zur Mittleren Hallstattzeit in Rumänien (Die Bassarabi-Kultur). – Dacia, 1965, 9, 105-132. Wardle 1980: K. Wardle. Excavations at Assiros, 1975-9. – In: The Annual of the British School at Athens, 1980, 75, 229-265.