Miniature Axes with Zoomorphic Protomes from Greek Sanctuaries in the Light of Thraco-Greek Contacts in the 8th-6th Century BC ARCHAEOLOGIA BULGARICA XV, 1 (2011), 1-12 Ivaylo KARADZHINOV 1 H: 11.1 cm (Bammer he subject of the study are seven bronze miniature axes with zoomorphic protomes found in four sanctuaries in mainland and island Greece (the Artemision of Ephesus1 (2 pcs.), the temple of Aphaia on the island of Aegina2 (2 pcs.), Zeus’ sanctuary in Dodona3, the Acropolis of Athens4, and an example of an assumed Northern Greek origin5) that add up to the information about the nature of the contacts between ancient hrace and Greece in the period 8th-6th century BC (ig. 1; ig. 4)6. hese contacts are seen as a speciic combination of direct and indirect relations in diferent spheres of material and non-material culture, which take place between certain areas in the two regions (Гергова 1987, 56 f.; Ников 2000; Bozhkova 2002; Илиева 2006; Георгиева / Ников 2010). he miniature axes have two or three zoomorphic protomes on the heel, as well as an opening for hanging. hey are found solely in a ritual context and are not typical of toreutic traditions of the regions in which the relevant Greek sanctuaries are situated. hese circumstances, along with the resemblance established by inds from Northwestern hrace, allows their inclusion into the irst group of bronze objects of Balkan origin diferentiated by K. Kilian and found in Greek votive deposits in the Late Geometric and Archaic period (Kilian 1975b, 119-120). he presence of the bronzes in a Greek milieu is pointed out to be evidence of the existence of direct contacts with the inner Balkans in the period between the 8th and 6th century BC (Kilian 1975b, 119). heir deposition could have been done either by Greeks or by some population that was the bearer of the traditions of manufacturing and use of these artifacts (Kilian 1973, 431; Kilian 1975b, 119-120; Kilian-Drilmeier 1985; Kilian-Drilmeier 2002, 225-228). his phenomenon was part of а general Mediterranean pattern (ig. 3/4-6) (Kilian-Drilmeier 1985; for the distribution of the “Macedonian bronzes” in Greek sanctuaries cf. Bouzek 1974, 175 f.; Bouzek 1997, 110-112; see Verger 2003 on synchronous votives from Western Europe). Closest parallels with the examples from Balkan hrace are displayed by the miniature axe with the three zoomorphic protomes from the Artemision of Ephesus found near the early peripteros (ig. 1/7-8). In comparison with the inds from Teteven7 and Chomakovtsi8, considerable similarities are observed in the shaping of the edge and the positioning of the protomes, which follow an analogous species sequence (goat, ram, bull9) (ig. 2/10-12). Diferences can be noticed with respect to the holes made. In the case of the ind from Ephesus they are located sideways from the protomes (ig. 2/10). he adaptation of the shape of the axe with the need to make holes could indicate a further typological development. he ind from Teteven has an opening for a handle, while the one from Chomakovtsi is equipped with holes for hanging that do not have an impact on its shape (ig. 2/11-12). his would mean that the Ephesus exemplar is a later one and can be dated to the irst half of the 7th century BC according to the dating 1999, 400-401, Taf. 72/1; Klebinder-Gauß, 2007, Taf. 58/796, Taf. 110/796) (ig. 1/7-8); H: 5.7 cm (Klebinder-Gauß 2007, 122-123, 226, Taf. 58/795) (ig. 1/6). 2 H: 7.2 cm (Furtwängler 1906, 418, #176, Taf. 118/17; cf. Bouzek 1997, 200, ig. 232/1) (ig. 1/1-2); H: 4 cm (Maaß / Kilian-Dirlmeier 1998, 83, Abb. 14/73) (ig. 1/3). 3 Preserved H: 6.1 cm (Carapanos 1878, 100, pl. LIV/6; KilianDirlmeier 1979, 243, Taf. 90/156) (ig. 1/5). 4 Unpublished. Cf. Bouzek 1997, 200-201, #1; Klebinder-Gauß 2007, 123, #866-867. 5 H: 5.1 cm (Kilian- Dirlmeier 1979, 243, Taf. 90/1562) (ig. 1/4). 6 he sites mentioned in the text in which miniature axes with zoomorphic protomes were found, are underlined. 7 H: 12.5 cm (Милчев 1955, 359, обр. 2) (ig. 2/12). 8 H: 10.2 cm (Милчев 1955, 259, обр. 1; cf. Китов 1979, 14, 18, #14) (ig. 2/11). 9 Adherence to this sequence is deined as “canonical” and the species as preferred sacriicial animals (Фол 1993, 58; KlebinderGauß 2007, 123). 2 ivaylo karadzhinov features, suggested by G. Kitov (Китов 1979, 14-15)10. On the basis of the well known parallels from Northwestern Bulgaria, it seems plausible to determine the axe from the Artemision of Ephesus as a product of the traditions employed in the manufacture of the objects from Teteven and Chomakovtsi. he dating of the miniature axe from Ephesus depends on general stratigraphic observations in the site, in view of its inding in a layer with materials from Mycenaean Age to the Archaic period, while the parallels from hrace referred to are accidental inds (Bammer 1999, 400-401; Klebinder-Gauß 2007, 123; Милчев 1955, 359-360). he inding of bronze objects of Balkan origin in several isolated zones of the Artemision, according to G. Klebinder-Gauß, evidences that contacts with Northern Greece, Macedonia and hrace take place within a short period of time, between the end of the 8th and irst half of the 7th century BC (KlebinderGauß 2007, 211). he prevailing part of the early materials are discovered under the foundations of the so-called Croesus temple, built in 560 BC, which is terminus ante quem for the deposition of the ind under study (Klebinder-Gauß 2007, 213). Close similarity with inds from Northwestern hrace is also displayed by one of the two miniature axes with zoomorphic protomes, which was found in the ramp of the temple of goddess Aphaia from the island of Aegina (ig. 1/1-2). On the heel of the axe, shaped as a horizontal axis with two holes, two protomes are 10 With respect to the dat- ing scheme proposed by G. Kitov, it must be noted that the assumed smooth evolutionary development of the miniature axes under analysis during the whole Early Iron Age (10th-6th century BC; henceforward EIA) on the basis of prototypes from the preceding period cannot be conirmed by any ixed dates of certainty, especially as far as the early stages of this genesis are concerned. he singular miniature axes and their parallels, documented in archaeological contexts, are situated in EIA II (8th-6th century BC) and even later (see below). herefore, regarded as more plausible here is J. Bouzek’s position about the binding of the hracian minor bronze plastic from EIA with the general tendencies in the geometric art of Southeastern Europe and the determination of the time of their production and use within the period 8th-6th century BC (Bouzek 1974b, 319 f.; Bouzek 2005, 39-40). Fig. 1. Miniature axes with zoomorphic protomes from Greek sanctuaries: 1-3 Aegina, 4 Northern Greece, 5 Dodona, 6-8 Ephesus. miniature axes with zoomorphic protomes from greek sanctuaries … 11 H: 3.5 cm (Николов 1965, 170, обр. 10) (ig. 2/8). 12 H: 3.8 cm (Николов 1990, 18, обр. 5-6) (ig. 2/9). 13 H: 7 cm (Николов 1965, обр. 8; Hänsel 1976, Taf. 67/11; cf. Langdon 1993, 147, cat. 50) (ig. 3/1-2). 14 According to J. Bouzek, originating from today’s Northern Greece are two miniature axes with zoomorphic protomes, which were probably found in the region of the lower courses of the rivers Vardar and Struma (i.e. in territories also inhabited by hracian tribes) (Bouzek 1986, 21, #8-9, ig. 1; cf. Bouzek 1997, 110-111, ig. 112-114; Bouzek 2005, 39-40). 15 H: 6.1 cm; L: 9 cm (Ivanov 2000, 35, ig. 19/1). 16 H: 6.4 cm; L: 4.3 cm (Топалов 2010, 103-104, обр. 13-16, обр. 17). 3 inbuilt, turned in one direction (ig. 1/1-2). Considerable similarities in formal terms can be noticed at the inds from the villages of Kameno pole11 and Staro selo12 (ig. 2/7, 8-9). One of the protomes is close to the protome of a bull (ox?) on the bronze headstall from Sofronievo13 (ig. 3/1-2), and the second one – with the head of a goat on the axe from Chomakovtsi as well as to a ind from Northern Greece (ig. 2/5, 11; also Kilian-Dirlmeier 1979, 187, Taf. 59/1131). he heel of the miniature axe from Aegina, also shaped as a horizontal axis on which the plastic images develop, is similar with examples from Ephesus, Chomakovtsi and Teteven (ig. 2/7, 10-11). he analogies in form and style provide grounds for the miniature axe from Aegina to be identiied as a product of the toreutic traditions, characteristic of the region bound between the Ogosta and Vit rivers (Bouzek 1974b, 321; Bouzek 1986, 21; Kilian-Dirlmeier 1979, 243). On the basis of this observation, assumptions can be made concerning the chronology of the ind from the island of Aegina. he miniature axe from Kameno pole is found in a tumulus grave, most probably with a ibula, which could be dated to the end of the 8th and the beginning of the 7th century BC (Николов 1965, 170; Gergova 1987, 43). he bronze headstall from Sofronievo is found in a complex from the 7th century BC (Vasić 1971, 6; Hänsel 1976, 175; Gergova 1987, 49, 60, 62-64, 68; Стойчев 2009, 19-20). he upper chronological limit is determined by the example from Staro selo village, found in a tumulus with cremation grave, together with an iron bit, which dates the burial to the second half of the 4th century BC (Николов 1990, 17, обр. 4а; Werner 1988, 45-47). he data available show that the prevailing part of the parallels of the miniature axe from the island оf Aegina are dated in the period from the end of the 8th to the 7th century BC (Bouzek 1974b, 321). he discovery of the ind from Staro selo village in a context of the second half of the 4th century BC can be explained by its continuous preservation as a relic (?) (Archibald 1998, 173 f.). On the other hand, it is possible for the use of this group of miniature axes to have continued also in the beginning of the Late Iron Age in the region. Analogies with examples from the territory of ancient hrace can also be given with respect to the partially preserved miniature axe with an opening for hanging and the protome of a goat found in the region of Northern Greece14 (ig. 1/4). he protome, placed sideways to the edge, is positioned in a similar manner to the ones from the Ares15 and Stavri Topalov Collections16 (ig. 2/3, 5-6). With respect to the shaping of the protome of a goat, a parallel can be found in the ind from Chomakovtsi and Aegina (ig. 1/2, 4; ig. 2/5, 11) (Kilian-Dirlmeier 1979, 187, Taf. 59/1131). Two of the miniature axes with zoomorphic protomes found in the temple of Aphaia from the island of Aegina and in the sanctuary of Artemis at Ephesus (ig. 1/3, 6) do not have exact parallels among the well known examples from hrace. Characteristic of these is the marked stylization of their protomes – with the ind from Aegina these are barely touched upon (ig. 1/3). Grounds for their determination as inluenced by, or belonging to, the group of hracian bronzes are both the archetypal parallelism with the miniature axes with zoomorphic protomes from the interior of hrace (mostly expressed in the similarities in the shape of the edge), as well as, indirectly, the data of the inding in the same sites of miniature axes similar in shape and decoration that can, with a greater degree of certainty, be identiied as “hracian” (Maaß / Kilian-Dirlmeier 1998, 83; Klebinder-Gauß 2007, 123). In connection with the dating of the example from the Artemision of Ephesus, the observation of the placement of votive oferings of 4 ivaylo karadzhinov Fig. 2. Miniature axes with zoomorphic protomes from ancient hrace, Greece and Italy: 1 Dodona, 2 Bitonto (Southern Italy), 3 Stavri Topalov Collection, allegedly from Targovishte region, Northeastern Bulgaria, 4 Chauchitsa (Macedonia), 5 Northern Greece, 6 Ares Collection, 7 Aegina, 8 Kameno pole, 9 Staro selo, 10 Ephesus, 11 Chomakovtsi, 12 Teteven. Balkan origin in the sanctuary before the middle of the 6th century BC can again be adduced. Having a most uncertain “hracian” identiication is the miniature axe with two protomes of stylized birds found in Zeus’ sanctuary in Dodona (ig. 1/5). In contrast to the inds mentioned above, that, with a higher or lower certainty, can be referred to the toreutic traditions in hrace, the example in question was probably inluenced by the circle of Apulian metalwork (ig. 2/1-217) (Kilian-Dirlmeier 1979, 243). In view of the presence of parallels in the shaping of ornithomorphic protomes among the group of so-called Macedonian bronzes (ig. 2/418), and the similarity with the edge of the axe from Stavri Topalov Collection (ig. 2/3), it is assumed that the Balkan origin of the miniature axe cannot be entirely ruled out (Kilian-Dirlmeier 1979, 243; Kossack 1954, 53; Bouzek 1974a, ig. 3-8; Bouzek 2005, 39-40). he miniature axe from Athenian Acropolis is unpublished. he only available information is that it has three zoomorphic protomes modeled on its heel (Bouzek 1997, 200-201, #1; Klebinder-Gauß 2007, 123, #866-867). It is possible that the ind is similar to the examples from Teteven, Ephesus and Chomakovtsi. 17 Roes 1933, ig. 96; cf. Kossack 1954, 100, 112, 122, Taf. 11/9, 20. 18 H: 7.7 cm (Kilian- Dirlmeier 1979, 234, Taf. 84/1499; cf. Bouzek 1974a, ig. 5/29). miniature axes with zoomorphic protomes from greek sanctuaries … Fig. 3: 1-3 Sofronievo; 4-6 Votive oferings of non-Greek origin found at Olympia, Pherai and Samian Heraion during the 8th and the beginning of the 7th century BC (according to Kilian-Dirlmeier 1985, 233, Abb. 15, 223, Abb. 5, 239, Abb. 20). 5 6 ivaylo karadzhinov he fact that the miniature axes with animal protomes served as votive offering in major sanctuaries in Greece raises the question about the models and mechanisms, which brought them there. he analysis of the objects of an internal Balkan, and in particular of hracian origin, from Late Geometric and Archaic Greek sanctuaries, reveals the placing of mainly personal objects – adornments (pendants, bracelets) and elements of the traditional costume (belts, ibulae, appliques)19 that were initially not designed as votives (Kilian 1973, 434; Kilian 1975b, 119; Kilian-Dirlmeier 1985, 221, 224, Abb. 7, 229, Abb. 12, 234, Abb. 17, 240, Abb. 22; Kilian-Dirlmeier 2002, 225, 227-228; Klebinder-Gauß 2007, 211 f.). According to a number of investigators, probably these unpretentious artifacts were not an object of trade and were most probably given as gits directly by representatives of the Balkan population as individual male and female dedications (Maier 1956, 72; Kilian-Dirlmeier 1985, 220-221, 228, 231, 235, 241; Kilian-Dirlmeier 2002, 227-288; Klebinder-Gauß 2007, 206, 208; Kilian 1973, 431; Гергова 1987, 58 f.). he impressive plastic decoration and the sizes that do not presuppose their use as tools, along with their inding in grave complexes and cult places in hrace, set apart the miniature axes with zoomorphic protomes as objects of a high symbolic value (Домарадски et al. 1999, 65, 67, 118, обр. 34/а; Николов 1965, 170, обр. 10/б; Николов 1990, 18, обр. 5-6; Венедиков 1969, 10, 13; Bouzek 2005, 40; Klebinder-Gauß 2007, 123). Perceived in this manner, they can be diferentiated from the other votives of inner Balkan and hracian origin. Concerning some of these artifacts, cf. the ring pendants, there is a suggestion about their use as pre-monetary forms or stylized female idols, and concerning the openwork belts found in a funerary context – as signs symbolizing a higher social status (Bouzek 1997, 118; Гергова 1982, 66; Vassileva 2007, 673). he miniature axes with zoomorphic protomes, however, are clearly outlined as votives with an unambiguous unitary function in the sphere of ritual and belief20. What is striking is their considerable number in a Greek milieu, which is almost equal to the number of the inds from hrace. Probably as objects with a cult purpose, they could be interpreted as preferred git among the communities in Eastern Balkans for sanctuaries in Hellenic cultural milieu. Accepting this interpretation, logically the context of their inding in a hrace could provide information about the social status and the gender of the dedicators. Concerning the miniature axe from Teteven, there is information about it having been found in the embankment of a tumulus (Христов 1999, 99; Кисьов 2004, 45). A spearhead and a horse bit identify the grave from Staro selo village as a warrior’s (Николов 1990, 17-18). We have data of the presence of “rich burial inventory” about the interment from Kameno pole (Николов 1965, 170). he bronze headstall with a protome of a bull (ox?) from Sofronievo (ig. 3/1-2) that is regarded as functionally isomorphic to the miniature axes with zoomorphic protomes (Маразов 1981, 22) is found in a grave whose inventory characterized the buried man as a warrior with a distinguished role in the local society (Terzan 1995, 85; Vasić 1995, 351, Abb. 2; Vasić 2005, 17; hedossiev 2000, 92). A bronze phialе of Greek (Ionian) origin (ig. 3/3) was found in the same grave, which is an indication of the existence of contacts with Greek centers or the sanctuaries associated with them (Стойчев 2009, 19-20). hese data allow making the assumption that the axes under study were placed in Greek sanctuaries by the warrior stratum dominating among the communities in the Northwestern hrace (Terzan 1995, 85). Its representatives would logically have the means and the opportunities to undertake such a journey to the South (Hdt. VI, 34, 1; Philipp 1981, 19; KilianDirlmeier 2002, 228; Bouzek 2005, 40). 19 Fibulae of type ВII2 according to D. Gergova (1987, 47 f.) (Pherai, Perachora), ibulae of type BI2 according to D. Gergova (1987, 39 f.) (Philia, etc.), openwork belts (Philia, Delphi, Perachora, Argos, Olympia), ring pendants (Philia, Pherai, Dodona, Acropolis of Athens), bracelets with proiled edges (Syphnos) (Payne et al. 1940, pl. 73/18, pl. 82/27; Brock / Young 1949, pl. 11/14-15; Kilian 1975b, Taf. 83-84, Taf. 91; Kilian-Dirlmeier 1979, 7, Taf. 1; Kilian-Dirlmeier 1985, passim; KilianDirlmeier 2002, 227, Abb. 6, Abb. 10, Taf. 48/722, Taf. 59/905-913, Taf. 93/1463, Taf. 96/1558; Vasić 1977, 33; Гергова 1977а, 56; Gergova 1980, Chart III; Bouzek 1986, ig. 2; Bouzek 1997, ig. 123, ig. 233; Vassileva 2007, 474; Philipp 1981, 18-19) (cf. ig. 3/4-5). On the inding of parts of horse’s harness of Balkan origin in sanctuaries from mainland and island Greece in the Late Geometric and Archaic Age cf. Kilian-Dirlmeier 1985, 221, 235, 241-242, Abb. 17; Bouzek 2005, 40. 20 Concerning the functioning of the axes as high status regalia see Venedikov / Gerassimov 1979, 18-19, 24; Венедиков 1969, 13; Маразов 1981, 22; Klebinder-Gauß 2007, 122; Hatłas 2009, 215. miniature axes with zoomorphic protomes from greek sanctuaries … 7 Fig. 4. Map of the distribution of miniature axes with zoomorphic protomes and other bronze objects of Eastern Balkan origin in Greece during the 8th-6th century BC. 21 Among the materials dis- covered so far from the sanctuary in Delphi, an openwork belt characteristic of the Western parts of hrace and the Central Balkan area in the period between the middle of the 7th and 6th century BC could be identiied as a votive of hracian origin (Kilian 1975b, Taf. 84/1; cf. Vasić 1971; Gergova 1987, 63; Vassileva 2007, 670). In this context it is important to raise the question whether the inds under scrutiny were placed as individual or as collective gits. As already mentioned, the oferings of Balkan origin are interpreted as personal dedications. Leading to a similar conclusion are also the individual burials at Staro selo village and Kameno pole. On the other hand, the story about the hracian tribe of Dolonci, which in a diicult moment sent its basileis to consult the Delphic oracle21 on behalf of the whole community (Hdt. VI, 34, 1-2; 139, 1), shows that it is possible for some of the hracian objects found in Greek votive deposits to mark not only a personal but also a collective act of placing gits (Hdt. IV, 33, 1-5 about the sacred gits of the Hyperboreans, made for the sanctuary on Delos; cf. also the discussion in Verger 2003, 568 f.). he processes leading to the emergence of the artifacts in question in Greek votive deposits are situated in the context of the direct hraco-Greek contacts in the 8th-6th century BC. Usually these contacts are regarded in terms of the metal and ceramic Greek imports found in hrace; or in the manufacturing of (mainly in the eastern parts of the peninsula) of island types of ibulae and the integration 8 ivaylo karadzhinov of elements from the decoration of Aegean painting styles in the ceramic complex of Southeastern hrace22 (Kilian 1975a, 163; Гергова 1977, 56-57; Stoyanov 1997, 74 f.; Stoyanov / Nikov 1997, 187, 232, 236-237, ig. 50-51; Nikov 1999; Nikov 2000; Стойчев 2009, 19-24; Tzochev 2010, 98; Георгиева / Ников 2010, 151-153). he prevailing part of the inds of hracian origin in general in Eastern Greek sanctuaries are synchronized with the early trade and colonization activity of the poleis associated with them in the region of Northern Aegean and the Southern hracian coast. As is commonly known, the leading production and trade centers in Ionia took an active part in the colonization of Aegean hrace that began about the middle of the 7th century BC. In this sense, the fact that the prevailing part of the well known votive oferings of Balkan origin originate precisely from sanctuaries of these centers could hardly be accidental23. In spite of the important role of trade relationships in the establishment of contacts between the regions under investigation, the presence of votives originated from the hracian lands in sanctuaries from mainland and island Greece could hardly be solely determined as a phenomenon accompanying trade and colonization relations. he thesis that objects of hracian origin were directly deposited by population from Eastern Balkans justiies the assumption of the existence of a custom for worshipping Greek sacred places by communities in ancient hrace, based on their popularity and/or similar religious beliefs24 (Гергова 1987, 56, 58 f., 65). hese contacts can be classiied as non-commercial, interregional contacts based on religious stimuli (Elsner / Rutherford 2005). he proposed contact model implies movement of people25, along with artifacts, which could mean that during EIA II individuals or groups of people (Dillon 1997, xvii) from the interior of hrace undertook long journeys to prominent Greek sanctuaries26. It seems that religious contacts were the main line of communication between the two regions in a period when trade relations were not yet intensiied. 22 According to K. Nikov, the large sanctuaries in Greece played the role of a contact medium for acquainting the hracian masters with Greek painting styles (Ников 2000, 31-32; cf. Risberg 1997, 194-195). 23 he Heraion in Samos is one of the telling examples in this respect (cf. ig. 3/6) (Kilian-Dirlmeier 1985, 240-241, 249, Abb. 20). On the active trade of the Samos centers in the Northern Aegean cf. Walter-Karydi 1986, 76 f.; Rubinstein / Greaves 2004, 1094-1098; Touratsoglou / Tsakos 2008, 106 f. About the inding of bronzes of inner Balkan origin in Chios, as well as about its colonization and trade activity in Aegean hrace cf. Boardman 1967, ig. 138/240; Loukopoulou 2004, 879; Rubinstein / Greaves 2004, 1065 f.; Dupont / Skarlatidou 2005, 78-80; Skarlatidou 1986, 102-103; cf. also Roebuck 1986, 8. On Rhodes and Miletus cf. Bouzek 1974a, 175, 179; Kilian-Dirmeier 1985, 241; Klebinder-Gauß 2007, 207, 211-212; Rubinstein / Greaves 2004, 1088; Ников 2000, 26 f.; Ников 2002, 482; Nikov 2002, 30 f. For Ephesos cf. Klebinder-Gauß 2007, 29-31, Taf. 2/19-20, Taf. 3/21-22; Dominguez 1999, 80; Treister 1999. For Aegina, in general, see Boardman 1980, 16, 48-49, 122-123 and esp. 129-131. 24 Some of the hracian votive oferings are found in sanctuaries devoted to deities (Artemis and Hera) which are identiied from the Greek written tradition as goddesses worshipped also in hrace (Hdt. V, 7, 1; Polyaen. 7, 22). It is assumed that the identiication of Greek theonyms with local deities (or a deity such as the Great Mother-Goddess and her hypostases) relects the existence of identical topoi in the religious concepts of hracian and Greek communities (Попов 1981, 22 f.; Маразов 1994, 48 f.; Гочева 2006, 477, 481, 484; Gocheva 2009). he speciic traits in the cult towards Artemis Ephesia, which borrows many aspects from the image of the Anatolian Great MotherGoddess, provide grounds for additional reasoning in this direction (cf. Burkert 1985, 149; Dominguez 1999, 75; Vassileva 2007, 673). As is well known, Cybele is oten identiied with the Great Mother-Goddess in hrace (cf. Попов 1981, 22 f.; Василева 1991, 22 f.; Маразов 1994, 65 f.). It is tempting to assume the placement of the miniature axes (and other relevant inds) from the Artemision of Ephesus on the basis of those aspects of the cult towards Artemis of Ephesus that correspond to the religious beliefs and practices related to the Great MotherGoddess among the communities in ancient hrace. 25 Cf. Стоянов 2004 who assumes the presence of Aegean cratsmen in inner hrace during the inal stages of EIA II. 26 See Verger 2003, 564- 569 on diferent model of distribution of the gits. miniature axes with zoomorphic protomes from greek sanctuaries … 9 he inding of hracian bronzes in the period of the 8th-6th century BC in sanctuaries situated in the mainland, island and Asia Minor part of ancient Greece adds still another aspect to the problem of hraco-Greek contacts that precede or are synchronous to the early stages of the establishment of the apoikiai on North Aegean and West Pontic coast. hese links were materialized through cultural interactions that were diferent in nature – trade, exchange of techniques and information between diferent crats (ceramic and toreutic) and participation of hracian population in the worship of Greek sacred places. BIBLIOGRAPHY Василева, М. 1991. Тракия и Фригия. Балкано-анатолийски паралели до VI в. пр. н. е. (Автореферат на дисертация за присъждане на научната степен „Кандидат на историческите науки“). София. Венедиков, Ив. 1969. Предахеменидски Иран и Тракия. – Известия на археологическия институт XXXI, 5-43. Георгиева, Р. / Ников, К. 2010. Ранни трако-елински контакти (по археологически дани от Карнобатско). In: Югоизточна България ІІ-І хилядолетие пр. Хр. Варна. 142-157. Гергова, Д. 1987. Съкровищата на Тракия и хиперборейският мит. In: Българските земи в древността. България през средновековието. Доклади от втория международен конгрес по българистика, 6. София. 53-73. Гочева, Зл. 2006. Култът към Великата богиня майка в Тракия. – Хелис 5, 476-490. Домарадски, М. / Георгиева, Р. / Петрова, М. / Кулов, И. / Йорданов, Й. / Прокопов, И. / Ценова, Е. / Гошев, С. / Андонова, М. / Димитрова, Б. 1999. Паметници на тракийската култура по горното течение на река Места (Разкопки и проучвания XXVI). София. Илиева, П. 2006. Егейска Тракия между Бистонида и Пропонтида (VIII-VI в. пр. Хр.). (Автореферат на дисертация за получаване на образователна и научна степен доктор). София. Кисьов, К. 2004. Тракийската култура в региона на Пловдив и течението на р. Стряма през втората половина на I хил. пр. Хр. София. Китов, Г. 1979. Тракийски символични секири и амулети с изображения на животни. – Археология 2, 13-19. Гергова, Д. 1982. Женският тракийски накит и облекло през ранната желязна епоха (ХI-VI в. пр. н. е.). In: България 1300. Институции и държавна традиция, 2. София. 63-70. Маразов, И. 1994. Митология на траките. София. Гергова, Д. 1977. Развитие на фибулите в Тракия през старожелязната епоха (ХIVI в. пр. н. е.). – Минало 1, 47-57. Милчев, А. 1955. Тракокимерийски находки в българските земи. – Известия на археологическия институт 19, 359-373. Маразов, И. 1981. Тракийският тип начелници. – Проблеми на изкуството 1, 19-27. Ников, К. 2000. Културни контакти на Южна Тракия с егейския свят през ранната желязна епоха по данни на керамиката (Автореферат на дисертация за получаване на образователна и научна степен доктор). София. Ников, К. 2002. Керамика, метал или текстил? Към проблема за „пътуването“ на информацията през ранната желязна епоха в Тракия. In: Πιτύη. Изследвания в чест на проф. Иван Маразов. София. 279-285. Николов, Б. 1990. Тракийски находки от Северозападна България. – Археология 4, 14-26. Николов, Б. 1965. Тракийски паметници във Врачанско. – Известия на археологическия институт 28, 163-203. Попов, Д. 1981. Тракийската богиня Бендида. София. Стойчев, Р. 2009. Фиала мезомфалос в Тракия. Опит за класификация. София. Стоянов, Т. 2004. Още за ранните контакти на вътрешна Тракия с Егеида. – Годишник на департамент „Средиземноморски и източни изследвания“ 2, 167-174. Топалов, С. 2010. Принос към проучването на тракийските култови бронзови брадвички. – МИФ 15, 92-105. Фол. В. 1993. Форма и украса на бронзовите изделия в Тракия (VIII-VI в. пр. Хр.). – Проблеми на изкуството 1, 56-60. Христов, И. 1999. Планинска Тракия. Население, култура и религия в Древността. В. Търново. Archibald, Z. 1998. he Odrysian Kingdom of hrace. Oxford. Bammer, A. 1999. Zur Bronzezeit im Artemision. In: 100 Jahre Österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos. Wien. 399-404. Boardman, J. 1980. he Greeks overseas. London. Boardman, J. 1967. Greek Emporio: Excavations in Chios, 1952-1955 (British School of Athens, Suppl. 6). Oxford. Bouzek, J. 2005. hracians and their neighbours (Studia Hercynia IX). Prague. Bouzek, J. 1997. Greece, Anatolia and Europe: cultural interrelations during the Early Iron Age (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, vol. 122). Jonsered. Bouzek, J. 1986. Les contacts entre la Grèce et la hrace: objets en bronze et céramique, VIIIe-VIe s. av. n. è. – hracia Pontica 3, 20-29. 10 ivaylo karadzhinov Bouzek, J. 1974a. GraecoMacedonian bronzes. Praha. Gergova, D. 1987. Früh- und ältereisenzeitliche Fibeln in Bulgarien (Prähistorische Bronzefunde XIV, 7). München. Bouzek, J. 1974b. Macedonian bronzes. heir origins, distribution and relation to other cultural groups of the Early Iron Age. – Památky Archeologické 2, 278-341. Bozhkova, A. 2002. Pottery with geometric decoration and related wares. In: Delev, P. / Vulcheva, D. (eds.). Koprivlen 1. Soia. 133-144. Brock, J. / Young, G. 1949. Excavations in Siphnos. – Annual of the British School at Athens 44, 1-92. Burkert, W. 1985. Greek religion. Cambridge. Carapanos, C. 1878. Dodone et ses ruines. Paris. Dillon, M. 1997. Pilgrims and pilgrimage in ancient Greece. New York. Dominguez, A. 1999. Ephesos and Greek colonization. In: 100 Jahre Österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos. Wien. 75-85. Dupont, P. / Skarlatidou, E. 2005. Les débuts de la colonisation grecque en mer Noire: éléments de chronologie amphorique. In: Pont-Euxin et polis. Polis hellenis et polis barbaron. Hommage à Otar Lordkipanidzé et Pierre Lévêque. 10e Symposium de Vani (Colchide), 23-26 sept. 2002. Besançon. 77-82. Elsner, J. / Rutherford, I. 2005. Introduction. In: Elsner, J. / Rutherford, I. (eds.). Pilgrimage in GraecoRoman & Early Christian antiquity. Oxford. 1-38. Furtwängler, А. 1906. Aegina: Das Heiligtum der Aphaia. München. Gergova, D. 1980. Genesis and development of the metal ornaments in the hracian lands during the Early Iron Age (11th-6th c. B.C.). ‒ Studia Praehistorica 3, 97-112. Gocheva, Z. 2009. he Hyperboreans – myth and history. In: Studia Archeologiae et Historiae Antiquae. Chişinău. 135-140. Hatłas, J. 2009. he Iranian elements in the hracian art irst millenium B.C. – Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Archaeologica 26, 213-222. Hänsel, B. 1976. Beiträge zur regionalen und chronologischen Gliederung der alter Hallstattzeit an der Unteren Donau. Bonn. Ivanov, D. 2000. Ares Collection. Soia. Kilian, K. 1975a. Die Fibeln in hessalien von der mykenischen bis zur archaischen Zeit (Prähistorische Bronzefunde XIV, 2). München. Kilian, K. 1975b. Trachtzubehör der Eisenzeit zwischen Ägäis und Adria. – Praehistorische Zeitschrit 50, 9-243. Zentralmuseums, Bd. 48). Mainz. Kilian-Dirlmeier, I. 1985. Fremde Weihungen in griechischen Heiligtümern vom 8. bis zum Beginn des 7. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. – Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 32, 215-254. Kilian-Dirlmeier, I. 1979. Anhänger in Griechenland von den mykenischen bis zur spätgeometrischen Zeit (Prähistorische Bronzefunde XI, 2). München. Klebinder-Gauß, G. 2007. Bronzefunde aus dem Artemision von Ephesos (Forschungen in Ephesos 12, 3). Wien. Kossack, G. 1954. Studien zum Symbolgut der Urnenfelder- und Hallstattzeit Mitteleuropas (RömischGermanische Forschungen, Bd. 20). Berlin. Langdon, S. 1993. From pasture to polis. Art in the age of Homer. Columbia / London. Loukopoulou, L. 2004. hrace from Strymon to Nestos. In: An inventory of archaic and classical poleis. Oxford. 854-869. Maaß, M. / Kilian-Dirlmeier, I. 1998. Aegina, AphaiaTempel XVIII. Bronzefunde ausser Wafen. ‒ Archäologischer Anzeiger, 1, 57-104. Kilian, K. 1973. Zur eisenzeitlichen Transhumanz in Nordgriechenland. – Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 3, 431-435. Maier, F. 1956. Zu einigen bosnisch-herzegowinischen Bronzen in Griechenland. ‒ Germania 34, 63-75. Kilian-Dirlmeier, I. 2002. Kleinfunde aus dem Athena Itonia-Heiligtum bei Philia (hassalien). (Monographien des Römisch-Germanischen Nikov, K. 2002. Stamped decoration pithoi in southern hrace from the Early Iron Age. ‒ Archaeologia Bulgarica 1, 19-44. Nikov, K. 2000. Bird images on Early Iron Age pottery from southern hrace. – British Archaeological Research, Int. Series 854, 303-308. Nikov, K. 1999. “Aeolian” bucchero in hrace? – Archaeologia Bulgarica 2, 31-42. Payne, H. / Bagenal, H. / Jenkins, R. / May, J. / Dunbabin, T. 1940. Perachora. he sanctuaries of Hera Akraia and Limenia. Oxford. Philipp, H. 1981. Bronzeschmuck aus Olympia (Olympische Forschungen, Band 13). Berlin. Risberg, Chr. 1997. Evidence of metal working in Early Greek sanctuaries. – Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature 143, 185-196. Roebuck, C. 1986. Chios in the sixth century BC. In: Boardman, J. / Vaphopoulou-Richardson, C.E. (eds.). Chios. A Conference at the Homereion in Chios 1984. Oxford. 81-88. Roes, A. 1933. Greek Geometric art. Its symbolism and its origin. Oxford. Rubinstein, L. / Greaves, A. 2004. Ionia. In: An inventory of archaic and classical poleis. Oxford. 1053-1107. Skarlatidou, E. 1986. he archaic cemetery of Abdera. – hracia Pontica 3, 20-29. Stoyanov, T. 1997. Early Iron Age tumular necropolis (Sboryanovo I). Soia. Stoyanov, T. / Nikov, K. 1997. Rescue trench excavations of the Early Iron Age settlement and sanctuary near the village of Rogozinovo, Harmanli District (pre- miniature axes with zoomorphic protomes from greek sanctuaries … liminary report). In: Maritsa Project 1. Soia. 171-240. Terzan, B. 2005. Handel und soziale Oberschichten im frücheisenzeitlichen Südosteuropa. In: Handel, Tausch und Verkehr im bronze- und früheisenzeitlichen Südosteuropa. (Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa. Band 11). München / Berlin. 81-159. Touratsoglou, I. / Tsakos, K. 2008. Economy and trade routes in the Aegean: he case of Samos (archaic to Hellenistic times). In: Sailing in the Aegean (ΜΕΛΕΤΗΜΑΤΑ, 53). Athens. 105-137. Treister, M. 1999. Ephesos and the northern Pontic area in the Archaic and Clas- sical period. In: 100 Jahre Österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos. Wien. 81-86. Archäologie in Südosteuropa. Band 11). München / Berlin. 350-362. Tzochev, Ch. 2010. Between the Black Sea and the Aegean: the difusion of Greek trade-amphorae in southern hrace. In: Tezgör, D.K. / Inaishvili, N. (eds.). PATABS I. Production and trade of amphorae in the Black Sea (Varia Anatolica 21). Istanbul. 97-101. Vasić, R. 1977. he chronology of the Early Iron Age in Serbia (BAR Suppl. Ser. 31). Oxford. Vasić, R. 2005. Triballi once again. – Archaeologia Bulgarica 2, 17-19. Vasić, R. 1995. Gütertausch und Fernbeziehungen im früheisenzeitlichen Serbien. In: Handel, Tausch und Verkehr im bronze- und früheisenzeitlichen Südosteuropa (Prähistorische Vasić, R. 1971. he openwork belts and the Early Iron Age chronology in the northern Balkans. – Archaeologia Iugoslavica 12, 1-13. Vassileva, M. 2007. First millennium BC ritual belts in an Anatolian and Balkan context. In: 10th International Congress of hracology. Athens. 669-679. Venedikov, I. / Gerassimov, T. 1979. hracian art treasures. Soia. 11 Verger, S. 2003. Des objets gaulois dans les sanctuaires archaïques de Grèce, de Sicile et d’Italie. In: Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres. Paris. 525-573. Walter-Karydi, E. 1986. Zur archaischen Keramik Ostioniens. In: Milet 18991980. Ergebnisse, Probleme und Perspektive einer Ausgrabung. Kolloquium Frankfurt am Main 1980 (Istanbuler Mitteilungen, Beihet 31). Tübingen. 73-80. Werner, W. 1988. Eisenzeitliche Trensen an der unteren und mittleren Donau (Prähistorische Bronzefunde XVI, 4). München. Брадвички с протомета на животни от гръцки светилища в светлината на трако-елинските контакти в периода VІІІ-VІ в. пр. Хр. Ивайло КАРАДЖИНОВ (резюме) Предмет на изследване са седем бронзови брадвички с протомета на животни, открити в четири светилища в континентална и островна Гърция (фиг. 1), които допълват информацията за природата на преките тракоелински контакти в периода VІІІ-VІ в. пр. Хр. Брадвичките се включват към обособената от К. Килиан първа група бронзови предмети с балкански произход, откривани в гръцки светилища през късната геометрична и архаична епоха (срв. фиг. 3/4-6). Вероятно тези артефакти, представени преимуществено от предмети с практична и декоративна функция, не са обект на търговия и се полагат пряко от балканско население. Въз основа на известни паралели от Тракия една от находките от Артемизиона в Ефес и една от храма на Афая в Егина се определят като продукт на традициите, вложени в изработката на екземпляри от дн. Северна България (фиг. 2/7-12). С различна степен на вероятност останалите примери също могат да се причислят към традициите на торевтиката в източната част на полуострова (фиг. 2/1, 4-6). Ако приемем тезата за полагането на брадвичките пряко от тракийско население, контекстът им на откриване в Тракия би предоставил информация за социалния статус и пола на посветителите. Наличните данни позволяват да се допусне полагането на разглежданите артефакти от доминиращия сред северозападнотракийските общности воински слой. 12 ivaylo karadzhinov Откриването на тракийски бронзови предмети през периода VІІІ-VІ в. пр. Хр. в светилища, разположени в континенталната, островната и малоазийската част на Елада, прибавя още един ракурс към проблема за тракоелинските контакти, които предшестват или са синхронни на ранните етапи на гръцката колонизация в Тракия. Тези връзки се осъществяват чрез различни по характер интеркултурни взаимодействия като търговия, обмен на информация между различни технета и посещение на елински свети места. Разглежданите контакти се определят като некомерсиални, междурегионални контакти, основани на религиозни мотиви. Предлаганият модел предполага придвижване на население, което би означавало, че през втората фаза на ранножелязната епоха отделни индивиди или групи от вътрешните тракийски райони предприемат пътувания до значими гръцки светилища. Изглежда, че във времето, когато търговските отношения все още не са интензифицирани, религиозните контакти са една от основните линии за комуникация между двата региона. Ivaylo Karadzhinov, PhD Student National Institute of Archaeology with Museum Bulgarian Academy of Sciences 2 Saborna Str. BG-1000 Soia ivaylo.karadzhinov@googlemail.com